Viability of foreverness

@Frank Apisa,

Hi Frank,
Since you seem to be one of the very few longtime A2K people who act like a “normal” person and not Captain Superego I thought I would share some information with you, use it or abuse it as you will.

Just in case you didn't already know:

First, the current “standard theory” i.e. the best predictor that has been not shown to be invalid is the ”Inflationary Hot Big Bang FRW” model. The FRW part describes the evolution of the universe; the Inflationary and Hot Big Bang denote additions/changes that came later to describe the creation of the universe. So if you want to know what the experts currently think this is the model you need to understand.

Second, there are three “recent” probes that have been tasked with gathering information to defend or refute that model. Not to say other probes haven’t provided some info. They are COBE, WMAP, and PLANK. By the most objective measure WMAP has been far the most important probe. Note: ALL have been provided important new information and as it can take decades to actually evaluate data the relative importance of the information can change.

It would be too long a list to note all important data from all the probes so I’ll stick with WMAP.

It mapped the Cosmic Microwave Background and produced the first fine-resolution (0.2 degree) full-sky map of the microwave sky.

It nailed down the curvature of space to within 0.6% of "flat" Euclidean, improving on the previous best precision by over an order of magnitude.

It determined that baryons (ordinary “stuff”) make up only 4.6% of the universe (to within 0.2%).

It determined dark matter (not made up of atoms) make up 22.7% (to within 1.4%).

It determined that dark energy makes up 72.8% of the universe (to within 1.6%).

WMAP has mapped the polarization of the microwave radiation over the full sky and discovered that the universe was re-ionized earlier than previously believed.

WMAP has put the "precision" in "precision cosmology" by reducing the allowed volume of cosmological parameters by a factor in excess of 30,000.
________________

With a few tantalizing (possible) exceptions the data (so far) has shown the theory (noted above) to be correct. There will be versions of this and other theories that can be trashed with the new data but so far no new physics needs to be created to explain anything.

It would be too long to explain all the implications but to straighten out a few…er…misstatements --

They DID NOT show that the universe is infinite. This is a misunderstanding of the observation that: the universe is Euclidean in geometry -- NOT that it is infinite in extent. It could be or not we just don’t know. They DID NOT show that there was no energy input needed to create the universe. As the energy/mass in the universe is gage invariant I doubt this is even possible to know, ever. They didn’t even attempt these deductions as their measurements could not determine these things.

If you want a more “blue collar” proof – NONE of the missions had these things as stated objectives, you would think if they were attempting to find data to form these conclusions they might at least mention in passing that this was one reason for the missions.

How you can pull the few real fact out of the farrago of “opinion” here, if it even rises to that level, is beyond me.

By the way all this information is readily available to anyone who is interested; it just takes a little time and effort.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz, as you can see I am having trouble understanding Fresco. You seem more able to understand what he is saying...what he is suggesting.

Can you dumb it down for me a bit?

Why does he think there is something wrong with me thinking is seems we do not know the true nature of REALITY? He seems able to exclude things as being impossible...and include things as being unavoidable or inevitable...but I truly cannot understand his reasoning. If you do, I would appreciate any help you can offer.

1 Reply

@Zarathustra,

Thank you, Zarathustra. I will read your comments a couple of times to "get" as much as I am able.

One of the initial feelings I get is that the overall picture is what I suggest it to be:

That we truly do not know the ultimate nature of REALITY...of which what we call "the universe" may be just a small part. Also, we do not know if what we call "the universe" is finite or infinite...or even if it is exclusive.

I will read over your comments...and I appreciate your efforts to help me tremendously.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Hi Frank,
This is the very short version of the story. When Newton created his great theory it was the pinnacle of the machine-work or clock-work universe. I am sure you heard those terms before. The universe was deterministic to the extreme. Everyone liked it a lot. Plank and Heisenberg, et al. came around and ruined everything with what was to become the quantum theory.

I won’t go into detail but most scientists, once convinced of the correctness of its predictions, had a sort of schizophrenic crack up. The world wasn’t a clockwork it was a Clockwork Orange.

They actually toyed with the idea that every single thing they knew was no more that lucky guesses. There was a real feeling that science was an illusion and mystics were closer to reality, whatever the heck that was.

They finally decided to have a conference to determine if you could basically -- know anything. It was called the Copenhagen Conference as it was held in…Copenhagen, in 1927. Their decisions on the epistemological aspects of science have been forever called …you guessed it… the “Copenhagen Interpretation” of Quantum Theory.

