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?

[Catastrophe]

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?

David, I have had the privilege of knowing IG for some time now, and, believe me, he is a very remarkable person.

 

[Catastrophe]

Well, you guys, I am no believer in Laplace. I cannot see a deterministic connection between a bunch of atoms and the enjoyment of a poem or painting those atoms are supposed to have created, involving an artist, an observer, and possibly a printer and publisher along the way.

Furthermore, no one has convinced me yet regarding the connection between the "thought" or "inspiration" and the movement of atoms in the first place. Any comments?

Whilst we are on the subject of personal perspectives, I have an idea which nobody can prove or disprove (aka my personal imagination) that there may well be a place for dark matter/energy in this equation. I can easily see this as a possibility (note I said idea above and not theory).

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

And here is my proof that the 1stLoT is invalid

Energy eventually turns into heat, and eventually temperature becomes equilibrated so that there is no driving force to do work.

"Energy, in physics, the capacity for doing work." Ergo energy has been unilaterally destroyed.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

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?

IG posted "Without the movement of particles, the music and the picture is as good as it didn't exist. Is it not?"

Easy. Without those particles we would not exist anyway.

On another perspective, I have just posted on the connection between the thought and the movement of atoms. #152.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Hey guys, we had better move to a 3 (or more) way conversation or we will be in trouble for being off topic.

Cat

OK I have never done it before, so please check your in-mail to see if it is working. Cat

 

[IG2007]

I have a lot to post, but I am going to start with DFJ.

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?

Haha, I am still a schoolgoer, will turn 14 this year and I am not even lying!

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?

As I am typing this on a Samsung smartphone right now, my words might be short but not precise, I am sorry if that happens.

This is both a philosohical and scientific topic, and there is an interesting conversation between Rabindranath Tagore (have you ever heard of him? ) and Einstein which covers this. You might get it in the internet.

So, anyway, Laplace, as far as I remember, was a mathematician who lived in late 18th and early 19th century (please correct me if I am wrong), and that is, before Einstein and around and after the era of Newton. The heyday of classical Physics. So, his ideas echo the ideas of his era, that is, classical Physics which considers the Universe to be deterministic in nature. But, later, beginning with Einstein and his counterparts, Physics was revolutionized and unpredictability and the quantum realm was added to the subject. (Yes, I am getting to the point.)

The Uncertainty Principle was a main factor in that. I consider the Principle to be one of the nails in the coffin of determinism. Indeed, the photo-electric effect can be considered as well.

We all know how our brain and our body works. There are neurons everywhere and electric impulses are carried from the brain to the rest of the body and vice versa through neurons. Now, you see, the term "electric impulses." And there we reach the realm of quantum mechanics and probability. Many of the quantum principles, such as the Uncertainty Principle, does not allow us to know exactly where the electrons will go, but me might use the probability theory to know the chances. I have a personal dislike for probability theory, as, logically speaking, you will have to do some thing an infinite (impossible) number of times to get the perfect probability, and thus, it is inaccurate.

 

[IG2007]

And here is my proof that the 1stLoT is invalid

Energy eventually turns into heat, and eventually temperature becomes equilibrated so that there is no driving force to do work.

"Energy, in physics, the capacity for doing

Cat, energy is merely a dance of higgs boson (I have a question, why not use poetry in Physics? ), and so is heat, and it would to zero down energy we need an infinite (impossible) amount of time.

 

[IG2007]

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.

I haven't really read the conversation so I won't comment much. But, I have to say, we are merely complex blocks of higgs bosons. And yes, that's a topic for some other time.

 

[Catastrophe]

IG, I cited Laplace against the atoms = thoughts hypothesis.

I do not believe that atoms jigging around are the same as thoughts. Sorry. Korzybski etcetera.

I would rather have a soul (god forbid) in dark matter than a mechanic servicing my atoms until they run out of steam (or electricity produced by burning coal!).

Cat

IG, "we need an infinite (impossible) amount of time." The Universe has several billion years yet.
The word infinite should be banned.

 

[Catastrophe]

STOP

This is off topic. See your "envelopes". I started a conversation we can use.
It shows as various scientific and philosophical matters.

Cat

 

[Helio]

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.

It may help to articulate what margins you mean here. If they are known margins, then any knowledge of such should be welcome as part of the "Universe". But when science argues that there are distinct regions that are truly unknowable (e.g. regions outside the BB), and thus outside the purview of science, then, IMO, we should not incorporate suppositional views into the definition of the Universe.

Science loves to change and improve, so whatever is unknown today that is also deemed unknowable can, perhaps, one day become knowable. When that happens, then the Universe should include such things, but why open the door to let any stray cat into the house? There is a concern I have for the effects society may have from scientism and "science by consensus." It's pure form, as argued by Popper and others, offers greater efficacy overall even with its strict limits on staying with objective-base arguments only.

Also, 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.

I've been to both those locations. But I'm not following you on how those might not be in my view of the Universe?

DM worlds, however, are perhaps, a good way to explain where we may be more in agreement than you may think. We have objective evidence that DM exists, and we know they have gravitational attraction, though different in strength than normal. Thus, a scientific hypothesis seems testable for a DM world. They may be unknown today but there is good reason to think that they may be found. A black hole is a similar example and, by definition, they can't be "seen". But the objective evidence is abundant that they are there. [Indirect evidence in abundance can be as good or better than limited direct evidence.]

