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?

[IG2007]

To add to my point, indeed, Cat, we all know the first law of Thermodynamics. Energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed, but it can be transformed from one form to another. By that logic, Cat, our thoughts and our ideas live on forever, but they won't remain the same.

Our thoughts and ideas are stored by complex molecules of organic chemistry in our brain (I don't know much about organic chemistry, but I guess, you might know). But, the thing is, they are ever-changing. They don't have a constant form, at the moment I am typing this and you are reading this, thousands of reactions are happening in my brain and my whole body that is changing the structures of everything that exists in our body! That is indeed a subject to ponder on! A wonderful subject indeed.

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio, " if we allow an imaginary region that somehow surrounds the Big Bang universe"

I cannot or will not (not "do not") understand this. To me the "Big Bang universe" is the Universe, being the one we are saddled with, and not some mathematical model. Thus it cannot be surrounded.
I think I must be missing something from your rather long posts #116 and #118.

Cat

 

[IG2007]

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

No, just an old m.e.

Well then, I am just me.

 

[Catastrophe]

IG, good to see you, and also to know that you are keeping at your work. I know that I have said this before, but I only wish I had spent more time "reading around the edges". That is behind my "Agreed Terms . . . " efforts. The whole point to give diverse points of view (compare and contrast)..
The bit about the composer, by the way, was based on the horrible noise I made starting to learn the violin at that age.

On much of the other parts of your posts, I think that we are in agreement in most areas. I am sorry about Laplace, but he does have his uses in some contexts. Here, I believe that it is very important to see both the superficial connection (words) and the more fundamental connection (meanings) and to understand dear old "the map is not the territory" Korzybski.

I see you have caught the bug, apparently common to all of us on this thread, of exaggerated verbosity Cat.

P.S. Apologies to other participants here.

 

[IG2007]

I see you have caught the bug, apparently common to all of us on this thread, of exaggerated verbosity Cat.

"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."~ Blaise Pascal/Marcus Tilleus Cicero.

 

[Catastrophe]

IG, one point. I am not sure that any laws applicable in our <5% of the Universe have much relevance beyond "them there hills". Particularly, considering the "thermo" bit, there is not much heat to legislate about at 1 or 2 K.

Cat

;

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

IG, one point. I am not sure that any laws applicable in our <5% of the Universe have much relevance beyond "them there hills". Particularly, considering the "thermo" bit, there is not much heat to legislate about at 1 or 2 K.

Cat

;

Here is a good brain puzzle for you about nothing.
Quarks originally thought to be the smallest things in the universe now are thought to be made of leptons.
Leptons to not touch each other unless they form a quark.
What is between Leptons before they become quarks ?.
Can't get a better brain puzzle about nothing than that.
Don't forget leptons are the smallest possible thing.

Breaking the universe down to it's energy properties leaves you with puzzles about nothing like this, and leptons really never touch each other to make a quark.
Yet another nothing full basic building block.

 

[Catastrophe]

IG, "Laplace has been already falsified by Quantum Mechanics,"

That is my whole point. Thoughts etcetera are not as deterministic as per Laplace.
You cannot analyse the thought by watching the atoms.

Cat

 

[IG2007]

VPE, I thought Higgs Boson is the smallest thing in the Standard Model. Am I wrong?

 

[Helio]

To me the "Big Bang universe" is the Universe, being the one we are saddled with, and not some mathematical model. Thus it cannot be surrounded.
I think I must be missing something from your rather long posts #116 and #118.

It's very simple. I think all ideas as to what may or may not be outside the Universe that has boundaries in accord with BBT (i.e. science and the SM) should be treated as "outside" (outside of science). Philosophy, metaphysics, pseudoscience, suppositions, etc. addressing what is beyond the Universe is an area that doesn't overlap with hard science. Some scientists seem to imply otherwise, especially when selling books.

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio, by this:
" I think all ideas as to what may or may not be outside the Universe . . . "
Do you mean outside the observable universe?

Cat

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

VPE, I thought Higgs Boson is the smallest thing in the Standard Model. Am I wrong?

Lets see if i remember quantum mechanics 101.
Boson is a positive up with 5 others possibilities.
left, right, up, down, forward, back.
We also have 6 negative charged same format.
They make up particles that are the building block of everything.

Leptons and bosons are in the same class.

Hope i got that correct.

 

[Catastrophe]

For info:

Higgs boson - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Higgs_boson

The Higgs boson is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics produced by the quantum excitation of the Higgs field, one of the fields in ...

Cat

 

[Helio]

Helio, by this:
" I think all ideas as to what may or may not be outside the Universe . . . "
Do you mean outside the observable universe?

Essentially, yes, though "observable" means all that would be observable in principle.

So it's whatever science can consider as "observable". It wouldn't surprise me, for instance, if in the first seconds of BBT that some of the prior DM that is now beyond our observable universe must be assumed in order to make the physics (hard science) "fit the appearances". Initial conditions are a must. Such spacetime and matter would simply be symmetric with our region and not something "outside" the BBT.

