If the Universe has no beginning?

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

I'm not qualified to judge the people in the article, or their understanding of the model. I was only responding to the specific comments being presented by the people I'm responding to (you included).

Well, my comments were basically limited to the suggestion that it's not a physics question. I'm assuming you agree with me about that, but perhaps I'm wrong. Initially you seemed to be suggesting that anyone who rejects the big bang model rejects the methodology of physics, but you seem to have retreated from that stance.

1 Reply

@layman,

I think we are just not able to communicate effectively in short posts. There is ambiguity in the language and the points we are trying to make are getting finer and more esoteric as we go.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

It's a philosophical question, that's all

Absolutely disagree, Lay. It's just that both philo and sci are behind just a whole lot. I can 'splain the whole thing myself, by a few simple assumptions based on that neglect, no contradictions, no paradox

0 Replies

On a more general topic, anyone who demands strict adherence to the "scientific method" in drawing theoretical conclusions should also concede that this method is utterly incapable of establishing fact or truth.

Scientific reasoning takes a form which, if advanced as "proof" or "truth," would require the adoption of a logical fallacy.

Basically, scientific theory (explanation) takes the form of "if my theory is true, then X would happen. X happened, therefore my reasoning it true."

That is the logical fallacy known as "affirming the consequent."

It could go like this, for example:

1. If god took a big piss, the ground would be wet.
2. Looky here, the ground is wet!
3. That proves that God just took a big piss.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

1. If god took a big piss, the ground would be wet.
2. Looky here, the ground is wet!
3. That proves that God just took a big piss.

To elaborate a little, there are empirical facts involved in this exercise (the ground is wet) which can be established with virtual certainty.

That, however, cannot prove a theory which purports to explain "why" the ground is wet. Scientific theories are the product of imagination, not "the facts."

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Let me see if I understand this... you are saying that some scientists become big bang deniers because they don't agree with the inherent requirement of science, namely that the supernatural cannot be involved. Is that right?

Layman got my intention right, this is a philosophical question. Maybe you just don't do philosophical, no shame in that.

So to fine tune the explanation of what I meant I'll have to risk sounding insulting which I really, really do not intend. But to put it into black and white terms, I think the 'Big Bang Denier scientists (among others) are driven more by an emotional reaction to any theory or evidence that could remotely infer an 'extra-natural' intelligence, rather than anything resembling science.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Yeah there must be some beginning ,otherwise how the universe is expanding now! There must be some point of start from where it all started ,now growing or what we call"expansion of universe".

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Quote:

dalehileman
1REPLYREPORT Tue 5 Dec, 2017 03:37 pm
@Agneta,
Quote:
What if the theory... is wrong?.. logical and likely that the Universe has always been here ,,,
'zakly Angie, you've hit it on the head precisely

But the idea of forever bothers me. If anything that can happen, will, then by chance every possibility has already happened an infinite number of times, even this present universe with you and me chatting. Then there's an infinite number just like this'n' at this moment, except one iota different. One germ on one of my teeth is out of place by one micron

I trust what scientists are claiming; that this world is over 4.5 billion years old. Add to that, Charles Darwins' evolutionary theory, and we have pretty much some form of understanding of what we are all about. These are theories based on evidence that is currently available to us. That's the best we humans can do with the technology and history of our species.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

This solar system may be 4.6 billon years old, but our world=Universe is some 13.8 billion years old.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

I have a model in which the origin the inflation, the equal amouts of matter and antimatter, the apparent expansion, DM and DE are easily incorporated. Even the quantum nature of 4d spacetime, and thus the quantum Nature of all quantum fields are easily explained.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

There is no model that can explain the uniqueness of what existed before the Big Bang.
There are a lot of speculations, among them that there was something there but we do not really know what was there.
And this too is a philosophical hypothesis.
The only way to find out what existed before the bang is to change the lab trying to find out the answer. The same lab that exists within us, the same universe that is within us, or actually a will. A Will that did not exist before the bang and was discovered only after it.

