if the universe and space was created at the moment of the big bang where did the big bang happen At the instan before the event there was nowhere a?

[Helio]

Can you clarify please, it looks to me like one post says the first law may not be valid before the recombination and and also quark formation, on the other post you are saying "No" that you are not saying the law is invalid. Instead you are saying the risk of error is greater The first law is either correct or not, any error means it is invalid completely.

This is a question of degree, not kind. Of course, the first law is either valid or it's not -- the "kind' version. But the question is which is it? Our ability to say it is valid today far exceeds our ability to claim it is was valid during the first Planck unit of time, especially when the equations produce results that go flying to infinity as we approach that first Planck unit of time. It's reasonable, to your point, that it ought to be valid, but my point is that it's outside the purview of hard science.

...However, I was mostly focusing on the first law. It seems a bit more resilient, as the energy part of the statement doesn't rely on particles it could be just the energy of force fields,...

Agreed. It seems more likely to accept that it is valid than not. But notice we are talking outside the purview of science. That's my only point since I have no idea what the real answer might be, and even if it is physically possible to know.

... and that the matter/energy can't be created or destroyed statement will still apply.

I would favor this a little more than not, especially if we start with energy, but we see that there is demonstrable evidence that matter condensed from energy, so could energy condense from some unknown transcendent form of energy? Just speculating, but science can't say yeah or nay to it, IMO.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Re me - "Are you saying that because we can't observe before the recombination that the first law might not be valid then?"
In post 87 you told me - "The evidence is that the laws of thermo are very likely as far back in time as Recombination. We lose all direct observational evidence from there back, but labs do a great job objectively supporting the science to at least the first minute. It would be difficult, IMO, to make any bold statement of thermo for any time prior to quark formations."

Can you clarify please, it looks to me like one post says the first law may not be valid before the recombination and and also quark formation, on the other post you are saying "No" that you are not saying the law is invalid. Instead you are saying the risk of error is greater The first law is either correct or not, any error means it is invalid completely. If you do mean the first law may be invalid before a certain time, all I was trying to do was ask you to acknowledge that that means you may be able to get something from nothing as a consequence of this not, as a personal opinion of whether you can or not.
I do not think this way it was you who suggested the first law might be invalid before the recombination period, it was your imagination.

Re me post 94- "What is certain is that something went into forming it. Nature is a continuous process, it doesn't pause so you can put something called t = 0 on it there isn't a stop start to it. Again that's logic not necessarily science." Your response -

I can't understand and why it is hard to make an argument, there are two simple choices;

1. there was some matter/energy and events before t = 0

2. there was nothing before t = 0

Since you can't have something from nothing, proves there was some matter energy and events before t = 0.

I acknowledge you've raised a good and interesting point about the thermal laws becoming a bit dodgy,, especially before before quark formation since heat relies on particles. However, I was mostly focusing on the first law. It seems a bit more resilient, as the energy part of the statement doesn't rely on particles it could be just the energy of force fields, and that the matter/energy can't be created or destroyed statement will still apply.

I've always looked at the problem of conservation of energy not as a law but as a property.
Could be fluctuation sets that law when a balance of energy is reached.
Could also be time/space/gravity/speed light etc laws all created because of a property of fluctuation.

We could easily be mislead about conservation of energy because a property of the universe set it long ago and only now it's law.

I agree cyclic in the traditional thinking probably isn't going to happen with entropy and expansion.

Then again our understanding of cyclic might be to regional.
Cyclic ugly might happen on a very grand scale.
Cannibal, universe bubble creation etc
JMO

 

[Atlan0001]

Entropy is the seemingly inexorable mainline trip {back} to the wild, the Universe's uniformity of symmetrical order even if not the scientist's idea of order. It has many more than one means of getting there.

The Universe (U), though, has a joker in the deck. It has one quite definite counter 'force' to entropy's inexorability, unrecognized as such by all physicists and most scientists in general. The cellular-like (cell like) energetic life force in and of each and every one of the infinity of [finite] universes (u).

 

[David-J-Franks]

All the evidence points to an expanding Universe. There is no BBT without expansion.

You're entitled to this opinion especially since it isn't a question science can answer.

It is based upon what we see after things were created, so only from some point on or after the beginning (t=0) does this law, and ALL the others, take effect. The creation included the stuff needed to make it all work, essentially, in a near-perfect (ie finely-tuned) way.

"Empty space" outside of space demonstrates how confusing metaphysics can get.

Agreed. I think most are just referring to a likely scenario over, say, the next 20 billion years. The acceleration of spacetime argues this point. But we don't know what DE is, so how do we know it, or something related, won't do something funky in, say, 50 billion years?

Right, the BBT argues for an isotropic and homogenous universe (cosmological principle).

