Then yes, think I'll sit this one out. What it boils down to is it appears that you're saying our universe exists within something greater and infinite and eternal and our observations are limited by that.
Yes, but I am saying it in the philosophical sense since the limited observations of known science are not all there is to reality, apparently. Edit: And the natural laws operating outside our ability to observe are the same as those operating within our ability to observe; the "sameness" concept. We understand some of those laws and others we do not yet know about or understand.
Objective reality is not just what our senses perceive, as any two eye-witnesses will recount differing details of the same event. Our senses must be augmented by repeatable testing to determine what the objective reality may be. "Apparent reality" is that which is unexamined and untested for veracity, hence open to subjective interpretation. Why ask for a peer reviewed paper if you know you are not up to the task of evaluating it for yourself? Since there are no achievable absolutes, such as an absolute nothing, we can only examine it as close as we can get. This is true of many potential physical phenomena, such as a mass approaching the speed of light, etc.. Just because a mass cannot reach the speed of light does not mean that examining what can be achieved tells us nothing of the underlying physics. The same goes for nothing. The closest we can come leaves us with quantum fluctuations which we cannot attribute to any identifiable cause. This is because quantum phenomena is well-proven to be indeterministic, and only deterministic processes require a cause. Now the uncertainty principle governs such things, but a principle is not a physical cause. Hence why I said earlier that engaging you was pointless.
It was pointless to you because science does not have all the answers? How does that make sense? I must be missing your meaning. Can you clarify it.
I never said it did, only that it is somewhat obtuse to ignore what science tells us. You seem to be operating under the false dilemma that if science does not have all of the answers then it must have none. That, or you are simply cherry-picking to suit your foregone conclusions. Either way, there is little I can add for someone who dismisses science.
Why, because I discuss ideas that are not scientific, you interpret that as dismissing science. What science have you presented that I have dismissed? What in my discussion is falsified by science that I ignore?
Any postulated eternal something is only an infinite regress of cause. What determines the "natural laws" responsible for this eternal existence? In any infinite regress, there is always some point at which it demonstrates itself to be no answer at all. "It just is" has no explanatory power or cognitive satisfaction, whether in physics or philosophy.
Our engagement has not been fulfilling. Eternity is not infinite regress, it is the alternative to infinite regress.
In a universe which clearly shows observable evidence of having a beginning (extrapolating backwards from a currently expanding universe), the beginning of that universe must, itself, have initial conditions. If you postulate some other underlying universe, series of universes, multiverse, etc. you have regressed explaining initial conditions to these. These then require initial conditions, ad infinitum, else the "natural laws" which allow for no initial conditions require explanation. Are you trying to say that our current universe had no beginning? Certainly this has not been "fulfilling", especially if you are looking for other hacks to pat you on the back. If your beliefs cannot face scrutiny then maybe they need more examination.
If I was looking for hacks, I wouldn't have said I was unfulfilled by our engagement. There is only one universe. Do you mean to ask if I am saying that our current big bang expanding arena had no beginning? No, it began with the big bang in my opinion. Your belief that the evidence, which I assume you mean to include the raw redshift data for example, clearly shows that the universe began with the singularity, the event loosely referred to as the big bang, then that is the huge disconnect between us. In my personal cosmology that I referenced above, our big bang event had preconditions. But to get into the bottom up, step by step development of my views on the cosmology of the universe and how the processes that are governed by limits and thresholds of energy density orchestrate the Perfect Cosmological Principle that I reference earlier in the thread would not be in line with this forum. I'll be glad to engage you on my current thread out in pseudoscience on that topic out of respect for the moderator here.
Maybe if both Q_W and I telling him that, it will finally sink in. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! See... Next time you get your attitude flaring up, you might want to double check what those that you claim 'clearly have no knowledge on the topic' were actually hitting it dead on. I figured if I waited a bit, you'd stumble right into it.
No such thing. You are still failing to make coherent posts. You might try making a few clear and position statements to clarify your position on an eternal universe and something from nothing.
