Philosophy Discussion Forums

In recent decades, using a new generation of space observatories, astrophysicists have devised a convincing account of the evolution of the universe. From a single point in space long ago, to the present position and configuration of all extant matter and energy, modern physicists have fairly described this evolution in general terms, with many puzzles remaining of course.

These physicists so confident, they have even hijacked the term Cosmology to mean the history of the universe, leaving the beginning and its cause to a realm of metaphysics they refer to as Cosmogony. Its their way of saying to philosophers and students of philosophy: you can speculate about beginnings, but leave the evolution of the universe to us, since we have observable evidence to back our current cosmological models.

I'm OK in general with all that. I tend to see physics as a partner to philosophy in this field. Same as psychology and neuroscience are partnered with philosophy in matters of the mind. Most deep-thinking people alive today have been inculcated with a strong belief in the power of the scientific method. Short of superstition or obstinacy, we have few reasons to reject the plausible claims of physics regarding the post-inflation history of our universe. As I said above, the bigger questions for us concern what might have occurred before all this began, especially what initiated the beginning. Metaphysics is speculative by nature, but IMO it must not ignore the valid observations and explanations of physics. - CW

To repeat my previous position, the universe never began, and will never end.

Because the universe is infinite in time and space. The universe is not finite. And nobody has proof nor evidence of any kind, that the universe maybe finite. Have you seen and experienced the walls of the universe? No, you have not, because there are none.

The walls of your mind do not represent the walls of the universe.

The universe is bigger and greater than what you know, as a limited, mortal human.

Wizard wrote:To repeat my previous position, the universe never began, and will never end. Because the universe is infinite in time and space. The universe is not finite.

Even if one accepts your first premise (universe never began/never ends) it doesn't imply your conclusion(that the universe is infinite).

Wizard wrote:To repeat my previous position, the universe never began,and will never end.

Because the universe is infinite in time and space. The universe is not finite. And nobody has proof nor evidence of any kind, that the universe maybe finite. Have you seen and experienced the walls of the universe? No, you have not, because there are none.

The walls of your mind do not represent the walls of the universe.

The universe is bigger and greater than what you know, as a limited, mortal human.

The walls of the universe is that which keeps it in place. As a creation the universe can be destroyed by the creator, unless the creator created the universe to last forever. However, that seems not the case since parts of that created universe live and die within the time and space of human life to observe, so the larger universe may have a lifespan too, not yet revealed. Whether infinite or finite the universe mystery is still intact. Just like the walls of the human mind the walls of the universe are hidden.

Wizard wrote:To repeat my previous position, the universe never began, and will never end.

Because the universe is infinite in time and space. The universe is not finite. And nobody has proof nor evidence of any kind, that the universe maybe finite. Have you seen and experienced the walls of the universe? No, you have not, because there are none.

The walls of your mind do not represent the walls of the universe.

The universe is bigger and greater than what you know, as a limited, mortal human.

You have a lot of faith, Wizard. The current trend in cosmology is toward a cosmic beginning.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012

http://youtu.be/WOyQFkB1AGM

Misty is correct: Astrophysicists have a fairly concrete model of the lifecycles of stars and galaxies, supported by observation. From that, they can project the amount of time, in our frame of reference, before all the light elements of matter are gone and the resulting energy dissipated into empty space. The remaining matter mostly falls into black holes. A cold, dark day many trillions of our years hence.

Wizard is correct: The universe is definitely more expansive and complex than we can imagine, given what the human race knows so far.

Chasw wrote: Short of superstition or obstinacy, we have few reasons to reject the plausible claims of physics regarding the post-inflation history of our universe.

Actually, there is a very good reason to reject their claims, and there is nothing "obstinate" or "superstitious" about it.

Their claims rest on a very shaky assumption, even though they deny this and act as if it is an established fact. And that is fixed mass. Their entire cosmological model breaks down if total mass is increasing over time. And in fact there is much evidence out there, generally ignored by the established scientific community, that total mass is growing over time.

wIZARD.