How do we test for symmetry where the ends can't be found to flip it for that test?

Agreed.

We have no testable premises to make one view more better than annuder.

The analogy is to emphasize that even when entropy decreases (in one spot) the overall entropy for the Universe increases. Stars are losing their available energy every second, thus entropy is increasing.

The lowest state of entropy was during the beginning. Hydrogen gives us the best known energy production so its creation required the lowest entropy state, thus at the beginning. Fusion ever since has increased entropy.

Entropy is defined as heat flow along an isotherm, so yes, it is a difference in two states. Some just use the "negative entropy" as a way to state a direction a process is going between two states.

All the evidence points to an expanding Universe. There is no BBT without expansion.

Universe means everything that exists especially when used with a capital U. Everything that exists can't be known or observed, so there can be no evidence that it is expanding.

The only thing that's expanding are the observable contents of the Big Bang and the big bang can't be assumed to be everything that exists i.e. the Universe.

You're entitled to this opinion especially since it isn't a question science can answer.

Re - "I will stand by saying the indefinite expansion of the universe (common popular meaning, ie contents of the Big Bang) is absurd."

I think it is more than an opinion I think it is based on Logic it's based on the first law of thermodynamics which points to an eternal universe. An indefinite expansion of a universe or any part of it is not compatible with an eternal Universe, things would just disappear otherwise.

As you pointed out above, the first law of thermodynamics might have a valid only from date, in which case before that, something from nothing could be possible if you are correct. So in the case where you can have something from nothing then my reasoning breaks down, agreed.

Is there somewhere in reality that's in between evidence and supposition such as logic?

How do we test for symmetry where the ends can't be found to flip it for that test?

Just logic and reasoning. When I said ultimate symmetry I was referring to my idea of the infinite or universe not the big bang contents. Briefly to recall - an infinite universe with an infinite number of big bangs in it.

The cosmological principle has not been fully tested throughout the entire observable contents of our big bang. it's a proposition based on the idea that there's no reason to think otherwise.


So on the same basis, I'm entitled to apply it throughout 'The Infinite', my Universe. What's more I'm assuming that an infinite universe can't have an overall shape, any patterns should be repeated over Infinity and given an eternal existence things would even out anyway, and also what gives rise to something in one area, the same laws will give rise to something similar in all areas over 'The Infinite'. yYeah not concrete but fairly good reasoning I hope.

I cant prove anything overall all but what I'm aiming to do do is find the most reasonable and logical theory I can.

The analogy is to emphasize that even when entropy decreases (in one spot) the overall entropy for the Universe increases. Stars are losing their available energy every second, thus entropy is increasing.

this is not necessarily nor reasonably likely true. You've used the word Universe with capital U i.e. everything that exists. If this is Infinite and fulll of other stuff, then the entropy of that can't increase indefinitely, there's nowhere else for anything to expand to or lose heat to. It behaves as a closed system, so the entropy will average out at 'Frank's average entropy of The Infinite' (laugh laugh once again) as detailed in posts above.

 

[Helio]

Everything that exists can't be known or observed, so there can be no evidence that it is expanding.

I'm not following your logic. A balloon will expand, and the evidence is strong that the observable Universe is expanding. What the unobservable universe is doing is of no value to science, at this point. But, it's hard to imagine that whatever is beyond the observable could somehow counteract the observable Universe's expansion, any more than argue our balloons don't expand.

Is there somewhere in reality that's in between evidence and supposition such as logic?

Yes, far more than we would like, unfortunately. Science uses objective evidence to generate new hypotheses and theories. But logic and suppositions, regardless how subjective they may be, are working part necessary to produce new ideas from which theories can develop.

Theories are sometimes described as tools. They aren't to be taken as truths, partly because they are always a work in progress. Einstein improved greatly on Newton's laws, like an electric drill vs. a screw driver -- both produced similar results but GR can do things Newton never attempted to address.

Math has been used extensively to argue that there are other universes. This helps explain things like the fantastic fine-tuning needed to make our Universe capable of sentient life forms. So math is a powerful part of the arguments into metaphysics, but it, IMO, always be acknowledged as metaphysics, else science become vulnerable to subjective opinions and abuse of consensus.

Just logic and reasoning. When I said ultimate symmetry I was referring to my idea of the infinite or universe not the big bang contents. Briefly to recall - an infinite universe with an infinite number of big bangs in it.

If one universe is hard to make, then it would be infinitely harder to make that many, so logic would suggest something different, IMO. Of course, again, such thoughts aren't hard science.

I cant prove anything overall all but what I'm aiming to do do is find the most reasonable and logical theory I can. this is not necessarily nor reasonably likely true.

Cat may want to make the definition more clear here, but I see it as the observable universe, which means in principle as well. IOW, the limits where science says we cannot, by any means, be able to observe.

