I'm pretty sure there's no god now

[Ben Dhyan]

Not so .. all 'physical laws' need qualifying ie. the conditions for the law to be true need to be given

Well, of course .. so parrallel universes could exist .. why not?


How do you expect me to answer that? The only thing that I can suggest is that this physical universe did not exist .. I can not tell you more other than the lack of a physical universe does not mean that 'there is nothing' .. ie. non-physical things can still exist

Fine....

Fine.....

Wait....I think we are getting somewhere....that non-physical 'background' from which the physical universe manifested is the real or absolute universe in which our observed physical 'universe' ( so called ) exists...(remember uni means one....there can only be one universe...so that will be the ultimate 'background' that contains all that exists....

Btw....your example earlier about thoughts not being physical things needs some qualifying.. Imo, thoughts involve neuron firing electro-chemical activity which makes them very physical....how do you understand them to be non physical... We need to find common ground as to what constitutes non physical...yes?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Fine....

Btw....your example earlier about thoughts not being physical things needs some qualifying.. Imo, thoughts involve neuron firing electro-chemical activity which makes them very physical....how do you understand them to be non physical... We need to find common ground as to what constitutes non physical...yes?

It can't be proved that the actual thought is 'neurons firing', but they might be .. it's about the concept of a thought .. you can't play me a sound or show me an image of a thought ie. it's not physical

Whatever produces a thought, it does not matter. The concept can exist outside of the physical universe .. much like numbers aren't physical quantities but they can be translated into a number of physical items which are .. yes?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It can't be proved that the actual thought is 'neurons firing', but they might be .. it's about the concept of a thought .. you can't play me a sound or show me an image of a thought ie. it's not physical

Whatever produces a thought, it does not matter. The concept can exist outside of the physical universe .. much like numbers aren't physical quantities but they can be translated into a number of physical items which are .. yes?

Ok...how about this then...there are no human thoughts without brain activity....and brain activity itself involves the physical universe...

So if we agree that thoughts are not of the physical universe....can we agree that we can have thoughts that represent some physical reality.....car, dog, tree, energy, etc......and we can have thoughts that are meant to represent some non-physical reality...angel, spirit, God, etc..

Moving on....

Now thoughts only serve as a symbol for something else....so no thought of God is actually God.... It is said that God is eternal, infinite, omnipresent, etc..but God is not the aggregate of the the meaning of those thoughts.....though conceptually it may be a fair representation of the reality it is meant to represent...so how does one realize the actual reality the thoughts of God are meant to represent?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Ok...how about this then...there are no human thoughts without brain activity....and brain activity itself involves the physical universe...

I've already said, maybe, maybe not .. the concepts have meaning without any physical universe.
Mathematics being a good example..

Now thoughts only serve as a symbol for something else....so no thought of God is actually God.... It is said that God is eternal, infinite, omnipresent, etc..but God is not the aggregate of the the meaning of those thoughts.....though conceptually it may be a fair representation of the reality it is meant to represent...so how does one realize the actual reality the thoughts of God are meant to represent?

sorry, you lost me .. I don't know what you are trying to discover.
The topic of whether the physical universe is eternal or not is primarily one about the nature of time. Many people are actually making 'time' their god ie. they see it as infinite/eternal

 

[MARCELLO]

What gives a cell life is still unknown. So how come there cannot be a God???? I am not meaning religion and its rituals.

God gives life but on the other hand He takes it away. That's why He's so interesting.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I've already said, maybe, maybe not .. the concepts have meaning without any physical universe.
Mathematics being a good example..



sorry, you lost me .. I don't know what you are trying to discover.
The topic of whether the physical universe is eternal or not is primarily one about the nature of time. Many people are actually making 'time' their god ie. they see it as infinite/eternal

The thread topic is actually about whether there is God...but this subtopic did start out on the eternal or not nature of the universe..I am try to bring it all into one...

Where I lost you was presumably due to the fact that you have never contemplated the nature of thought....thought is not real in the way that the reality represented by thoughts are real... A tree is real...the thought about it is a mental construct to represent it....it is not real (except as a thought)....most people in the world are so involved in interpreting reality conceptually instead of dealing with it without thought..directly. ..they are unaware they are living in a virtual reality.. If you have never considered this fact....and you want to understand the actual universe...you need to cease thinking about it and apprehend it with a mind free from thought...only then will the awesome reality be revealed in all its glory.. Scriptural writings, including the Koran are only a means to an end....the end is on the other side of the written word...not in it... How to get to the other side is the the art of religious practice...the understanding of one's mind and the transcending of the errors of using thought about truth as a substitute for truth.. Enough about that....if you are interested to pursue this further please do....but now moving on to time...

