Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[ernestm]

So now we are all in suspense during a long pause while the telescope people try to figure out why they aren't seeing older stuff like they expected, but can't revise the age of the universe.

So how long before they figure out the Big Bang wasn't from a point source, but from the blowing up of a smaller universe? Anyone? Anyone?

[Sy Borg]

I'm happy to wait and see what the boffins work out. The whole thing does my head in. How can there be a point in space that is not space because space only arose from the inflation of that point? If everything expanded from a point, why can't there be a centre? If you blow up a balloon (as per the usual inflation example) there is a central point. How can the universe be anything but infinite? How could the universe possibly have a boundary after inflating from a point and yet not have a centre? How can reality have a boundary? That would be extremely weird. Imagine, there is a wall at the edge of the universe where everything stops and outside that wall ... well, there is no outside! Ah, but if there is no outside, then we must be enclosed, as if in a black or white hole ...

That's why I leave it to the experts. The deepest explanations require a strong knowledge of physics, which was never my best subject.

[Alan Masterman]

Ernestm, I don't think you have quite got the hang of the scientific method. The general idea is that you form a hypothesis on the basis of the available data. You seem to be forming a hypothesis in the confident expectation that the data will support it.

[3017Metaphysician]

So now we are all in suspense during a long pause while the telescope people try to figure out why they aren't seeing older stuff like they expected, but can't revise the age of the universe.

So how long before they figure out the Big Bang wasn't from a point source, but from the blowing up of a smaller universe? Anyone? Anyone?

This may be a starting point for your inquiry. The statement that since something exists; everything exists, is not such an absurd proposition. Go to mark 6.00 for the central question. It's a shame that the BB is only a half theory. Afterall, as you allude, they don't know where Singularity came from.

[Alan Masterman]

ok, I think we are dealing with Trump-science here.

[3017Metaphysician]

ok, I think we are dealing with Trump-science here.

Does "Trump science" mean God did it? You know, if you subscribe to the BB, that implies some-thing started the whole shebang. Or as Hawking suggested:

“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”

[GE Morton]

I'm happy to wait and see what the boffins work out. The whole thing does my head in. How can there be a point in space that is not space because space only arose from the inflation of that point? If everything expanded from a point, why can't there be a centre? If you blow up a balloon (as per the usual inflation example) there is a central point. How can the universe be anything but infinite? How could the universe possibly have a boundary after inflating from a point and yet not have a centre? How can reality have a boundary? That would be extremely weird. Imagine, there is a wall at the edge of the universe where everything stops and outside that wall ... well, there is no outside! Ah, but if there is no outside, then we must be enclosed, as if in a black or white hole ...

That's why I leave it to the experts. The deepest explanations require a strong knowledge of physics, which was never my best subject.

The cyclic model solves most of those problems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

[Sy Borg]

Penrose's CCC is promising, but not even he is yet convinced by the hypothesis.

[Elephant]

How can there be a point in space that is not space because space only arose from the inflation of that point? If everything expanded from a point, why can't there be a centre? If you blow up a balloon (as per the usual inflation example) there is a central point. How can the universe be anything but infinite?

You're not supposed to think of it as expanding from a point. There is no center of the universe. The universe expands in all direction. The balloon is a wrong analogy. I think maybe you're thinking of center of gravity, which is not the same thing.

[Sy Borg]

That's what they say, but it makes no sense to me. The singularity is supposed to be a point. What's outside the point? Nothing, they say. The point is everything. That makes no sense to me.

I suppose that's why Penrose came up with CCC. My simian logic tells me that there's always space, endless space. But that is also bizarre.

[ernestm]

So now we are all in suspense during a long pause while the telescope people try to figure out why they aren't seeing older stuff like they expected, but can't revise the age of the universe.

So how long before they figure out the Big Bang wasn't from a point source, but from the blowing up of a smaller universe? Anyone? Anyone?

This may be a starting point for your inquiry. The statement that since something exists; everything exists, is not such an absurd proposition. Go to mark 6.00 for the central question. It's a shame that the BB is only a half theory. Afterall, as you allude, they don't know where Singularity came from.

While Id certianly enjoy exploring that, Im just finishing my section 'A Newer Testament' on my blog, which provides a foundation for Christian belief without needing to accept the supernatural. I just posted on the afterlife, which is the concluding section, and I have a huge amount of work to do on one remaining article, but the bits Id already drafted are all now published.

[3017Metaphysician]

So now we are all in suspense during a long pause while the telescope people try to figure out why they aren't seeing older stuff like they expected, but can't revise the age of the universe.

So how long before they figure out the Big Bang wasn't from a point source, but from the blowing up of a smaller universe? Anyone? Anyone?