 

[Atlan0001]

Cheeez. The infinite Universe's (U) [united] monolith of naked singularity, a.k.a. 'Utopia' (a.k.a. 'Nowhereland'), which entropy tends [back} to is the very source 'superposition correlative' of the [divided] infinity of finite cellular-like universes (u). As I said in another thread, unoriginally, "the set of all constituent elements of the set will not be a constituent element of the set." Even history, human history, displays that physic for a fact. The existence of the ultimate in 'division' (the infinity of finite universes (u)) is intrinsic to the existence of the ultimate in 'unity' (the infinite Universe (U) (('1')('-1')).

(The set (such as the "life force") of all constituent elements (such as QM) of the set will not be a constituent element of the set. It will exist and be noticeable, though not always obviously so. More, you can't get more "disorderly" grainy-like, and less entropically flat-smooth, than an infinity of (more or less freewheeling) finite universes (u) / you can't get more "disorderly" grainy-like, and less entropically flat-smooth, than an infinity of finite life.)

 

[Catastrophe]

I believe that it is very dangerous to assume that our very limited interpretation of "laws" locally can be extrapolated Universe wide. Remember how long the HR thought that the Earth was flat, even though there were clear signs to the contrary (e.g., ships on horizon).

Cat

 

[David-J-Franks]

This is a question of degree, not kind. Of course, the first law is either valid or it's not -- the "kind' version. But the question is which is it? Our ability to say it is valid today far exceeds our ability to claim it is was valid during the first Planck unit of time, especially when the equations produce results that go flying to infinity as we approach that first Planck unit of time. It's reasonable, to your point, that it ought to be valid, but my point is that it's outside the purview of hard science.

Agreed. It seems more likely to accept that it is valid than not. But notice we are talking outside the purview of science. That's my only point since I have no idea what the real answer might be, and even if it is physically possible to know.

I would favor this a little more than not, especially if we start with energy, but we see that there is demonstrable evidence that matter condensed from energy, so could energy condense from some unknown transcendent form of energy? Just speculating, but science can't say yeah or nay to it, IMO.

Yes I agree with with most or all of that. It never occurred to me before that laws might not apply under different circumstances. So, yes I've learnt something there

 

[David-J-Franks]

I'm not following your logic. A balloon will expand, and the evidence is strong that the observable Universe is expanding. What the unobservable universe is doing is of no value to science, at this point. But, it's hard to imagine that whatever is beyond the observable could somehow counteract the observable Universe's expansion, any more than argue our balloons don't expand.

Yes, far more than we would like, unfortunately. Science uses objective evidence to generate new hypotheses and theories. But logic and suppositions, regardless how subjective they may be, are working part necessary to produce new ideas from which theories can develop.

Theories are sometimes described as tools. They aren't to be taken as truths, partly because they are always a work in progress. Einstein improved greatly on Newton's laws, like an electric drill vs. a screw driver -- both produced similar results but GR can do things Newton never attempted to address.

Math has been used extensively to argue that there are other universes. This helps explain things like the fantastic fine-tuning needed to make our Universe capable of sentient life forms. So math is a powerful part of the arguments into metaphysics, but it, IMO, always be acknowledged as metaphysics, else science become vulnerable to subjective opinions and abuse of consensus.

If one universe is hard to make, then it would be infinitely harder to make that many, so logic would suggest something different, IMO. Of course, again, such thoughts aren't hard science.

Cat may want to make the definition more clear here, but I see it as the observable universe, which means in principle as well. IOW, the limits where science says we cannot, by any means, be able to observe.

I'm not following your logic. A balloon will expand, and the evidence is strong that the observable Universe is expanding.

Here is your statement from post 72 which I was responding to;

"All the evidence points to an expanding Universe. There is no BBT without expansion."

Here is my full reply to that statement;

"Universe means everything that exists especially when used with a capital U. Everything that exists can't be known or observed, so there can be no evidence that it is expanding.

The only thing that's expanding are the observable contents of the Big Bang and the big bang can't be assumed to be everything that exists i.e. the Universe."

Your statement said "points to an expanding Universe" you used Universe with a capital U which is a conscious effort to makes clear it means everything that exists. There is no evidence that the Universe, I.e everything that exists is expanding because it is not known what everything that exists is.

If you had quoted my full reply in your last post above would have seen that I went on to say that;

"The only thing that's expanding are the observable contents of the Big Bang and the big bang can't be assumed to be everything that exists i.e. the Universe."

The problem is is because you've just changed your wording from "Universe" to "observable Universe" in this post. Different meaning all together. So, yes of course the 'observable Universe' is expanding. What you called the "observable Universe" I called the 'observable contents of the Big Bang' in an attempt to distinguish it from any wider Universe, capital U.

