Light - For Those Who Are More Educated In This Field

[Ben Dhyan]

Just to add. The implication here seems to be that you think that a lack of unknowns and unanswered questions about something is some sort of indication of its truth. Are you really suggesting that?

Absolutely, no smoke and mirrors, reality is what it is, everywhere at once, always.

 

[ratiocinator]

Well let me say I do not accept anything on face value, I need to understand...

You'll need a lot of mathematics to properly understand.

...BB is a theory, I deal in reality.

In the scientific sense of the word, a theory is a well tested (by observations and/or experiments) model/explanation of reality.

Haha, a BB without a cause. great science!

Again it seems like you think science should always follow your intuition. There is absolutely no reason at all to expect our intuition, which evolved to deal with life on our scale on Earth, to apply to things like the whole of the universe or very small scales (if you're struggling with relativistic cosmology, I bet you just love quantum mechanics).

Ok, where is the evidence then?

You could start here: Big Bang - Observational evidence. None of it is secret, google will give you many more articles.

What is, is, there is no question, reality means reality, not a theory about, not a belief in, not an opinion concerning, but absolute reality.

And how do you propose we find out about that except via science; by making hypotheses and testing them against reality by observation and experiment? That's exactly how we got to the Big Bang Theory.

 

[ratiocinator]

Just to add. The implication here seems to be that you think that a lack of unknowns and unanswered questions about something is some sort of indication of its truth. Are you really suggesting that?

Absolutely, no smoke and mirrors, reality is what it is, everywhere at once, always.

Why do you think something that leaves no unknowns is more likely to be true? What's the logical connection? Why should reality conform to your expectations and give us all the answers all at once?

 

[Polymath257]

I know the pat explanation about expanding space is not expanding into space, but I keep asking in order to show you and other BB believers that it is not logical for finite space to have no form, to be expanding into nothing. Nothing does not exist, so given that this BB universe exists, it either exists in infinite space, or nothing. To keep saying the question of 'outside' is invalid is a cop out.

One problem is that you have a very Euclidean view of space. But we know that this need not be the case.

If the universe is spatially flat, then space is more like a higher dimensional sphere: it looks flat close by but curves as yo go further away.

if you want to go a strict general relativity answer to your question, space expands *into the future*. This is quite literally the best answer in that the four dimensional vectors that point in the direction of a larger universe point into the future.

Space is NOT expanding 'into nothing'. Space is literally all that exists at a specific time. it is a time slice of spacetime.

Also, we do not know whether space (as a whole) is finite or not. Again, it need not be in the context of an expanding universe.

Your assumption is that space itself is infinite. But that is precisely the issue at hand: is it infinite or is it finite (and curved)?

As an example of how a curved space would work, think by analogy with the surface of the Earth. Any direction you take, you will eventually return to the same location if you keep going long enough.

This is how a finite volume of space would work: any direction you decide to go, you will eventually return to the starting point if you travel long enough. No boundaries, each point 'looks' the same as every other point. And yet, because of curvature, the total volume is finite.

And, in this context, expanding space means that the total volume at one time is larger than at previous times.

It is similar to the question of what existed before the BB, if you agree there is no nothing, then it had to have began somewhere in infinite space.
I know you will then say time had not begun so the question is invalid, but it's another cop out.

Why is it a cop out? Why do you assume that time goes infinitely into the past? That is an assumption that may or may not be true, but the answer is only to be found through observation because both options are logically plausible. There is NOTHING in logic that dictates that space must be finite in volume.

The logic on which I lean is human logic, if we discard that, then we can not have a reasonable discussion.

Logic is not the relevant factor here. Logic alone only tells whether certain arguments are valid or not. it does not and cannot say whether the basic assumptions about space and time are themselves true.

So, for example, the logic that Aristotle used would be considered to be flawed and confused by today's standards. A *lot* of basic logic was done about 100 years ago by Godel, Hilbert, Skolem, Lowenheim, and others. This *is* human logic (it certainly wasn't done by non-humans). But it goes deeper and shows the mistakes of those of the past.

Logic is *only* those things that use terms like 'if..then, or, and, if and only if, for all, there exists'. Space and time are simply not something that logic alone addresses.

If there were a multiverse, then what would exist between universes? In this multiverse scenario, assuming there would be universes sufficiently developed whereby very advanced intelligent life could detect the BB beginning of new universes, these new BBs would be referenced to spacetime.

I will never accept BBT until I understand how and why it came into being!

And you assume there is a *reason* why it came into being. You assume there was a time before the BB and that is precisely what the BB model says is not the case.

 

[Polymath257]

I said logic and mean logic.

I strongly doubt it. What you are claiming goes way beyond propositional calculus, quantifier calculus, or even modal logic. It goes into questions that are legitimately part of physics.

