Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[shunyadragon]

No, but it happens in the universe as a part of the universe, so there is that. So it has to be included as a part of the science about the universe as a part of the universe. At least, that is what I think being in the universe as a part of the universe.

I share this belief, but what I was referring to is your vague awkward use of skepticism on other issues avoiding science.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well, it is possible, even likely, that some version of quantum gravity needs to be invoked in that first fraction of a second. Since we don't have a tested theory of quantum gravity, anything from that is pure speculation.

As speculative as "The spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said Let there be light, and there was light."

One can at least see why the Vatican got excited by the BB theory, even without Georges Lemaitre's contribution.

 

[Polymath257]

Questioning it isn't dismissing it.

You defend it like christians defend a god.
Don't question the BB. Don't question a god.

Oh, I do question the BB model. But it is still the best we have right now.

Your questions always assume a POV that is not proven nor is it consistent with the BB model. Given how well the BB model fits the evidence, any questions should address its specific assumptions and conclusions.

You, like them, are blind to anything else.

Since our science breaks down at a point(humor me), then there is a "beyond" that point. We just can't get there yet.

Why do you think there is a 'beyond that point'?

 

[RestlessSoul]

If we take relativity at face value (which might be a good approximation of time space in most of its entirety), time does not flow, and therefore it makes no sense to use tensed verbs. Future, past and the flow of time would just be stubborn illusions of our psychology. But in fact nothing start to exist, nor ceases to exist.

for instance, your birth is not something that is no more, nor is your death something yet to be exist. They are all points existing on time space as we speak. And they will eternally be there. Or, better, they are there.

ciao

- viole

But the universe is dynamic, restless, ever shifting. Things move in time, and even if the movement isn't strictly linear, it is surely fluid; ergo, it flows. Unless our conscious experience of the world is illusory.

 

[Polymath257]

As speculative as "The spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said Let there be light, and there was light."

No, actually, far less speculative than that. At the very least, quantum gravity is based on what we currently know about quantum mechanics and gravity. The religious POV has no such backing.

One can at least see why the Vatican got excited by the BB theory, even without Georges Lemaitre's contribution.

And Lemaitre specifically chided the pope at the time about reading too much religious into the science.

 

[Polymath257]

But the universe is dynamic, restless, ever shifting. Things move in time, and even if the movement isn't strictly linear, it is surely fluid; ergo, it flows. Unless our conscious experience of the world is illusory.

Yes, I would say that our experience of a 'flow' of time is an illusion. That illusion is based on the fact that we can remember the past but not the future. and that is because (primarily) entropy increases into the future.

You are thinking of the universe as whatever exists at a particular time. Instead, think of it as ALL of space AND time. All of the dynamics is within the universe of spacetime.

From this perspective, any particular time is a 'slice' of the whole, sort of like a flip book. We remember slices in the past and not those in the future, which gives the illusion of a flow in time. But the book itself does not flow: it simply exists.

Another aspect is that different observers have different 'slices'. So, an observer moving past at 90% of the speed of light doesn't identify the same events as 'now' as we do. Their slice is somewhat askew to ours. and it can even be the case that there are two events, A and B, where we measure A happening before B, bu that moving observer measures B happening before A.

 

[Polymath257]

Misleading terminology whether standard or not. The beginning of our universe is open to many questions regardless.

Oh, absolutely. The whole 'Big Bang' terminology was invented by an opponent of the theory.

But that is how things often happen. Don't think that certain quarks are *actually* strange or charmed. That is playful terminology only.

 

[RestlessSoul]

No, actually, far less speculative than that. At the very least, quantum gravity is based on what we currently know about quantum mechanics and gravity. The religious POV has no such backing.


And Lemaitre specifically chided the pope at the time about reading too much religious into the science.

At least Genesis is elegant though. And complete.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, I would say that our experience of a 'flow' of time is an illusion. That illusion is based on the fact that we can remember the past but not the future. and that is because (primarily) entropy increases into the future.

You are thinking of the universe as whatever exists at a particular time. Instead, think of it as ALL of space AND time. All of the dynamics is within the universe of spacetime.

From this perspective, any particular time is a 'slice' of the whole, sort of like a flip book. We remember slices in the past and not those in the future, which gives the illusion of a flow in time. But the book itself does not flow: it simply exists.

Another aspect is that different observers have different 'slices'. So, an observer moving past at 90% of the speed of light doesn't identify the same events as 'now' as we do. Their slice is somewhat askew to ours. and it can even be the case that there are two events, A and B, where we measure A happening before B, bu that moving observer measures B happening before A.

Your a determinist though, right? At least, I recall you saying that you lean that way. So you think the future is already written?

As for the flip-book analogy, that illusion was created, for a purpose.

I understand there is no universal now, no privileged moment that is the same for all observers everywhere.

 

[viole]

But the universe is dynamic, restless, ever shifting. Things move in time, and even if the movement isn't strictly linear, it is surely fluid; ergo, it flows. Unless our conscious experience of the world is illusory.