Time is only a mental construct to represent a measurement in relative change in position of objects in a spacial context...Eternity itself is not time...it is a concept to represent the presence of reality that has no beginning and no ending...it is always now....to an observer, it is an infinity of now moments The concept of time is an abstraction of 'eternity' to delimit its infinite nature to create finite segments that can be measured....but these measurement are conceptual constructs and are not real except as thoughts...

Have i lost you?

 

[muhammad_isa]

.. Scriptural writings, including the Koran are only a means to an end....the end is on the other side of the written word...not in it... How to get to the other side is the the art of religious practice...

Absolutely

Time is only a mental construct to represent a measurement in relative change in position of objects in a spacial context...Eternity itself is not time...it is a concept to represent the presence of reality that has no beginning and no ending...it is always now....to an observer, it is an infinity of now moments The concept of time is an abstraction of 'eternity' to delimit its infinite nature to create finite segments that can be measured....but these measurement are conceptual constructs and are not real except as thoughts...

It's getting deep, but I just about follow you.
I agree that eternity is not 'time' .. as Einstein is reported to have said "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very convincing one"
Eternity is BEYOND time

.it seems to me as if we are all part of something .. something conceptual that never ends, as opposed to this physical world and lives which eventually must.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Absolutely



It's getting deep, but I just about follow you.
I agree that eternity is not 'time' .. as Einstein is reported to have said "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very convincing one"
Eternity is BEYOND time

.it seems to me as if we are all part of something .. something conceptual that never ends, as opposed to this physical world and lives which eventually must.

Yes..that's it....now, if I be so bold as to make the suggestion...all that is required is an efficacious religious practice to realize 'that' on the other side of the conceptual teaching about and of God.... One such practice I suggest is still mind meditation...the cessation of thought.....it will help develop the non-verbal intuitive faculty of mind whereby 'reality' is not interpreted by the thinking mind....there is only what is.... undivided into parts....

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Also if matter and energy can be created and destroyed...as evidenced by this big bang singularity.....then it follows logically that there is nothing to prevent infinite numbers of these physical universes be created every moment for eternity....yes?

*Sigh* I know I've mentioned this plenty of times before, though I guess I've never mentioned it to you.

Anyway, the Big Bang doesn't indicate a creation of energy. The Big Bang simply describes the early universe as extremely dense and hot, so spacetime was curved in on it self.

Another example of this is a black hole. A black hole has a singularity, and spacetime basically ends at the singularity. But black holes don't destroy energy. Clearly they don't since they have gravity, and you need mass and/or energy to have gravity. You need mass and/or energy to infinity curve spacetime to form a singularity. A singularity is never an indication of a lack of energy. Quite the opposite.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

*Sigh* I know I've mentioned this plenty of times before, though I guess I've never mentioned it to you.

Anyway, the Big Bang doesn't indicate a creation of energy. The Big Bang simply describes the early universe as extremely dense and hot, so spacetime was curved in on it self.

Another example of this is a black hole. A black hole has a singularity, and spacetime basically ends at the singularity. But black holes don't destroy energy. Clearly they don't since they have gravity, and you need mass and/or energy to have gravity. You need mass and/or energy to infinity curve spacetime to form a singularity. A singularity is never an indication of a lack of energy. Quite the opposite.

It depends on which version of the big bang theory you listen to.....so what causes the singularity to start expanding in your model?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

It depends on which version of the big bang theory you listen to.....so what causes the singularity to start expanding in your model?

What formally taught version of the big bang describes energy as being created? Post a citation.

There's nothing that I know of that explains the expansion. We just know that it happens.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What formally taught version of the big bang describes energy as being created? Post a citation.

There's nothing that I know of that explains the expansion. We just know that it happens.

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. - See more at: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/#sthash.Uosb9uFA.dpuf

What do you think of that.....the singularity itself sprang into existence, expansion followed?

...or as your version of a pre-existing singularity....was the singularity always existing...iow it did not have a beginning?

And further to your version of a pre-existing singularity...the cause is the same as the spontaneous springing into existence model...no one knows....yes?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. - See more at: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/#sthash.Uosb9uFA.dpuf

What do you think of that.....the singularity itself sprang into existence, expansion followed?

It seems to be a valid site, but in the end, the evidence for the big bang strictly shows an early universe as extremely dense and hot, and as a singularity. Anything else is an assumption. As for why it had this state is unknown.

...or as your version of a pre-existing singularity....was the singularity always existing...iow it did not have a beginning?

And further to your version of a pre-existing singularity...the cause is the same as the spontaneous springing into existence model...no one knows....yes?