Yes, far more than we would like, unfortunately. Science uses objective evidence to generate new hypotheses and theories. But logic and suppositions, regardless how subjective they may be, are working part necessary to produce new ideas from which theories can develop.

Theories are sometimes described as tools. They aren't to be taken as truths, partly because they are always a work in progress. Einstein improved greatly on Newton's laws, like an electric drill vs. a screw driver -- both produced similar results but GR can do things Newton never attempted to address.

Math has been used extensively to argue that there are other universes. This helps explain things like the fantastic fine-tuning needed to make our Universe capable of sentient life forms. So math is a powerful part of the arguments into metaphysics, but it, IMO, always be acknowledged as metaphysics, else science become vulnerable to subjective opinions and abuse of consensus.

All very interesting, thank you.

If one universe is hard to make, then it would be infinitely harder to make that many, so logic would suggest something different, IMO. Of course, again, such thoughts aren't hard science.

Logic does suggest something different and that is - universes are not made!

 

[Helio]

"Universe means everything that exists especially when used with a capital U. Everything that exists can't be known or observed, so there can be no evidence that it is expanding.'

The observable Universe is all that we can observe and all that we think we will be able to observe that isn't in violation with known physics. For instance, it is possible to observe regions that are expanding faster than light, surprisingly, but only to those regions nearer to us. The more distant regions are expanding too fast for us to ever observe.

The redshifts, the time dilation of SN light profiles, etc. are clear examples of objective evidence that the observable Universe (the observable one) is expanding. To say there is "no evidence" is patently false.

What is your view on balloons? Do they expand, and if so, what am I missing that would suggest that the Universe is not?

Even if what is happening within the balloon were to be unknowable, it wouldn't change the argument that the balloon is expanding, right?

All evidence supports that the entire observable Universe is expanding. There is no evidence the contrary. To argue that the extra Universe is doing something different is pseudoscience, but like the balloon, it won't change the objective evidence of expansion.

The problem is is because you've just changed your wording from "Universe" to "observable Universe" in this post. Different meaning all together. So, yes of course the 'observable Universe' is expanding. What you called the "observable Universe" I called the 'observable contents of the Big Bang' in an attempt to distinguish it from any wider Universe, capital U.

Ok. We agree on the expansion of the BB Universe.

I think Universe refers to our universe that doesn't include imaginary regions outside of it to allow science to function properly. To included external regions to it, and no doubt they are there due to expansion and our limitations, serves no real purpose that can help us.

 

[Catastrophe]

I am so pleased to see (U) and (u) are being used mostly correctly, as not that long ago it was Chaos, as opposed to chaos

I can understand that science is being used, a bit like an inquisition, but without the horrible consequences. Obviously it is limiting science to the observable universe, according to the extremely limited sensory observing abilities of one very limited species. But that is the only species we are communicating with at the moment. Perhaps it will/might be very different if we ever get communicating with other intelligent species (on such matters).

That means that science, however wonderful (and I am a scientist) should not be disparaging to 'unscientific' imagination which, in part, as has has been admitted, will eventually form one part at least of accepted science. It is just that we have not got there yet (observed it yet. That is no reason for science to get out its hatchet, or for those with wide ranging imagination to wave their flags.

Science will continue to defend to the death its "observable" stance, and some of those with more active imaginations will continue to preview some of the future.

One final thought: imagination is part of the Universe. Who knows what dark matter and dark energy are all about, and whether they might interact with our conscious or unconscious minds. Maybe one day science will observe such things. But that is pure conjecture.

Cat

 

[David-J-Franks]

The observable Universe is all that we can observe and all that we think we will be able to observe that isn't in violation with known physics. For instance, it is possible to observe regions that are expanding faster than light, surprisingly, but only to those regions nearer to us. The more distant regions are expanding too fast for us to ever observe.

The redshifts, the time dilation of SN light profiles, etc. are clear examples of objective evidence that the observable Universe (the observable one) is expanding. To say there is "no evidence" is patently false.

What is your view on balloons? Do they expand, and if so, what am I missing that would suggest that the Universe is not?

Even if what is happening within the balloon were to be unknowable, it wouldn't change the argument that the balloon is expanding, right?

All evidence supports that the entire observable Universe is expanding. There is no evidence the contrary. To argue that the extra Universe is doing something different is pseudoscience, but like the balloon, it won't change the objective evidence of expansion.

Ok. We agree on the expansion of the BB Universe.

I think Universe refers to our universe that doesn't include imaginary regions outside of it to allow science to function properly. To included external regions to it, and no doubt they are there due to expansion and our limitations, serves no real purpose that can help us.

