Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Polymath257]

I keep trying to convey to you that my mind is not dualistic in the sense yours' is, when the mind is free from thought, there is only reality itself present.

And if reality is finite?

 

[wellwisher]

To convey a subjective experience to another, one needs to use concepts, the concepts are not real, except as concepts, that is why I explained to you earlier that unless the other person has had the same or similar experience, they can not possibly apprehend that which was conveyed.

A good example is exploring the unconscious mind or having a dream. Since both are all internal, and not from the outside, these experiences are not easy to transfer by language, alone, since it is more data than just the words. One can empathize with the pieces of the puzzle, but may not be able assemble it, properly.

As an example, say you had a toothache. This common human experience would not be easy to transfer to someone who never had a toothache. They can understand pain from stubbing their toe, but there is also the internal fear, confusion and the tendency for the brain to fixate consciousness on the tooth pain. A toothache would make it hard to do your job, with this level of distraction. The person who has this direct experience; first person, has unique data from the inside, needed to plot the whole curve. There are internal cues that would require previous experience, to begin to fully grasp. Language may not be able to transfer this to a newbie.

Beyond this extra unique internal data, spoken and written language is not objective, but is based on a subjective foundation. There is no cause and affect between the sounds, symbols and targets of language. This is evident by the world having 7100 known languages; language is arbitrary and did come to a natural focus. There is no natural cause and affect between sounds and language attributes. If we called cat "meow" this gets close to cause and affect due to the natural association of the sound and the sight. But nobody uses that word; meow as the word for cat. Language allows us to write fiction and not just fact.

There will always be a base level of fuzzy dice, when transferring data by any written to spoken language. Beyond that, each word often has more one definition, with not everyone thinking the same definition, when some words are spoken. For example, if you hear the word trans, now it means a connection to gender. A few years ago, before this fad, it used to mean connected to transportation; Trans World Airlines or mass transit.

If you do not fixate on social media or watch TV, you may not know the new meaning in vogue. Or, if you never heard of Trans World Airlines, you may think this was a gender sensitive airline. Confusion can appears based on definition at the top of your mind; subliminal. There is nothing like direct evidence, beyond spoken language. In the tooth ache example, if you agreed to have your tooth drilled, to induce a toothache, you can generate the internal data need to create a meeting of the minds, all without words getting in the way. If not, you may hit the target, but never the bull's eye.

Subjective experience also has a fuzzy dice problem. Like fuzzy dice, the person who experiences from the inside, will have all the data; can become objective to being subjective. But from the outside, subjective fuzzy dice covers a range of possible experiences for each person, with uncertainty still in play, even with the best language explanation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you referring to the link with the number series? If so, numbers are abstractions, they are symbols as like the one for infinity, but they are not real things to be found in the universe. Infinity means no limits.

Numbers are a tool that we use. They are the only place where infinity definitely exists. It is also where terms like infinity are defined. There are many bounded infinities. You might call them "limits". You unfortunately use very very poor sources. Dictionaries give you general definitions. If you want a proper one for a complex thought you go to experts in the area. The experts in math disagree with your improper definition of infinity.

 

[We Never Know]

Haha, it means there are an infinite number of whole numbers, not that whole numbers are infinite. . There is no limitation to infinity.

SZ says "I gave you an example. I used a better source than you did and it showed a "limited infinity." See Post # 1,384

From that link.....

"Infinity ...

... it's not big ...

... it's not huge ...

... it's not tremendously large ...

... it's not extremely humongously enormous ...

... it's ... ENDLESS!

Infinity has no end

Infinity is the idea of something that has no end.

In our world we don't have anything like it. So we imagine traveling on and on, trying hard to get there, but that is not actually infinity.

So don't think like that (it just hurts your brain!). Just think "endless", or "boundless".

If there is no reason something should stop, then it is infinite.

Infinity does not grow

Infinity is not "getting larger", it is already fully formed.

Sometimes people (including me) say it "goes on and on" which sounds like it is growing somehow. But infinity does not do anything, it just is.

Infinity is not a real number...

Infinity is not a real number, it is an idea. An idea of something without an end.

Infinity cannot be measured.

