More on the Big Bang - what was before t = 0?

[Atlan0001]

So your use of "universes" is not an argument for more than one, only an argument of the variety found in the minds of beings.

Science makes a strong case for only one observable universe. The objective evidence eliminates the vast majority of the imagined views, which is the power behind science even if the full story can never be found.

In the late 1700s, scientist Ben Franklin said there was never a good war nor a bad peace.

In the 1890s, scientist Lord Kelvin, by objective evidence, told the world that heavier than air ships could not possibly fly!

In the 1940s, scientist John von Neumann, by then current evidence, told the world the future of computing would be computers filling whole warehouses larger than whole city blocks . . . and that no one but the richest nations and corporations would ever be able to afford one.

"The objective evidence...."

Thank goodness for those dumbbell meta-physicists and others who didn't listen and never believed in the "objective evidence."
---------------------------------

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds...." -- Albert Einstein.

 

[Catastrophe]

So your use of "universes" is not an argument for more than one, only an argument of the variety found in the minds of beings.

Science makes a strong case for only one observable universe. The objective evidence eliminates the vast majority of the imagined views, which is the power behind science even if the full story can never be found.

So your use of "universes" is not an argument for more than one, only an argument of the variety found in the minds of beings.

There are more than one in the minds of beings.

As I have been saying for a long time, "the map is not the territory", "the menu is not the meal", "the words are not the reality". There is no difference between a conviction that statistically such beings/beliefs (have/will) exist(ed) than, say, an Ancient Greek suggesting than a man will (most probably) stand on the Moon.

You seem to think that I am trying to prove something. I am not. I am suggesting probabilities.

Please review #124. This page (#124) has been substantially extended.

Page 5 - More on the Big Bang - what was before t = 0?

Page 5 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

forums.space.com

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Page (#124) has been substantially extended.

Helio, it is quite simple. I agree with you. You agree with me.

You are being completely correct scientifically. I am correct logically.

Exo-life cannot be proved, but it is logically there.

Any intelligent life form, depending on its senses/brain, will have (eventually - unless it is destroyed prematurely by itself/others) the concept of "all there is" = 'universe'.
This concept is variable and depends on their abilities/limitations e.g., how can dolphins conceive of anything outside, except limited by sticking their heads out of water. Like primitive man considering the Earth to be flat.

Come back to Korzybski. The words are not the reality. The meaning is manufactured in our heads. Other species have different abilities/limitations - other conceptions of "all there is".
Therefore they all have their own definitions/conceptions of 'reality' = of 'universe'.

Added comment. There is obviously no suggestion that all beings everywhere (in any universe -
that is a lower case 'u' enlarged) have the identical idea: 'universe' is entirely subjective, depending on their circumstances.
The idea "all there is" came first. A word was invented later. We invented a word retrospectively, and have now forgotten (apparently) that it is only a word and not (the word) a reality.
The book "Selections from Science and Sanity" A Korzybski is well worth consulting.

The book emphasizes the powerful role that language plays in shaping human perception and understanding and the potential for language to both illuminate and obscure reality.

selections from science and sanity - Google Suche

Cat

Some emphasis added Wednesday 30/10.

 

[Helio]

My point was perhaps too pedantic. I don't think there are zillions of universes, not because this would be impossible, but because there is no plausible reason to make such a claim, IMO.

Suppositions and hypotheses are sometimes best used when distinguished between one another since suppositions are opinions and hypotheses require objective evidence and must make testable predictions, like theories. One is wishful thinking, the other is science.

 

[billslugg]

There is only one universe by definition. We can't see all of it, but that doesn't make the hidden parts different universes. Just part of the same one.

 

[Atlan0001]

Universe -- Merriam Webster"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/universe

In whole, it says you are wrong in stating an absolutism, Bill. It can be subdivided into universes and subdivided again into universes. such as the "observable universe", the "relative universe," the "dark universe," "parallel universes...." and on and on, discreet quantization! As I've read and heard many times, relativity predicts its own breakdown.

An old sage meaning of universe . . . where it came from originally: "one turn of the (cosmic) wheel turning" (versus, turn, to turn, ...).

It's only your definition, Bill! Not THE definition (as in Merriam Webster's, plus my own among many others', multiplicity)!

 

[Catastrophe]

That is fine. I am glad some of you have factual scientific knowledge about the Universe.

I would be most grateful (seriously) if you will show me the kindness of sharing your certain facts with me, beyond the definition (not fact) about being "all there is".

