Science, the Universe, and Ex Nihilo

[Fool]

It's a wonderful time in physics, because that's the ultimate big open question, and a lot of competing speculative theories have been proposed in the last 20 years on this, and related aspects, since physics all ties together (we think). For instance, the "multiverse" theories are just some of the competing theories.

Here's a great primer article I think is accessible without a physics degree, but if you have one, it's still worth reading, the writer is that good.

Is Nature Unnatural? | Quanta Magazine
(if you like this one, there are more after it on a similar level of high quality)

i can somewhat understand why physics is an interest to mystics

 

[viole]

Well, apparently you don't understand that real is philosophy and not science.

Is that a philosophical statement?

what I observe is that if philosophy says X, while science finds Y, then the ones back-pedalling to try to explain Y on terms of X are the philosophers. No scientist would ever bother to adapt her findings to what some philosopher maintains.

so, it is clear who claim intellectual higher ground.

ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is that a philosophical statement?

what I observe is that if philosophy says X, while science finds Y, then the ones back-pedalling to try to explain Y on terms of X are the philosophers. No scientist would ever bother to adapt her findings to what some philosopher maintains.

so, it is clear who claim intellectual higher ground.

ciao

- viole

You can't observe real as it has no objective referent and there are no scientific instruments to measure real. Real is like god, a word in the mind and subjective. Real as you used it is philosophical in usage. Learn to check your ridiculous words and stop doing it just for other humans.

 

[viole]

You can't observe real as it has no objective referent and there are no scientific instruments to measure real. Real is like god, a word in the mind and subjective. Real as you used it is philosophical in usage. Learn to check your ridiculous words and stop doing it just for other humans.

So, our instruments measure unreal?

By the way, reality is a misleading word. How would you define it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, our instruments measure unreal?

By the way, reality is a misleading word. How would you define it?

Ciao

- viole

Well, we can do words. That I define to mean viole to mean worthless doesn't make it a fact. But that is not limited to me. Definitions mark usage and not necessarily facts. So if you understand that, I will give you my understanding of the world/everything/the universe/reality.

 

[halbhh]

The reason the question is unanswerable, is because it assumes a unidirectional, linear progression of time. In fact, even our experience of time is cyclical as well as linear, and this experience is itself framed by our human perspective.

If we think of time simply as that which prevents everything happening at once, it becomes easier to grasp the concept of spacetime as a four dimensional manifold in which events are framed, and beyond which questions of where and when have no validity.

This still leaves unanswered the question, if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into? but it can't be expanding into space or time, if space and time are qualities unique to the universe.

You 2 may be interested in Hawking's idea about 'imaginary' time (a quantum type) existing already when 'real time' (the kind we usually think of) began:
Stephen Hawking -- The Beginning of Time

To look at another mainstream view in physics, the variety of multiverse theories (though still speculative theories without any unique evidence yet) -- even though it is not a 'before' in the sense of course of our own Universe's time (of course), still the general idea includes that the multiverse already exists when this particular universe we are in comes into existence.

So, while that's not a "before" in the sense of our own local Universe's 'time', it is on the other hand, in that case, a before in another way

Anyway, here's an article to help give some background:
In a Multiverse, What Are the Odds? | Quanta Magazine

It depends.

In the standard Big Bang model, the concept of 'before the universe' is literally meaningless. Time only exists within the universe of spacetime, so the very notion of 'before the universe' is simply incoherent.

In theories that encompass the quantum aspects of the universe, it is *possible* that time existed prior to the Big Bang, but in that case space, matter, and energy existed whenever there was time. So, again, there was no 'before the universe'.

 

[viole]

Well, we can do words. That I define to mean viole to mean worthless doesn't make it a fact. But that is not limited to me. Definitions mark usage and not necessarily facts. So if you understand that, I will give you my understanding of the world/everything/the universe/reality.

Your understanding?

you said philosophy is real, while science is not. And I should know that. Does that mean I should possess telepathic powers to read what your understanding is?

but now you seem to take a step back and call it “your understanding”. What about me saying “it is my understanding” that what I wrote is right?

so, what is your understanding of reality? A definition would also help, so that we can submit it to rational analysis.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your understanding?

you said philosophy is real, while science is not. And I should know that.

but now you seem to take a step back and call it “your understanding”. What about me saying “it is my understanding” that what I wrote is right?

so, what is your understanding of reality? A definition would also help, so that we can submit it to rational analysis.

