Question Cyclical Universe

[voidpotentialenergy]

If a circle is indeed cyclical, where does it start?

Are we sure the universe is the big bang?
If the real universe is endless quantum fluctuation with big bang bubbles then what are measuring.
Cyclic universe bubbles are easy math in an endless sea of fluctuation.
Are they universes though or just big bangs in a universe that has no time or end.
Cyclic no and yes

 

[Catastrophe]

Well, one has to start draw the circle from one point. And that is the main point! And, after that, it can go on and on.

IG, I really like your reply BUT whilst what you say is true of the idea of a human drawing a circle, I am talking of the concept of a circle, which has no beginning and no end in time (or outside time for that matter).

It is directly analogous to my flatlander story. There, the sphere, on the surface of which the flatlanders live, has no beginning or end in time, as a concept.
To progress it further, the flatlander understands time, perhaps as the medium through which his Universe expands.

Now, here you will have a laugh with me, because I anticipate your next response. The flatlander will argue that because he sees his Universe expanding, then it must have started from nothing - from a Big Bang - so I will reply that either his Universe or his appreciation of his time will contract approaching infinitely slowly.
You have seen me use the I-word but in a mathematical 'philosophical' sense where it does have a limited use. Of course, the (n+1) dimensional observer will not have this problem. We use the I-word when we need it to get around a problem. That is why we (well, not me personally) like and use it so much. Don't forget, in the analogy we can be the flatlanders.

I believe it is a lesson to us, because whilst analogies do have limitations, there is an old saying "As above, so below" and I believe this is very true. Not blind belief, but belief in the utility of the idea as a useful part of my intellectual armoury.

I hope this helps.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Perhaps the largest contribution to this thread I can make is to ask you to consider the flatlander analogy. All (or almost all) pre-scientific suggestions, or whatever you may wish to call them ("pre-theories", "proto-theories", whatever) are based on analogies. The BB is based on the silly idea that you can backstory time. Because it is expanding now (or so we think) it must have come from nothing and stopped. That is in reverse it started from a stop or started from nothing. Rubbish! What about the 'changes in gradient' aka inflation?

Look at the flatlander analogy. In all probability, I believe we are asking non-questions. We invent infinity as the panacea of all ills. The cure for all our intellectual problems. If you use the word INFINITY (I must apologise for using the I-word, but we have to de-fuse it) then ask yourself "what am I trying to cover up by using this stilly substitute word". Please see my use of it above and understand why I used it!

If you want to learn more about the flatlander analogy (and I am in no way gaining financially by this suggestion - I believe you will all know me better) there is the original 1884 book "Flatland" by Edwin A Abbott. I received my copy on a Monday, (having ordered it on the Saturday), costing total about £3.

It is a great exercise for the mind to look at an example from a lower dimension and then say "What if they were us?" Scale up and see how your assumptions become modified. I know there is, at least, one person here who will benefit.

With best wishes to you all

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

It would be nice if you would call it Cat's Law".

Infinity is a silly word used by n dimensional intelligences to cover up what they don't understand. It is, however, understood, for what it is, by n+1 dimensional intelligences. Simply an illusion.

 

[dfjchem721]

It would be nice if you would call it Cat's Law".

Infinity is a silly word used by n dimensional intelligences to cover up what they don't understand. It is, however, understood, for what it is, by n+1 dimensional intelligences. Simply an illusion.

For someone who seems to go on infinitely about how that very concept is an illusion, you certainly give some credibility that infinity might actually reside in philosophy at least.

As you so accurately noted, it is a concept when we run into trouble. A profound notion that will leave me pondering it for some time to come. That last series of posts has left me gasping for breath, and this is not a put-down, indeed it is one of my most profound compliments. It all needs to be printed out and poured over with my large reading glass. Wow!

Most regrettably, I can only give you one "like" per post!!!

 

[Catastrophe]

dfj

I thank you most profoundly for that! May the Force be with You!

Have you caught me out in #177?

Cat

 

[dfjchem721]

Have you caught me out in #177?

No even close.

It will take me some time to ponder these concepts. As you may remember, this is not my forte, but is certainly your's!

In this regard, I am like the stealthy alien observer, wondering what in the world Cat's Law is all about. It will take some serious ruminations to rationalize all that in my empirically-driven brain.

 

[IG2007]

]Well, it seems that my mind is going haywire with so much philosophy and a new Law. Cat, will you pardon me if I reply to your post tomorrow?

 

[dfjchem721]

Well, it seems that my mind is going haywire with so much philosophy and a new Law.

Ditto here.

Cat, will you pardon me if I reply to your post when a rational response can be composed?

That could take longer than tomorrow!

 

[Catastrophe]

]Well, it seems that my mind is going haywire with so much philosophy and a new Law. Cat, will you pardon me if I reply to your post tomorrow?

No problem

 

[Catastrophe]

Ditto here.

Cat, will you pardon me if I reply to your post when a rational response can be composed?

That could take longer than tomorrow!

No problem

 

[Catastrophe]

I would like to suggest a slight amendment to the title of this thread. Just a close relative which means much the same but really helps to clear some issues. If we substitute CONTINUOUS for cyclic we will breathe new life into the subject. I would be very happy if the moderators consider that this should start a new thread.

Now we need not ask where is the beginning. The Universe has and will continue to continue. That continuation is, itself, existence. If you have to worry about a beginning, close your eyes, tense your body, and then instantaneously throw open your arms and feel your thoughts zooming in all directions.