Very well... Q_W is citing a philosophical approach to something we cannot currently measure. However, his philosophy is based on an ancient premise that is currently falsified. Let's examine how and why: In BBT cosmology, theory begins a "moment" after event. In Q_W's cosmology, this event is one of many that occurs within a greater, unseen, cosmology. I think, if I understand his point correctly, that the event is part of that greater cosmology. Our current cosmology demonstrates an acceleration in expansion, space-time (where time is a part of space and not independent of space), and a probably Great Cooling of the Universe rather than a Big Crunch. His View: [Avoiding a "Something from Nothing" approach, there must be a greater cosmos within which our cosmos exists. What we observe and have observed with COBE and WMAP measurements is simply a local effect within a grander cosmos that is Eternal. ] My problem with this containment is twofold: -The assumption that something from nothing is valid and must be avoided. Nothing in philosophy or science demands that condition. Rather, a change of state is demanded. -The Eternal cyclical nature he describes would be thwarted by a Big Freeze. A steady-state or closed universe would be better suited to this Greater Verse Above. Bear in mind I may have misunderstood his cosmological view. The current model of the universe is an open model, supported by measurements thus far (it's a long list - I can detail if you would like but will leave it as a generalized statement now for brevity) that would be incompatible with the notion of a greater universe 'above' it. This is because the properties of one must then overwhelm the properties of the other. That would be an observable effect, even from our limited viewpoint, again due to measurements made by COBE and WMAP of the early Universe. So while we would not be able to observe those effects today, (We cannot even observe our entire Universe today due to expansion) we would be able to observe the interactions from the Early Universe in the cosmic background radiation. However, the data gathered matched prediction of an early expanding universe exactly. Again, I can try to go into some detail on these early interactions on request, bearing in mind that we cannot observe what is "outside" of the Universe, we can see what parameters were involved in how it expanded.
Syne, I replied- with no links- and it immediately went to Moderator Queue. Will have to wait it out.
Neverfly, Yes, we agree that any greater setting than our own universe is completely hidden from us this side of the inflationary epoch of the big bang. We simply cannot retrieve any information beyond that point. Now many modern cosmologists do postulate a greater setting in which our universe came to be, but it seems you agree that without any observational evidence this is not much more than speculation. I am not totally against speculation, but when it is not backed by at least indirect evidence and is not philosophically satisfying, I fail to see the point. Personally, I see cyclic, and even stead-state, stratagems as avoiding initial conditions. Cyclic is just an infinite regress, where a further cycle is appealed to in lieu of any real answer of initial conditions. And I find it hard to appeal to a steady-state universe, as we do not find any evidence for such a thing in our own. What seems to be inconsistent to me is you then saying: "The assumption that something from nothing is valid and must be avoided." If there was an initial condition of something then this something would require an explanation of its own, which seems to be what cyclic and stead-state hypotheses are designed to address. Seems you are both criticizing these as well as something from nothing. If so, what other option is there? Seems you must postulate something as eternal if you wish to avoid an ex nihilo origin. Bear in mind, ex nihilo does not necessarily require any deity or anything else at all.
We see eye to eye on this. It's the problem with wild speculations such as these. While Q_W may feel comfortable with that, you or I may not. But discomfort doesn't always mean shun. I find it interesting, though, again, I'm probably best off reading from the sidelines. Here's where speculation meets speculation- The assumption that "something came from nothing" is valid. I addressed this in the post above: It's not necessarily valid but rather, a change of state. Let's look at what we can know, currently. The BBT brings us to withing a very short instance following the Event. Everything at that point, is mathematically and physically describable. Prior to that instance, it becomes mathematically and physically indescribable, using current methods of mathematics. What we can measure and know shows a change of state. Beyond that, it's speculation. Since it's speculative, assuming that a 'something from nothing' argument is valid that must be accepted or rejected as a fallacy. An assumption of "change of state" is far more accurate. Waxing philosiphically with that assumption, rather than 'something from nothing' would probably please Q_W far more - as it's also more allowable of a greater cosmos. Even if that initial state is something we cannot currently describe or define, you cannot assume something came from nothing. It may have been that something expanded out from somewhere else. It may be that something changed it's state from something we cannot define into something we can, only because we developed our math based on the current state. Since Q_W based the premise of three options only Something From Nothing God did it Eternal existence The fallacy is clearly in limiting those options to three absurdities.