The redshifts, the time dilation of SN light profiles, etc. are clear examples of objective evidence that the observable Universe (the observable one) is expanding. To say there is "no evidence" is patently false.

Where on earth did I ever say the observable universe was not expanding?

What is your view on balloons? Do they expand, and if so, what am I missing that would suggest that the Universe is not?

Oh no, don't mention balloons, you'll start Catastrophe off again .

Go outside and blow a balloon up, now tell me what else is expanding with it, are your your surroundings expanding with it? ok, the atmosphere may be expanding by 10 x 10 ^ - 30 percent. Maybe a few atoms in the Solar System might be disturbed, but beyond the solar system I think the effect will be close to zero, so it is possible for something to expand in something else without affecting it.

Right no one will like what I'm going to say next because it is not science and it is not what the Big Bang Theory says, but it is how I get my head around the Big Bang Theory.

Look carefully at articles about the big bang you'll see three main features;

1. It Started From a hot dense patch (or if you're a stick in the mud, a singularity) i.e. it had a a finite size

2. it has a finite rate of expansion

3 it has a finite age

Taken together that means the big bang is on object.

Anything that exists occupies space.

Objects occupy space, they do not create all of space, as the proponents of The Big Bang Theory would have us believe. It may have created its own internal space, but it also exists in an external space at the same time.

This is why I've been using the phrase contents of Big Bang instead of universe, it's a finite entity. So now the contents of the big bang can be exactly equivalent to the balloon in your analogy. Bear in mind the balloon, for us, is composed of two parts; the observable part and the unobservable part, making the balloon the whole contents of the Big Bang. In The Big Bang Theory the whole contents of the big bang are called the 'Whole Universe' but this still must not be confused with the dictionary definition of Universe which means everything that exists, which may be more than the whole contents of the Big Bang.

To further inflame everyone, please note that my model now gives the big bang a boundary, a beyond and a centre.

So now, just as the balloon out doors does not expand all the space it is in, likewise the contents of the Big Bang need not expand the rest of the Universe that it is in.

Also, Universe means everything that exists, so bear in mind this could be infinite and it could have an infinite amount of stuff in it, which is also my view. In this case an infinite Universe can't expand because there is nowhere left for it to expand to, it is already everything.

This case is also why I've been suggesting that the contents of the Big Bang may not expand forever, it will meet up with the rest of the stuff in the Infinite Universe and stop expanding.

Even if what is happening within the balloon were to be unknowable, it wouldn't change the argument that the balloon is expanding, right?

Probably not, but bear in mind that the unobservable universe as per Big Bang Theory is estimated to be at least many thousands of times larger than the observable universe so you still can't say with absolute certainty what's happening in the unobservable part if it's so much larger. Logic would say it's all expanding, but the boundary as per my model, might have already hit the stuff in the rest of an infinite Universe!

All evidence supports that the entire observable Universe is expanding. There is no evidence the contrary. To argue that the extra Universe is doing something different is pseudoscience, but like the balloon, it won't change the objective evidence of expansion

my original statement was to say that you cannot state that the Universe is expanding because you cannot know no what everything that exists is. I did not say say that it may be doing something different.

 

[Catastrophe]

David, I agree with you quite a lot, but not on everything.

Anything that exists occupies space.

What space do philosophy and science occupy? Language and poetry? Thoughts and conjectures?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

and they don't need pieces of paper to exist, or any individual brain.
And what about history? Unknown history known only to deceased people? Forgotten history?

Cat

And I am not too happy about this?

"This is why I've been using the phrase contents of Big Bang instead of universe, it's a finite entity."

In a sense, the Big Bang (for those who believe there was only one) is still continuing. At least can anyone prove that the BBM and the Universe are not co-existent?

 

[David-J-Franks]

David, I agree with you quite a lot, but not on everything.

Anything that exists occupies space.

What space do philosophy and science occupy? Language and poetry? Thoughts and conjectures?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

and they don't need pieces of paper to exist, or any individual brain.
And what about history? Unknown history known only to deceased people? Forgotten history?

Cat

And I am not too happy about this?

"This is why I've been using the phrase contents of Big Bang instead of universe, it's a finite entity."

In a sense, the Big Bang (for those who believe there was only one) is still continuing. At least can anyone prove that the BBM and the Universe are not co-existent?

First of all catastrophe let me say as you can see I've been hard at work trying to keep up with Helios's posts. I'm not ignoring your ( and voidpotentialenergie's) great posts and I'm dying to go back to the beginning and respond to them sometime. Anyway on to this post

What space do philosophy and science occupy? Language and poetry? Thoughts and conjectures?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

and they don't need pieces of paper to exist, or any individual brain.
And what about history? Unknown history known only to deceased people? Forgotten history?

Very good question, so without studying it for hours, here is my first response.