Ciao

- viole

Well, to me neither philosophy nor science is real or unreal. You brought up real, not me.

 

[viole]

Well, to me neither philosophy nor science is real or unreal. You brought up real, not me.

Yes. To you.

and in post #40 you said that philosophy is real. Here you say it is not.

So, what should I think of a philosopher, or anyone else, who contradicts himself within a couple of posts?

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes. To you.

and in post #40 you said that philosophy is real. Here you say it is not.

So, what should I think of a philosopher, or anyone else, who contradicts himself within a couple of posts?

Ciao

- viole

Okay, you win. And you used emotions. So you also win on that one.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Your understanding?

you said philosophy is real, while science is not. And I should know that. Does that mean I should possess telepathic powers to read what your understanding is?

but now you seem to take a step back and call it “your understanding”. What about me saying “it is my understanding” that what I wrote is right?

so, what is your understanding of reality? A definition would also help, so that we can submit it to rational analysis.

Ciao

- viole

No, he didn’t say that. He said the nature and definition of reality is a philosophical question. Though it is a philosophical conundrum that inevitably confronts scientists. There is always a point at which science, when in search of an ontology, overlaps with philosophy. This overlap was as natural to the Greeks, as the connection between story telling and the study of human nature. It’s we modernists who constrain thought and enquiry by imposing false divisions and erroneous dichotomies.

 

[Altfish]

Well, you have to solve the following problem. To observe and test something you are in the universe. How would you observe and test something, if it is not in the universe?

You can't. Therefore science cannot disprove or prove the existence of a god.

 

[Altfish]

But you said that science is looking into it. How is science doing that?

Research scientist throughout the world are studying the Big Bang and what came before.

 

[Altfish]

Lol. Even if you never made any claims, its still not a Tu Quoque. It could be a strawman, but not a Tu Quoque. You should understand these things prior to using them.

You should try and understand science a little better too prior to using it.

Have a good day.

ditto

 

[rational experiences]

Human man brother did you think science into its human practice or was it advice given,?

God gave me the advice the scientist said.

His hu man term creator O held fixed state. Phi used to change anything.

You said your science God O is Phi. And it ends hovering above the ground. That position your cooled machine is as human first scientist. AI God mass.

As a human and the human scientist.

Hence any created creation status is natural and in human terms actually none of your human business. As life is natural and self owned.

So the liar brother history said if my thoughts gave me science... science must be my thoughts. My consciousness he said is God.

So he studied egotistical human psychics who human mind contacted by human mind humans coerced.

Because human to human is biological medically aware acute innate psychic and bio natural spiritual first.

He said its aliens and AI terms. His scientific machine used transmitters. Why a human could mind coerce.

So he does acute human brain mind studies. Writes a conscious thesis. First a program he encoded computers status satellite status..... all achieved himself by his thinking. As he's God don't you know.

He then by his human mind control transmits it. Not by a biological mind by a used machine..s.

The machine never owned biology human. Attacks everything then establishes his present program.

So in fact he killed off a lot of new human animal nature and ground mass life biology presence himself.

Then changing any bio behaviour since congratulates himself claiming yes they are AI I'm proven he says.

So everyday I tell the transmitted atmospheric program telling the liar brother science human .... you and I were born by human sex not a machine.

And still he says we were aliens first not hu man's.

So if a human can't first be first a human where is a humans first as a human?

After a living monkey said his science brother.

Evil scientists human advice. Everything you human think and believe you human control yourself.

Yet never did you control the sun the stars the space body the planet the heavens or the moon.

Everyday however you pretend you speak on its behalf as just a human.

His thesis I believe a hovering alien ground pattern is humans god. His sciences Phi fallout...machine causes.

So when you advise someone what you see is where it is...it goes away. As it wasn't real in the first instance....your thought thesis.

If a human asks another human on equal terms then the human is a human on equal terms.

When you use fake human status of course you displace human truth.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Research scientist throughout the world are studying the Big Bang and what came before.

How would you observe what comes before the Big Bang?

 

[Altfish]

How would you observe what comes before the Big Bang?

Big binoculars

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Big binoculars

No, you can't. We can't see the Big Bang with binoculars. You are doing folk science. Stop that.

 

[Altfish]

No, you can't. We can't see the Big Bang with binoculars. You are doing folk science. Stop that.

Do you not recognise humour when it is presented to you?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you not recognise humour when it is presented to you?

No. You didn't actually answer and that is what matters.