Viability of foreverness

@fresco,

Quote:

Having been here for over 10 years, I have witnessed Frank's departure and return. During that time "his homespun message" has remained exactly the same, whereas most of us have developed our positions and exchanged references. It is rather sad therefore to see him to react to our suggestions in such a predictable simplistic manner which merely precludes him from the potential satisfaction of "seeing" a bit further. And I say this from the experience of observing my local philosophy group members, all of whom go to the trouble of researching and preparing discussion papers for meetings, sometimes despite failing eyesight and other physical problems.

There ya go, Fresco...address the response to Fil and make it seem like you actually are doing what I suggested you do. You are okay in my book no matter what some of these people say about you...and you are a quick learner. Kudos!

As for my "homespun message being exactly the same" --all I can say is that my main message is that I do not know very much...and I am willing to acknowledge that. Not much I can change about that...unless I take one of your classes, which I will do right after I get back from Mars.

And you seem to agree with me that I do not know much...so it is heartening to see that we have accord on that point.

Of course, when I talk about what I do not know, I am talking about the nature of REALITY and the existence of gods and other stuff like that.

I do not know the true nature of REALITY...really! And I readily acknowledge that I do not. That is in sharp contrast to folk like you, Fresco, who pretend that they know all sorts of things...and refuse to acknowledge that most of the supposed knowledge is little more than blind guessing.

Truly, I have tried to help you get over this habit...or defense mechanism, whichever it is. I keep giving it my best, which admittedly is not all that great...but I cannot even make a dent in your determination to pretend you know all sorts of things that it is obvious you do not really know.

All that aside, I want to compliment you on the fact that you have managed to write a couple of posts here that actually are readable. You didn't put in all that crap that is not really intended to inform, but just included to make it seem like you are more intelligent than you actually are. (Do people really fall for that stuff?)

You are, to paraphrase a favorite pundit of mine, the kind of guy who writes the way dumb people think smart people write. And the fact that you write that way for that reason says something about you that is not especially complimentary.

But I love ya. You amuse me. You amuse me greatly.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Frank is 10 times clever then you..

Alas youth! Doubtless 1/10 times clever then than

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Well delivered, Dale. Do you think Fil will understand it?

1 Reply

@fresco,

Frank is just the typical attention seeking middle class product the modern world is filled with, the sad level down pudding of misery ensemble any soap opera requires to be complete...naturally his mediocre shameless style denounces him by miles, not that he cares to notice it or correct himself for that matter...in any and every issue his confronted with, that is, whenever someone finds the time and patience to call his bluff of pseudo profound restrain, his gratuitous lazy ignorum is in the opposite end of most people inquisitive doubt, I find it particularly entertaining his contradictory certain confidence on the uncertainty of his life lived experiences...his pedantic sophistry don't makes enough up for a rhetorical coherent assembly of thoughts...I recon is perhaps best to just plainly ignore him till he changes his attitude or we will just keep on fuelling the kind of environment he feels right at home with...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

I recon is perhaps best to just plainly ignore him till he changes his attitude or we will just keep on fuelling the kind of environment he feels right at home with...

Oh my...another guy who is going to ignore me.

Fil...these things only last for a couple of hours. But I will acknowledge that it is so cute when one of you guys gets so riled up you have to threaten to "ignore."

Sorta like when you were a kid and angry with mommy...and you would say, "I don't like you any more."

Another entertaining guy.

Hey, stick with it as long as you can. We'll talk again as soon as you realize you can't do it.

Here's a suggestion for handling things if the realization comes too soon: Pretend you are addressing someone else when you have a message for me! Go ahead, ask Fresco about that. He'll tell you how to put me in my place!

Razz

@ Dale: One other thing I've noticed is that Fil spaces his posts a lot like Im! I wonder which was the teacher and which was the pupil.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Well delivered, Dale.

Thanks Frank, a little encouragement is welcome in this otherwise procrustean conflation of insensate hermenuetic

Quote:

Do you think Fil will understand it?

We’ll see

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

The image you have here is not a "high resolution" image of anything.

That is incorrect. It is a high resolution image of the cosmic microwave background radiation.

But if you want even higher resolution, the first data from the Plank space probe should be released to the public by the end of the year.

Frank Apisa wrote:

And for you to suggest that there is one and only one possible inference to be drawn from this image, namely that the universe must be infinite, is an inappropriate stretch.

What I said was that it strongly indicates that the universe is infinite.

It is possible for a flat universe to be finite. It is just pretty unlikely.

There are a minority of scientists who feel that the pattern of the cosmic microwave background radiation actually indicates a finite universe shaped like a four-dimensional doughnut.

Frank Apisa wrote:

But I am willing to read the material upon which you are basing this stretch...if you will provide the link.