Suppositions, however, regardless of mathematical elegance, that present nothing that could be treated within science should not be considered part of the Universe, IMO.

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio, "Essentially, yes, though "observable" means all that would be observable in principle."

Would I be correct in saying that 'our' science is based on our ability to observe, and hopefully understand?

In which case, and this is entirely hypothetical, one might suppose a different 'science' based on a different sensory input?

After all, we have experienced this in the invention of the telescope, which extended our visual capabilities.

Ergo there may be different 'sciences' according to sensory input.

Cat

 

[Helio]

Helio, "Essentially, yes, though "observable" means all that would be observable in principle."

Would I be correct in saying that 'our' science is based on our ability to observe, and hopefully understand?

In which case, and this is entirely hypothetical, one might suppose a different 'science' based on a different sensory input?

Would this qualify as science or philosophy, or more apt, philosophical views of science?

After all, we have experienced this in the invention of the telescope, which extended our visual capabilities.

The difference there is that extending our senses is well within normal science and fits nicely under the banner "in principle". Einstein was famous for his gedankenexperiment where conceptualization was often adequate to argue a point effectively. The experiment could be done but sometimes at far too great an expense to bother doing so.

There is no science that I'm aware that allows any conceptualization where we can test stuff outside of the Universe. The acceleration of the expansion rate creates greater limits on future observations as well.

Ergo there may be different 'sciences' according to sensory input.

Agreed, but "different sciences" means that we are talking about sciences that are different, hence not the science we know. Or do you see something new that would be within the purview of science?

 

[Catastrophe]

"Suppositions, however, regardless of mathematical elegance, that present nothing that could be treated within science should not be considered part of the Universe, IMO."

"Was it not the case that philosophy, at one point, consisted of nothing but suppositions?"

I fully appreciate what you are saying about science. I think I have made that clear in previous posts. I don't argue at all about your rock solid lines (or walls). That is just your view and you are happy with it. That's good.

I am more inclined to let the edges fizz a bit. We have mentioned before the idea that each person's observable universe is slightly different. One sees a little more east than the other who sees a little bit west. I think you had some rejection of that, but I still think that means that there are billions of different slightly differing observable universes. Of course there is a major overlap, which constitutes The Observable universe, or, some might say, The Universe. I would reserve Universe to include small margins we know are there and, here we will differ, a (The) Universe which does exist outside any observable universes. Alao, I would argue that this (non-observable) Universe contains information which most certainly exists outside our sensory capabilities. This is not peripheral, it includes Piccadilly Circus and Times Square as well as trillions of worlds which may (non-observable, ergo non-existent) exist in dark matter/energy. Or even in the 5% without our purview. So we differ. You will keep your feet on the ground, I will hang onto the string of a balloon which may burst, or maybe float me upwards to neo-scientific enlightenment. Probably the former.

I am "talking" too much again. "Vaulting verbosity which falls upon t'other".

By the way, I think some punctuation differs greatly on either side of t'pond. For example we would put the full stop after quote marks:
I said "it is tomorrow already". not I said "it is tomorrow already."

Cat

 

[David-J-Franks]

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

"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.

Looks like you're saying you don't agree again, but you haven't given any reason as to why. You haven't said why my arguments might be wrong, nor added any extra new explanation, so all I can say is that what I I said in post 114 and post 121 still stands.

The only new bit I can see see is, quote;

"It is not the "movement of atoms" (etcetera) that start wars."

I think it is the movement of atoms that start wars. Yes, it needs complex decisions, but they are real material thoughts, as per above. At the end of the day the atoms in the president's brain send a signal to the motor department in his brain which causes him to pick the phone up to his general and start the war.

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).

Lots new here but you still haven't said if there's anything wrong with my analysis of pain above nor given an alternative explanation, so again I'll still stand by that.

I completely agree, "there is some difference between the "movement of atoms" in the original creativity, and the simple "rerunning" of these ideas.". Original creativity is a moving arrangement of atoms and the returning i.e. the memory of them is a fixed arrangement of atoms in the memory department.

I don't know what was going on in Mozart's head, but because it was in his head it was still a physical process and so occupied space. It's still down to atoms and the laws governing their interaction. All I can offer is an example of water freezing. When water freezes to snow you get beautiful crystals and that is a direct result of the laws of interaction between the molecules of water.

So when you say there's something else going on maybe it's something to do with the way atoms interact with each other, maybe that's what gives rise to creative thought, I've no idea.

Other than that, I don't think there is "more than the "movement of atoms" going on here." When you bring up determinism you're getting to the heart of the matter. Determinism says that we have no free will, so when you say you are looking for something more, can I suggest that it is because of humans unwillingness to accept this.. Whereas, in reality the whole universe maybe deterministic including your brain, so what's going on in your head is totally automatic, the feeling of being in control maybe just an illusion, but a necessary illusion for survival. It gives me the creeps talking about this.