This may be a starting point for your inquiry. The statement that since something exists; everything exists, is not such an absurd proposition. Go to mark 6.00 for the central question. It's a shame that the BB is only a half theory. Afterall, as you allude, they don't know where Singularity came from.

While Id certianly enjoy exploring that, Im just finishing my section 'A Newer Testament' on my blog, which provides a foundation for Christian belief without needing to accept the supernatural. I just posted on the afterlife, which is the concluding section, and I have a huge amount of work to do on one remaining article, but the bits Id already drafted are all now published.

Thanks, I'll try to check it out! Only cautionary note I would add is that the concept of something being super-natural is something that is not typically as found in nature, or something that combines contradictory elements (like a ToE, determinism and indeterminism, temporal time and eternal time, or any other Kantian antinomy, etc.). At face value, the term is not only the appropriate concept (when talking about the nature of all existence), but also a logically necessary conclusion if one were to work out a logico-deductive argument about same.

Anyway, the standard definition is, Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. Semantically, if this helps, one could use a hyphen to convey more of a secular or generic meaning i.e., super-natural.

A very similar sentiment was given by physicist Sir Paul Davies in his book the Mind of God:

But in the end a rational explanation for the world in the sense of a closed and complete system of logical truths is almost certainly impossible. We are barred from ultimate knowledge, from ultimate explanation, by the very rules of reasoning that prompt us to seek such an explanation in the first place. If we wish to progress beyond, we have to embrace a different concept of "understanding" from that of rational explanation.

...the assumption of human rationality: that it 1s legitimate to seek "explanations" for things, and that we truly understand something only when it is "explained." Yet it has to be admitted that our concept of rational explanation probably derives from our observations of the world and our evolutionary inheritance. Is it clear that this provides adequate guidance when we are tangling with ultimate questions? Might it not be the case that the reason for existence has no explanation in the usual sense? This does not mean that the universe is absurd or meaningless, only that an understanding of its existence and properties lies outside the usual categories of rational human thought. We have seen how application of human reasoning in its most refined and formalized sense to mathematics is nevertheless full of paradox and uncertainty. Godel's theorem warns us that the axiomatic method of making logical deductions from given assumptions cannot in general provide a system which is both provably complete and consistent. There will always be truth that lies beyond, that cannot be reached froma finite collection of axioms.

Does that not suggest some-thing beyond the natural? I hope that helps and inspires you in some way.

[ernestm]

So now we are all in suspense during a long pause while the telescope people try to figure out why they aren't seeing older stuff like they expected, but can't revise the age of the universe.

So how long before they figure out the Big Bang wasn't from a point source, but from the blowing up of a smaller universe? Anyone? Anyone?

This may be a starting point for your inquiry. The statement that since something exists; everything exists, is not such an absurd proposition. Go to mark 6.00 for the central question. It's a shame that the BB is only a half theory. Afterall, as you allude, they don't know where Singularity came from.

While Id certianly enjoy exploring that, Im just finishing my section 'A Newer Testament' on my blog, which provides a foundation for Christian belief without needing to accept the supernatural. I just posted on the afterlife, which is the concluding section, and I have a huge amount of work to do on one remaining article, but the bits Id already drafted are all now published.

Thanks, I'll try to check it out! Only cautionary note I would add is that the concept of something being super-natural is something that is not typically as found in nature, or something that combines contradictory elements (like a ToE, determinism and indeterminism, temporal time and eternal time, or any other Kantian antinomy, etc.). At face value, the term is not only the appropriate concept (when talking about the nature of all existence), but also a logically necessary conclusion if one were to work out a logico-deductive argument about same.

Anyway, the standard definition is, Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. Semantically, if this helps, one could use a hyphen to convey more of a secular or generic meaning i.e., super-natural.

A very similar sentiment was given by physicist Sir Paul Davies in his book the Mind of God:

But in the end a rational explanation for the world in the sense of a closed and complete system of logical truths is almost certainly impossible. We are barred from ultimate knowledge, from ultimate explanation, by the very rules of reasoning that prompt us to seek such an explanation in the first place. If we wish to progress beyond, we have to embrace a different concept of "understanding" from that of rational explanation.

...the assumption of human rationality: that it 1s legitimate to seek "explanations" for things, and that we truly understand something only when it is "explained." Yet it has to be admitted that our concept of rational explanation probably derives from our observations of the world and our evolutionary inheritance. Is it clear that this provides adequate guidance when we are tangling with ultimate questions? Might it not be the case that the reason for existence has no explanation in the usual sense? This does not mean that the universe is absurd or meaningless, only that an understanding of its existence and properties lies outside the usual categories of rational human thought. We have seen how application of human reasoning in its most refined and formalized sense to mathematics is nevertheless full of paradox and uncertainty. Godel's theorem warns us that the axiomatic method of making logical deductions from given assumptions cannot in general provide a system which is both provably complete and consistent. There will always be truth that lies beyond, that cannot be reached froma finite collection of axioms.