Quote:

This k = +1 metric describes a closed universe, in which a traveler who sets off along a trajectory of fixed β and γ will eventually return to their starting point (when α = 2π). In this respect, the positively curved 3D universe is identical to the case of the surface of a sphere: it is finite, but unbounded. By contrast, the k = –1 metric describes an open universe of infinite extent; as before, changing to negative spatial curvature replaces sin α with sinh α, and α can be made as large as we please without returning to the starting point. The k = 0 model describes a flat universe, which is also infinite in extent. This can be thought of as a limit of either of the k = ±1 cases, where the curvature scale R tends to infinity.

http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~george/ay21/eaa/eaa-cosmology.pdf

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I think not only do we not know the true nature of REALITY (which may or may not be limited to "the universe"...but we don't even truly know the options that are available for consideration.

We are a fairly primitive animal inhabiting a tiny speck of dust circling a not especially large star in a not especially large galaxy.

Somehow or other, in order to be anywhere near the intelligent beings we dare to presume we are, we had better come to grips with that minor factor of REALITY.

There are bigger stars and bigger galaxies, but actually our star and galaxy are of a pretty respectable size.

We'll eventually be in a much bigger galaxy, as the galaxies of the local group are destined to all merge with each other.

When we venture out of the solar system and colonize the galaxy, we might want to favor the smallest stars, as they are the longest-lived.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

It is possible for a flat universe to be finite. It is just pretty unlikely.

Ora I’m unfamiliar with the technical language but what’s meant by “flat” and why is it unlikely

Quote:

When we venture out of the solar system and colonize the galaxy,

Given certain limitations such as the size of the galaxy and the speed of light, how do you suppose this will be accomplished

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

it may be the case that we are not here when they arrive (bosons), that is why they are non local...there will be regions of our universe that wont ever contact each other...

Those regions will never influence us.

That is a lucky thing too. What if some numbskull on the other side of the universe triggers a vacuum metastability event? It would be a very good thing to have that never reach us.

(BTW, it would be wise for humanity to not be that numbskull.)

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

so your conclusion is precipitated and not precise to say the least, that is, if considering the phenomena would start now, granted once the all Universe was in contact...

In an infinite universe, all the universe was never in contact, except perhaps for the very moment of the big bang.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

In an infinite universe, all the universe was never in contact, except perhaps for the very moment of the big bang.

Ora this is a bit confusing—to me anyway--because doesn’t the Big Bang imply a finite volume

Surely you’re not imagining the Bang occurring somewhere in an infinite space. As I understand it, the BB and subsequent expansion contains all the space there is. There’s no space outside it, there just is no outside

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

But here's a curious fact about the universe. If you select one location in the universe, and use that point as a reference to measure the expansion of space, it will appear that the point you are standing at is the center of the expansion. Everything is moving away from that point.
If you move to somewhere else, you will experience the same thing. The point from which you measure will appear to be the center of the expansion, as if you are in the center of the universe.
No matter where you observe the universe from, you will experience it as if you are in it's center.

So the first idea, that the earth is at the center of the universe... We know it is not the case. And yet, if we observe the universe from earth, it is at the center of the universe...

Yes. In one way, it is like every point in the universe is the center. But it is probably better to say that there is no center at all.

Cyracuz wrote:

Facts let us build theories. Then more facts make those theories obsolete, and new theories replace them. We see a steady increase of facts, ever more detailed information.

Sometimes facts confirm theories.

It is unlikely that Special Relativity will ever be replaced (it is unlikely that there are any errors in it).

Cyracuz wrote:

We see a steady increase of facts, ever more detailed information. But our knowledge does not grow deeper and richer with in tandem with the increasing database. It is possible to feel like you know less about something because you are coming to understand more.

That is only one phase of the learning process. We do start by learning how much we don't know. But then we progress by working out what we need to figure out, and then we go and figure it out.

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

oralloy wrote:
It is possible for a flat universe to be finite. It is just pretty unlikely.

Ora I’m unfamiliar with the technical language but what’s meant by “flat” and why is it unlikely

Assuming for a moment that there is no cosmological constant:

A closed universe is one with enough gravity to eventually reverse its expansion and collapse in on itself.

An open universe is one where the expansion will accelerate faster and faster.

And a flat universe is one that never stops expanding, but the rate of expansion gets slower and slower without ever stopping.

Of course, in addition to being flat, the universe also has a cosmological constant, so our expansion is accelerating anyway.

It is unlikely for a flat universe to be finite, because the mathematics of a flat universe are much more straightforward if the universe is infinite.