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."

Interesting because it took me a while to learn to do the former. As I understand it, when only a word or phrase is put in quotes, then it is the latter, but when a sentence is being quoted it is the former. Am I wrong? [I still think my grammar is poor and I still have grades to prove it! ]

 

[IG2007]

I do not believe that atoms jigging around are the same as thoughts. Sorry. Korzybski etcetera.

I would rather have a soul (god forbid) in dark matter than a mechanic servicing my atoms until they run out of steam (or electricity produced by burning coal!).

What are thoughts?

As far as I know neuroscience (I don't really know much), thoughts are merely chemical reactions in our brains which are caused by electrical impulses and are stored in our brain as special chemicals. We are machines, Cat, biological machines. Our thoughts, our ideas - are nothing but mere electrical impulses which are results of electrical impulses which are a result of stimuli which are results of cause and effect which are results of the laws of Physics.

P.S.: That was a good pun indeed, I audibly laughed after reading that.

 

[Helio]

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

I favor this view as well. It gets closer to a quote I like to use, "The heart has its reasons that reason cannot know." - Blaise Pascal

There are subjective regions that objective efforts may never be able to touch. Does a soul need any neurons?

 

[Catastrophe]

Transferred to new thread.

 

[Helio]

Transferred to new thread.

Here is that thread.

 

[Catastrophe]

Various scientific and philosophical matters pertaining to space in Space and Sci-Fi Media

Cat

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

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, you should blast out a topic (existence eternal) Might be fun for feedback.
You can count on me messing with whatever thoughts you have

 

[David-J-Franks]

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.

That's what I used to think. I recently discovered that the Higgs boson only accounts for 4% of the mass of a proton or neutron, the other 96% is due to the energy from the jiggling of the quarks and the gluons inside them. Mass = e / C squared. There are other mechanisms that provide mass as well, but I don't know anything about that.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

That's what I used to think. I recently discovered that the Higgs boson only accounts for 4% of the mass of a proton or neutron, the other 96% is due to the energy from the jiggling of the quarks and the gluons inside them. Mass = e / C squared. There are other mechanisms that provide mass as well, but I don't know anything about that.

I think your in a large boat of people that have no idea why Higgs imparts mass to everything else.
You could be right it's just an interaction of a poor mechanism to connect to any other boson/lepton.
It might want to become a quark by connecting but can't.
Guess.

 

[David-J-Franks]

Cat, energy is merely a dance of higgs boson (I have a question, why not use poetry in Physics? ), and so is heat, and it would to zero down energy we need an infinite (impossible) amount of time.

Cat, energy is merely a dance of higgs boson

I have never heard it put like that before. That sounds interesting, are you able to elaborate please or can you direct me to somewhere where I can read more about it. Thanks

 

[Catastrophe]

Higgs boson - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Higgs_boson
The Higgs boson is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics

The Higgs Boson and Symmetry - Dance Your PhD
YouTube · Kiel Howe
28 Oct 2015

Cat

 

[David-J-Franks]

I haven't really read the conversation so I won't comment much. But, I have to say, we are merely complex blocks of higgs bosons. And yes, that's a topic for some other time.

IG, if someone says the first law may not apply in some circumstances, I think you should read it, you can't get much more important than that

I'm puzzled by your fixation with Higgs bosons, both here and above I'm under the impression with my limited knowledge that quarks are the most fundamental particle also these were the first to be formed in the big bang. I think if you want to get more fundamental than that then you'll have to go to quantum fields or quantum fluctuations etc. I might be wrong but the Higgs boson just plays a minor role in providing mass to all the particles, it does not provide all the mass, there are other mechanisms which provide mass to particles, but I don't know anything about the details

 

[David-J-Franks]

Just found a bit more out about mass from the excellent article which Catastrophe provided;

"It is worth noting that the Higgs field does not "create" mass out of nothing (which would violate the law of conservation of energy), nor is the Higgs field responsible for the mass of all particles. For example, approximately 99% of the mass of baryons (composite particles such as the proton and neutron), is due instead to quantum chromodynamic binding energy, which is the sum of the kinetic energies of quarks and the energies of the massless gluons mediating the strong interaction inside the baryons.[28] In Higgs-based theories, the property of "mass" is a manifestation of potential energy transferred to fundamental particles when they interact ("couple") with the Higgs field, which had contained that mass in the form of energy.[29]"

 

[IG2007]

IG, if someone says the first law may not apply in some circumstances, I think you should read it, you can't get much more important than that

A Physical law is universal. I can not be more precise than that.

 

[Catastrophe]

IG, my friend, I think you are being a little dogmatic there. Physical "laws" are all well and good, useful for as long as they remain un-disproven. I, too, am aware or the uses of generalisations which can be used to provide useful information.
However, remember Newton's laws and the arrival of Einstein.
For the moment, there are laws which have not yet been falsified, and we will continue to use them until the contrary obtains.

That does not mean that they may not, at some point, be falsified - in particular in the more distant reaches of the Universe.


Falsifiability - Wikiped
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Falsifiability

In the philosophy of science, a theory is falsifiable (or refutable) if it is contradicted by an observation that is logically possible—i.e., expressible in the language ...
‎The problems of falsification · ‎Examples of demarcation...


Cat