Even those faraway galaxies can't compete with infinity.

Infinity is Simple

Yes! It is actually simpler than things which do have an end. Because when something has an end, we have to define where that end is."

What is Infinity?

www.mathsisfun.com

 

[Mock Turtle]

I agree with you. This is why faith and an open mind is important in all things. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy in science. We may indeed find life in the future, just as we may indeed find proof of God in the future, once the technology evolves. But to dismiss one version of faith, but not all versions, is not rational. It is a form of a religious war; my faith based god is bigger and tells me to terminate yours. This is what religious wars do; battle of faiths.

Statistics makes science less rational and more like a religion of faith; gods within a math oracle. There is a 50% chance of rain. What does that actually mean since it allows a wide range of possible options to happen with no accountability. Somehow this god is allowed to bridge the gap between faith and seeing, with fuzzy dice, but no other God is allowed to do this. We need to redefine religion to include all faith based conclusions, including emotional thinking and math oracles. Many are now allowed to sail under the radar, while others are attacked.

I can accept faith, in any form, since all use the same advanced parts of the brain, but each may use a different way to enter this source. It is all good. But science does not see its own hypocrisy. Atheism may have caused this problem, since it is a mirror religion, that has hijacked science, as though it invented science and not just a virus that took over the cell.

I will continue to point this out, until we have an updated universal standard for faith; brain scam commonality, so all faith can be accepted, and not just some allowed. It sort of like the soccer rule bureaucracy deciding you can now onlykick with one leg and not the other. It is OK to kick left but not right, even if both are legs. Casino math adds the irrationality of politics, so only the left legs are kosher. Science need to up its game away from whim of the gods.

If weather says there is 50% chance of rain this is left to whim of the gods and no human is ever held accountable if rain occurs or not. A rational world has a higher standard and expects better correlations you can bank on. Lottery religions have plenty of false hope. A 50% chance of rain is able to be, appear to overlap, anything you can wish. It is not definitive.

Well, if many are like myself, they will not tie atheism (or even agnosticism) and science together so tightly, and they might have come to their conclusions more on other aspects as to why they don't have such beliefs. But one has to be looking in the wrong direction not to see what science has given to humans, even if we often don't make the best use of any discoveries.

 

[We Never Know]

Numbers are a tool that we use. They are the only place where infinity definitely exists. It is also where terms like infinity are defined. There are many bounded infinities. You might call them "limits". You unfortunately use very very poor sources. Dictionaries give you general definitions. If you want a proper one for a complex thought you go to experts in the area. The experts in math disagree with your improper definition of infinity.

Depends on how its looked at....

"Although the concept of infinity has a mathematical basis, we have yet to perform an experiment that yields an infinite result. Even in maths, the idea that something could have no limit is paradoxical. For example, there is no largest counting number nor is there a biggest odd or even number."

Explanimator: Does infinity exist in the real world?

Our latest big ideas animation delves into the concept of infinity and whether it can be applied to physical reality

www.newscientist.com

 

[Polymath257]

Depends on how its looked at....

"Although the concept of infinity has a mathematical basis, we have yet to perform an experiment that yields an infinite result. Even in maths, the idea that something could have no limit is paradoxical. For example, there is no largest counting number nor is there a biggest odd or even number."

First, the claim is not true. For example, the specific heat of a material goes to infinity when it is freezing or boiling. That is an observed thing.

Of course, it is more typical to simply say that the temperature change is zero even when heat is added during these times, but the specific heat does, in fact, go infinite.

Why would it be considered paradoxical for there to be no largest whole number, even number, or odd number? These all seem very straightforward facts.

Slightly less straightforward is that there are 'just as many' (in a technical sense) odd numbers as there are whole numbers. Again, initially paradoxical, but actually only a difference between infinite sets and finite ones.

Even less straightforward, but still fairly easy to prove, there are *more* real numbers (decimals) than there are whole numbers.

This has all been known for the last 150 years or so. Inside of math, it is commonplace and not considered to be paradoxical at all.

 

[We Never Know]

First, the claim is not true. For example, the specific heat of a material goes to infinity when it is freezing or boiling. That is an observed thing.

