Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[ratiocinator]

What I do know is that reality is forever on the other side of conceptual reality, whether it be math, language, etc., whereas intuitive insight is often non-conceptual. So long as you are dealing with human concepts like time, you can never realize what the ever progress of existence really is.

Yet again, intuition is worthless compared to tested theories. No matter how much you insist that you 'know' something based on it, you simply don't - sorry.

 

[ratiocinator]

Ok, for all you folk who have been triggered by any talk of a something from nothing bb theory and distanced yourselves from it, you do realize of course that you are admitting existence therefore must be eternal?

We are admitting nothing of the sort (well I'm not, anyway), for reasons I keep on explaining. A finite past does not necessarily imply something from nothing.

Yet again: if the space-time manifold (or something similar) is the correct fundamental view, and it has a finite past, then there was no time at which there was nothing for anything to come from. The manifold is a four-dimensional object that doesn't, as a whole, experience time because time is internal to it.

At least on this we can all agree.

No, we can't.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yet again, intuition is worthless compared to tested theories. No matter how much you insist that you 'know' something based on it, you simply don't - sorry.

Don't be sorry, we all have our own dharma, no matter how exalted or how humble.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We are admitting nothing of the sort (well I'm not, anyway), for reasons I keep on explaining. A finite past does not necessarily imply something from nothing.

Yet again: if the space-time manifold (or something similar) is the correct fundamental view, and it has a finite past, then there was no time at which there was nothing for anything to come from. The manifold is a four-dimensional object that doesn't, as a whole, experience time because time is internal to it.

No, we can't.

So let me get this straight, there is a past, but the past leads back to nothing for anything to come from.

So what exactly is this nothing when there was a beginning of time at the time of the bb? Sure sound like a something from nothing bb to me at this stage.

But please, do go on....

 

[ratiocinator]

So let me get this straight, there is a past, but the past leads back to nothing for anything to come from.

So what exactly is this nothing when there was a beginning of time at the time of the bb? Sure sound like a something from nothing bb to me at this stage.

But please, do go on....

I'm finding it hard to know how else to put this. You have to stop thinking of time in the absolute (Newtonian) sense. The (extremely well tested) theory tells us that we live in a space-time manifold. You have to think of this as a kind of four-dimensional object. Time is a direction through the object (it's actually not even one direction because it depends on the specific observer). If we trace that direction in the past direction and we encounter an edge of the object, then time is finite in the past. However, that isn't telling us that anything came from nothing, because the time direction simply terminates. The object as a whole is timeless, it "just is", it never started to exist and it will never cease to exist because time only exists inside it.

 

[Native]

I'm finding it hard to know how else to put this. You have to stop thinking of time in the absolute (Newtonian) sense. The (extremely well tested) theory tells us that we live in a space-time manifold. You have to think of this as a kind of four-dimensional object.

Of course it is hard to explain to natural and logical thinking persons since much of the standing theoretical physics is based on pure theoretical mathematical speculations.

Excuse me for posting this sort of ridiculing video but it reveals the very points of "time" and "space-time".

 

[ratiocinator]

Of course it is hard to explain to natural and logical thinking persons since much of the standing theoretical physics is based on pure theoretical mathematical speculations.

False. The theory makes exact numerical predictions that can be, and have been, tested and found to be accurate.

As for the video, I watched the ignorant rant up until he blatantly lied about what Hawking said about his globe. I mean, the guy says that he claimed his globe was two-dimensional and then played the clip in which Hawking said quite clearly that the surface is two-dimensional (which it is), then we go back to the idiot commentator who says that he missed out the distance from the centre for "unknown reasons". The "unknown reason" was that he was explicitly talking about the surface and had just said as much. I have only so much tolerance for ignorant and dishonest fools.

 

[Native]

False. The theory makes exact numerical predictions that can be, and have been, tested and found to be accurate.

IMO a theory is best tested when looking for contradictions instead of confirmations only. Otherwise it can end up in pure hindsight bias confirmations - which again ends up in scientific dogmas.

As for the video, I watched the ignorant rant up until he blatantly lied about what Hawking said about his globe. I mean, the guy says that he claimed his globe was two-dimensional and then played the clip in which Hawking said quite clearly that the surface is two-dimensional (which it is), then we go back to the idiot commentator who says that he missed out the distance from the centre for "unknown reasons". The "unknown reason" was that he was explicitly talking about the surface and had just said as much. I have only so much tolerance for ignorant and dishonest fools.