You were the Universe experiencing the Big Bang. You continued from ‘before’ the big bang. What you continued from does not matter. It is almost certainly beyond our comprehension or imagination. Maybe we, the Universe of which our constituents atoms or subatomic particles (or constituent energy as photons or whatever) are a part, maybe we have experienced the birth (the BB) from the collapse of a super Black Hole – perhaps the inrush of all matter to (metaphorically) concentrate all matter to fuse from separate protons and electrons and further compress into massive neutron conglomerates until finally at the peak of contraction, we burst into a new existence by virtue of the Big Bang, or perhaps we should call it the Big Birth – the resurgence of all energy and matter having been ground through the mill of change to finally reemerge as the simplest building blocks of hydrogen, helium and energy.

CONTINUATION from whatever was before the Big Bang into continuing continuing as nucleosynthesis until where we are today. CONTINUING.



Cat

 

[dfjchem721]

It is almost certainly beyond our comprehension or imagination.

All this cycling and continuations are making my head go round and round, just like the theories. There seems no end, and that is clearly the point.

No doubt a beginning and ending is anthropo-whatever. We don't need either one.

So some continuous nature seems most probable, if for no other reason that it needs no explanation for its existence, unlike other "theories". It simply was and always will be. Yeah, sounds sorta like something out of an old book, but with a much different origin. Nothing caused it, because it is its own origin, and has no beginning and no end.

This line of reasoning surely supports a continuous nature to nature.

Proving it is a very different issue, as we know all too well.....

 

[Catastrophe]

"Proving it is a very different issue, as we know all too well....."

Probably impossible, except for an (n+1) dimensional being.

 

[IG2007]

@Catastrophe , even after several rounds of intense thinking, my head can't interpret the data you've just smashed into it. By the term continuous universe, do you mean to say that there were infinite universes before this one and there will be another infinite universes after this one?

 

[Catastrophe]

@Catastrophe , even after several rounds of intense thinking, my head can't interpret the data you've just smashed into it. By the term continuous universe, do you mean to say that there were infinite universes before this one and there will be another infinite universes after this one?

AHA! Continuous is meant to eliminate I-word.

Continuous implies continuity without beginning or end. We were doing so well, and now the I-word is back. It makes me sad. Now we are talking about universeS again. All my hard work is going to waste. Please look at #187 again.
You are the one and only Universe. You wake from sleep. You throw your arms wide and relax as all those tiny entities of pre-energy, pre-mass zoom away in all directions. You have awoken and spread your energy all around. Not into space, because you are space and you are time. You are space-time, you are the Universe.
Can you not see? There is nothing "out there" nothing "before" You are The Universe and you have just awoken. Outside and before are meaningless, just like when you wake in the morning and open your eyes. Hold on to that reality.

Cat

 

[KC Strom]

OK. I'm going to hang myself out there a bit. But, first, I would like to applaud all those that contributed to this thread. This may well be the best thing I've ever read on the internet.

A question and a comment.

1. So, if the universe "began" the prime mover was Quantum Fluctuation?

2. Perhaps the reason the life cycle of the universe is difficult to understand is due to dimensional-blindness. And not just space/time.

 

[IG2007]

@Catastrophe , I don't know if I am right, but, logically, I guess, the continuous universe theory breaks down to the big bang theory. It's like, you know, the BB theory supporters say that there was nothing before the big bang. No space, no time, no spacetime, nothing. And, I guess, if you view in the point of view of the n+1 dimensional creature, the big bang theory = the continuous universe theory.

 

[Catastrophe]

Hi KC
I cannot comment on your question 1 because I don't have the faintest idea what quantum fluctuation is. All I can say is that I don't believe that it had a beginning in any sense that we humans try to make of it.
As far as 2 is concerned, that seems to me to be very much on the right track.

Now, IG. I think you are getting on the right track now. As I see it, the BB is just a waking up into a new consciousness - not a new material Universe. We know that "reality" is very different from what we see anyway. "Reality" is virtually all space and solidity is just an illusion because everything is "filling" space by moving around so quickly. Don't try putting your hand through the spokes of a bicycle wheel when it is turning quickly, even though you know it is mostly space between them!

Best wishes to you both!

Cat

 

[IG2007]

@Catastrophe , does that mean my logic is correct?

 

[Catastrophe]

@Catastrophe , does that mean my logic is correct?

If I understand you correctly, Yes!

But make sure that you are looking at it from the (n+1) dimension, not from the old BB idea.

Cat

 

[IG2007]

If I understand you correctly, Yes!

Cat

At last! At last I have found a perfect way to understand the Big Bang Theory!

 

[Catastrophe]

No more I-words, and no talk of before the BB then?

Before the BB was only before consciousness woke up.
At least that is only my view.

OK. See you soon!

 

[IG2007]

No more I-words, and no talk of before the BB then?

Before the BB was only before consciousness woke up.
At least that is only my view.

OK. See you soon!

Well, quoting yourself, "all analogies don't work."

I know there is, at least, one person here who will benefit.

With best wishes to you all

Cat

I guess that the person is me.

 

[Gary]

Interesting posts #1-4. Here are five points that science must meet according to a 1982 Fed court and judge ruling.

The essential characteristics of science are:

1. It is guided by natural law;
2. It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law;
3. It is testable against the empirical world;
4. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final word;
5. It is falsifiable.

Using points 1 and 2 of the definition of science, what natural law(s) explains a *cyclical universe*?
Using point 3, what test(s) show the universe we observe today is a *cyclical universe*?
Using point 5, how is a cyclical universe falsifiable?

Before the cyclical universe is falsifiable , it must necessarily be verifiable .