Thoughts are moving arrangement of atoms, molecules and electrons in your brain, they are real and they occupie space. The meaning of the thought comes due to the order they are arranged in, it is a physical entity.

Philosophy isn't a thing it's the thought behind it that are real, so as above applies. Philosophy is more of a name than anything else.

Science is a name for a way of of studying it has a set of instructions on how to proceed. It's the instructions that are real and need to occupy space in a brain or a computer as per thoughts do.

I think thoughts do need a brain, can you show me a thought without a brain?

I don't think a thought can exist on paper etc. What's on the paper is a communication not a thought. it's an arrangement of pre-agreed symbols the symbols are then associated with a thought and the thought materialises in the brain. The symbols in turn need to exist in a physical medium and therefore occupies space. A letter on paper is a physical line of ink.

Information also needs a physical medium to store and convey it's self.

Language? A set of pre-agreed symbols sounds or gestures which in certain combinations will be associated with real objects or thoughts.

History? Just a name for a category of stored information I guess, information being real as per above. What is forgotten history?

To be continued

 

[Catastrophe]

David, Surely anything with a name (except "nothing") is something

"Thoughts are moving arrangement of atoms, molecules and electrons in your brain"
No, I disagree. It's like saying pain is the movement of atoms etcetera. Pain is the result of such things, but the connection to the brain and feeling (are not - back to Korzybski) are instrumental in the feeling (possibly unto death). Retrograding: Thoughts can start wars or cement peace. They are not restricted to movements of atoms.

No rush. Reply at your leisure. Cat.

P.S. You are getting close to (was it?) Laplace who said (something like) give me the position and motion of every particle in the Universe, and I will give you the whole of the future??

 

[Helio]

Look carefully at articles about the big bang you'll see three main features;

1. It Started From a hot dense patch (or if you're a stick in the mud, a singularity) i.e. it had a a finite size

2. it has a finite rate of expansion

3 it has a finite age

Taken together that means the big bang is on object.

1) The singularity is a popular point of view, so you may be in the majority. I only point-out it's not inclusive to BBT itself if we are restricting this view to hard science. It's not just that the singularity is a "maybe", but it defies, apparently, science to even go there. Theories need to exclude getting entangled with "maybes" that are currently not testable even in principle (AFAIK). BBT is a fantastic theory (or tool) when it avoids going there.

2) Ok, I get what you're saying, I think. But, technically, BBT has has a history of different rates and the rate we observe today is increasing due to acceleration.

3) Yes.

In The Big Bang Theory the whole contents of the big bang are called the 'Whole Universe' but this still must not be confused with the dictionary definition of Universe which means everything that exists, which may be more than the whole contents of the Big Bang.

What dictionary defines "universe" that includes regions outside of the "Whole Universe" and beyond BBT?

So now, just as the balloon out doors does not expand all the space it is in, likewise the contents of the Big Bang need not expand the rest of the Universe that it is in.

It's clear you see regions beyond anything the BBT can address. That's okay, but it isn't within the purview of science. How can science determine, directly or indirectly, there are regions beyond space?

Also, Universe means everything that exists, so bear in mind this could be infinite and it could have an infinite amount of stuff in it, which is also my view. In this case an infinite Universe can't expand because there is nowhere left for it to expand to, it is already everything.

Adding an ExoUniverse to our observable, BBT Universe adds what to our knowledge? It also damages what we call science if we treat it as such.

This case is also why I've been suggesting that the contents of the Big Bang may not expand forever, it will meet up with the rest of the stuff in the Infinite Universe and stop expanding.

Right, it's a genuine idea, but not science. "If we had some ham, we could make a ham sandwich, if we had some bread." What evidence could one possibly offer to suggest we would stop expanding due to something beyond our ability to address? Since we are currently accelerating, it seems more likely that one might argue that the enigmatic "beyond" is actually pulling us.

Probably not, but bear in mind that the unobservable universe as per Big Bang Theory is estimated to be at least many thousands of times larger than the observable universe so you still can't say with absolute certainty what's happening in the unobservable part if it's so much larger.

BBT does infer regions beyond all possible observations. This boundary is shrinking all the time, so if we go back in time, there was more observable universe than there is today, of course. I would be curious how cosmogony deals with this because the DM and matter of those regions beyond observation but part of BBT must be part of their equations.

Logic would say it's all expanding, but the boundary as per my model, might have already hit the stuff in the rest of an infinite Universe! my original statement was to say that you cannot state that the Universe is expanding because you cannot know no what everything that exists is. I did not say say that it may be doing something different.

The semantics creates confusion, but it reveals that when we make claims that contradict observations because of that which is outside the purview of science, that we do more harm than good, IMO.