Of course, it is more typical to simply say that the temperature change is zero even when heat is added during these times, but the specific heat does, in fact, go infinite.

Why would it be considered paradoxical for there to be no largest whole number, even number, or odd number? These all seem very straightforward facts.

Slightly less straightforward is that there are 'just as many' (in a technical sense) odd numbers as there are whole numbers. Again, initially paradoxical, but actually only a difference between infinite sets and finite ones.

Even less straightforward, but still fairly easy to prove, there are *more* real numbers (decimals) than there are whole numbers.

This has all been known for the last 150 years or so. Inside of math, it is commonplace and not considered to be paradoxical at all.

You should contact them and tell them they are wrong and straighten them out.

Contact us | New Scientist

www.newscientist.com

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you do not understand that the real can't be created from the unreal, existence from non-existence, something from nothing, then your sense of logic is off imho.

You clearly did not understand the argument made. You made the error it described anyway. What did I write about existence from non-existence? Did you read it? Did you understand it? It appears not from your comment. I presented two counterintuitive possibilities with an argument that one and only one must be correct.

time is eternal without a beginning,

And that is one of them, the other being existence from non-existence. You have chosen one and rejected the other without argument better than an incredulity fallacy. One seems impossible to you but not the other for reasons you don't give, and that is the end of your analysis. You've also begun insulting other posters for not being as simplistic in their thinking. You're on shaky ground there.

the universe otoh is like a container of all temporal manifestations, it is beyond time as it has no beginning

Not because you say so. Also, you still haven't clarified what you mean by universe. You muddied the waters a few pages back by suggesting that you use the term to represent all that exists. That's no longer called the universe unless you also believe that only our expanding bubble exists. So one can only guess what you mean.

So make up your mind, which is the more likely reality, there is an eternal nothing, or there is eternal existence?

Likely is irrelevant and can't be judged, and the question isn't answerable despite your having already chosen one.

So it is obvious our different respective understanding on whether existence can be created from non-existence is the cause of our disagreement.

Obvious? You're wrong. That is not the source of our disagreement. The source of our disagreement is your inability or unwillingness to consider two counterintuitive ideas at once. You look at one, reject it, and you're done.

My position is that no, existence can not come from non-existence, and I present as objective evidence the reality of a universe that exists

That evidence doesn't make your case. You have no evidence that it always existed.

Except time did not begin with the BB, Stephen Hawking and myself say so! And fyi, eternal means without beginning or end, and you think time had a beginning, great schooling you had.

You don't want to go there.

Have you been drinking?

Nor there. Your position and your thinking are not as strong as you think.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Being without beginning or end, does not necessarily imply being infinite. Journey out across the surface of a sphere, and you may continue in the same direction for eternity, but the sphere still has measurable dimensions, and is therefore not infinite, in size or scope. If it is possible for space to be both finite and unboundaried, then it is equally possible for time to be so.

The universe is not the surface of a sphere, it is infinite space without a surface.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Most humans have never tried to imagine four dimensions, let alone curved four dimensions.

I understand that the concept of time with a beginning but that does not 'come from' at all is a difficult one. You automatically want to extent time to 'before'.

But that is no different than wanting to extend 'latitude' to 'more south'. This is possible for most points, but not for all. The south pole does not 'come from' anything further south.

There was no before because there was no beginning.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Then you need to stretch your mind a bit. You are entrapped in your intuition to such an extent that you cannot imagine anything else.

It is possible that space is finite in extent and yet has no boundaries. It is possible that time is finite, has a start, but does not 'come from'.

These are logical possibilities that you reject without seeming to understand them.

I don't do 'imagination', my life is about 'realization', and there is no nothing and no before, just continual eternal existence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And if reality is finite?

Finite reality applies to the things science studies, except dark energy which is infinite and eternal.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Numbers are a tool that we use. They are the only place where infinity definitely exists. It is also where terms like infinity are defined. There are many bounded infinities. You might call them "limits". You unfortunately use very very poor sources. Dictionaries give you general definitions. If you want a proper one for a complex thought you go to experts in the area. The experts in math disagree with your improper definition of infinity.

