I have no problem with speculation, because after all most theories probably start out as speculation. As long as it doesn't contradict science. But if a speculation contradicts science, then the Rule of Laplace applies. If it's speculation about cosmology, it's rather unlikely that the requisite extraordinary evidence will ever be presented, so it won't be treated with respect and will stay forever in Pseudoscience. The problem with speculating about what's beyond the Hubble radius is that we'll never be able to confirm or falsify the speculation. But since I define cosmology as an uncomfortable mix of physics, math and philosophy, I expect that the ultimate model of the universe (both microcosmology like string theory and macrocosmology like the Big Bang) will be comprised of abstractions that can't be tested. The model will be adopted only because it works, and there will be a little asterisk next to its name in the Canon of Science.
God did it [ ] Something from nothing [ ] Always existed (no beginning) [ ] Some other possibility [ ] All of the above [ x ] Mischief: My choice is all of the above. Imagine a nothingness. From which perspective or perspectives are you viewing or in some other way experiencing the nothingness? Imagine that your perspective could change. Now there is something; the something being the changes in your perspective. Perhaps in some way points could be located to mark changes in your perspective. What are we anyway other than perspective? As we observe the points that mark changes in our perspective from certain perspectives imagined meanings for the points come into existence. From some perspectives it is easy to imagine matter and from other perspectives it is easy to imagine god. Can either matter or God or nothingness be separated from the perspectives from which experiencing allows them to come into existence? Look at our number-lines; they extend infinitely in two directions and have a mid point that is not off center in either direction. Number lines a comprised of infinitely small points that can be approached but can never be arrived at. It seems to me that the points are in fact made of nothing. Whether we are talking about time, or dimensions of space, or the dimension of solidity to emptiness, or the dimension of inside to outside, or absolutely me to absolutely not me, or god to not god, or good to evil, or attraction to repulsion, or truth to untruth, the number-line of nonexistent points extending infinitely in two directions remains the form. What is now but a nonexistent mid point between the nonexistent future and the nonexistent past? What am I but here and now in nonexistent time and space. Try to find yourself; it can not be done because you do not exist. What do you call that from which nonexistent existence emerges? It depends on your perspective. Whether you call it God or self, or nothingness or the universe or time and space does not matter. If nothing is viewed from infinite perspectives anything could be seen in the nothing and you would not be wrong because hallucinations are something. You will see as your perspective allows you to see.
From the future, since the nothingness is clearly behind us. Our paradigm of spacetime has been tested and found consistent with all the evidence, so it stands as a canonical theory upon which to build. Our only point of uncertainty is at the moment of the Big Bang itself. This suggests one of two corollaries: 1. Time has an Absolute Zero, which is consistent with other measures of the universe such as temperature. On the other hand this could simply mean that we're measuring time wrong, using an arithmetic scale instead of logarithmic. 2. The Big Bang was not a singularity and similar events occur at rare intervals. The paradigm of matter and energy (you left out energy) has been elaborated and deconstructed down to electrons and photons and the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Four Elementary forces... and then elaborated and deconstructed further into quarks and bosons. Now we're elaborating and deconstructing even further into String Theory or whatever better model supplants it. Ultimately we'll end up with a very elegant model that explains everything we observe in the universe and leaves us with a minimal set of irreducible questions that veer away from physics and math into pure philosophy. The God model, on the other hand, cannot be elaborated and deconstructed, is astoundingly inelegant, raises more questions than it answers, and directs those questions toward cosmology's scientific node rather than its philosophical node. Calling this a model of the universe is a retreat into comfortable ignorance and leaves science to clean up the mess by answering a bonehead question, "Where did the god come from and what is its energy source?" You're overtaxing the word "perspective" by putting religion on par with science and casually tossing off the notion that science and religion are merely "different perspectives," implying that each therefore has its own claim to validity. This model equates ignorance with scholarship, and it doesn't withstand peer review on this website. * * * * NOTE FROM THE LINGUISTICS MODERATOR * * * * You're getting hung up on the limitations of your language. It is the job of science to transcend them. Perhaps, but it also depends on your language. Restate that question in Bantu or Hopi and see what kind of answer you get. For example, those people might turn out to be much less tolerant of discourse-stalling oxymorons like "nonexistent existence" than you are. Personally I regard them as sophomoric. This is wordplay, a trick of linguistics. Let's please get back to science!
Not entirely true. It is like testing a piece of a puzzle in all of the places around the board where it might fit. If not, you put it down and try another piece. It is not a perfect analogy but the point is that if we speculate about the unknown and contemplate how the speculation might help explain things that we observe but don't yet understand, we might get some clues that lead to simple explanations for what we observe even though we started with only reasonable and responsible speculation. I suppose you are right. One thing is for sure, as long as intelligent life remains, the search for reality will continue.
Well sure. Speculations about what's beyond the Hubble radius can certainly be disproven as we improve our knowledge of the universe and they are found to contradict them. But to prove one "true beyond a reasonable doubt" so that it can become a canonical theory, that seems very unlikely. At least not without the little asterisk. I'm reminded of my favorite line from the movie "Harvey," said by Jimmy Stewart in response to the accusation that he is struggling with reality. "Lady, I've been struggling with reality for years, and I'm proud to say that I've finally won out over it."