Are you sure your emotions by meating criticism didn´t get the better of you here?

You missed the very point in this "dimension discussion". Hawking speaks (in timestamp 3:37) of a position (2D) on a globe (3D) in order to build up his speculative 4D of "space-time".

I suggest you wacth the video once again and this time without your emotional approach.

 

[gnostic]

What I do know is that reality is forever on the other side of conceptual reality, whether it be math, language, etc., whereas intuitive insight is often non-conceptual. So long as you are dealing with human concepts like time, you can never realize what the ever progress of existence really is.

Excuse me, Ben, but just about every philosophy, every knowledge, every science, every literature, every art, every music, every culture, every religion, every spirituality, every creative inspiration, and so on and on...

...they are all human concepts.

Time is a human concept...so you think we should ignore it?

Do we ignore every dimensions we measure, assigning units, like metre, yard, mile, etc, because these units are human concepts?

Do we ignore kilogram, litre, amps, voltage, watts, hertz, and so on, because each of them are human concepts?

You are being ridiculous to think human concepts are useless.

 

[Native]

Apropos the Big Bang OP in this thread, here´s one more irritating video . . .

in where mathematical physics is abcsent from the real cosmological world.

 

[Native]

Excuse me, Ben, but just about every philosophy, every knowledge, every science, every literature, every art, every music, every culture, every religion, every spirituality, every creative inspiration, and so on and on...
...they are all human concepts.

And:

You are being ridiculous to think human concepts are useless.

Well, isn´t it then also ridiculous to ignore conceptual collective ancient cultural myths and cultural religious texts of creation as pure mumbo jumbo as you consistently do?

 

[ratiocinator]

IMO a theory is best tested when looking for contradictions instead of confirmations only.

What contradictions? Endless tests of GR have been done and they all confirm the theory.

Are you sure your emotions by meating criticism didn´t get the better of you here?

No. The guy is either an ignoramus or a liar (possibly both). The relationship between dimensions, coordinates, and mathematics is perfectly clear well understood. The entire agenda of the video appears to be to confuse people who don't understand the concepts. I mean the idiot even complains that Hawking uses 'height' instead of 'altitude', FFS. Is he too dim to cope with the fact that it's possible to use different words for the same thing? If you're actually going to use this sort of coordinate system in science or mathematics, you'd actually be using spherical polar coordinates which consist of radial (r), polar (theta), and azimuthal (phi) coordinates, the latter two being angles conventionally measured in radians.

I watched a bit more but it just goes down hill with silly appeals to intuition (point in the direction of time). It's childish drivel. He also incorrectly says that space-time is considered to be a sphere - thus showing he has no grasp of the theory he's criticising.

Like any theory in science, relativity stands or falls on making predictions that can be tested and (potentially) falsified. GR has passed all the tests we've been able to do. I think the most recent was the detection of gravity waves that had long been a prediction of the theory.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Excuse me, Ben, but just about every philosophy, every knowledge, every science, every literature, every art, every music, every culture, every religion, every spirituality, every creative inspiration, and so on and on...

...they are all human concepts.

Time is a human concept...so you think we should ignore it?

Do we ignore every dimensions we measure, assigning units, like metre, yard, mile, etc, because these units are human concepts?

Do we ignore kilogram, litre, amps, voltage, watts, hertz, and so on, because each of them are human concepts?

You are being ridiculous to think human concepts are useless.

Gnostic, you have not read my earlier posts on the subject of the non-conceptual mind state, I make it clear that there is nothing wrong with the conceptual mind, The conceptual mind has its place in secular life, the non-conceptual mind is for the more contemplative soul.and is a solitary practice. As for the explanation of the non-conceptual mind state, the well known Taoist saying best fits..."He who knows does not say, he who says does not know!"

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm finding it hard to know how else to put this. You have to stop thinking of time in the absolute (Newtonian) sense. The (extremely well tested) theory tells us that we live in a space-time manifold. You have to think of this as a kind of four-dimensional object. Time is a direction through the object (it's actually not even one direction because it depends on the specific observer). If we trace that direction in the past direction and we encounter an edge of the object, then time is finite in the past. However, that isn't telling us that anything came from nothing, because the time direction simply terminates. The object as a whole is timeless, it "just is", it never started to exist and it will never cease to exist because time only exists inside it.