As I contemplate the concept that my three major explanations for the presence of the universe are three absurdities, I ask myself to suppose that I reject all three as being too absurd to consider. What I find is that I think the remaining options are even more absurd. That means that I would go back to my previous choice of an eternal and infinite universe. I define the universe as all there is, so there is no "outside" or any place that a universe can come from if it has not always existed, unless God did it or it came from nothingness. So I find myself back where we left off. Further, if the natural laws within that one universe are invariant then there was no previous state. In fact, invoking a previous state that evolves to our current state suggests infinite regress in my way of thinking, and I to avoid that fallacy I personally have no problem rejecting "some other state" as an explanation for our current state. The combination that I then come back to is an eternal and infinite universe that is governed by invariant natural laws. Perhaps too conveniently for the liking of others, that is the only combination of circumstances from which a philosophy of Eternal Intent can be derived. That is because any intention that is a characteristic of a universe that itself is not eternal, then becomes an intent designed into it by the Supernatural. That said, I know I am assuming that "something from nothing", the other explanation, doesn't bring intention into the universe at the same time that universe comes from nothingness, but I acknowledge that possibility; it is just that my preference for the infinite and eternal trumps "something from nothing" in my personal make up. If that scenario allows me to maintain my belief in Eternal Intent, then I have a set of principles and values that go with it that I can invoke in my personal life with some conviction. The benefit of those principles and values is measured by the degree of success I have in seeking and receiving acknowledgements from beyond the boundary of known science. It is my thinking that if there are as yet unknown invariant natural laws at work, I can be more successful in invoking them by reflecting on and remaking my self image, leading to good changes in how I interact with others and how I react to the actions of others. The evidence of success is completely individual and subjective, but what might go unnoticed could be the image that others who I interact with have of me as a result. My resulting image might be an improvement over the image I would present if I didn't try to invoke Eternal Intent, which might be seen as a benefit to society. There is no reason for me not to suggest that path to others who also may want to invoke Eternal Intent by practicing at seeking and receiving acknowledgements from beyond the boundary. You, like me, might only be risking the outcome of being deluded if no success is achieved, and you might, on the other hand, find success through hope and faith in Eternal Intent.
Only within the framework of relativity, but we know that environment would be dominated by quantum effects, well beyond the applicable domain of relativity. That assumption is no answer at all. What caused the change? From what state? It raises more questions than it answers. You have not shown these to be fallacious options, as you have not given any alternative. An agnostic view does not answer anything any more than an infinite regress. Now a few alternatives may be combinations of any or all of these. Western religion believes that a god is eternal and responsible for creation out of nothing, but that offers no more explanatory power than any single option. Modern science postulates an eternal environment in which our universe emerged, but that only raises the question of the cause of that eternal environment, just like the origin of an eternal god. An eternal something, whether god, matter, energy, etc., is philosophically unsatisfying, as we have no clue as to how any such thing should "just be". "Nothing" solves these philosophic problems, as well as having some indirect evidence. There are no philosophical problems with nothing being eternal, as only something is subject to things like the second law of thermodynamics (entropy). Also, in a steady-state universe, from where/what does the constant creation come from?
Maybe but it's not the point. We do not need to describe what we cannot describe for Q_W's philosophy. It demonstrates that "Something from Nothing" as the only valid premise for that instance is not necessarily a justifiable assumption. The rest of your complaints are answered by the above. If you want to nitpick Wild Speculation for details- you're obviously not going to get them and frankly, you'll only make an ass of yourself. I really don't see a religious philosophy as valid since it has no evidence whatsoever. Odd you bring it up after demanding evidence for that actual instigation of expansion. That's why it's best to look at that millisecond after the event, study BBT and get a goods nights rest. The rest of this B.S. really is for the birds. It doesn't solve them in physics and I care more about physics than philosophy. As I already pointed out- this kind of thread isn't my cup of tea. I made a passing comment to Q_W, because while it's not my cup of tea, I find Q_W's ideas interesting even if I cannot partake in his ummm... musings. You misinterpreted that, got all snide and now here we are discussing philosophy when frankly, physics would suit better. I can give answers in physics. I cannot give you answers about what happened prior to where BBT picks up.
