13
   

the universe and space....?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2003 05:09 pm
Mech, What do you propose we tackle first? Just as a beginning. I'm sure the others will fall into place sooner or later. c.i.
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2003 05:59 pm
CI,
I propose to describe a Universe that had no beginning. One that is "Mechanical". One that requires no "Creator",no "Prime Mover" no "beginning of time", no metaphysical concepts. Within this Universe there can be no sin and evil is merely a conditioned response to different randomized interactions of matter and energies.

But I will wait a bit and see if ILZ, ebrowne,or Terry show up. I think that I understand the mechanics of the thing quite well. The math to show the obvious is not so obvious to me Smile . It' is rough.

Unless somebody want to try a different one we can start tomorrow.
See why we need a description or definition of conception? M.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2003 06:17 pm
truth
AkaMS, I don't want to continue being a pest, but I must insist (and then back off for a while) that while it is proper that your definition of the universe omit such unscientific notions as Creator, Prime Mover, etc., you fail to see that even the concept of "universe" is ultimately a metaphysical (philosophically problematical) concept, as is the notion of a purely mechanical reality (one which I accept, by the way). It is never so simple a matter as arriving at consensually accepted definitions. I know that this would greatly assist discussion and argumentation. But the discussion would then rest on "convention," rather than the exploration of what really is the case. For that to happen one must not just define one's terms but critique them as well. That's of course why I am very skeptical of the value of such discussions except as very refined recreation.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2003 06:41 pm
JLN, I was trying to stay away from mentioning anything about "recreation" to stimulate some serious thinking. Okay, so beyond the mechanical reality, what would be the proper starting point? Would you like to attempt the definition? c.i.
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2003 07:05 pm
JL,
I tend to think that a rock is a rock regardless of if there is anything that percieves it as a rock or not.
I have heard a similar arguement advanced as to the presence of Gods.
"They are there or not there whether you or I believe them to be there or not"
A Mechanical Universe is something that would be there, whether we were or not.
The limits of this is what I would like to try to determine. And I suspect that there are limits.


Frank esp, You'll like this. Colliding galaxies.

http://heritage.stsci.edu/2000/34/index.html
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2003 07:14 pm
Thanks, Mech.

Some of that Hubbel stuff is out of this world.

(Jeez, I made a funny!)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2003 07:20 pm
At one time, that rock could have been a living thing. c.i.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2003 07:21 pm
truth
C.I., I do not mean to put our efforts down. I think of it as "deep play."
AkaMS, a rock is, of course, a rock from the perspective of everyday life. That is known technically, as you know, philosophical Naive Realism. It is the basis for everyday practical life, we all live by it, but philosophically no professional philosopher considers it a valid epistemological basis for enquiry. Much of science can function quite adequately in terms of the (ontological and epistemological) assumptions of NRism. But the higher THEORETICAL approach to reality must jump into the abyss of metaphysical struggle. By metaphysics I do not mean the kind of philosophy repudiated by Kant; I refer to the practice of examining our basic postulates, our most fundamental assumptions. Science in the sense of engineering and even astrophysical speculation about the "observable" universe can avoid much of this. But if anyone uses the term universe and its boundaries in space and time, speculations about what is not observable. Then naive realism becomes very much out of place.
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2003 01:11 am
akaMechsmith wrote:
Terry,
Upon rereading the thread--
Your posts of Jul 21, 9:33 and 9:34 Seem to be contradictory as to the resolution of "Olbers paradox". Confused
Please elucidate. I'll try to understand. Best M.


Stars are pretty far apart, so you would need an awful lot of them scattered in a very large universe in order to cover every point in the night sky.

But the CMBR is like a fog: you see specks of light everywhere you look even if the fog bank is only a few hundred feet deep.

I don't know how much I'll be able to contribute to this discussion since I'm leaving Wed. for Alaska and will probably be there until the end of September. I got the call the day after buying a laptop when I thought I was going to MN for the next 2 months. Don't know what internet access will cost me since my local ISP does not serve Alaska, and neither AOL nor Earthlink list local access numbers for Fairbanks.
0 Replies
 
twyvel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2003 06:40 am
Good points JL,

Naïve realism is usually the starting point and as one moves along they take it apart, or reject it.

And I guess Mechsmith has already started it with:

I tend to think that a rock is a rock regardless of if there is anything that percieves it as a rock or not.
I have heard a similar arguement advanced as to the presence of Gods.
"They are there or not there whether you or I believe them to be there or not"
A Mechanical Universe is something that would be there, whether we were or not.
The limits of this is what I would like to try to determine. And I suspect that there are limits.


To clear up the wording......

A rock is not a rock in the same way that a hammer isn't a hammer apart from human thinking and imagination, they're constructs.

A hammer needs to be perceived as a hammer to be a hammer, same for a rock or computer. The 'hammerness' of the hammer is not in the hammer, rather it is in our perceptions of it.

A rock is whatever it is apart from human thinking, or observation but whatever that is it isn't a "rock", that is of course if it exists apart from the observation.

And a human brain is what it is apart from human thinking and observation, but whatever that is it isn't a human brain, that is of course if it exists apart from the observation.