"The object as a whole is timeless, it "just is", it never started to exist and it will never cease to exist because time only exists inside it."

Well to say its existence never had a beginning and never has an ending implies eternal to me, this is what is said of the eternal God of all religions Hebrew, Christian, Islam, Hindu, etc.., what am I missing?

 

[ratiocinator]

Well to say its existence never had a beginning and never has an ending implies eternal to me, this is what is said of the eternal God, what am I missing?

It does depend a bit on what you mean. Eternal is generally understood to mean that something persists over infinite time (everlasting). The manifold (as a whole) would be timeless in that it is not embedded in time at all (time being inside it).

 

[Native]

What contradictions? Endless tests of GR have been done and they all confirm the theory.

Some are Ok I think, but lots are simple theory hindsight bias confirmations

No. The guy is either an ignoramus or a liar (possibly both). The relationship between dimensions, coordinates, and mathematics is perfectly clear well understood. The entire agenda of the video appears to be to confuse people who don't understand the concepts. I mean the idiot even complains that Hawking uses 'height' instead of 'altitude', FFS. Is he too dim to cope with the fact that it's possible to use different words for the same thing?

I watched a bit more but it just goes down hill with silly appeals to intuition (point in the direction of time). It's childish drivel. He also incorrectly says that space-time is considered to be a sphere - thus showing he has no grasp of the theory he's criticising.

I´ll just skip to reply on these emotional sentenses.

Like any theory in science, relativity stands or falls on making predictions that can be tested and (potentially) falsified. GR has passed all the tests we've been able to do. I think the most recent was the detection of gravity waves that had long been a prediction of the theory.

Like any theory in science, GR has to confirm all other cosmological theories in order to be taken seriously - and "gravity vawes" is just another hindsight bias addition which confirms nothing else but the prime theoretical assumptions - a method which is the worst problem in GR.

BTW: If you feel to be updated on the subject of "cosmological problems in GR", just LOOK HERE

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It does depend a bit on what you mean. Eternal is generally understood to mean that something persists over infinite time (everlasting). The manifold (as a whole) would be timeless in that it is not embedded in time at all (time being inside it).

Yes, that precisely what timeless means, time is a concept that only comes into existence when there is duality,ie. an observer of the activity inside the timeless nature of existence. And such an observer would generally use their conceptual mind to imagine eternity to be infinite time. Which is not wrong from the dualistic observer's perception of reality.

 

[ratiocinator]

Some are Ok I think, but lots are simple theory hindsight bias confirmations

If a theory makes a solid prediction, like time dilation or gravity waves, and you go away and then do an experiment or make an observation and find that the result not only qualitatively but quantitatively matches the prediction, then it can't possibly be "hindsight bias confirmations". The predictions were in the public domain well before the results of the observations or experiments.

I´ll just skip to reply on these emotional sentenses.

I think I have every right to be annoyed when ignorant and/or dishonest fools make scientifically illiterate videos like this in order to deceive people. And make no mistake, this guy in the video you posted is either a barefaced liar or he knows nothing about the science he's trying to criticise (or possibly both).

I'm sorry, but it really is blindingly obvious to anybody who has studied the subjects that this guy is a charlatan.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes, that precisely what timeless means, time is a concept that only comes into existence when there is duality,ie. an observer of the activity inside the timeless nature of existence.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. You can't have any activity, or an observer, for that matter, without time. I see no reason why you'd need both.

 

[Native]

Yes, that precisely what timeless means, time is a concept that only comes into existence when there is duality,ie. an observer of the activity inside the timeless nature of existence.

I rather think the time-problem occurs when humans initially took celestial observations to count for annual motions everywhere but later on, "time" was connected cosmologically with lengths in cosmos.. In this initial cyclical perception of "time" this concept became a linear time perception to decribe cosmos in general, including the strange theory of a Big Bang.

In other words, the ancient cultures percieved everything to be cyclical and eternal contrary to modern science which in fact have put everything into a dark cosmological hole of speculations, simply because of their linear time-thinking.