A Quest for a Personal View of Reality

quantum_wave

quantum_wave

Contemplating the "as yet" unknown
Valued Senior Member
A quest for a personal view of reality


Personal Reality is a set of beliefs about the nature of things, and those things certainly include the nature of universe itself.

In regard to the nature of the universe, I am of the opinion that it is infinite spatially, and has always existed, so I'll share that to start with.

Is there anyone who shares my personal views to that extent?

That thinking is consistent with The Perfect Cosmological Principle, which states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic in space and time. In this view the universe looks the same everywhere (on the large scale), the same as it always has and always will. (Wiki)

I personally invoke the Perfect Cosmological Principle (note: "perfect" is part of the name of the principle, and not an adjective implying perfection of the principle).


I don't expect anyone to view this long video, but it is worth the time, and covers the spectrum of current cosmological thinking (video dated March 2015). I don't subscribe to the concept of multi-dimensional time that they discuss, but in any regard, an infinite and eternal universe cannot be falsified and is consistent with what we observe in our limited Hubble view. It is intuitive in my opinion, and that is my initial post on my personal view of reality.

I sincerely hope you will participate in this thread, and share your view of reality. This thread is a non-judgemental zone, hopefully.
 
Last edited:
Always existed?

The expansion of the Universe is an observed fact of reality.

Extrapolating backwards into the past, the Universe was much smaller then than it is now. A reasonable conclusion is that the Universe had a beginning, after which the expansion started.

Therefore, the notion that the Universe has always existed seems inaccurate.
 
Daecon said:
Always existed?

The expansion of the Universe is an observed fact of reality.

Extrapolating backwards into the past, the Universe was much smaller then than it is now. A reasonable conclusion is that the Universe had a beginning, after which the expansion started.

Therefore, the notion that the Universe has always existed seems inaccurate.
Click to expand...
The redshift data, to be sure, points to a Big Bang, and there is evidence of accelerating expansion, dark energy. Have you ever considered possible preconditions to our Big Bang? I know you a little from The Science Forum, and know that speculation is not your style. Take the time to click on the video if you want a pretty comprehensive survey of modern cosmological thinking. And thank you for sharing those views.
 
quantum_wave said:
The redshift data, to be sure, points to a Big Bang, and there is evidence of accelerating expansion, dark energy. Have you ever considered possible preconditions to our Big Bang? I know you a little from The Science Forum, and know that speculation is not your style. Take the time to click on the video if you want a pretty comprehensive survey of modern cosmological thinking. And thank you for sharing those views.
Click to expand...


Within the framework of GR and the BB, what Deacon has said is correct.
But we also know that as well supported as GR and the BB is, they each are limited in a sense that GR is purely a classical theory and does not concern itself with the quantum/Planck level, and despite the overwhelming evidence for the BB, it is just a model of spacetime evolving, and as yet we do not know the why or the how.
So yes, beyond that we are allowed to speculate.
I was always of the speculative opinion that our BB was the arse end of a White Hole, or an outpouring from another spacetime/universe. And that BH Singularities, possibly lead via ERB's and wormholes to other outpourings in another newly created spacetime/universe, and which any intelligent species in that 'verse would see that outpouring as a BB scenario.
But of late, I'm very slowly embracing the idea of the Universe being literally from nothing...the ultimate free lunch.
here.......
http://fisica.ciencias.uchile.cl/~gonzalo/cursos/termo_II-04/seminarios/EJP_Stenger-bigbang_90.pdf
extract from page 5:
"So can we understand how the Universe could have started from nothing? First we must free ourselves from the instinct of looking for a causal explanation for everything. If we extrapolate back in time to the Planck time, tpL = S, the Universe was within the Planck radius, RpL = cm. We have seen that this was required to be a situation of maximum chaos. As such, it could not have been the result of any causal process; or if it was, all the memory of that causal process would have been wiped out and the situation would be indistinguishable from one that is purely spontaneous. So the Universe had to have begun as a random fluctuation at the Planck time. The alternative theory is that it was created with a grand design after the Planck time, but this is adhoc and can be ruled out by the law of parsimony: the supernatural creation of the Universe is a hypothesis not required by the data."

or even more simply described here.....
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/
 
https://lisapathfinder.org/
Click on "What's next", and the timeline for some interesting content.