A quick search for "A cyclical universe" will provide support for you claim, one I agree with. It never seemed logical that the BB was the beginning of anything, because for something to go "BANG" there has to be the existence of something, so time had to exist also.

Regarding an infinite universe, until boundaries are discovered we might as well believe that it is infinite. After all it is a word we use when limits are unknown or unknowable.

Regards, John.

The Universe began with the Creation of the Reality of First Cause, with the Creation of an Affect known to be the First Singularity to have relative value, to have a numerical value of One-1; prior to which moment in Time, the Whole of Realty existed as the Transcendental (Metaphysical) Steadily Random State of Singularity; Singularity prior to which had not relative, numerical value, had a numerical value of Zero-0; a Singularity of One-1 being without cause, an affect came into existence as the result of the Transfiguration, the Conversion a Singularity of Zero-0 into a Singularity of One-1; One-1, en being the direct material cause of the System of Chaos (as in the Butterfly Effect) that has made manifest the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe; the Reality of Everything being made up of a Single Substance having no Mass.

-- Updated September 2nd, 2014, 10:22 am to add the following --

A Series, a process, a continuum always begins with a Singularity of One-1; a Singularity of One-1 being indicative of an entity that had been displace, has Angular momentum, velocity of speed and direction While the motion of a Singularity of Zero-0 alone in the Emptiness of Time and in Space is meaningless, exists without displacement, without angular momentum, without velocity of speed and direct.
















zAit.

Wayne: I would simplify what you said replace it with the following statement - Before the singularity, where being itself began, nothingness prevailed. Who or what initiated the onset of being in place of nothingness is unknown to science, and is the starting point for most religious thought.

Meaning exists only in the minds of higher order animals. The concept of nothingness is not meaningless. Nothingness is simply that which some people believe existed before the onset of being. I find it interesting that physicists generally concern themselves with what occurred after the singularity and relegate the cause of its onset to philosophy and religion. - CW

Acknowledging an age for the universe was deemed (at least) conceptually possible, once the Astronomer, Edwin Hubble confirmed, by observation that most of the visible galaxies are receding, from us at ever-increasing velocities. The "ever-increasing" bit, is crucial, because it implies a galaxy's recession velocity is proportional to the age-of-the-universe. By extrapolating backward, that age can now be (presumably) deduced. We should note that this assertion tacitly makes two key assumptions. They are (1): the universe is homogenous; and (2): it is isotropic . Which is, to say the view is essentially the same, in every direction, as seen from every location. There is, therefore no privileged point-of-view.

A consequence of these assumptions is that every location in space (and time) is actually the center-of-the-universe. Maintaining the homogeneity, and the isotropy for each such location requires a high state of entropy. So, when "extrapolating backward", to the putative beginnings of the universe, we're actually not talking about time, as such (That's because the arrow-of-time is derivative from entropy, and not the other way around). The paradox of trying to date the universe is that information (such as the age-of-the-universe tends to get scrambled, as entropy increases. And yet, here we have a significant piece of information just neatly popping out, rather than being scrambled, as it should. The real problem is that both time, and entropy are being used as fundamental concepts. They, however are not.

Any claims regarding the age-of-the-universe run up against a unique problem. In measuring the age of, let's say a person, it's not necessary to investigate all of the changes-in-entropy, on a "cellular level". You just refer to a calendar, and compute the requisite age. But, even so straight-forward a methodology conceals a deal-breaking flaw. For example: are you measuring sideral, or diurnal time? These different temporal reference frames each represent different entropies. That's important because, remember entropy is what accounts for the arrow-of-time. The discrepancies resulting from using the sun, as opposed to the stars fo determining the periodicity-of-time may not matter, so much, to an octogenarian. However, discrepancies on a cosmic scale would matter. And, on such a truly cosmic scale, the lack of a privileged point-of-view also implies there is no privileged state-of-entropy.