 

[Catastrophe]

Well, Helio, since you ask "What dictionary defines "universe" that includes regions outside of the "Whole Universe" and beyond BBT?"
I just happen to have to hand The "Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy" Ian Ridpath OUP 2011, which includes "Cosmologists distinguish between the Universe with a capital U, meaning the cosmos and all its contents, and universe with a small "u", which is usually a mathematical model derived from some physical theory".
And, believe it or not I have just checked "The Icon Critical Dictionary of The New Cosmology" Ed Peter Coles Icon Books page 356 which includes " . . . . . . seeking to explain the empirical properties of the world in terms of models. For this reason, it has become usual to distinguish between 'Universe' (the perhaps unknowable entirely [sic] of all existing things) and 'universe' (a cosmological model of the Universe." I think they mean entirety.

Cat

 

[Helio]

Well, Helio, since you ask "What dictionary defines "universe" that includes regions outside of the "Whole Universe" and beyond BBT?"
I just happen to have to hand The "Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy" Ian Ridpath OUP 2011, which includes "Cosmologists distinguish between the Universe with a capital U, meaning the cosmos and all its contents, and universe with a small "u", which is usually a mathematical model derived from some physical theory".

Thanks Cat! [I wasn't being rhetorical and was curious what dictionaries might say.]

The above is a logical and effective definition, IMO. This is similar to the differences between "Sun" and "sun" (Sun-like stars).

And, believe it or not I have just checked "The Icon Critical Dictionary of The New Cosmology" Ed Peter Coles Icon Books page 356 which includes " . . . . . . seeking to explain the empirical properties of the world in terms of models. For this reason, it has become usual to distinguish between 'Universe' (the perhaps unknowable entirely [sic] of all existing things) and 'universe' (a cosmological model of the Universe." I think they mean entirety.

This is a bit ambiguous because once you allow the unknowable to define something considered knowable, then you have distorted the purpose of having a clean definition.

Consider this, if we allow an imaginary region that somehow surrounds the Big Bang universe, then the next question is to now include the region that surrounds this unknowable region. And, the new outer region would be more unknowable than the first. If this is somehow reasonable, then let me enumerate all the possible unknowable regions beyond that.

This is a good example of why the self-restraining boundaries of science are so important. It address the things that might offer us some practical efficacy. The comforts from philosophy and religion are nice, but should be in their own regime or "magisteria".

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio, do I remember correctly that you are a biochemist?

 

[Helio]

Helio, do I remember correctly that you are a biochemist?

No, just an old m.e.

 

[David-J-Franks]

David, Surely anything with a name (except "nothing") is something

"Thoughts are moving arrangement of atoms, molecules and electrons in your brain"
No, I disagree. It's like saying pain is the movement of atoms etcetera. Pain is the result of such things, but the connection to the brain and feeling (are not - back to Korzybski) are instrumental in the feeling (possibly unto death). Retrograding: Thoughts can start wars or cement peace. They are not restricted to movements of atoms.

No rush. Reply at your leisure. Cat.

P.S. You are getting close to (was it?) Laplace who said (something like) give me the position and motion of every particle in the Universe, and I will give you the whole of the future??

David, Surely anything with a name (except "nothing") is something

Yes, that's what I was trying to say, either you misunderstood me, but I think I didn't explain well enough. In all of those categories there is the name and what being named. Take one of my examples;

"Philosophy isn't a thing it's the thought behind it that are real, so as above applies. Philosophy is more of a name than anything else."

(that should have read thoughts not thought)

As you can see see, I have said that the thoughts of philosophy are real, I confused it by saying philosophy is more of a name. I should have said the word philosophy is more of a name, not that the whole of philosophy including it's thoughts are a name.

So yes, what's being named is real and thus occupies space.

My fault for lack of clarity, good job I'm not a solicitor. If still not clear let me know.

"Thoughts are moving arrangement of atoms, molecules and electrons in your brain"
No, I disagree. It's like saying pain is the movement of atoms etcetera. Pain is the result of such things, but the connection to the brain and feeling (are not - back to Korzybski) are instrumental in the feeling (possibly unto death). Retrograding: Thoughts can start wars or cement peace. They are not restricted to movements of atoms.

What else have you got in your brain other than a moving arrangement of atoms molecules and electrons? What else can thoughts be? do you have an undiscovered extra spiritual dimension?

As for pain, a machine can be made to react to physical stimuli and cause an action to be taken, but to feel pain I think you need consciousness. It's not Known what consciousness is but it's certain that it's an emergent property of a physical brain. Pain is presented to the area of consciousness in your brain by physical signal and this area will have a changeable physical structure, it's real and occupies space.

Anything to do with your brain, whether it's understood or not, is physical, unless you believe in a spiritual dimension to it.

