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

[Present awareness]

The universe did not begin, it was always there. Our little corner of the universe was born 13.7 billion years ago and has been rapidly expanding ever since. This is similar to the rapid expansion of cells, immediately after conception. Some seem to feel that the entire universe is only that which we may perceive, but if you consider the distance's involved and the speed of light, we are still waiting for light to get here from any source older the 13.7 billion years.

[Steve3007]

Present awareness:

Suppose that "little corner" that was born 13.7 billion years ago was all there is, but also suppose that the thing that was born on that Tuesday morning 13.7 billion years ago was both space and time. In that case, your statement "the universe did not begin, it was always there" would be true, wouldn't it? The word "always" is, as I understand it, a synonym for the expression: "at all times". So this 13.7 billion year old collection of space-time has, by definition, always existed.

Is there anything in the above that you find philosophically unsatisfying?

[Rr6]

Universe has no beginning or ending. We may have repeating sets of initial conditions, that, lead to expansion-contraction, or whatever happens if contraction does not occur.

There cannot exist macro-infinite expansion of our finite, occupied space Universe or any of its parts.

The last initiating set of conditions or circumstances for what we observe was approximately 31. 7 billion years ago, if those scientists are correct.

r6

[Present awareness]

It may be that what we observe as the universe is all that there is Steve, but I don't think so. I believe the that the timeless, endless universe has giving birth to thousands, if not millions of Big Bang clusters, just like our own universe, but the vast and almost incomprehensible distance between them all, makes it impossible to either prove or disprove that idea. For example, if the next Big Bang cluster were 200 million light years away, we would have to wait 187.3 million years before the light could reach us.

[Sy Borg]

Present awareness:

Suppose that "little corner" that was born 13.7 billion years ago was all there is, but also suppose that the thing that was born on that Tuesday morning 13.7 billion years ago was both space and time. In that case, your statement "the universe did not begin, it was always there" would be true, wouldn't it? The word "always" is, as I understand it, a synonym for the expression: "at all times". So this 13.7 billion year old collection of space-time has, by definition, always existed.

Is there anything in the above that you find philosophically unsatisfying?

I see your comment as a technically sound settling of the situation in lieu of sufficient information based on science's necessarily conservative assessments of reality, where all unknowns are put into a black box called "nothing" and assumed not to exist (until "proven guilty" of existing, so to speak). This viewpoint not sound ontically because there's a decent chance that at least some of those black boxed unknowns will deeply affect our models. The value of this conservative view is to provide a sound base from which to build more knowledge - necessary and valuable, but any conclusions based on such incomplete information are almost by definition just speculation and IMO not quite philosophically sound.

For me, the most compelling argument is historical. Time and again we have assumed the limits of reality based on a formative body of knowledge - Earth plus a celestial dome, the solar system plus stars, the Milky Way plus stars, and now our current model of the universe as a boundless web of galactic clusters. Each time the experts of the time assumed the bare minimum (while much of the populace unquestioningly believed ancient myths). Just as we today find the early universal models to be laughably conservative and parochial, history suggests that our descendants will feel the same way about the models we currently present.

One issue is language; it's possible that the "universe" was prematurely named. If we think of the "universe" as an evolving galactic supercluster of superclusters (megacluster?), then there could conceivably be many such "universes" that are too far away for us to perceive, as per PA's comment above.

There's also no reason to assume that the multiverse is the final layer of reality either. We push the idea out of our minds because it's impractical and brain-bending but, for all we know, what is speculated to be a multiverse might itself only be be a middling or smaller scale of reality. That is something we will never know - how deep the "rabbit hole" goes (apologies to Morpheus).

[Present awareness]

I like your comments Greta! The greatest asset to any philosopher is imagination and an open mind. No one really knows the truth about the universe, so we speculate. In this sense, everyone is right in their own beliefs. In ancient times the Earth was flat and the Sun circled the Earth. Now a days, science has made great gains in knowledge, and will continue to do so. Philosophy is not based on fact or science, but rather on imagination. The beauty of it all is, it doesn't matter whether it is logically sound or even based on science, as long as it feels good within your own personal outlook on life.

[Rr6]

If open mind means infinite occupied space Universe, then....'uhh, Houston, we have problem here'.

