Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Philosophy Explorer]

Mechsmith said:


"If there were an infinite number of stars in the background of our observable universe (as predicted in an infinite and eternal universe) that would result in a universally observed Cosmic Microwave Background as the light emitted by those stars would be "Red Shifted" to the microwave length. However the "Doppler Effect" and perhaps others like our views of time, space dust and ripples (variations) in space time must also be considered."

However Olber's paradox would rule out this possibility.

[Wizard]

The universe neither begins nor ends. It is infinite.

[Philosophy Explorer]

The universe neither begins nor ends. It is infinite.

How do you know this?

[Wizard]

How do you know this?

Because there are no objective beginnings or ends.

[Philosophy Explorer]

How do you know this?

Because there are no objective beginnings or ends.

The leading theory, The Big Bang Theory, begs to differ with this.

[Wizard]

The leading theory, The Big Bang Theory, begs to differ with this.

The Big Bang Theory is just as false, if not more, than Creationism.

Both theories, scientific or religious, are incredulous.

[Michaelpearson]

Maybe the universe is a self observing system such that an observer today is partially responsible for generating the reality of the distant past. Eg 13.8 billion years ago. Maybe the earliest phase of the universe is promoted to concrete reality through its later observation by consciousness which itself depends on that reality.

[Philosophy Explorer]

How do you know this?

Because there are no objective beginnings or ends.

And how do you know this? And how do you know the Big Bang Theory is false?

-- Updated February 6th, 2014, 10:14 pm to add the following --

MP,

I don't see how an independent observer would generate the reality of the universe. I believe the universe exists, with or without an independent observer.

[Wizard]

And how do you know this? And how do you know the Big Bang Theory is false?

Because I've attempted to postulate objective beginnings and ends, and understand human psychology.

Finite measurements of space and time are human abstractions and constructs.

Time is relative to observation, perception, and neural processing speeds.

The Big Bang Theory and Creationism, both represent an anthropomorphic fallacy. Just because your life and consciousness will end in death, doesn't mean your finitude applies to the objective universe. You need to see from behind immortal eyes.

[Michaelpearson]

Philosophy Explorer. Does the observer dependent wave/particle duality of light cast any shadows on that belief? Quantum theory maintains that physical reality is observer dependent.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Wizard,

I believe in science as their methodology is based on sound reasoning. There's been solid evidence to support that the universe does have a beginning.

I find the idea that just because something has objective existence doesn't mean it is infinite in extent within time. For example living things have a finite existence. Why should the universe be any different?

-- Updated February 6th, 2014, 10:39 pm to add the following --

Philosophy Explorer. Does the observer dependent wave/particle duality of light cast any shadows on that belief? Quantum theory maintains that physical reality is observer dependent.

Maybe on the exact location of atoms/matter, but not related to the existence.

It seems you're clutching at straws.

[Sy Borg]

Wizard,

I believe in science as their methodology is based on sound reasoning. There's been solid evidence to support that the universe does have a beginning.

I find the idea that just because something has objective existence doesn't mean it is infinite in extent within time. For example living things have a finite existence. Why should the universe be any different?

Agree. If the Universe is expanding then it must have been smaller in the past than it is today. Work back from there and the Universe that we know must have been something comparatively very small in the past.

I don't understand the notion that beginnings don't exist in nature. Every animal had a time of conception and a time of birth or hatching. Stars and planets have beginnings and ends. Beginnings and ends appear to be everywhere within the Universe. Why would its nature be so different to its component parts? Who is to say the Universe is the only one?

My guess of the moment is that we are not dealing with a singularity at the start of the Universe, but instead a point of leakage of a massive amount of energy from one or more dimensions to another, or others. Next month, I might favour something else.

There are a lot of very certain statements on this thread. You'd think we were 13 billion years old and speaking from personal experience

[Michaelpearson]

Philosophy Explorer. You can't know where an atom or electron or quark or whatever is located and know how it is moving at one and the same time. Not only can you not know it, but the very concept of an atom with a definite location and motion is meaningless. Position and motion (strictly speaking, momentum) form two mutually incompatible aspects of reality for the microscopic particle. But how can we say that an atom is a thing if it isn't located somewhere, or else has no meaningful motion? And obviously the world is made of such things. The fuzzy and nebulous world of the atom only sharpens into concrete reality when an observation is made. In the absence of observation the atom is a ghost which only materialises when you look for it. Our obsevations not only uncover the atomic reality- they also create and determine it. Anyone who isn't shocked by quantum theory has not understood it...

[Wizard]

Actually science, namely the Law, Conservation of Energy, is on my side.

Pick up a stone. It does not "begin nor end", it neither is created nor destroyed. To posit the beginning and end, of existence, of the stone, is no different than applying the same logic to anything throughout the universe, whether it be an object or subject.

The same can be said about life. It neither has beginning nor end.

Instead what humans believe, have faith in, is the difference between life and death.

Death is the anthropomorphized finality. It is a projection of a supposed non existence.

[Philosophy Explorer]

MP,

You misinterpreted my statement on the possibility of the exact location of atoms and matter. Please reread it.

Wizard, I don't see how conservation of energy relates to picking up a stone unless you're talking about conversion into potential energy. And how does this relate to the life of a stone?

Where you said: "Death is the anthropomorphized finality. It is a projection of a supposed non existence." Don't astronomers talk about stars dying? Getting back to that stone, doesn't its existence end when a stonemason smashes it to bits?