They're are good points to it, because it saves you making an endless number of decisions, since the decisions actually come to you automatically. When you want a sandwich you don't have to decide from a multitude of different types of bread and then a multitude of different types of fillings, you immediately know what sort of sandwich you want, and that wasn't a conscious decision.

Only way around this is to bring in a spiritual dimension.

 

[Catastrophe]

I would never dream of saying you are wrong. You have every right to your opinion and I completely respect that. I thought I had made my position clear, but obviously I am not doing very well. I am not into determinism at all. Quite the opposite. To me, it seems clear that the movement of atoms (taking this to mean all the rest as per your original post) is something completely different from an idea which might flow across the centuries. The initial movement of atoms might have started it, but it is not forever tied to the idea.

 

[Catastrophe]

If I understand you correctly ,I would respond by saying that a machine can be programmed to feel pain. It can react to temperature, it can measure torque. and be programmed to avoid them.

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

I know what you followed that with, but I still think the picture, or the music, exists independently of the first movement of atoms.

BTW, are you familiar with "Science and Sanity" by Korzybski? It colours most of my thinking.

 

[IG2007]

I know what you followed that with, but I still think the picture, or the music, exists independently of the first movement of atoms.

Without the movement of particles, the music and the picture is as good as it didn't exist. Is it not? (You see, I have exited the world of verbosity )

 

[David-J-Franks]

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.


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.

Absolutely spot-on IG as you can see I've been trying to tell catastrophe the same, but you have worded it very well.

I agree with every single word but your last sentence may or may not be creating a paradox, if what you've said is true then I'm thinking all of that requires determinism to be true, but you're saying determinism has been proven wrong with quantum mechanics. It may be that your description of the brain does not need determinism to work, but the way I think I believe it does need determinism, so what are your thoughts on that please?

I don't believe you're a student at school, your posts are too clever for that, I don't think even your teacher could write as well as you do. Maybe you're in higher education like university or something?

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

For info:

Higgs boson - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Higgs_boson

The Higgs boson is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics produced by the quantum excitation of the Higgs field, one of the fields in ...

Cat

Got to love the weirdness of the universe that just 1 of 12 leptons/bosons is the reason everything has mass.
A tiny clingy octopus.

Got to wonder what the other 11 do behind the scenes that we just haven't discovered each ones mystery yet.

 

[David-J-Franks]

To add to my point, indeed, Cat, we all know the first law of Thermodynamics. Energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed, but it can be transformed from one form to another. By that logic, Cat, our thoughts and our ideas live on forever, but they won't remain the same.

Our thoughts and ideas are stored by complex molecules of organic chemistry in our brain (I don't know much about organic chemistry, but I guess, you might know). But, the thing is, they are ever-changing. They don't have a constant form, at the moment I am typing this and you are reading this, thousands of reactions are happening in my brain and my whole body that is changing the structures of everything that exists in our body! That is indeed a subject to ponder on! A wonderful subject indeed.

To add to my point, indeed, Cat, we all know the first law of Thermodynamics. Energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed, but it can be transformed from one form to another. By that logic, Cat, our thoughts and our ideas live on forever, but they won't remain the same.

Until I read this thread I would have agreed with that, but Helio earlier on has provided a good reason as to why the first law of thermodynamics may not apply in some circumstances, have you read that. In that particular discussion I was trying to use the first law of thermodynamics to prove that existence is eternal, but Helio threw a spanner in the Works. I do have a workaround for this and I'll post it later, so for now I will still say existence is eternal but that's another topic for later.

IG said - "By that logic, Cat, our thoughts and our ideas live on forever, but they won't remain the same."

I think you would need absolute determinism for that idea to work, because as you are suggesting if quantum mechanics introduces some randomness at a fundamental level then your thoughts and ideas will get scrambled up too much. If determinism is correct your thoughts and ideas will leave trails of cause and effect behind them Forever After.

IG said - "Our thoughts and ideas are stored by complex molecules of organic chemistry in our brain (I don't know much about organic chemistry, but I guess, you might know). But, the thing is, they are ever-changing."

Yes, but as earlier, I split that into 2, I suggested that thoughts are arrangements of moving atoms and molecules and that memories were fixed arrangement of atoms and molecules, but sure, memories are changing as well.

IG said - "thousands of reactions are happening in my brain and my whole body that is changing the structures of everything that exists in our body! That is indeed a subject to ponder on! A wonderful subject indeed."

Yes wonderful indeed, why not include my statement from earlier where I said that the atoms in the president's brain instruct the motor department in his brain to pick the phone up and tell his general to go to War. So not only do the reactions in your brain change the structures in your body, they also have the power to change the structure of the whole world!

 

[David-J-Franks]

Without the movement of particles, the music and the picture is as good as it didn't exist. Is it not? (You see, I have exited the world of verbosity )

That's absolute genius, you've said in one sentence what has taken me several paragraphs to express!!! I would like to see how Catastrophe gets out of that!

I'm too thick to understand your last sentence so what does that mean please?