Does that not suggest some-thing beyond the natural? I hope that helps and inspires you in some way.

I often think about that, and I dont really have much of an answer. It seems odd to me that people like Alexander the Great and Putin and whatever come and go without leaving much of a really permanent impression on people beside some memorials, whereas a ppor carpenter's son who was probably thinking of being a doctor when he was a child could have so much inflience. He did happen to be in the right palce at the right time to have a large effect, so maybe he just happened to be the one and it could have been anyone else. I dont know. And maybe people are just too stupid to cope with more than one or two people like him, a kind of permanent Kim Kardashian or something. I dont know.

[3017Metaphysician]

This may be a starting point for your inquiry. The statement that since something exists; everything exists, is not such an absurd proposition. Go to mark 6.00 for the central question. It's a shame that the BB is only a half theory. Afterall, as you allude, they don't know where Singularity came from.

While Id certianly enjoy exploring that, Im just finishing my section 'A Newer Testament' on my blog, which provides a foundation for Christian belief without needing to accept the supernatural. I just posted on the afterlife, which is the concluding section, and I have a huge amount of work to do on one remaining article, but the bits Id already drafted are all now published.

Thanks, I'll try to check it out! Only cautionary note I would add is that the concept of something being super-natural is something that is not typically as found in nature, or something that combines contradictory elements (like a ToE, determinism and indeterminism, temporal time and eternal time, or any other Kantian antinomy, etc.). At face value, the term is not only the appropriate concept (when talking about the nature of all existence), but also a logically necessary conclusion if one were to work out a logico-deductive argument about same.

Anyway, the standard definition is, Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. Semantically, if this helps, one could use a hyphen to convey more of a secular or generic meaning i.e., super-natural.

A very similar sentiment was given by physicist Sir Paul Davies in his book the Mind of God:

But in the end a rational explanation for the world in the sense of a closed and complete system of logical truths is almost certainly impossible. We are barred from ultimate knowledge, from ultimate explanation, by the very rules of reasoning that prompt us to seek such an explanation in the first place. If we wish to progress beyond, we have to embrace a different concept of "understanding" from that of rational explanation.

...the assumption of human rationality: that it 1s legitimate to seek "explanations" for things, and that we truly understand something only when it is "explained." Yet it has to be admitted that our concept of rational explanation probably derives from our observations of the world and our evolutionary inheritance. Is it clear that this provides adequate guidance when we are tangling with ultimate questions? Might it not be the case that the reason for existence has no explanation in the usual sense? This does not mean that the universe is absurd or meaningless, only that an understanding of its existence and properties lies outside the usual categories of rational human thought. We have seen how application of human reasoning in its most refined and formalized sense to mathematics is nevertheless full of paradox and uncertainty. Godel's theorem warns us that the axiomatic method of making logical deductions from given assumptions cannot in general provide a system which is both provably complete and consistent. There will always be truth that lies beyond, that cannot be reached froma finite collection of axioms.

Does that not suggest some-thing beyond the natural? I hope that helps and inspires you in some way.

I often think about that, and I dont really have much of an answer. It seems odd to me that people like Alexander the Great and Putin and whatever come and go without leaving much of a really permanent impression on people beside some memorials, whereas a ppor carpenter's son who was probably thinking of being a doctor when he was a child could have so much inflience. He did happen to be in the right palce at the right time to have a large effect, so maybe he just happened to be the one and it could have been anyone else. I dont know. And maybe people are just too stupid to cope with more than one or two people like him, a kind of permanent Kim Kardashian or something. I dont know.

Sure. Who really knows...there are many things we don't know from history, about other people and even ourselves. As Ecclesiastes/Wisdom Books would say, nothing new under the sun(?). I suppose those kinds of mysterious don't typically present themselves as showstoppers in any way! You know, existential human condition kinds of stuff...

[d3r31nz1g3]

There is no revision of the fundaments of the Big Bang.

Assuming scientific and physical reality...

The Big Bang began with mathematical counting from a central point, counting one-dimensional and invisible specs.
By count of two a small line was formed,
by three a triangle,
by four a square,
by five a pentagon,
by six a hexagon,
by seven a heptagon,
by eight a hexagon,
and started splaying in to a circle as it splayed outwards.

By mere counting the basic shapes were immediately formed in a rapid, speed-of-light count and the color spectrum was immediately discovered at the speed of light.