Gravitational waves would be an amazing confirmation of General Relativity, and would cause me to change my view of reality, so I'm waiting for results. That will take a long time, but there is a major follow up mission in a few years to build on the technology being developed with LisaPathfinder.
 
paddoboy said:
Within the framework of GR and the BB, what Deacon has said is correct.
But we also know that as well supported as GR and the BB is, they each are limited in a sense that GR is purely a classical theory and does not concern itself with the quantum/Planck level, and despite the overwhelming evidence for the BB, it is just a model of spacetime evolving, and as yet we do not know the why or the how.
So yes, beyond that we are allowed to speculate.
I was always of the speculative opinion that our BB was the arse end of a White Hole, or an outpouring from another spacetime/universe. And that BH Singularities, possibly lead via ERB's and wormholes to other outpourings in another newly created spacetime/universe, and which any intelligent species in that 'verse would see that outpouring as a BB scenario.
But of late, I'm very slowly embracing the idea of the Universe being literally from nothing...the ultimate free lunch.
here.......
http://fisica.ciencias.uchile.cl/~gonzalo/cursos/termo_II-04/seminarios/EJP_Stenger-bigbang_90.pdf
extract from page 5:
"So can we understand how the Universe could have started from nothing? First we must free ourselves from the instinct of looking for a causal explanation for everything. If we extrapolate back in time to the Planck time, tpL = S, the Universe was within the Planck radius, RpL = cm. We have seen that this was required to be a situation of maximum chaos. As such, it could not have been the result of any causal process; or if it was, all the memory of that causal process would have been wiped out and the situation would be indistinguishable from one that is purely spontaneous. So the Universe had to have begun as a random fluctuation at the Planck time. The alternative theory is that it was created with a grand design after the Planck time, but this is adhoc and can be ruled out by the law of parsimony: the supernatural creation of the Universe is a hypothesis not required by the data."

or even more simply described here.....
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/
Click to expand...
I'm glad you weighed in with the "something from nothing" explanation. A free lunch sounds good, but can I get fries with that, or is it just a cold plate lunch :). No, really, according to the various views, there are three main explanations for the existence of the universe, "Something from nothing", "Always existed", or "God did it". If you have a quest for a personal view of cosmology, one of them has to be a part of it, I would say. Thanks for participating.
 
quantum_wave said:
https://lisapathfinder.org/
Click on "What's next", and the timeline for some interesting content.

Gravitational waves would be an amazing confirmation of General Relativity, and would cause me to change my view of reality, so I'm waiting for results. That will take a long time, but there is a major follow up mission in a few years to build on the technology being developed with LisaPathfinder.
Click to expand...
quantum_wave said:
I'm glad you weighed in with the "something from nothing" explanation. A free lunch sounds good, but can I get fries with that, or is it just a cold plate lunch :). No, really, according to the various views, there are three main explanations for the existence of the universe, "Something from nothing", "Always existed", or "God did it". If you have a quest for a personal view of cosmology, one of them has to be a part of it, I would say. Thanks for participating.
Click to expand...


No probs. Nothing wrong at all in speculating as long as the speculator is aware that is all he is doing, which seems to be the problem with some here.
And again cudos to you for posting in the correct section, another point some could learn from if they were not so ego inflated.
 
You can click on the link in post #5 to see the successful Lisa launch and mission updates.

Recap as my quest unfolds:

In regard to the three explanations for the existence of the universe, I invoke "Always existed", and I am of the opinion that it is also infinite spatially.

I personally invoke the Perfect Cosmological Principle, which states that the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic in space and time. In this view the universe looks the same everywhere (on the large scale), the same as it always has and always will (in my view, the would be the multiple big bang landscape of the greater universe).

I agree that the redshift tracks back to indicate a Big Bang event, as I think Daecon indicated he believes.
Daecon said:
...

