Philosophy Discussion Forums

Thanks Alec, Wayne, Greta I will go thru some more previous comments on the topic, this is quite interesting trail of discussion. The single perturbation (repeated cycles of it) in isolation as a concept I am aware of, and it is the linkage to singularity transcendental singularity I seek the link to that.

Nakul:

Yes, a single perturbation followed by a domino effect. Domino effect still might be possible, but again let us not link this to casual dominoes, but a single perturbation as a beginning is not scientifically supported. But then maybe science has not yet matured enough to conceptualise it.

With regards to the forming of the universe, how do we know what to describe as a “single perturbation?” “We” would see a perturbation as a deviation from a normal state or a “normal” domino effect, which deviates from other “normal” domino effects by some nature or degree. But in terms of the universe forming, a “single perturbation” could be the reason for something which exists in or of the universe, such as a certain type of star or green coloured eyes. In short, I think that classifying perturbations in terms of the forming of the universe, is us placing our understanding of what constitutes a perturbation, onto the universe. Rather than the universe inherently possessing any perturbations. As you say, I don't think that science yet has the knowledge to quantify what constitutes a universal perturbation.

Fanman wrote:Nakul:

Yes, a single perturbation followed by a domino effect. Domino effect still might be possible, but again let us not link this to casual dominoes, but a single perturbation as a beginning is not scientifically supported. But then maybe science has not yet matured enough to conceptualise it.

With regards to the forming of the universe, how do we know what to describe as a “single perturbation?” “We” would see a perturbation as a deviation from a normal state or a “normal” domino effect, which deviates from other “normal” domino effects by some nature or degree. But in terms of the universe forming, a “single perturbation” could be the reason for something which exists in or of the universe, such as a certain type of star or green coloured eyes. In short, I think that classifying perturbations in terms of the forming of the universe, is us placing our understanding of what constitutes a perturbation, onto the universe. Rather than the universe inherently possessing any perturbations. As you say, I don't think that science yet has the knowledge to quantify what constitutes a universal perturbation.

Actually, I think the term "perturbation" is pretty good. I'm impressed by it. TBH, I don't know if I could come up with a better term. It takes the Universe from the POV of psychology, thinking of it as a Mind, and also as a Singular Mind, and describes this Mind breaking into pieces (The Mind became "perturbed"). It's basically a "psychological version" or the "psychological side" of big bang theory, and IMO the psychological is actually more real than the physical.

Who do I give the credit to for this term? Nakul?

Perhaps the fault in our lack in understanding as to whether the Universe did or did not have a beginning, lays (lies) in how we define the word beginning.

Perhaps we should ask the question who, what, how and when, did the system of (as in the Butterfly Effect) did the "system of Chaos" begin that made manifest the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything.

How is the Reality of Universe to be defined? Must a Reality be readily apparent, measurable as to location, must a Reality be measurable as to momentum (Motion having displacement, velocity of speed and direction, angular momentum), in the wilderness of Space-Time, which was yet to be created, must Reality be a Physical, a Materiality.

If a Reality can exist as an immaterial Reality, does that mean all or maybe just some of our Reality exists as a Illusion, that a Reality exist only in the mind.

I am inclined to believe that the word Beginning is a misnomer when it comes to understanding the existence of the Universe.

I believe that the Physical, Material World of Reality exists as a Transfiguration of a State of Pure Unadulterated Energy that by some means was converted into the Physical Reality of the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything.

Fanman wrote:Nakul:

Yes, a single perturbation followed by a domino effect. Domino effect still might be possible, but again let us not link this to casual dominoes, but a single perturbation as a beginning is not scientifically supported. But then maybe science has not yet matured enough to conceptualise it.

With regards to the forming of the universe, how do we know what to describe as a “single perturbation?” “We” would see a perturbation as a deviation from a normal state or a “normal” domino effect, which deviates from other “normal” domino effects by some nature or degree. But in terms of the universe forming, a “single perturbation” could be the reason for something which exists in or of the universe, such as a certain type of star or green coloured eyes. In short, I think that classifying perturbations in terms of the forming of the universe, is us placing our understanding of what constitutes a perturbation, onto the universe. Rather than the universe inherently possessing any perturbations. As you say, I don't think that science yet has the knowledge to quantify what constitutes a universal perturbation.

As per my previous post, I would not think of perturbations as are. If space is boiling with energy (dark?) then what we are talking about is a particular disturbance amongst countless other perturbations, a virtual particle/wave that didn't blink in and out of existence but inflated.