If the universe were maximally efficient in converting heat to work , then (in principle) we might possibly calibrate time , in terms of a privileged entropy state. But, it's not; so, we can't. You'll note that this is tantamount to finding a viable approximation to Hubble's Constant. We can't do that either, however (at least, not without making some gratuitous assumptions). Ok; so we can't determine the age-of-the-universe. But, can we not agree that it does, at least have an age? Sadly, no. We can't measure time (except in a highly restricted, parochial sense), apart from having that privileged state-of-entropy , which we've been denied. But, why then does the universe seem to have an age? Why does the horizon appear to separate the earth from the sky? Artifacts-of-perception aren't substantive. And, as long as " the age-of-the-universe is homogeneous, and isotropic, there's no reason why it, too can't be an artifact-of-perception. In that case, asking what is the age-of-the-universe becomes a meaningless question.

Wooden shoe wrote:wIZARD.

A quick search for "A cyclical universe" will provide support for you claim, one I agree with. It never seemed logical that the BB was the beginning of anything, because for something to go "BANG" there has to be the existence of something, so time had to exist also.

Regarding an infinite universe, until boundaries are discovered we might as well believe that it is infinite. After all it is a word we use when limits are unknown or unknowable.

Regards, John.

At least this is the true "scientific" approach. If anybody claims to represent science, then this perspective is inevitable.

People must conclude that there is no limit to the universe, without direct evidence and observation for that limit.

Are there limits to the universe? I believe there are limits to human knowledge, and not, the universe.

Chasw thank you for your response, however, you can not speak for me; the only person you can speak for is your self.

I would enjoy reading about your understanding of the Word Singularity, Individuality.

Nothingness speaks of the Reality of Everything existing as, and within, Black Whole prior to the Creation of the Reality of First Cause; the First Singularity to have relative, a numerical value of One-1, being an affect, without cause, not being born of ordinary, natural means, Cause and Effect, being a Singularity of Zero-0 having no relative, numerical value, that has been converted, Transfigured in a Singularity of One-1 as it is made manifest a Reality, a Singularity that having relative, a numerical value of One-1, made readily apparent, brought into the Light; a Singularity Zero-0 having no relative numerical value, exists as an Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity, which by definition is immeasurable, is not readily apparent, existing as substance that has no Mass; as a Black Whole, as an unknown number, quantity, of Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity, Individualities, existing as the Eternal Transcendental (Metaphysical) Steadily Random State of Singularity, existing as the Substance that has no Mass that is not readily apparent, is not measurable as to location and Momentum in within a Continuum that was yet to be defined as being Space-Time.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:The popular Big Bang theory which explains much, doesn't explain things like what set off the posited singularity let alone how it could expand to the dimensions of our space and we lack direct evidence for the theoretical dark matter and dark energy.

Decided to check the internet for updates and I've found a link giving three theories (I don't know if I'd buy Barbour's timelessly universe, the first two theories have more meat to them).

So the question is which of the three theories appeal to you? Which do you see have the strongest arguments going for it?

The link: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/25 ... vHsYZFOlzQ

Please view Leonard Susskind's cosmology lectures first then come back to ask the same question again.

The link: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... oJiGYw3hYV

HZY wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:The popular Big Bang theory which explains much, doesn't explain things like what set off the posited singularity let alone how it could expand to the dimensions of our space and we lack direct evidence for the theoretical dark matter and dark energy.

Decided to check the internet for updates and I've found a link giving three theories (I don't know if I'd buy Barbour's timelessly universe, the first two theories have more meat to them).

So the question is which of the three theories appeal to you? Which do you see have the strongest arguments going for it?

The link: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/25 ... vHsYZFOlzQ

Please view Leonard Susskind's cosmology lectures first then come back to ask the same question again.

The link: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... oJiGYw3hYV

While he has some impressive credentials, the theories he's been involved with aren't accepted by the scientific community at large. With string theory e.g., it needs 11 dimensions to work which, to date, have not been detected nor established. Then there's baryogenesis theory (which I believe refers to heavy particle formation at the beginning of the universe). This is part of an unsolved problem in physics because nobody knows why there's more matter than antimatter in the observable universe.

You need someone whose theories are supported by the scientific community.

PhilX

PS It's my policy not to look at YouTube videos as they're normally unreliable.