It would be illogical for me to accept BBT until or unless you or science can explain to me why there was a BB?u are assuming that space must be infinite in extent when, again, there is good reason to question that assumption.

It depends. You are assuming causality applies to the BB when there is good reason to believe it doesn't. You are assuming that time is infinite into the past when there is good reason to question that viewpoint. You are assuming space is infinite in extent when there are good reasons to question whether that is the case.

In all this, logical alone does not and cannot dictate an answer.

And what a caused the BB?

We don't know whether that question even makes sense. Causality is part of the universe, so it *logically* makes no sense to ask about the cause of the universe.

And proof of the cause of the BB?
And are there other BBs, ie. a multiverse?
Etc., etc..

We do not have the answer to whether there is a multiverse. It is a *logical* possibility, but at this point no evidence one way or the other (in spite of theoretical speculations).

Otoh, a SS eternal infinite universe is perfectly logical, I have no questions.

How is it logical? Based upon what logic? Based upon what observations?

 

[Polymath257]

Well let me say I do not accept anything on face value, I need to understand, BB is a theory, I deal in reality.

Haha, a BB without a cause. great science!

Ok, where is the evidence then?

What is, is, there is no question, reality means reality, not a theory about, not a belief in, not an opinion concerning, but absolute reality.

And how do you determine 'absolute reality'? The *only* way we have is by observation and testing our ideas. But that gives theories that can be wrong in details.

We simply don't have access to 'absolute reality'.

 

[Polymath257]

Absolutely, no smoke and mirrors, reality is what it is, everywhere at once, always.

We don't have access to that. Our senses can fail. Our observations always have error bars.

And, of course, you are making assumptions about 'everywhere' and 'always' that may or may not be the case.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You'll need a lot of mathematics to properly understand.



In the scientific sense of the word, a theory is a well tested (by observations and/or experiments) model/explanation of reality.



Again it seems like you think science should always follow your intuition. There is absolutely no reason at all to expect our intuition, which evolved to deal with life on our scale on Earth, to apply to things like the whole of the universe or very small scales (if you're struggling with relativistic cosmology, I bet you just love quantum mechanics).



You could start here: Big Bang - Observational evidence. None of it is secret, google will give you many more articles.



And how do you propose we find out about that except via science; by making hypotheses and testing them against reality by observation and experiment? That's exactly how we got to the Big Bang Theory.

Mathematics is a human representation of reality, not actual reality. I deal with reality, not the conceptualization.

A theory is a conceptualization meant to represent a reality, it is not the reality it is meant to represent! I deal with reality, not the human conceptualization of it.

Science is a study of reality, it is not the actual reality it studies, it is just science about reality.

Science does not know why there was a BB, say no more until it can be explained.

Reality is what it is always is, now.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why do you think something that leaves no unknowns is more likely to be true? What's the logical connection? Why should reality conform to your expectations and give us all the answers all at once?

Reality is was it is, it is not distributed in bits and pieces, it is an indivisible whole always. Human differentiated distinctions of the one reality and name giving to its apparent parts takes one away from apprehending reality as it is, an indivisible whole.

 

[Polymath257]

Mathematics is a human representation of reality, not actual reality. I deal with reality, not the conceptualization.

A theory is a conceptualization meant to represent a reality, it is not the reality it is meant to represent! I deal with reality, not the human conceptualization of it.

Science is a study of reality, it is not the actual reality it studies, it is just science about reality.

Science does not know why there was a BB, say no more until it can be explained.

Reality is what it is always is, now.

All we ever have is a 'conceptualization of reality'. When you talk about space or time, yo are using concepts that may or may not apply to reality. WEhen you talk about causation, you don't know that applies to reality: it is a conceptalization of the regularities of how things behave.

So, yes, mathematics is a good language to use to help us describe reality. And yes, it is a conceptualization, but so is ALL language. And yes, of course, science is about reality. that is sort of the whole goal: to get a predictive, testable description of as much of reality as we can manage.

Your phrase 'reality is what always is, now' is utterly meaningless, even as a description. It applies to everything and to nothing. it would apply if time and space are finite or if they are both infinite or even if one is finite and the other infinite.

As to why there is a Big Bang. What sort of answer are you looking for? Given that causality only applies *after* the BB, what possible answer could there be to the 'why' question?

Maybe reality 'just is' and there is no further 'why'.

 

[Polymath257]

Reality is was it is, it is not distributed in bits and pieces, it is an indivisible whole always. Human differentiated distinctions of the one reality and name giving to its apparent parts takes one away from apprehending reality as it is, an indivisible whole.

That sounds like a lot of assumptions made with very little reason to back them.

Maybe 'apprehending reality as an indivisible whole' is precisely what BB cosmology does: it regards spacetime as a single entity encompassing ALL that exists.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

One problem is that you have a very Euclidean view of space. But we know that this need not be the case.