The expansion of the Universe is an observed fact of reality.

Extrapolating backwards into the past, the Universe was much smaller then than it is now. A reasonable conclusion is that the Universe had a beginning, after which the expansion started.

Therefore, the notion that the Universe has always existed seems inaccurate.
Click to expand...

Daecon also indicated he believes in a beginning, but didn't specify if it was "Something from nothing" or not.

I believe there was a Big Bang, and that it had preconditions, and that the landscape of the greater universe is a multiple Big Bang landscape.

I implied that the search for gravitational waves, if successful, could cause me to change my view of reality, so in other words, I don't think that there are GR type ripples in spacetime, nor do I invoke spacetime, but instead, I invoke the "wave energy density in the medium of space" hypothesis.

Paddoboy invokes the classical BB event, and knows its limitations relative to the quantum realm. I agree that there is an active quantum realm just like there is an active Big Bang landscape across the greater universe. He also is slowly embracing the "Something from nothing" explanation for the existence of the universe, but interestingly mentioned that in the past he considered multiple universes, where in a parallel spacetime universe, our Big Bang would appear to be a black hole, the arse end of a white hole.

My question to Paddoboy would be: When you contemplated the multiverse in the form parallel universes that have a Big Bang "interface", would you then be thinking of the "Always existed" explanation for the greater universe in those speculations?
paddoboy said:
...
http://fisica.ciencias.uchile.cl/~gonzalo/cursos/termo_II-04/seminarios/EJP_Stenger-bigbang_90.pdf
extract from page 5:
"So can we understand how the Universe could have started from nothing? First we must free ourselves from the instinct of looking for a causal explanation for everything. If we extrapolate back in time to the Planck time, tpL = S, the Universe was within the Planck radius, RpL = cm. We have seen that this was required to be a situation of maximum chaos. As such, it could not have been the result of any causal process; or if it was, all the memory of that causal process would have been wiped out and the situation would be indistinguishable from one that is purely spontaneous. So the Universe had to have begun as a random fluctuation at the Planck time. The alternative theory is that it was created with a grand design after the Planck time, but this is adhoc and can be ruled out by the law of parsimony: the supernatural creation of the Universe is a hypothesis not required by the data."

or even more simply described here.....
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/
Click to expand...
Also, about the "Something from nothing", i.e. the Free Lunch link, Stenger doesn't really start from "nothingness". Instead, he invokes a zero sum timeless symmetry, and an unexplained symmetry breaking event, if I understand it. That particular form of "nothing" would then have always existed, kind of like an infinite never, lol, because time did not start until the "breaking" event occurred. Have I got that right, or not?

Also, does anyone want to weigh in on any of this? We still have a non-judgemental zone going.
 
Daecon said:
My favourite hypothesis is the Ekpyrotic model.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I'm quite familiar with it. Will be elaborating on its features relative to the current model and my Quest, but time does not permit today.
 
Ekpyrotic Universe
83de62238f1723d721d0d182694ea5e2_zpsp99j2fbf.jpg


I am posting the Wiki below because there are different versions of the Ekpyrotic model, the earlier one starting with branes, and then the more recent one being the Epyrotic Cyclic Universe model. If anyone wants to be more specific as to their preference, that would be welcome.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

1cee389d341bde9889adaad28348a8fb_zpsprszfh3a.jpg
 
Last edited:
river said:
Two forms of plasma come together ; interact; hence ; brane
Click to expand...
What's not to like :)? I have two big bangs coming together in my "quest for reality". Preconditions to our Big Bang, anyway, not something from nothing, right?
 
It is interesting to note that on this thread we have posts that encompass two of the three major explanations for the existence of the universe, i.e. "Always existed", and "Something from nothing". I would like to see someone chime in with the "Creation view", as in "God did it", to round out the set, lol. This is a non-judgemental zone.