They stated that NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN FOR CERTAIN using science or any form of axiomatic systems as a basis. All we can ever get from science is a MODEL of our perception NOT reality. To put it simply we can never know what is really happening behind the scenes. Yet we can make useful future predictions based on observation.

Combining this information with the work of Bell and later Aspect (who was actually able to really do one of Einstein’s thought experiments for real -- due to the technology revolution) there are now postulated five possible solutions to the EPR paradox, or how to look at reality. The Copenhagen Interpretation would correlate to the “No Models possible” solution.

That is a long way of telling you that in relation to that one point you are in the company of ”Plank, Heisenberg, Borh, Einstein, etc. So if you are wrong you are in a real heavy-weight group!

As for the universe, as well as all science it depends how you define things like infinite.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Dale, as you can see from Fresco's response to me...some people cannot even make an effort to calm things down and be reasonable.

Alas alack

Quote:

......some people. What do you think makes them do it?...and responding you my comments.......Any ideas?

Some of us seemingly angry at all times about nearly everything employ the Internet forum to vent our frustrations

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

snit suspended

1. The phrase "true nature of reality" axiomatically requires a reality independent of observers and potentially available as an ultimate test of veracity.
2. But as Kant pointed out, such a "reality"(Noumena) can never be accessed directly because if it exists, it is irrevocably mediated by our limited perceptual apparatus.
3. Therefore the existence of such a reality is actually AN ASSUMPTION dependent on the hypothetical shedding of perceptual apparatus (after death ?) or an ADDITIONAL ASSUMPTION of an ultimate pristine observer of it (a deity perhaps) who is unfettered by perceptual apparatus.
4. Therefore the phrase "true nature of reality" NECESSARILY involves ASSUMPTIONS OF A RELIGIOUS NATURE and cannot be used by one who claims to be agnostic and uncommitted to making such assumptions.
5. Any resolution of this suggests a reconsideration of the meaning of the words "truth" "reality" "existence" "knowledge" and "perception" beyond lay platitudes like "what is, is". Such discussions is available in a plethora of philosophical literature.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

snit suspended

Thank you, Fresco.

Quote:

1. The phrase "true nature of reality" axiomatically requires a reality independent of observers and potentially available as an ultimate test of veracity.

Okay. Let me grant that for now.

Quote:

2. But as Kant pointed out, such a "reality"(Noumena) can never be accessed directly because if it exists, it is irrevocably mediated by our limited perceptual apparatus.

Okay. Let me grant that for now also.

Quote:

3. Therefore the existence of such a reality is actually AN ASSUMPTION dependent on the hypothetical shedding of perceptual apparatus (after death ?) or an ADDITIONAL ASSUMPTION of an ultimate pristine observer of it (a deity perhaps) who is unfettered by perceptual apparatus.

Well I am not sure of what you are saying here, but I certainly can conceive of a REALITY (there COULD BE a REALITY) independent of observers and unavailable for access by us.

Nothing else comes of that in and of itself.

Any inferences drawn seem to gratuitous and self serving. But let me go on to the remainder of your comments. (I am taking these in real time after a first, cursory reading.)

Quote:

4. Therefore the phrase "true nature of reality" NECESSARILY involves ASSUMPTIONS OF A RELIGIOUS NATURE and cannot be used by one who claims to be agnostic and uncommitted to making such assumptions.

The "therefore" is inappropriate, because there is no necessary consequences of what preceded. In any case, I am not sure why you think an agnostic cannot make assumptions in order to test theories or hypotheses. I most assuredly am an agnostic...and I often make assumptions. I call them assumptions...not beliefs, but I make 'em.

For the sake of discussing the morality of abortion in another thread, I had to assume the existence of a GOD in order to make the points I would make IF a GOD exists.

You seem inordinately and unnecessarily wedded to the notion that REALITY or components of REALITY have to be observed...so you are insisting on gratuitous conditions existing in order for the REALITY (assumed unaccessible to us) to be.

It may be that the REALITY is not only independent of us as observers, but also independent of any needs for gods to be observers for it to be.

Quote:

5. Any resolution of this suggests a reconsideration of the meaning of the words "truth" "reality" "existence" and "perception" beyond lay platitudes like "what is, is", as discussed in a plethora of philosophical literature.

Respectfully, Fresco, I think not.

Allow me to propose a question: Is it possible or impossible for the reality of what IS...to be without an observer? (And if an observer absolutely is necessary, why do you say that it is...which, of course, is a variation I hope you will accept on my "Do you know this...or is it just a guess?")