If open mind means infinite set of local universes as infinite multiverse, then....'uhh, Houston, we have a problem here'.

If open mind means, there exist no finite set of cosmic laws/principle, then....'uhh, Houston, we have problem here'.

If open mind means that anything is possible, then....'uhh, Houston, we have problem here'.

Anything is possible, that does not violate the inviolate the finite set of cosmic laws/principles.

I hear it so many times, people going on about how anything is possible. I think there is a lot of ignorance in the world.

Statements like infinite this and infinite that anything is possible allow people to have some kind of God-like power i.e. they can say anything they want, and there is no consequences to them.

This is not so scary because I know there exists a lot of ignorance in the world. What is scary when educated people begin acting this way also, then....'uhh, Houston, we have problem here'

Please people, let us not allow an open mind to become standard for irrational mind.

r6

[Sy Borg]

I like your comments Greta! The greatest asset to any philosopher is imagination and an open mind. No one really knows the truth about the universe, so we speculate. In this sense, everyone is right in their own beliefs. In ancient times the Earth was flat and the Sun circled the Earth. Now a days, science has made great gains in knowledge, and will continue to do so. Philosophy is not based on fact or science, but rather on imagination. The beauty of it all is, it doesn't matter whether it is logically sound or even based on science, as long as it feels good within your own personal outlook on life.

Yes, the line between science, philosophy and science fiction is burred. Rr6 is concerned about discipline but I only see a problem there when speculation is presented as fact. In philosophy all aspects of nature ideally can go on the table, and things only go awry when people approach topics with a clear and unbending agenda.

We are so small that our views on the greater scheme of things have no practical use; daily chores remain the same whether we believe in a purely material universe or one governed by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Even if one of our speculations is correct it doesn't matter because there can be no acknowledgement from society at large until researchers agree (in which case it's the researchers who get 100% of the credit anyway, just ask Liebniz). The value outside of the rarefied realm of elite researchers is subjective. For many, including me, it's plain old curiosity and interest. For others, their conclusions underpin their approach to life.

Even discounting possibilities related to scale, my own best guess is that the big bang was a state change rather than an absolute beginning, and that reality in some form or others has always been. However, the prior states may have been so insignificant (to our scale of perception) as to seem like "nothing". If that's the case, then perhaps both eternalists and strict scientific conservatives who claim the BB was the absolute beginning are right in a sense, depending on what one considers to be nothing.

I also quite like the model of serial universes (just one universe that cycles) although, as with most models, there are many unknowns in relation to triggers and regression.

[Present awareness]

I would define an " open mind" as a willingness to consider any proposition, not to accept every proposition. As Greta says, regardless of what opinion one holds, life goes on and the chores must be done anyway.

I view knowledge as a circle of light, everything within the circle is known, and everything outside of the circle is ignorance. As the circle of knowledge gets bigger, so does the surrounding ignorance. Every answer creates 10 new questions. Although I was educated, I still know enough to know that....I really don't "know".

[Rr6]

Speculation is not the problem.

Speculation based ignorance ergo false concepts, or, that stems from fiction rather than our observations of Universe and/or any of its parts, that is problematic.

From experiences here I a lot of minds closed--- or extremely narrow -- to factual observations, and rational, logical common sense speculations that stems from those factual observations.

This is the case in many of these seemingly intellectual type forums.

Then we have those with open mind, yet so narrow, they are like the Amish horses with blinders on so that they cant see traffic along side them.

r6

If open mind means infinite occupied space Universe, then....'uhh, Houston, we have problem here'.
If open mind means infinite set of local universes as infinite multiverse, then....'uhh, Houston, we have a problem here'.
If open mind means, there exist no finite set of cosmic laws/principle, then....'uhh, Houston, we have problem here'.
If open mind means that anything is possible, then....'uhh, Houston, we have problem here'.
Anything is possible, that does not violate the inviolate the finite set of cosmic laws/principles.
I hear it so many times, people going on about how anything is possible. I think there is a lot of ignorance in the world.
Statements like infinite this and infinite that anything is possible allow people to have some kind of God-like power i.e. they can say anything they want, and there is no consequences to them.
This is not so scary because I know there exists a lot of ignorance in the world. What is scary when educated people begin acting this way also, then....'uhh, Houston, we have problem here'
Please people, let us not allow an open mind to become standard for irrational mind.
r6

[ThamiorTheThinker]

Philosophy is not based on fact or science, but rather on imagination. The beauty of it all is, it doesn't matter whether it is logically sound or even based on science, as long as it feels good within your own personal outlook on life.