Further, the "God did it" view is the true "something from nothing" in that the faith generally invokes the true nothingness before the creation. Every other "something from nothing" explanation has hidden in it "something", whether it be a potential for symmetry breaking, or empty space, or a vacuum, what have you, which are all "something". Only creation qualifies as truly something from nothing, and even at that, that view has the Creator existing before the creation, which in itself has to be Something. On that basis, I pretty much put the "something from noting" view as the lowest probability, followed by "God did it", and putting "always existed" at the top of my probabilities.
 
quantum_wave,

You will have to bare with me as I provide you with a theory that relates reality to mind whereas normally, scientific theories ignore the former of the two halves and pontificate only on the latter, the external, the observable, etc.;

From Common CTMU Objections and replies;

The universe is expanding.
  • Nothing that leads to logical inconsistency is "confirmed by evidence". Expansion leads to logical inconsistency analytically. To wit, if there were something outside reality that were sufficiently real to contain the "expansion" of reality, it would be contained in reality. That's a contradiction; ergo, the hypothesis is false.
  • The overall size of the universe is externally undefined and can only be defined intrinsically (as curvature), the sizes of objects change with respect to this curvature.
  • The cosmos can’t be expanding in any absolute sense, because there’s nothing for it to be expanding into. Therefore, we must invert the model in a way that “conserves spacetime”; the total “amount” of spacetime must remain constant. When we do so, the cosmos ceases to resemble a balloon inflating (extending outward) over time, and instead becomes an inward superposition of sequentially related states. The best way to think of it is in terms of a cumulative embedment of Venn diagrams (of state) on the inside surface of a sphere of extrinsically indeterminate size.
  • "Intrinsic expansion" is a contradiction in terms. If something is expanding, then it has to be expanding *with respect to* a fixed referent, and if it is, then it has to be extending into an external medium with respect to which the fixity of the referent has been established. On the other hand, saying that something is shrinking relative to that which contains it presents no such problem, for in that case, nothing is really "expanding". An inclusive relationship, like that whereby the universe includes its contents, can change intrinsically only if its total extent does not change; where its total extent is just that of the inclusive entity, this means that the extent of the *inclusive entity* cannot change. Ergo, no expansion; it's logically analytic. Reason in any other fashion, and the term "expansion" becomes meaningless.
Self-containment" is an oxymoron.
  • In short, the set-theoretic and cosmological embodiments of the self-inclusion paradox are resolved by properly relating the self-inclusive object to the descriptive syntax in terms of which it is necessarily expressed, thus effecting true self-containment: "the universe (set of all sets) is that which topologically contains that which descriptively contains the universe (set of all sets)."
Conspansive duality is false. Objects move through a background called "space".
  • If there were something outside reality that were real enough to topologically contain it, it would be intrinsic to reality (and therefore contained within it). We can make a similar statement regarding matter: if there were something outside matter that were material enough to contain it, it would to exactly that extent be intrinsic to matter. In order to accommodate matter, space must be potentially identical to it... must "share its syntax". In other words, matter doesn't "displace" space, but occupies it in perfect superposition...intersects with it. So space consists of material potential and is thus a "potential phase of matter". Denying this leads to a contradiction.
 
quantum_wave said:
It is interesting to note that on this thread we have posts that encompass two of the three major explanations for the existence of the universe, i.e. "Always existed", and "Something from nothing". I would like to see someone chime in with the "Creation view", as in "God did it", to round out the set, lol. This is a non-judgemental zone.

Further, the "God did it" view is the true "something from nothing" in that the faith generally invokes the true nothingness before the creation. Every other "something from nothing" explanation has hidden in it "something", whether it be a potential for symmetry breaking, or empty space, or a vacuum, what have you, which are all "something". Only creation qualifies as truly something from nothing, and even at that, that view has the Creator existing before the creation, which in itself has to be Something. On that basis, I pretty much put the "something from noting" view as the lowest probability, followed by "God did it", and putting "always existed" at the top of my probabilities.
Click to expand...

A self-creative universe = An Intelligent universe.
 
Mod Hat ― A link would be helpful

Can we get the reference link for #17↑ above, please? While the source title appears to be given, we would appreciate a bit more toward covering our bases in questions of citation and appearance of plagiarism.

Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top