Like I said, whether we choose to think it always existed as a singularity, or whether nothing existed, or whether it became a singularity prior to being in a different state, is all conjecture. Not knowing whether it's any of those three things (or something else) isn't a violation to energy conservation, since nothing is confirmed.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It seems to be a valid site, but in the end, the evidence for the big bang strictly shows an early universe as extremely dense and hot, and as a singularity. Anything else is an assumption. As for why it had this state is unknown.

Like I said, whether we choose to think it always existed as a singularity, or whether nothing existed, or whether it became a singularity prior to being in a different state, is all conjecture. Not knowing whether it's any of those three things (or something else) isn't a violation to energy conservation, since nothing is confirmed.

Not knowing is not a violation of anything...humility is a good quality...but the positive proposition that it came from nothing certainly is, regardless of whatever miracle is suggested to explain it.. Now the only proposition that does not violate it is that the universe in some form or another is eternal, and that has been my position always..and apparently is yours..

Btw, since you seem to be familiar with big bang theory, I would like to know something that you may to help me understand, if I may.....it concerns the form of the expansion of the universe as seen from our point in space... To the question of where the centre of the universe is...the point of the singularity....I read that it is everywhere you can look in space...beyond the CMBR leftover from the big bang expansion 13.7 billion years ago... Is that a fair description?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Not knowing is not a violation of anything...humility is a good quality...but the positive proposition that it came from nothing certainly is, regardless of whatever miracle is suggested to explain it.. Now the only proposition that does not violate it is that the universe in some form or another is eternal, and that has been my position always..and apparently is yours..

Another way to reconcile energy conservation and the big bang is, the laws of physics possibly began at the big bang. Before that, there were no laws to break, including energy conservation laws.

Btw, since you seem to be familiar with big bang theory, I would like to know something that you may to help me understand, if I may.....it concerns the form of the expansion of the universe as seen from our point in space... To the question of where the centre of the universe is...the point of the singularity....I read that it is everywhere you can look in space...beyond the CMBR leftover from the big bang expansion 13.7 billion years ago... Is that a fair description?

I'm not sure what you mean by "beyond the cosmic background radiation", but no, the Universe doesn't have a center, and yes, the Big Bang, and hence, the singularity, was everywhere. Space it self is what expanded and is continuing to expand.

Also, another thing. This is purely conjecture, but we talked about zero-point energy before. I think one way to understand zero-point energy is it's the energy of empty space. Meaning if there was a way to use it (which I still think is impossible to do reliably), you would literally use up space in the universe and the universe would slightly shrink. Because zero-point energy is the energy of space. So as zero-point energy is used, the space in the universe would decrease and be converted to matter. So space would shrink and matter in the universe would increase. You do this indefinitely and the expansion of the universe would reverse and fall back into a singularity.

Even though zero-point energy can't be harnessed reliably, quantum fluctuations do happen. They're purely probabilistic in nature. So if an immense amount of time passes in this universe, there might be a quantum fluctuation that happens that resets the universe back to a singularity. Maybe a quantum fluctuation is also what started the expansion.

Again though, purely conjecture.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Another way to reconcile energy conservation and the big bang is, the laws of physics possibly began at the big bang. Before that, there were no laws to break, including energy conservation laws.



I'm not sure what you mean by "beyond the cosmic background radiation", but no, the Universe doesn't have a center, and yes, the Big Bang, and hence, the singularity, was everywhere. Space it self is what expanded and is continuing to expand.

Also, another thing. This is purely conjecture, but we talked about zero-point energy before. I think one way to understand zero-point energy is it's the energy of empty space. Meaning if there was a way to use it (which I still think is impossible to do reliably), you would literally use up space in the universe and the universe would slightly shrink. Because zero-point energy is the energy of space. So as zero-point energy is used, the space in the universe would decrease and be converted to matter. So space would shrink and matter in the universe would increase. You do this indefinitely and the expansion of the universe would reverse and fall back into a singularity.

Even though zero-point energy can't be harnessed reliably, quantum fluctuations do happen. They're purely probabilistic in nature. So if an immense amount of time passes in this universe, there might be a quantum fluctuation that happens that resets the universe back to a singularity. Maybe a quantum fluctuation is also what started the expansion.

Again though, purely conjecture.

Ok...the CMBR is the leftover radiation glow from the big bang about 13.7 billion years ago....and the centre of the universe is everywhere we look in space..

So what happens when our telescopes see the earliest galaxies that first formed....say like this one at 13.2 billion light years away....how come it is seen at one point in space just like a nearby galaxy and not sort of all over the sky? http://gizmodo.com/this-is-the-oldest-galaxy-weve-found-so-far-1729038001

What shape is the universe as seen from our point in time and space?

What shape is the universe as seen from the point of the singularity at its present point in time and space?