Numbers are just abstract creations to represent quantity or place, etc., they are no more a place where infinity exists than the verbal expression 'infinity'. You need to understand that conceptual reality is not the reality it is meant to represent. If I say apple, the word apple is not an apple. How to realize that which concepts are meant to represent is the purpose of still mind meditation.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

From that link.....

"Infinity ...

... it's not big ...

... it's not huge ...

... it's not tremendously large ...

... it's not extremely humongously enormous ...

... it's ... ENDLESS!

Infinity has no end

Infinity is the idea of something that has no end.

In our world we don't have anything like it. So we imagine traveling on and on, trying hard to get there, but that is not actually infinity.

So don't think like that (it just hurts your brain!). Just think "endless", or "boundless".

If there is no reason something should stop, then it is infinite.

Infinity does not grow

Infinity is not "getting larger", it is already fully formed.

Sometimes people (including me) say it "goes on and on" which sounds like it is growing somehow. But infinity does not do anything, it just is.

Infinity is not a real number...

Infinity is not a real number, it is an idea. An idea of something without an end.

Infinity cannot be measured.

Even those faraway galaxies can't compete with infinity.

Infinity is Simple

Yes! It is actually simpler than things which do have an end. Because when something has an end, we have to define where that end is."

What is Infinity?

www.mathsisfun.com

Thank you, so we agree, infinity is infinite.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You clearly did not understand the argument made. You made the error it described anyway. What did I write about existence from non-existence? Did you read it? Did you understand it? It appears not from your comment. I presented two counterintuitive possibilities with an argument that one and only one must be correct.

And that is one of them, the other being existence from non-existence. You have chosen one and rejected the other without argument better than an incredulity fallacy. One seems impossible to you but not the other for reasons you don't give, and that is the end of your analysis. You've also begun insulting other posters for not being as simplistic in their thinking. You're on shaky ground there.

Not because you say so. Also, you still haven't clarified what you mean by universe. You muddied the waters a few pages back by suggesting that you use the term to represent all that exists. That's no longer called the universe unless you also believe that only our expanding bubble exists. So one can only guess what you mean.

Likely is irrelevant and can't be judged, and the question isn't answerable despite your having already chosen one.

Obvious? You're wrong. That is not the source of our disagreement. The source of our disagreement is your inability or unwillingness to consider two counterintuitive ideas at once. You look at one, reject it, and you're done.

That evidence doesn't make your case. You have no evidence that it always existed.

You don't want to go there.

Nor there. Your position and your thinking are not as strong as you think.

The Latin prefix 'uni' means one, ergo the concept 'universe' means the one that is all. Since there is no nothing, logically the underlying omnipresent dark energy of the universe is infinite, only the universal manifestation that science can detect and study is finite.

If you want to realize the true nature of the universe, it will be necessary to go beyond your conceptual mind. This is difficult because the thinker 'I', will resist the goal of a tranquil mind, free from thought. Much discipline and practice is required to transcend the conceptual mind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Numbers are just abstract creations to represent quantity or place, etc., they are no more a place where infinity exists than the verbal expression 'infinity'. You need to understand that conceptual reality is not the reality it is meant to represent. If I say apple, the word apple is not an apple. How to realize that which concepts are meant to represent is the purpose of still mind meditation.

Then why do you constantly abuse the term "infinite"? You keep refuting yourself with your own posts.

 

[gnostic]

If a scientist claims, or anyone for that matter claims that absolute non-existence is possible, and that because there is no time when there is nothing, nothing can be said about how or why it created existence, do you believe it?

So Hawking is a scientist whose position is that time is eternal, that is all. He is not saying that time had a beginning like Polymath who believes in the state of absolute nothing, that somehow created existence through a BB, and that you are not allowed to ask how or why it happened because the absolute nothing that may have had the answer had no time and in any event no longer exists.

Wow! You really do like obsessing over the WRONG THINGS, Ben.

All you want to do is focus on the Universe being "eternal".

That's not what the BB cosmology about, Ben. It as nothing to do with eternal vs finite, and it has nothing to do with nothing creating something.

These are not what the BB models are about.

As I have told you in my last reply, the Big Bang models only focused on the origin and evolution of the Observable Universe.