1 Reply

Dale, Zarathustra, anyone else listening in...I may be out of my depth here. I would appreciate it if you could read my response to Fresco's comments...and tell me if I am really far off base.

It is possible that I am not up to discussing something this difficult with any facility. I would appreciate your opinions on that.

1 Reply

Reality at most needs "relations" from which "observers" may be just one more relational category...

Granted, self evidently, that in the process of communication the emergence of meaning or value are also dependent on the organizing system internal processes and goals, when prompted in a interaction with something else, it doesn't necessarily follow we need to categorise such system ability as being exclusive of an "observer" in the classical biological sense. Either we move and evolve the depth and scope of the term "observe" in a far more loosen more abstract way or we refrain from taking such a narrow approach to the problem at hand...

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

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

That’s supposedly true Ora but wouldn’t that assume the visible Universe to be alone in an already infinite space;

No.

dalehileman wrote:

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

I never understood that

The open/flat/closed thing is about the momentum the universe already has from the big bang.

Think of a mortar firing a shell, and the shell arcing and falling back to the earth. That would be like a closed universe falling back in on itself.

If the shell went into orbit, that would be like a flat universe.

And if the shell kept going on into deep space, that would be like an open universe.

In all three cases, the shell got all of its energy from when it was fired from the mortar, and then it continued on its course based on the momentum from that original energy.

A cosmological constant (now usually referred to as "dark energy" but I'm trying to resist that) is additional expansion energy that is pushing at the universe in addition to its original momentum from the big bang.

Picture that mortar shell having a rocket engine on it, so that after it was fired into the air it gained additional thrust beyond its original momentum.

The shell that would have fallen back to earth might now reach orbit or even continue into deep space. And even if it still fell back to earth, it would take longer to do so.

The shell that would have already reached orbit would now accelerate into deep space.

And the shell that was already headed to deep space will now do so with even more vigor.

Our universe being flat, it would expand forever based on its own momentum from the big bang, but the rate of expansion would continuously slow without ever quite coming to a stop.

However, the rate of expansion is being added to by the cosmological constant, so instead the expansion will rapidly accelerate.

So looking at the six mortar shells I listed as examples, our universe would be the shell that would have reached a stable orbit based on its own momentum, but which has the rocket thruster burning too, so will instead accelerate into deep space.

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
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.

Okay that makes sense but then if the rules are the same throughout doesn’t that mean (assuming that anything that can happen, will) that at each and every moment there are an infinite number of every possible visible Universe, galaxy, etc, and doesn’t that idea bother you

It doesn't bother me.

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
dalehileman wrote:
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

One way trips. Time dilation will make the trips manageable for the colonists,

That’s assuming they’d be able to carry the amount of fuel required to accelerate to c and then later decelerate at their destination

The colonization of other star systems will require the development of technology that we likely cannot even envision today.

But relativity/time dilation will make it feasible for colonists to make a one-way trip, once we do develop such technology.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Here are some links that state that Sol is an average sized star. Sol is classified as a G2 Dwarf star. The only way to reasonably suggest that it is larger than average is to include dead and collapsed stars.

No. All you have to do is count red dwarfs.

Frank Apisa wrote:

And I am hoping you have more integrity than that.

I am not including stellar remnants.

Frank Apisa wrote:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_size_of_a_star

http://www.universetoday.com/25331/size-of-stars

These two are wrong.

Interestingly, the second one links to this page, which has the correct information:

http://www.universetoday.com/24715/red-stars
"The first kind of red stars are red dwarfs. These are actually the most common stars in the Universe."

Frank Apisa wrote:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081029235622AAhsJlB

This one also has the correct information:

"I don't suspect the sun would fit in the "average" in that sense, as we are learning there may be many, many more red dwarf (and probably brown dwarfs as well) stars than most of the rest of the stellar types combined."

Frank Apisa wrote:

http://nfo.edu/astro/sun.htm

That one is also incorrect.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

oralloy wrote:
The average star is a red dwarf:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_dwarf

We were discussing sizes of stars...and nothing in that article indicates that red dwarfs are the average sized stars.

From the article:
"Red dwarfs are by far the most common type of star in the Galaxy, at least in the neighborhood of the Sun. Proxima Centauri, the nearest star to the Sun, is a red dwarf (Type M5, apparent magnitude 11.05), as are twenty of the next thirty nearest."