I hate to rain on your parade - but that claim couldn't be more inaccurate. Academic philosophy - which is what this particular forum entry is (hopefully) attempting to capture is defined by rigorous, logical and critical approaches. If academic philosophy (id est, philosophy proper) had no basis in the evaluation of sound/cogent arguments - or indeed unsound, invalid, weak or uncogent arguments - we couldn't get much of anywhere. Modern, academic philosophy exists BECAUSE we have rigorous, methodological approaches. Philosophy exists today in the state that it does because of peer review, symbolic logic, formalities and clarity of ideas.

Now, I'm not claiming that imagination doesn't play a role - rather, I'm claiming that what you described is not philosophy per se. Instead, you described what is known by Phil. Majors and Ph. Ds as "pseudo-philosophy", id est, creative ideology that is expressed and written without peer review, without a system for evaluating arguments and without a basis for rationale critique. You'd be naive to think that philosophy could get anywhere if people are just using imagination and arguing based on what "feels good". That's ludicrous because those things don't justify claims, nor do they justify much of anything except experience itself.

Last point: some sects of philosophy have, historically, relied on/utilized scientific progressions. The A-Theory and B-Theory of time, for example, would be at odds with each other still were it not for Einstein and his colleagues.

[Sy Borg]

Based on the above, the OP was an invalid question for a philosophy forum and we should all just go away and just read what the experts have to say about it.

However, all types of ideas are needed in life's journey towards greater understanding. Creative imagination and insight are utterly critical and pivotal to both science and philosophy. However, those very things cannot be freely explored in academic scientific and philosophical fields, which rightly demand academic discipline. So professionals must workshop their wilder ideas in isolation, unable to bounce them off others for fear of losing credibility. Or they put the ideas aside and focus on what will be accepted.

So that is exactly the function these forums should be fulfilling IMO - to explore ideas and notions that are out of bounds in the academic disciplines. To fill that gap.

These forums should be an ideas forge - full of "swine" but with the occasional "pearl" like any brainstorming session. Otherwise these forums will only ever provide a muddied version of what the professionals do so much better, constantly distracted and clouded by ingenues.

[Present awareness]

It has been said that Einstein came up with his theory of relativity, by imagining himself travelling through the universe at the speed of light. Imagination, is much more important than Thamior gives credit. There may be a place for "serious" philosophy with peer review, but this forum is not that place, in my opinion.

[ThamiorTheThinker]

It has been said that Einstein came up with his theory of relativity, by imagining himself travelling through the universe at the speed of light. Imagination, is much more important than Thamior gives credit. There may be a place for "serious" philosophy with peer review, but this forum is not that place, in my opinion.

Again - I'm not discrediting imagination. I'm discrediting everything else. You didn't even read my full message.

-- Updated April 11th, 2016, 10:30 pm to add the following --

Besides, this is what I'm referring to: You didn't justify your claim. All you asserted was your opinion without justifying it. That is what philosophy is, not simply a bunch of ideas.

-- Updated April 11th, 2016, 10:34 pm to add the following --

That is, we justify our claims. When we come up with creative ideologies, we think of ways to justify and support them. That, or we find ways to falsify them.

I would also like to add that, to scientists and philosophers, a "fact" is something very different than the layperson's interpretation.

Please don't take anything I'm writing as an insult to you. I know that it must appear that way. I'm not insulting you, though - I'm trying to convince you that philosophy isn't simply creativity. It thrives on logic, reason and rationale. It needs these things, otherwise we don't make progress. Think of a scientist that doesn't perform experiments - what kind of scientist would they be?

[Present awareness]

I looked up the definition of philosophy and found this:

Simple Definition of philosophy
: the study of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.
: a particular set of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.
: a set of ideas about how to do something or how to live

The study of "ideas" is how philosophy is defined.
Ideas about abstract concepts may not be proven in any way, but they may be considered as possible or impossible. Science is concerned about provable facts, which may be repeated using the scientific method. Philosophy is concerned about how things "might" be.