Everything that already in the universe at present, from large structures (eg molecular clouds of gases, galaxies, stars, planets, etc) to the particles that make up atoms themselves (nucleus with protons & neutrons, plus electrons), to even smaller elementary particles (from the Standard Model, eg quarks, leptons, gauge bosons & the recent discovered Higgs), and their interactions with fundamental forces. To all the fields and energy that are also tied to the Standard Model (particle physics). Then there are more exotic particles and energy such as Dark Matter that keep galaxies and Dark Energy that drive the expansion of the Universe, counteracting the attractive forces of gravity. The BB model also explained the earliest formations of earliest stars and galaxies.

So the Big Bang models are attempts to understand what these energies, forces, fields, particles & matters are and how they form from the earliest periods, starting with the Planck Epoch, when the universe as a singularity of plasma (the hot primordial plasma soup) that was infinitely hot and dense, and when all four fundamental forces (gravitation, EM, weak nuclear & strong nuclear forces) were unified into single force at this temperature.

The expansion of the universe resulted in, the cooling of the universe, the cooling that separations of the each force to separate from the unified form, as well as cool enough that elementary particles can become discrete particles from the primordial plasma. Eventually it was cool enough for quarks to form into hadron particles - the protons & neutrons, during the Hadron Epoch. This led to the formation of the earliest and lightest atoms - hydrogen, deuterium, helium & lithium - during the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. But these atoms were still ionized - the universe still exist as plasma, and the plasma was still hot enough that electrons won’t be bound to the atoms.

Around 378,000 years after the Big Bang, in the Recombination Epoch, the universe was cool enough for electrons to bond with atoms of which only 3 types exist, hydrogen, helium & lithium, with the hydrogen being the most abundant element in the universe.

Molecular hydrogen are the building blocks of stars, especially as they began to coalesce together in the cloud of gases, becoming more massive, until therefore gravity eventually causing the stars’ dense cores were hot enough to start fusing hydrogen into heavier elements, such as helium, carbon, oxygen or nitrogen. This process is known as Stellar Nucleosynthesis.

When the stars run out of hydrogen to fuse, the core will collapse and do one of several things, start fusing helium while the outer layer shred away from the white core (hence white dwarf stars), explode in one of the types of supernova; supernovas are responsible for forming heavier elements, from helium to all the way to iron, through thermonuclear fusion, hence the Supernova Nucleosynthesis. These heavier elements from supernovas are what responsible for formations of asteroids, planetesimals, planets and dwarf planets.

That’s what the Big Bang theory is trying to explain, the formations of fields & particles & matters, which in turn form into planets, stars and galaxies. 9 billion years after the Big Bang, our own Solar System form, from the base materials of gas cloud and debris heavier elements from older generations of stars.

The Big Bang theory is focused only on the history of the universe, that eventually make up today, including life on Earth.

While the Cyclical Universe model and Multiverse model might explain the universe being eternal, and I am fascinated by these alternative models (just curious), however I don’t think we have no way of testing them to be true. Which means, the alternatives are more speculative than reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You should contact them and tell them they are wrong and straighten them out.

Contact us | New Scientist

www.newscientist.com

Popular magazines are not the best sources at times. At any rate, my complaint was the improper usage of the concept. @Ben Dhyan was trying to limit the concept of infinity based upon his misunderstanding of the concept. The only support he could find was in a dictionary and that is a few steps lower than a popular magazine. I tried to show him with an article by mathematicians that were teaching at perhaps the middle school level, but even that was beyond him.

At any rate the concept of infinity is used quite often in the real world. It is an extremely useful tool. We do not need to have actual infinities to make a use of the concept. But Ben's real abuse of infinity is just because he does not like the concept of the Big Bang. It has nothing to do with whether infinity is real or not.

 

[Polymath257]

The universe is not the surface of a sphere, it is infinite space without a surface.

Nice claim. Prove it.

There was no before because there was no beginning.

Nice claim. Prove it.

I don't do 'imagination', my life is about 'realization', and there is no nothing and no before, just continual eternal existence.

I would say there is only existence. It just is. Time is part of it.