The models where the universe is both flat and finite are rather contorted.

dalehileman wrote:

oralloy wrote:
When we venture out of the solar system and colonize the galaxy,

Given certain limitations such as the size of the galaxy and the speed of light, how do you suppose this will be accomplished

One way trips. Time dilation will make the trips manageable for the colonists, but they will essentially be setting up a new world that will be independent from other star systems.

Presumably unmanned probes will investigate the star systems before any mission to colonize is launched.

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

oralloy wrote:
In an infinite universe, all the universe was never in contact, except perhaps for the very moment of the big bang.

Ora this is a bit confusing—to me anyway--because doesn’t the Big Bang imply a finite volume

They've never been able to model the exact moment of the big bang.

But the possibility that the universe was finite in volume in the very first moment, is why I said that this was a possible moment when the entire universe was in contact with itself.

(If the universe were a single point in the first instant, in order to grow to infinity, the expansion rate would also have had to have been infinite in that first moment.)

dalehileman wrote:

Surely you’re not imagining the Bang occurring somewhere in an infinite space. As I understand it, the BB and subsequent expansion contains all the space there is. There’s no space outside it, there just is no outside

Correct.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

The phrase "true nature of reality" makes about as much intellectual sense as the phrase "God is omnsicient", but the irony is that you can't see it ! You claim to be "an agnostic", yet you preach the shallow absolutist doctrine of naive realism. You then compound that intellectual felony by accusing others of making "assertions" because you ignorantly assume that they are mesmerized by the same simplistic concept of "truth" that you are stuck with. And the catch-all clause you operate to protect your untenable position is to stick your fingers in your ears and hum the song "complicated phraseology" when you get the inkling you might be exposed.

Having said that, you are to be admired for your good humor since your return, despite suffering the handicap of your entrenchment.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
And for you to suggest that there is one and only one possible inference to be drawn from this image, namely that the universe must be infinite, is an inappropriate stretch.

Quote:
What I said was that it strongly indicates that the universe is infinite.

It is possible for a flat universe to be finite. It is just pretty unlikely.

Actually, this is something that can be checked by reading your words printed in black and white here in this thread.

Quote:

Well, the universe is infinite in size, so it is certainly plausible that endless duplication is happening right now, if one were to travel far enough through the endless bounds of the universe.

http://able2know.org/topic/197114-1#post-5094547

You did change the wording later...but I suspect that was because you realized an "How do you know that?" was coming up.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I wrote: We are a fairly primitive animal inhabiting a tiny speck of dust circling a not especially large star in a not especially large galaxy.

To which you replied:

Quote:

There are bigger stars and bigger galaxies, but actually our star and galaxy are of a pretty respectable size.

Your comment does not in any way impact on what I said...which I said to put the issue in context.

Our Sol is classified as a G2 dwarf star...and most assuredly is not an especially large star. Our galaxy definitely is large, but there are galaxies much larger. One of the nearest large galaxies, the Andromeda Galaxy, is estimated to be twice as large as ours.

Just sayin'!

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

The phrase "true nature of reality" makes about as much intellectual sense as the phrase "God is omnsicient", but the irony is that you can't see it ! You claim to be "an agnostic", yet you preach the shallow absolutist doctrine of naive realism. You then compound that intellectual felony by accusing others of making "assertions" because you ignorantly assume that they are mesmerized by the same simplistic concept of "truth" that you are stuck with. And the catch-all clause you operate to protect your untenable position is to stick your fingers in your ears and hum the song "complicated phraseology" when you get the inkling you might be exposed.

Having said that, you are to be admired for your good humor since your return, despite suffering the handicap of your entrenchment.

Ahhh...Fresco...back again. Great! Glad you guys don't leave for long.

So you have trouble with the expression "true nature of REALITY." Gosh, that is really interesting. Have you tried to figure out why that gets you so riled up that you must refer to me the way you do? Have you tried to figure out why you must use all those words of disparagement when talking about discussion adversaries?

C'mon, Fresco...if we work together I think we can get to the bottom of your trouble...although it does to be so entrenched you may not be able to actually change. But having a better idea of what is pulling your strings might help make it more manageable.

By the way, I love the way you write "naive realism" as often as you do. It give a certain character to your essays.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

You did change the wording later...but I suspect that was because you realized an "How do you know that?" was coming up.

Actually, it was because the later words were referring directly to the evidence indicating infinity.

I deal with a "how do you know that" by simply explaining how I know it. That's easy enough.

I do regard it as a given that the universe is infinite.

But if it turns out that one of those highly twisted finite models are ultimately correct, that'll be really cool. I'll enjoy learning about it.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Our Sol is classified as a G2 dwarf star...and most assuredly is not an especially large star.

I disagree. I know there are much bigger ones (some bigger than Saturn's orbit in fact). But the average star is still much smaller than ours.

1 Reply

Viability of foreverness

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know