I am most interested in discussing further zpe, but first I would like to clear up some more of these more fundamental questions about big bang theory...if you don't mind?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Ok...the CMBR is the leftover radiation glow from the big bang about 13.7 billion years ago....and the centre of the universe is everywhere we look in space..

So what happens when our telescopes see the earliest galaxies that first formed....say like this one at 13.2 billion light years away....how come it is seen at one point in space just like a nearby galaxy and not sort of all over the sky? http://gizmodo.com/this-is-the-oldest-galaxy-weve-found-so-far-1729038001

Well for one, the article says it's 500 million years younger than the universe, so the universe was already expanded significantly when it was 500 million years old. Second, galaxies do in fact occupy a specific position in space. So we still have to look in a specific direction to find it.

The singularity was space it self but infinitesimally small. But it it was always everywhere. It's why we see space everywhere we look. It's not like we look in one direction and see space and in another, we don't.

What shape is the universe as seen from our point in time and space?

Possibly a hypersphere.

http://www.math.brown.edu/~banchoff/STG/ma8/papers/leckstein/Cosmo/sphere.html

What shape is the universe as seen from the point of the singularity at its present point in time and space?

The singularity was everywhere, or rather, everywhere was the singularity. The universe it self was a singularity. I don't know how else to answer that question.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well for one, the article says it's 500 million years younger than the universe, so the universe was already expanded significantly when it was 500 million years old. Second, galaxies do in fact occupy a specific position in space. So we still have to look in a specific direction to find it.

The singularity was space it self but infinitesimally small. But it it was always everywhere. It's why we see space everywhere we look. It's not like we look in one direction and see space and in another, we don't.



Possibly a hypersphere.

http://www.math.brown.edu/~banchoff/STG/ma8/papers/leckstein/Cosmo/sphere.html


The singularity was everywhere, or rather, everywhere was the singularity. The universe it self was a singularity. I don't know how else to answer that question.

You asked me before what I meant by beyond CMBR....I mean the place that emitted the CMBR is now supposedly over 45 billion light years away... So clearly there will never be any optical proof of the early expansion of the singularity...But getting back to the earliest galaxies optically seen at 13.2 billion light years away in that image...I get it....they exist between us and CMBR.....and since the CMBR is every direction of space...therefore there should be galaxies, albeit sparsely populated, at about the same distance (13.2 Bly) between us and the whole sky.... Do you get it?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

I mean the place that emitted the CMBR is now supposedly over 45 billion light years away... So clearly there will never be any optical proof of the early expansion of the singularity

This is false. The entire universe emitted the CMBR in every direction. So we suspect to find it everywhere. As explained before, the early universe was extremely dense and hot. The CMBR is the leftover heat. They weren't even microwaves at the time. They were gamma rays.

...But getting back to the earliest galaxies optically seen at 13.2 billion light years away in that image...I get it....they exist between us and CMBR.....and since the CMBR is every direction of space...therefore there should be galaxies, albeit sparsely populated, at about the same distance (13.2 Bly) between us and the whole sky.... Do you get it?

I think the word "background" in CMBR might be confusing you. The CMBR isn't just in the background. It's everywhere. You're touching it right now, as am I.

Remember, the CMBR is light. You can't see light until it hits your eyes. So if we're able to see any CMBR right now from every direction, it can only mean it's everywhere. Galaxies don't exist between us and the CMBR. Rather, galaxies exist between us and the CMBR's origin point. If you see light from a galaxy, that light is hitting your eyes. So the light it self at that moment isn't billions of light years away, but that's how far it traveled. If you see CMBR, that means CMBR is hitting your eyes. It's not 13+ billions of light years away, but that's how far it traveled before hitting your eyes.

When you see CMBR, you're seeing where it WAS, not where it is. Where it IS is in your eyes, which is why you see it.

 

[viole]

OK, thanks for explaining..



Well, it only makes sense relative to this physical universe .. we are able to measure time as a quantity, which as you rightly say, is in terms of space ie. motion
It DOES make sense to say that the universe has a beginning .. relative to the universe, of course ..

You see space-time continuum as eternal .. there is no evidence to show this..
You could liken it to 'one big dream', if you wish .. it's very real, but not necessarily permanent!
Much like life, really .. we all have to die.

Evidence? it is a question of definition. By definition, it cannot change.

Can you imagine spacetime evolving or changing in any way? At what rate is it changing? What clocks do you use to measure its rate of change?

And if it is not changing, do you think it began at once in the unchanging form it has? A huge 4 dimensional surface with all events on it poofed into existence and then eternal stasis?

If you think there was a moment in time when the Universe began, then there should be a place where it began. Where did it begin? Can you pinpoint a place in space where the universe started?

If not. Why not, in your opinion?

Ciao

- viole