JLNobody wrote:Some very intelligent comments here (and, by the way, great to see you, BoGoWo; it's about time). But I can't help myself. I must wonder about the condition of Reality "before" the Big Bang, which the latest scientific position holds to be the origin of both time and space (including "before" and "after"). In other words, with regard to this matter, it is a false one insofar as we cannot possibly answer it. The questions we ask reflect our limitations, resulting in very limited answers. But I do feel that since some of us cannot help but inquire, we get more for our efforts by taking a pragmatic approach and pursuing "explanations" that serve some purpose--as well as the gratification of curiosity............
yes JLN a too infrequent visit, i admit [miss the wisdom of your ponderings]
but must disagree; chaos is my 'model', devoid of meaning, and "purpose"; but ripe to the intervention of the individual who, seeing the void before them, makes the conscious descision to create meaning with their lives.
[the only thing that can free us from the chaos of the void is our 'will to meaning'.]
BoGoWo wrote:JLNobody wrote:Some very intelligent comments here (and, by the way, great to see you, BoGoWo; it's about time). But I can't help myself. I must wonder about the condition of Reality "before" the Big Bang, which the latest scientific position holds to be the origin of both time and space (including "before" and "after"). In other words, with regard to this matter, it is a false one insofar as we cannot possibly answer it. The questions we ask reflect our limitations, resulting in very limited answers. But I do feel that since some of us cannot help but inquire, we get more for our efforts by taking a pragmatic approach and pursuing "explanations" that serve some purpose--as well as the gratification of curiosity............
yes JLN a too infrequent visit, i admit [miss the wisdom of your ponderings]
but must disagree; chaos is my 'model', devoid of meaning, and "purpose"; but ripe to the intervention of the individual who, seeing the void before them, makes the conscious descision to create meaning with their lives.
[the only thing that can free us from the chaos of the void is our 'will to meaning'.]
humans are always looking for meaning. Perhaps our search is making it impossible to find. Perhaps if we stop searching then we will unintentionally come across the answer.
What's the latest consensus among astrophysicists? Is the universe (whatever that means) going to eventually contract, due to the forces of gravity, or will it continue to expand "forever"? Does "anti-matter" have anything to do with it?
I have difficulty with this question, not because I do not know, or cannot know, which will happen, cyclical expansion-contraction or infinite expansion, but because I have no confidence in the terms used. "Infinite" and "universe" and "forever" are particularly troublesome. I cannot imagine what the physical reference for infinite (space and time) or universe might be. The term, universe, suggests something that has, at least definitional, boundaries or that it is, in some sense, boundless. In the former, I would fruitlessly wonder what's outside its boundaries, and in the latter, "boundless" becomes like "infinite" and "forever", unimaginable (merely the opposite of something that is also unimaginable: finite). All I know--and this is MY universe, my absolute Reality--is the character of my immediate or raw experience right now. THAT'S my (portion of the) universe, and my time here is my forever, i.e, all the time there is.
cosmic expansion
"at some point expansion will stop as the cumulative effect of gravity brings all outward movement to a halt."
I think the jury is still out on that.
It has to do with the amount of dark matter in the universe.
I think Hawking believes that expansion wil go on forever but more work needs to be done.
Most people say that the apcolypse of the earth is the end of time, but time will none the less keep going on as a constant, but that brings the question of will the universe or the multiverse ever end therefore killing the concept of time. Will time still exist after the ultimate destruction?
I think that time will end when there are no humans to employ the concept.
BoGoWo, I think your "chaos" is similar to Nietzsche's "nihilism", man's default condition.
The fact that you acknowledge this chaos (most of us desperately deny it) and counter it with the purposeful construction of a meaningful human experience, likens you to the ideal of Nietzsche's ubermench. I'm serious.
Re: The origins of the universe
The Pentacle Queen wrote:Either 'at some point something came from nothing', or 'the universe has always existed'
Your premise only has potential if you assume linear time.
time will not end when there is no one to keep the concept alive. Humans only made the name but the the actual structure has been around for longer than humans are capable of thinking of.
PK, I take your point, but time, as WE understand it, IS our construction. When you look at the universe you see mainly ourself.
true but if we think we created time then humans are stupider than i thought.
PK, as I understand it, we created our NOTION of time. It is a construct that works for some explanatory purposes. But we do not actually SEE time; we THINK it, and it is fruitful for us to do so. The same applies to "cause."
JLN and PK.
The debating position as I see it is that you are at the point of disagreeing over "naive realism". PK's statement.....
"time will not end when there is no one to keep the concept alive. Humans only made the name but the the actual structure has been around for longer than humans are capable of thinking of."
....implies there can be "structure" independent of "an observer" to evoke it. This is of course avoided by BGW's chaos.
The compromise, which allows naive realists "something beyond themselves" and also allows transcendentalists to dissipate "self", is to move to the second order cybernetic position of "observing observation". A necessary requirement is to understand that all "positions" are axiomatic but that second order positions must not have "causality" or "time " as a priori. Some exponents of second order positions have chosen "hierarchical ecosystems" as their semantic locus. The advantage of such a locus is that it is both "second order" itself, and uses "second order" as a regulator of "validity" of descriptions by reference to the gestalt concept of "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts".
JLNobody wrote:PK, as I understand it, we created our NOTION of time. It is a construct that works for some explanatory purposes. But we do not actually SEE time; we THINK it, and it is fruitful for us to do so. The same applies to "cause."
Very good. We only created the notion of time, The actual structure is to complex to hold in our mind. Without time we would just stay in one place unless we could travel faster than time works.
PK
What do mean by the word "actual" ?
I define time as 'the perception of the sequential nature of events.'
This doesn't answer the why or the how, and it is certainly nothing more than an overview, but I find it useful.
fresco wrote:PK
What do mean by the word "actual" ?
I mean the true structure of time. I was using actual as a synonym.
Doktor, Yes, "useful."
PK, your use of the term "actual" connotes "naive realism", a stance we all take in everyday life, but off the mark in discussions of matters as problematical as cosmology.
I have no idea, and cannot have any idea, of what exists independently of human consciousness and representation. We do not experience a reality; we experience our representations of reality. This does not mean, of course, that there is no reality independent of our consciousness. But we cannot know that there is or isn't such a reality. I'm just saying that it has no relevance for us except as we describe its nature in our representations. Now this is talking about the symbolic meanings we use to understand and talk about "reality." That is a social cultural activity. When mystics engage their consciousness as such, they are aware of a different kind of nameless and very private Reality.
Hi JL, we haven't spoken in some time. I hope you're doing well.
JLNobody wrote:I have no idea, and cannot have any idea, of what exists independent of human consciousness and representation.
Does the fact that we all seem to experience a common reality give any credence to the idea that a common reality exists independent of human consciousness?
Granted that any one of us *could* be the only thing that exists and just dreaming all the others, but does that make any sense logically?
Hi, Rosborne. Psychological anthropologists have considered the problem of "a common world". There is, of course, no way of proving that we, or people of the same culture, have the same experience that we describe with the same words. We are, nevertheless, able to behave as if we did. The anthropologist, Anthony Wallace, tried to explain this in terms of "equivalency structures" language gestures and actions that seem to mediate possible differences. I do not accept a solipsistic reality in which you are merely my dream, because you could make the same argument with equal force that I am merely your dream. Even if it were a "validly" logical conclusion, it adddresses a false issue. My "dream" of the world is SO solid and consistent that it is, for me, just as good as real.