Thoughts can start wars or cement peace. They are not restricted to movements of atoms.

Yes to the first sentence, but I'm struggling to get my head around the second, I'll leave that bit for now.

 

[Atlan0001]

The material brain is finitely mortal. An individual's immaterial consciousness is not (it is your part of the species designated 'Human')and can reside in any of an infinity of material brains throughout an infinity of finite universes (u).... one individual's immaterial consciousness to one finite universe, any finite universe, thus infinitely immortal regarding time and times across the infinity (something similar to a continuing quantum entanglement), but not resident to all of the infinity of finite universes. There will be plenty of universes (of an infinity of finite local, relative, universes), plenty of conditions or situations, in which that individual -- thus that individual's consciousness -- never existed in the first place.

But wherever that individual will be, there will be also that individual's individuality of form besides consciousness. In other words, the human individual's consciousness will not occupy the material form of a worm or a sheep or an alligator, a fish or a T-Rex (although, since humans are a very diverse and complex species, it might have the mentality or other such personality likeness to any one of them (be humanly representative of any living species -- lions, cattle, worms, beetles (including singers), sharks, barracudas, weasels, amoebas, dinosaurs, and on and on)). It will occupy human form though, completely its own human form (though maybe not exactly the same everywhere or everywhen (depending upon circumstances)), wherever and whenever in that infinity.

 

[Catastrophe]

David, I really am having some problems. Let me try to condense one area, which does seem to overlap much of this area.

"Thoughts are moving arrangement of atoms, molecules and electrons in your brain"
No, I disagree. It's like saying pain is the movement of atoms etcetera. Pain is the result of such things, but the connection to the brain and feeling (are not - back to Korzybski) are instrumental in the feeling (possibly unto death). Retrograding: Thoughts can start wars or cement peace. They are not restricted to movements of atoms. It is not the "movement of atoms" (etcetera) that start wars.

Vide the determinist stance of Laplace who said (something like) give me the position and motion of every particle in the Universe, and I will give you the whole of the future??

This is what I am getting at. Pain is not just the movement of atoms - vide Laplace. Thoughts live on long after the original movement of atoms. I am not a psychologist, but I would assert that there is some difference between the "movement of atoms" in the original creativity, and the simple "rerunning" of these ideas. The process by which Mozart composed his music is different from that of a 12-year old learning to play it. The composing of great poetry is different from someone trying to learn it to repeat at school the next day. Not to push it further, there is more than the "movement of atoms" going on here. Back to Laplace. "Moving the same atoms", let alone "playing the same notes" is going to have vastly different effects from person to person. And that is ignoring that we are not talking about the same atoms (etcetera).

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

No, just an old m.e.

On that basis, I am just an old c.e.

I think there is quite a lot more to both of us. Well, I can't remember much c.e. for a start, but I can remember and trot out quite a lot else. Cat.

 

[IG2007]

I have been a little busy with my schoolwork, so I couldn't keep pace with this thread, but it seems to me that interesting conversations are going on here. First, I am going to reply to Cat and DFJ's conversation.

I don't really understand why everyone is making things so complex. Let's think it simply.

Everything that exists (the Universe) includes our thoughts, our actions and our so called fields of study. Our thoughts and our actions are merely material movements of higgs bosons, our memories, our feelings, our knowledge and our ideas are all electrical and hormonal impulses that are so complicated that many of those things are still beyond our understanding, but they still belong to the material reality.

Now, coming to "pain." We all know, human pain is of two types, mental and physical. We also know that physical pain is caused by a cut or bleed or decay or mutation of cells in any part of the human body. Pain is a feeling. And, we won't feel pain if the nerves of our body don't carry the impulses of pain to our brain, where it is processed and transformed to make us feel pain.

This is what I am getting at. Pain is not just the movement of atoms - vide Laplace. Thoughts live on long after the original movement of atoms. I am not a psychologist, but I would assert that there is some difference between the "movement of atoms" in the original creativity, and the simple "rerunning" of these ideas. The process by which Mozart composed his music is different from that of a 12-year old learning to play it. The composing of great poetry is different from someone trying to learn it to repeat at school the next day. Not to push it further, there is more than the "movement of atoms" going on here. Back to Laplace. "Moving the same atoms", let alone "playing the same notes" is going to have vastly different effects from person to person. And that is ignoring that we are not talking about the same atoms (etcetera).

It is indeed true, that Mozart composing music and me trying to learn those notes do not have the same movement of particles because Mozart was a different person with a different set of atoms in his brain and I am different person with a different set of atoms in my brain. It erupted a different movement of higgs bosons in his brain, and a different movement of higgs bosons in my brain, and more different in you and everyone else. And, coming to Laplace, Laplace has been already falsified by Quantum Mechanics, Cat.