1 Reply

@yovav,

What 'Big-Bang'?
Do you just accept 'theory', as Fact?
Have a lovely Day

1 Reply

@mark noble,

The facts you hold so tightly are the same facts you grasp in your senses.
Good day to you too.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

The idea that the Universe had an absolute beginning was always appalling to Philosophers. Also this is old news there are plenty of models for a cyclic Universe from Multiverse 11 dimension superstring, to a succession of Big Bangs and Big Crunches (out of favour atm) To the old steady state, to Roger Pensrose more recently known Conformal Cyclic Cosmology model in which a Universe is preceded and succeeded by another Universe out of quantum fluctuations after an Aeon...

And even the old model of Einstein was based on the idea Time is a sort of phenomenal illusion which in turn is the same to say the whole thing existed all the time as a rock. So in good measure "beginning" is just a different way to say finite in size...

In sum Edgar the idea of beginning is a figure of speech and a deficiency of our primitive use of conceptual language that derives directly from our Evolutionary process and needs within "languaging".

Post Scriptum - I rather think of Information Completeness, instead of thinking on a beginning, and by completeness I refer to a Fractal pattern of all possible states or configurations a Set of Universes can have without repeating another previous Universe. And that would be the Informational size of the Metaverse if you will. The maximum amount of phenomena or Qualia possible.

2 Replies

@Albuquerque,

Speaking aboiut fractals in a forever cyclic model we are bound to eventually repeat after many many restarts of the system, many big bangs forward in which the exact same conditions apply and thus in which we "exist" again within spacetime...that is to mean our "soul" or better our information pattern is eternal as our information in the wheel of the machine is not forever lost if previously was possible in one of these Universes is bound to comeback eventually as statistically chances are greater than zero in a forever cyclic model. In that sense Death is forgetfulness and in that sense a necessary blessing.

Further, the "oh but I have to wait a long time to come back" also does not apply as for the dead person awareness of time passing is not perceived. Between your death and your come back it will be an instant.

Speaking of fractals Death is the big sleep while sleep is a small death...

2 Replies

@Albuquerque,

I only started the thread to see what sort of responses I would get.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

I am aware you were just steering up the waters to start some talk on the subject...I hope my little 02 cents have entertained your mind for a while in the process. Happy Holidays Edgar!

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

You have an interesting take on things. Happy back at you.

0 Replies

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque wrote:

Speaking aboiut fractals in a forever cyclic model we are bound to eventually repeat after many many restarts of the system, many big bangs forward in which the exact same conditions apply and thus in which we "exist" again within spacetime...that is to mean our "soul" or better our information pattern is eternal as our information in the wheel of the machine is not forever lost if previously was possible in one of these Universes is bound to comeback eventually as statistically chances are greater than zero in a forever cyclic model. In that sense Death is forgetfulness and in that sense a necessary blessing.

Further, the "oh but I have to wait a long time to come back" also does not apply as for the dead person awareness of time passing is not perceived. Between your death and your come back it will be an instant.

Speaking of fractals Death is the big sleep while sleep is a small death...

Just read your comments here and on the other thread where you posted recently, Albuquerque.

Not sure where this new, overly egotistical persona came from, but I hope you conquer whatever it is that absorbed you. You seem to be thinking you are a god or are soon to become one...and you may be correct. Which is a roundabout way of saying that you may be totally incorrect.

The entire of the quoted passage above, and several of the passages in the other thread, would have made a lot more sense if you had included several "maybe's" before the guesses you made about WHAT IS and WHETHER IT CAME TO BE OR ALWAYS HAS BEEN.

0 Replies

models are never evidence because all models are input specific and inputs are variable," usually chosen by the modeler " I use finite element, finit difference and analog hybrids as well as statistical.
Anyone who uses models to prove ,not test, is a fool.

0 Replies

If the Universe has no beginning?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know