0 Replies

@Zarathustra,

Zarathustra wrote:

Second, there are three “recent” probes that have been tasked with gathering information to defend or refute that model. Not to say other probes haven’t provided some info. They are COBE, WMAP, and PLANK. By the most objective measure WMAP has been far the most important probe. Note: ALL have been provided important new information and as it can take decades to actually evaluate data the relative importance of the information can change.

We've already gotten all the data that WMAP will ever provide.

The public will only get their first glimpse of the very first Plank data later this year. And it will be a number of years before Plank is done providing data.

In the end, Plank will probably prove to be the most important of the three.

Zarathustra wrote:

dark matter (not made up of atoms)

Has the WIMP faction defeated the MACHO faction???

Zarathustra wrote:

It would be too long to explain all the implications but to straighten out a few…er…misstatements --

They DID NOT show that the universe is infinite. This is a misunderstanding of the observation that: the universe is Euclidean in geometry -- NOT that it is infinite in extent. It could be or not we just don’t know.

The conclusion that the universe is infinite flows from the fact that the only straightforward model of a flat universe, is one that is infinite in volume.

There are a minority of scientists who think that the WMAP data proves that the universe is finite (and therefore is one of the more twisted and complicated models). But so far most scientists still favor the simpler more straightforward model.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Dale, Zarathustra,...and tell me if I am really far off base.

It’s a bit deep for the Typical Blockhead (me) but I do feel that Fresco gets a bit carried away

Quote:

It is possible that I am not up to discussing something this difficult with any facility. I would appreciate your opinions on that.

While I’m certainly not, as far as I can tell you’re holding your own

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Ora thanks for all those defs

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank I’m honored you should seek my opinion—for what it’s worth

Quote:

Quote:
1. .."true nature of reality" axiomatically requires a reality independent of observers ......

Okay. Let me grant that for now.

Not me, it doesn’t seem to make sense

Quote:

Quote:
3. Therefore the existence of such a reality is actually AN ASSUMPTION dependent on the hypothetical shedding of perceptual apparatus.......

Well I am not sure of what you are saying here,

Me neither

Quote:

but I certainly can conceive of a REALITY....... independent of observers and unavailable for access by us.

But we almost have to work with what’s available

Quote:

Quote:
4. Therefore the phrase "true nature of reality" NECESSARILY involves ASSUMPTIONS OF A RELIGIOUS NATURE .......

The "therefore" is inappropriate, because there is no necessary consequences of what preceded........

That was my immediate reaction also

Quote:

It may be that the REALITY is not only independent of us as observers, but also independent of any needs for gods to be observers for it to be.

That seems patently obvious. Otherwise—what—if we all died the Universe wold cease to be

Quote:

Quote:
5. Any resolution of this suggests a reconsideration of the meaning of the words "truth" "reality" "existence" and “perception”........

Respectfully, Fresco, I think not.

Me neither. As I said, we have to work with what we’re given. Anyhow there may be no “reality” beyond what we’re able to detect

However there’s a sort of abstract reality with a rock (concrete) at one end and perhaps God at the other

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Naive realists miss these key pieces of logic.

Rule 1: CONCEPTS require CONCEIVERS.

When you say "I can conceive of a world without conceivers" you are playing at being a god...a pristine observer !

Rule 2. CONCEPTS ARE ALL WE EVER HAVE !

This follows Kant's point "a pristine world" is always mediated. For example "a world PRIOR TO observers" is mediated by our CONCEPT OF TIME.

3 Replies

In short TO CONCEIVE OF A WORLD WITHOUT CONCEIVERS is a ludicrous oxymoron.

1 Reply

@fresco,

...yes it is not conceivable I grant you that...as you mention time and space are a priori conditions that mediate any conceptual process, but they also mediate much more then concepts...so indeed a reality per se it is not conceivable in the sense that you can directly think of it without a relational process being present, but to my stance it is deductible in the sense that those relational/interacting experiences it produces (biological and non biological) require "somethingness" to relate with in the first place...speaking of relations or interactions without acknowledging the existence of concrete systems is meaningless, it simply makes no sense...

...I just cant understand in your model how on hell Fresco you establish functions without discrete operators...

3 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

No. All you have to do is count red dwarfs.

Quote:

"The first kind of red stars are red dwarfs. These are actually the most common stars in the Universe."

We are talking about size not about numbers.

My links contained correct information about size. You are trying to refute them by talking about population.

The trick doesn't work...so drop it.

1 Reply

Viability of foreverness

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know