If the universe is spatially flat, then space is more like a higher dimensional sphere: it looks flat close by but curves as yo go further away.

if you want to go a strict general relativity answer to your question, space expands *into the future*. This is quite literally the best answer in that the four dimensional vectors that point in the direction of a larger universe point into the future.

Space is NOT expanding 'into nothing'. Space is literally all that exists at a specific time. it is a time slice of spacetime.

Also, we do not know whether space (as a whole) is finite or not. Again, it need not be in the context of an expanding universe.

Your assumption is that space itself is infinite. But that is precisely the issue at hand: is it infinite or is it finite (and curved)?

As an example of how a curved space would work, think by analogy with the surface of the Earth. Any direction you take, you will eventually return to the same location if you keep going long enough.

This is how a finite volume of space would work: any direction you decide to go, you will eventually return to the starting point if you travel long enough. No boundaries, each point 'looks' the same as every other point. And yet, because of curvature, the total volume is finite.

And, in this context, expanding space means that the total volume at one time is larger than at previous times.

Why is it a cop out? Why do you assume that time goes infinitely into the past? That is an assumption that may or may not be true, but the answer is only to be found through observation because both options are logically plausible. There is NOTHING in logic that dictates that space must be finite in volume.


Logic is not the relevant factor here. Logic alone only tells whether certain arguments are valid or not. it does not and cannot say whether the basic assumptions about space and time are themselves true.

So, for example, the logic that Aristotle used would be considered to be flawed and confused by today's standards. A *lot* of basic logic was done about 100 years ago by Godel, Hilbert, Skolem, Lowenheim, and others. This *is* human logic (it certainly wasn't done by non-humans). But it goes deeper and shows the mistakes of those of the past.

Logic is *only* those things that use terms like 'if..then, or, and, if and only if, for all, there exists'. Space and time are simply not something that logic alone addresses.


And you assume there is a *reason* why it came into being. You assume there was a time before the BB and that is precisely what the BB model says is not the case.

I take Occam's razor to the question of the universe and it only makes sense to me as an indivisible whole. The apparent almost infinite number of differentiated distinctions of the universe observed by human science are just that, human created distinctions, and these can easily obscure the underlying unity to the uninitiated mind.

For example, what does science know about an electron, what is it made of? Energy, what is energy made of? Dark Energy? Etc., etc.. Science does not yet know what the most fundamental essence of the universe is, yet claims to know how the universe began. I am not saying science is a waste of time, but when it is in error, those errors need to be corrected, just like any corrupt instrument. Is it not logical to do this?

BBers assume a beginning to the universe, therefore there logically must be a cause.

I appreciate your almost always thoughtful posts Polymath, but for the life of me, I can not accept the present claims of BBT,

 

[Aupmanyav]

We simply don't have access to 'absolute reality'.

No, Polymath. We are born, live in and die in absolute reality. The only problem is that we have a contorted view of it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And how do you determine 'absolute reality'? The *only* way we have is by observation and testing our ideas. But that gives theories that can be wrong in details.

We simply don't have access to 'absolute reality'.

You will never find absolute reality purely through ideas and understanding, though they can help in guiding the seeker along the path to the realization of 'absolute reality'.

The thinker doesn't have access to 'absolute reality', for the thinker uses concepts to represent reality, not direct access. So logically one needs to address absolute reality in a non-dualistic way, no representation of reality such as some belief, but to realize the underlying shared unity of absolute reality.

 

[ratiocinator]

For example, what does science know about an electron, what is it made of? Energy, what is energy made of? Dark Energy? Etc., etc.. Science does not yet know what the most fundamental essence of the universe is, yet claims to know how the universe began.

And what's your answer? The problem is that we can go on asking "and so what is X made of" forever. How would we even know that we've reached the end and found the most fundamental 'essence'.

Nobody is actually claiming to know how the universe started. As I said before, the BBT deals with the developing, expanding universe after it started (if indeed, it did). The closer we get to the exact moment of the big bag (where general relativity predicts a singularity) the less certain we become. And BTW, nothing is made of energy, energy is always a property of things.

I am not saying science is a waste of time, but when it is in error, those errors need to be corrected, just like any corrupt instrument. Is it not logical to do this?

Of course we should correct errors but I'm afraid your unsupported opinions on here go nowhere near to showing that an error has been made in this area.

The thinker doesn't have access to 'absolute reality', for the thinker uses concepts to represent reality, not direct access. So logically one needs to address absolute reality in a non-dualistic way, no representation of reality such as some belief, but to realize the underlying shared unity of absolute reality.