Have an interesting time in Alaska Terry,......
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2003 11:31 am
truth
Twyvel, I've still got to digest your last two posts, but let me drop a note here: the meaning of "rock" is, of course a human construct, but it is so in a different way than is the meaning of a "hammer." The meaning of the hammer existed before the hammer did. In making the hammer humans followed the dictates of the idea of the hammer. Rocks existed before humans came along. Although there was a time, if one goes back far enough, when humans used rocks as hammers. Smile
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2003 12:30 pm
Our observations are necessarily based upon our concepts and perceptions. When and how does those develop? How important is language? c.i.
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2003 07:01 pm
Twyvel, I think that that's a way to go. It'll take a little imagination but if we were to describe a rock from all possible points of view we may come up with what a rock actually IS.
A hammer is a human construct. It takes intelligence and imagination to make a rock into a hammer but IMO a rock IS simply as a result of its natural construction. (interactions of physical laws)

So here I go.
A rock to a geologist is- a mechanically or chemically bonded assortment of crystallized elements.
A crystal implies that it was a liquid at times past.
An element implies a particular set of circumstances which allows atomic particles to combine in a particular molecular structure.
An atom implies a particular set of circumstances which allows a combination of electrons and protons to form.
An electron implies that a combination of sub atomic particles formed previously.
A sub atomic particle implies that a combination of forces formed at some time.
A combination of forces imply that forces existed before rocks were formed, Assuming of course that they are not infinite.
That is an assumption that seems to be required by Big Bang Theory.
Either that or the forces required came from another dimension (string theory) or from God (creation theory)

Thats a rock, from a mechanistic viewpoint.
Any body got a poetic, philosophical, religious, or perceptive view?

Without going to an infinity, a Big Bang, or a Creation, I can go no further with a rock. Mechanically speaking. None of those have ever been shown to exist. Mech
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2003 07:37 pm
Terry, re your post of Jul 29,2;31AM

I have a lot of stars. I cannot even think of the number of light (EMR) emitting objects potentially contained within a sphere large enough to contain Our Observable Universe like the yolk of an egg. The white of the egg if it is not infinite must be thick enough to allow gamma rays to be red-shifted to the microwave. Actually they must be shifted to ELF waves, which we do not see so well.

2nd thought, This happens through "diffusion" in four dimensions similar to what happens as you leave a city at night on an aircraft, which will appear be diffusion in two dimensions.
The diffusion on Earth is caused by interactions and refractions between particles,gravity, and the atmosphere.
The "diffusion in space is caused by interactions and refractions between particles, gravity, time, and (mostly) intersteller hydrogen.

Have a good time on the trip. We'd like to hear about it when you get back. Best, Mech
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2003 07:44 pm
truth
AkaMechaSmith, thank you for a wonderful virtuoso presentation!! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2003 11:29 am
Having just got back from a week in (may as well have been Mars) Northern Ontario, I went back and read all the posts since my last recollection.
I'm not sure where someone decided to -reinvent the universe?- but I haven't been able to get a grasp on where everyone is going (with the obvious exception of Terry - Alaska).
Could someone; Mech, C.I., Twyv, Jln, or other, or all of the above, please define the current direction.

And in case I did get some inkling, might it not be better to define the goal, and then design a system to provide that goal.
And on that line of thinking would it be possible to look at the unsuitability of the existing universe, and by so doing infer the changes that would be required to eliminate faults (like "nature" for example), and redirect cultural attention to "do-able" goals.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2003 12:08 pm
BoGoWo, What do you propose as the "do-able" goals? Logic seems to dictate, to me, that we must begin with some idea of what concept is. c.i.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2003 12:16 pm
truth
BoGoWo, good to have you back; I was wondering where you were. THIS thread seemed to me to be right up your alley (pardon. Didn't mean to sound so personal). The direction of the thread I am not sure of. It seemed to have been going along quite well until I discovered it. About that time some of the astrophysically sophisticated folks dropped out. Hope it was not because of something I said. Actually, they disappeared (temporarily I hope) before I started with my gab. My efforts turned out to be a side-tracking of the direction. I introduced "philosophical" qualms about the "ultimates" in speculation (which nobody actually was up to): questions about the beginning of time (even before the Big Bang), the size of the universe (and what's beyond it, if that makes sense), etc. etc. If my comments were to be taken seriously they would tend to bog down the process. Fortunately, the concern of the thread is with the structure and function of the "observable" universe at the epistemological level of "naive realism." And that's fine for its purposes. So from here on I'm just going to sit back and learn--unless of course someone chooses to engage me in speculation at the philosophical level.
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2003 12:18 pm
The "do-ables" could be defined only after completing the assessment of the universe flaws I was suggesting.
The list might just be endless; hence our living example of "infinity"!
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2003 07:11 pm
Hi Bogo, This may be a naive attempt to sort out what IS, from what a human may percieve it to be.

I started with a rock, and back a few posts I mentioned that a rock will still be a rock even if no intelligence was around to define it in rather poetically absolute terms.

Anybody want to try "time" "space" "distance" or life perhaps? The rock was probably simplest. Very Happy

Divorcing the universe from our perceptions won't be easy. Perhaps not possible but I kind of think it may be. M
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 03:18:58