Well, maybe not. That is why Einstein himself called it a very stubborn illusion. After all, if spacetime is a physical object, as it seems given its property to be bent, and if spacetime is the fabric of the Universe, then it is obvious that the Universe is timeless, And unchanging. And eternally so. For, how can dynamic make sense for spacetime, since it is not embedded in an external space and time context? How can spacetime possibly change if there is no external time that could measure that change?

a possible analogy is a movie. The movie seems to have a beginning and an end, hopefully happy. However, another way to look at a movie is to consider it a series of photograms, which translates in a roll. The roll is not dynamic. It is jus a set of photograms.

so, it could be that what seems dynamic, is nothing but a series of photograms, aka events, that are perceived to be dynamic only because of similar events in the brain. The rest is just an illusion. And as the movie goes from a preprogrammed photogram to the other, so is what we perceive as a change of state of the Universe.

incidentally, some seminal equations of quantum gravity, which extend Schrödinger equation to the Universe as a whole, seem to come to the same conclusion. If total energy of the universe is zero, as it seems, then the partial derivative with time vanishes, and the quantum state of the universe is therefore constant.

good entry point for the layman on the subject:

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=video&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwihsISE_Nb-AhXWhf0HHTX8AkEQtwJ6BAgIEAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D8Y-JmocB84Y&usg=AOvVaw0QgDZ0pch7Y5heoNW9t_Im

If you find the idea of time travel mind-bending, get a load of the 'block universe'

The block universe theory says the past, present and future all exist — and are equally real — in a four-dimensional block where the passing of time is an illusion.

www.abc.net.au

ciao

- viole

 

[Zwing]

There is also the 'possibility' of a multiverse.

Just so that I understand what the term "multiverse" means, is it that there is more than one universe, universes besides ours, currently existing within "space"? Or rather, is it that our universe has other "manifestations" or "versions" of it in "paralell dimensions"? I have never been sure what people mean by this term, and whether it reflects a scientific or an esoteric/"new age" thought process.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I share this belief, but what I was referring to is your vague awkward use of skepticism on other issues avoiding science.

Well, here is what I have learned. There are theories in science and then there are models in theoretical physics. Some aspects of a given model in the latter can be tested and becomes science. I am not skeptical of the former, but always ask if it is a theory or a model.
Some people don't seem to understand the difference between theory and model and treat theoretical physics like the rest of science.

 

[Polymath257]

At least Genesis is elegant though. And complete.

Elegance is in the eye of the beholder. I find it rather trite.

As for completeness, it is quite far from being so.

Your a determinist though, right? At least, I recall you saying that you lean that way. So you think the future is already written?

I'm not committed either way on determinism. if anything, I am inclined to think determinism is false because of quantum mechanics. But, at the macroscopic level, things are very close to being deterministic: the probability of serious deviance is very low.

As for the flip-book analogy, that illusion was created, for a purpose.

So? That seems rather irrelevant to the analogy.

I understand there is no universal now, no privileged moment that is the same for all observers everywhere.

Correct.

 

[Zwing]

At least Genesis is elegant though.

It is elegant and wonderful literature, a magnificent epic story…maybe the best of them. It is not, however an elegant epistemological resource.

 

[RestlessSoul]

It is elegant and wonderful literature, a magnificent epic story…maybe the best of them. It is not, however an elegant epistemological resource.

No, I wouldn't recommend it for it's epistemic value. But I do think poets and artists are among the true visionaries of this world. And The Bible is one of the world's great literary compendia.

 

[Zwing]

No, I wouldn't recommend it for its epistemic value.

Good, a lot of damage has been done to people through their use of the Bible thusly.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, I wouldn't recommend it for it's epistemic value. But I do think poets and artists are among the true visionaries of this world. And The Bible is one of the world's great literary compendia.

Well, I suck as poetry and art. I am too analytical and literal in a sense. But yeah, I sort of get it is there, but it is not my way of doing it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Good, a lot of damage has been done to people through the use of the Bible thusly.

Or the idea of objective rationality can understand everything. In a sense philosophy is the idea of if we just all could become rational, then we would be saved. Philosophy is in a sense as dangerous as religion. It shifts the idea of objective authority from God to the correct methodology. Both ideas are still with us.

 

[Zwing]

In a sense philosophy is the idea of if we just all could become rational, then we would be saved.

“Salvation” is not the goal of doing philosophy, nor is it the goal of most religions, including Judaism, which is responsible for most of the Christian Bible. It is only the goal within Christianity and those religions influenced by it. Another of Saul of Tarsus’ innovations, I assume.

Philosophy…shifts the idea of objective authority from God to the correct methodology.

On that note, better rationality and a naturalistic view than irrationality and unproven supernaturalism.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well, I suck as poetry and art. I am too analytical and literal in a sense. But yeah, I sort of get it is there, but it is not my way of doing it.

But you understand intuition though, right? That some things are felt rather than understood, and that deeper truths can sometimes be apprehended that way? I think that's one of the functions of poetry; to articulate things which cannot be explained, but which nevertheless have weight and meaning.