The idea it one of the ostensibly rational explanations that's on the table. Plenty here relate to Wayne's sentiment that reality as a whole may not have a beginning. However, I think it's at least relevant to explore what appears to be at least one instance of inflation of energy, space and time and the possible conditions that preceded it.

Greta wrote;
I would not think of perturbations as are. If space is boiling with energy (dark?) then what we are talking about is a particular disturbance amongst countless other perturbations, a virtual particle/wave that didn't blink in and out of existence but inflated.

Greta. I did not say that the Universe did not have a beginning! I said that the word beginning, not the primordial existence of the Reality of Everything, may be a misnomer.

The primordial existence of the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything in its primordial state, did not exist as a material, physical Universe; the Term Universe can only be applied to the Physical Reality of the Universe.

Unbeknownst the State or Condition of the Reality of Everything is Unknown, for good reason, the Physical Universe being born of Nothingness; the existence of the Heavens and the Earth, the Physical Universe, the Reality of Everything being the result of the Transfiguration.

The State or Condition of Nothingness, of Pure Unadulterated Energy first being converted to a System of Chaos having no mass and then being reborn the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything.

The Universe is inflating, expanding, but only in the sense that the Universe is growing, "Pure Unadulterated Energy being Infinitely Large, Omnificent, intermingled with the Physical Universe.

Greta:

As per my previous post, I would not think of perturbations as are. If space is boiling with energy (dark?) then what we are talking about is a particular disturbance amongst countless other perturbations, a virtual particle/wave that didn't blink in and out of existence but inflated.

The idea it one of the ostensibly rational explanations that's on the table. Plenty here relate to Wayne's sentiment that reality as a whole may not have a beginning. However, I think it's at least relevant to explore what appears to be at least one instance of inflation of energy, space and time and the possible conditions that preceded it.

What perturbations are you referring to here? If I get the gist of what you're saying, it seems as though your discussing a “big bang” type of hypothesis, as your discussing reactions leading to inflation? I tend to think of the universe (or at least space and time) existing in some state eternally, rather than there being an epic event which preceded its existence, thus causing it. Questions will always arise as to what preceded any type of big bang hypothesis, and what caused it. If you have a hypothesis for the existence of the universe, when / how it began, it would be interesting to hear it.

Wayne92587 wrote:

Greta wrote;
I would not think of perturbations as are. If space is boiling with energy (dark?) then what we are talking about is a particular disturbance amongst countless other perturbations, a virtual particle/wave that didn't blink in and out of existence but inflated.

Greta. I did not say that the Universe did not have a beginning! I said that the word beginning, not the primordial existence of the Reality of Everything, may be a misnomer.

Gotcha. A misunderstanding of terms. I agree with you - the word "universe", ironically, almost certainly does not mean "everything".

Fanman wrote:What perturbations are you referring to here? If I get the gist of what you're saying, it seems as though your discussing a “big bang” type of hypothesis, as your discussing reactions leading to inflation? I tend to think of the universe (or at least space and time) existing in some state eternally, rather than there being an epic event which preceded its existence, thus causing it. Questions will always arise as to what preceded any type of big bang hypothesis, and what caused it. If you have a hypothesis for the existence of the universe, when / how it began, it would be interesting to hear it.

It's pretty well the hypothesis I've heard Lawrence Krauss propose, which appears to be the most accepted by the mainstream at this stage. Basically he claims that "nothing" existed before inflation, but his use of the word "nothing" is a teaser:

In his new book, A Universe from Nothing, cosmologist Lawrence M. Krauss attempts to link quantum physics to Einstein’s general theory of relativity to explain the origin of a universe from nothing: “In quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing. Such universes need not be empty, but can have matter and radiation in them, as long as the total energy, including the negative energy associated with gravity [balancing the positive energy of matter], is zero.”

Furthermore, “for the closed universes that might be created through such mechanisms to last for longer than infinitesimal times, something like inflation is necessary.” Observations show that the universe is in fact flat (there is just enough matter to slow its expansion but not to halt it), has zero total energy and underwent rapid inflation, or expansion, soon after the big bang, as described by inflationary cosmology. Krauss concludes: “Quantum gravity not only appears to allow universes to be created from noth­ing—meaning ... absence of space and time—it may require them. ‘Nothing’—in this case no space, no time, no anything!—is unstable.”

Source: scientificamerican.com/article/much-ado ... t-nothing/

The reason why one particular virtual particle in the "quantum foam" of nothingness would inflate rather than wink out of existence again is obviously unknown. Maybe some energetic threshold was reached but that's just a guess.