Which means what exactly? Nobody has direct access to 'absolute reality', we are forced you use concepts and models. Initially those were just the limited picture filtered through our senses, now we've expanded our concepts/models to a much more complete understanding to the extent that we can make predictions and develop technology that work based on sometimes incredibly counter-intuitive theories - including (in the case of GPS) general relativity which is the underlying theory that describes things like curved space-time that you so dislike.

 

[exchemist]

Well let me say I do not accept anything on face value, I need to understand, BB is a theory, I deal in reality.

Haha, a BB without a cause. great science!

Ok, where is the evidence then?

What is, is, there is no question, reality means reality, not a theory about, not a belief in, not an opinion concerning, but absolute reality.

This looks like deliberate obtuseness (at least I hope it is deliberate) on your part. The evidence, from several different classes of observation, points to expansion of the universe from a small and compact form at a certain date in the past. This evidence is not consistent with a steady state universe.

It is the opposite of logical to refuse to acknowledge this on the grounds that we don't have answers for what came before, or why it seems to be expanding. In science, there is always a frontier of knowledge, beyond which the answer to further questions is that we don't know. If you really think not having answers to everything about a theory means you should "logically" reject it, then you have to throw all of science down the drain. With such a ridiculous attitude, science could never have even got started.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And what's your answer? The problem is that we can go on asking "and so what is X made of" forever. How would we even know that we've reached the end and found the most fundamental 'essence'.

Nobody is actually claiming to know how the universe started. As I said before, the BBT deals with the developing, expanding universe after it started (if indeed, it did). The closer we get to the exact moment of the big bag (where general relativity predicts a singularity) the less certain we become. And BTW, nothing is made of energy, energy is always a property of things.

Of course we should correct errors but I'm afraid your unsupported opinions on here go nowhere near to showing that an error has been made in this area.

Which means what exactly? Nobody has direct access to 'absolute reality', we are forced you use concepts and models. Initially those were just the limited picture filtered through our senses, now we've expanded our concepts/models to a much more complete understanding to the extent that we can make predictions and develop technology that work based on sometimes incredibly counter-intuitive theories - including (in the case of GPS) general relativity which is the underlying theory that describes things like curved space-time that you so dislike.

All sub-atomic particels are made of energy, ergo atoms are made of energy, molecules, substances, worlds, stars, galaxies, the universe.

I could go on but it would be a waste of time for both of us. I could tell you that 'absolute reality' actually can be realized but that could only come with your a mind in a non-dual state which is not going to happen so long as you see reality through conceptualization. I don't mean that you are wrong seeing reality through conceptualization, but fwiw, there is more to reality than science has ever dreamed of yet, but it will evolve I am sure.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This looks like deliberate obtuseness (at least I hope it is deliberate) on your part. The evidence, from several different classes of observation, points to expansion of the universe from a small and compact form at a certain date in the past. This evidence is not consistent with a steady state universe.

It is the opposite of logical to refuse to acknowledge this on the grounds that we don't have answers for what came before, or why it seems to be expanding. In science, there is always a frontier of knowledge, beyond which the answer to further questions is that we don't know. If you really think not having answers to everything about a theory means you should "logically" reject it, then you have to throw all of science down the drain. With such a ridiculous attitude, science could never have even got started.

My logic is this. Mass afaik cannot be converted to nothing, and the reciprocal, that mass can not come from nothing.

However BBT says that universal mass had a beginning, mass came from nothing, but that because time did not exist, we have no direct proof, but we've got red shift.

Ok, so time now does exist, and so please, no excuses, do the reciprocal of the BB and convert an amount of mass into nothing* and I will accept the BB is possible.

*Nothing here means zilch, absolute nothing.

 

[ratiocinator]

All sub-atomic particels are made of energy, ergo atoms are made of energy, molecules, substances, worlds, stars, galaxies, the universe.

This is simply wrong: Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy. Note second bullet point below.

• Matter, in fact, is an ambiguous term; there are several different definitions used in both scientific literature and in public discourse. Each definition selects a certain subset of the particles of nature, for different reasons. Consumer beware! Matter is always some kind of stuff, but which stuff depends on context.
• Energy is not ambiguous (not within physics, anyway). But energy is not itself stuff; it is something that all stuff has.

 

[ratiocinator]

My logic is this. Mass afaik cannot be converted to nothing, and the reciprocal, that mass can not come from nothing.

However BBT says that universal mass had a beginning, mass came from nothing, but that because time did not exist, we have no direct proof, but we've got red shift.

Ok, so time now does exist, and so please, no excuses, do the reciprocal of the BB and convert an amount of mass into nothing* and I will accept the BB is possible.

You're still completely stuck in a Newtonian view of time. If the BB was the start of time, then things have 'always' existed, that is there is no time at which nothing at all existed and therefore no transition from nothing to something.

For information: mass is not conserved, it can be converted to energy and vice versa but neither of them is stuff, they are both properties. The total energy in the universe may actually be zero.