Darn those pesky little asterisks. But any cosmology that doesn't speculate about the cause of the Big Bang will always be incomplete. I like to think of cosmology as a description of the universe. As such, we include in it what science knows, i.e. an incomplete cosmology, and we are left with some unknowns. Speculation has to be employed when trying to fill out the complete cosmology if that is what an individual wants to do. I personally like to have a view of what that complete cosmology may be like even if it includes speculation. I agree that speculation must be done properly. I submit that speculation to be done properly must be connected to scientific knowledge, for example using the scientific consensus as a departure point. And from the departure point each step of speculation should be reasonable and responsible to people knowledgeable in science and who are open to discussing and exchanging ideas on speculation that follows such a methodology.
I would like to know what possible explanations people have in mind when the select "some other possibility" when responding to the poll. I’m asking on the basis that they seem confused to me or at least are unable to commit to one of the choices that can be defined. I know all about how the universe (let alone science) doesn't care what I think, and I know that those who are unable to commit to an explanation are ether not finished sorting out the questions enough to commit, or they are just satisfied not knowing and admitting that we can't know. They might just feel that it is pointless to discuss such things. While it would therefore be pointless to them, to those of us who can commit, I respect your views and appreciate those who have been willing to discuss the topic. Since we can't provide irrefutable proof to support any of our views, discussions like this help me evaluate my own views as I consider yours. Of those that selected one of the first three choices, i.e. who can commit, I think it shows that there are those who can make a case for each of the possibilities.
You know what M_c, your view is interesting. I believe we will never know nothingness. My earliest memories do not include any experience that took place before I entered the world so there wasn't any nothingness in my personal beginning. When it comes to dying, shall we say when it comes to the final end of consciousness, I maintain that if there is nothingness we will not know it. I would grant you that there is no evidence and I respect those who believe there is an afterlife (I'm guessing you don't but at least four have answered "God did it" to the poll and my impression is that it is likely that they believe in some form of afterlife). That belief and the charity that flows from religions to help the needy cannot be disregarded, and faith in a religion can help people avoid some of the pitfalls during this life. I respectfully suggest if you want to experience nothingness, find a quiet spot and contemplate nothingness. And do it often enough to give yourself a chance. I believe you will be able to come as close to it as can be in a universe where there is no nothingness Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
I was watching, The Story of Maths, part 2, video 3 of 6 @ 3:45 in on YouTube Marcus du Sautoy, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford Du Sautoy, as he explains a cultural reason for the invention of zero touches on the concept of nothingness. “In ancient India the concepts of nothingness and eternity were at the very heart of their belief system. In the religions of India the universe was born out of nothingness and nothingness is the ultimate goal of Humanity. So it is perhaps not surprising that a culture that so enthusiastically embraced the void would be happy with the notion of zero.” “The Indians even use the word for the philosophical idea of the void, shunya, to represent the mathematical term zero.” So I searched “shunya Hindu void nothing” and found (in second paragraph): http://books.google.com/books?id=Et...v=onepage&q=shunya Hindu void nothing&f=false And another link: http://hubpages.com/hub/FROM-SHUNYA-TO-ZERO
Russell Peters, the Indian-Canadian stand-up comedian, has a different explanation: They couldn't bargain shopkeepers down to a price they were willing to pay, so they had to invent zero.
my thought: if nothing exists there wouldn't be anything to define it with. or you have to accept defining nothing as the absence of something(s); and hence the admittance of the need for something(s) to define nothing. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 786, you might wanna check this.
I checked back to see how the poll was going and I see that God is getting better representation than the "Always existed" option. Darn, I do like like the concept that the universe has always existed. Note to Scifes, you are being logical Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. I was thinking about nothingness yesterday while responding to another thread about whether or not space was infinite. I offer another definition of nothingness: The absence of space. It is simplistic but it has applications in both religion and cosmology.
why thank youPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! but why space of all things? what do you mean by space? the three dimensions?
I do mean the three dimension but I also mean the four or six or ten or any number of dimensions that various theories employ to describe the place where things happen. There are theories that say that the current volume of space is finite. Big Bang theory (above the quantum level) starts with a mathematical singularity. If you look for a correspondence between the mathematical singularity and the physical world, you are looking at a beginning of the universe that starts out at zero volume. That is zero space which is sometimes referred to as point space. The implication is that this point space defined as a mathematical singularity is all the space there is which effectively says that space itself originated with the Big Bang and has been inflating in volume every since, but is still spatially finite. So when I say nothingness is the absence of space it is in the spirit of cosmologies that are based on a beginning of space.
On the subject i would highly recommend anyone in this thread (although especially Parmalee) hunt down Alan Watt's 'language of Metaphysical Experience' essay. From what i recall he sets out to show that the logical positivists basically arrived at the same point Zen Buddhist reached several hundered years ago - that transcendental experience (if not all experience) cannot be defined with words and so must be left to define itself. EDIT, here it is: http://www.intuitieveintelligentie.nl/images/Alan_watts.doc.
So I noticed when I voted on the poll that most people chose the 'some other possibility' option like myself. I'd like to hear some of those ideas.
There are no other possibilities. I suspect that anyone who has chosen the some other possibility option has done so only because they're simply uncertain, not because they believe in some other specific idea. Note: I reserve the right to clarify the purpose behind my comments in this post (and this note) if the need arises.