Gretta what do you mean, he uses nothingness as a teaser??

Where do you get such an idea??

Greta:

The reason why one particular virtual particle in the "quantum foam" of nothingness would inflate rather than wink out of existence again is obviously unknown. Maybe some energetic threshold was reached but that's just a guess.

Its an interesting idea, albeit random in nature.

Wayne92587 wrote:Gretta what do you mean, he uses nothingness as a teaser??

Where do you get such an idea??

Krauss is saying that what we call "nothing" is actually "something" - he says that ostensibly empty space is not actually empty but roiling with virtual particles.

Fanman wrote:Greta:

The reason why one particular virtual particle in the "quantum foam" of nothingness would inflate rather than wink out of existence again is obviously unknown. Maybe some energetic threshold was reached but that's just a guess.

Its an interesting idea, albeit random in nature.

I like the way it echoes the dynamics of nature that we observe. However, the quantum realm has shown us that what we expect and what we find are not always the same. Emergence seems to occur when thresholds are reached, and those thresholds are determined by the laws of physics.

By "random in nature" I assume you mean a lack of intent behind it all, and I agree with your questioning. Imagine if the bugs in our bodies were aware and capable of research. What might they make of their world? (Please no one try to explain to me why microbes aren't sentient - it's a thought experiment based on scale. I am actually aware that Flagellum Shakespeare did not make elegant observations about the microbial condition, nor did [E.]Coli Powell command the US microbial defence forces).

So, imagine the studies of these fictitious intelligent microbes exploring their world. One probe might have even made it out of the stomach! They might have a name for the flood of resources periodically pouring into their world. So acid stomach might be a heatwave to them. They won't know that the reason for the acid stomach might be that you are stressed, but they will make associations between the stress hormones and the "heatwaves". Given reality's propensity to be systems within systems, it will be difficult to understand the narratives of a huge system like the cosmic web. We have only recently started trying to create a narrative for galaxies, eg. whether the supermassive black holes at their centres came first or later, which are the most habitable zones, how habitable zones form and diminish in galaxies, what "dark matter" is or whatever dynamic is involved in slowing the rate at which galaxies are flying apart.

We don't have that kind of narrative for the universe/multiverse and inflation itself is only our best theory based on the data so far, and it may yet turn out that it's just the best of a bad bunch. Our understanding of the cosmos is mechanical, just as the fictitious gut microbes might figure that heatwaves (caused by work stress) tend to start somewhere around 8am each day, ease at 6pm, and usually only occur five days a week, although around 8% of the time the heatwaves don't occur at all (four weeks annual leave).

Greta:

Great posting. I mean random in terms of the events described occurring seemingly without a cause and being unpredictable. In that, what is found is not always expected. If quantum mechanics was able to find a "solid" or viable theory for the formation of the universe which was at odds with the current theories such as the big bang, which would take precedent for you and why?

One more aspect of perturbation I would like to discuss, that is, the extent of perturbation (large or small) is of no importance, as we would again put our ability to understand what is small and large to say so.

I think anyone asking "When did the universe begin" has a serious logic problem or a very naïve conception of time. Maybe is it due to having a presentist vision of the universe.

When we say the universe is eternal, we don't mean that it's been existing for trillions and trillions of years. In fact it certainly has some sort of beginning and end, or at least points in time where its meaning stops. But the whole timeline, is eternal, and has never started "happening" in any way.

Think of the universe like a movie disk that is never used. You think it's happening because you're a character of the movie. You exist because of the way the story is constructed ; and there can be very much a beginning and an end to that story, but you will always be there, playing your role. Never less, never more. Eternally.

Greta; The "Big" question is, where did you get the word tease when you said

he uses nothingness as a teaser??

-- Updated January 17th, 2016, 12:35 pm to add the following --

Greta, Nothing is not Something, Something would have to Physical object, have mass.
The substance from which the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of everything, is a substance that has not Mass, that does not exist in the material sense of the word and therefore can not actually be something.

Chaos is born of motion having angular momentum, displacement, velocity of speed and direction.

Randomness it a state or condition in which Motion is meaningless, has not displacement, not angular momentum, not velocity of speed and direction, Randomness like Absolute Freedom of motion is Motionless Motion.

The Motion of a Random Particle as it exists within the Omnificence of the Transcendental Fully Random Quantum State of Singularity, exist as a negligible innate inner motion, existing as a Vibration, an Oscillation.