Cat

 

[billslugg]

The universe is:
- All there is.
-All of space and time and all of its contents.

Some of it is not accessible to us, like beyond the visible horizon, but that is not a separate universe. It might as well be, we can't go there. Same goes for inside a Black Hole. We can't go there and we can't see it but it's not a separate universe, it is part of the universe. We can postulate separate universes that we cannot detect but if we do manage to infer their existence, they simply become part of "the universe".

 

[Atlan0001]

Universe (U), the superposition superdense naked singularity with no other, is the infinity (the Infinite MULTIVERSE Universe (U) (I still can't point it down that much for the naked singularity claimed))!

((+1) (-1)) = 1/0!

 

[Catastrophe]

To start off, Wiki begins (on Universe):

The universe is all of space and time[a] and their contents.

To to be properly scientific, I would like to know:

Have we examined all of space and time, or is this just a verbal definition?
Will we ever be able to examine all of space and time and their contents?
And of course "the map is not the territory", so words are NOT the reality referred to.

 

[Catastrophe]

And should we not agree what science is?

Can we accept the definition of the Science Council?

Scientific methodology includes the following:

• Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)
• Evidence
• Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses
• Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples
• Repetition
• Critical analysis
• Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment

Ref: https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/

 

[Atlan0001]

And should we not agree what science is?

Can we accept the definition of the scientific Council?

One has to recognize that there is an "outside the box!" Always an outside the box! In that recognition is the rest of the story regarding "science"!

It was Albert Einstein who mused, "If an answer doesn't generate two questions, the answer is wrong!"

 

[Catastrophe]

If you do not accept that definition, who will suggest an alternative definition of science?

Also, we should define our terms at the beginning, so are we happy with the Universe being defined as "The universe is all of space and time[a] and their contents."?

 

[Catastrophe]

Atlan, your reply is interesting. Can you elaborate please?

One has to recognize that there is an "outside the box!" Always an outside the box! In that recognition is the rest of the story regarding "science"!

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

If you do not accept that definition, who will suggest an alternative definition of science?

Also, we should define our terms at the beginning, so are we happy with the Universe being defined as "The universe is all of space and time[a] and their contents."?

That doesn't fit with fundamental binary base2, '0' and/or '1' . . . and the 'Trojan'!

To keep insisting all Mankind must go with that 1-dimensional definition you have to be a singularly hard 1-dimensional thinker and absolutist tyrant. I get down to a fundamental base2 and can't go lower. Even sensing the superposition Horizon, I still realize the existence of the other to it . . . and quantum entangling with it.

I deal in (t=0) REALTIME NOW (t=0), a timeless trunk singularity that writes all time (per Stephen Hawking), SPACETIME, going (t=+1) and coming (t=-1). Matter time (past history (t=+1)) / antimatter time (future history (t=-1)), always about a Planck time length apart. That door (and/or window) opens before, closes behind (topologically "clopening" and still, even as the 'Trojan' dimension, the door (or window), dealing in fundamental binary base2).

 

[Catastrophe]

My point was perhaps too pedantic. I don't think there are zillions of universes, not because this would be impossible, but because there is no plausible reason to make such a claim, IMO.

Suppositions and hypotheses are sometimes best used when distinguished between one another since suppositions are opinions and hypotheses require objective evidence and must make testable predictions, like theories. One is wishful thinking, the other is science.

Helio,

My point was perhaps too pedantic. I don't think there are zillions of universes, not because this would be impossible, but because there is no plausible reason to make such a claim, IMO.

Are you then saying that what we have not observed cannot exist (or has existed or might exist)?

Most certainly, I agree we cannot say that it does exist, but are you suggesting that if we have not observed it, it is impossible or non-existent?

May I draw your attention to #136?

• Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

I would like to re-iterate one point.

From my background in General Semantics, I know that Universe is just a word used to describe or define "all there is" (to use the shortest definition).

What that word defines is purely relative to us. We are not saying "all there is, to the best of our knowledge", we are making a bald statement pretending that we are familiar with the whole Universe. We must not forget that "Universe" is just a word invented by us to describe what we think is "all that there is".

If we do not accept ownership of the idea, then we are suggesting that we can somehow talk about all there was/is/or will be with some degree of meaning. Even if there is (or has been) just one other intelligent species in the billions of galaxies we now acknowledge to exist, should we not accept that they have knowledge that we don't?

I don't want to sink into mythology, but we should at least acknowledge statistical possibilities as just that - not scientific facts, but logical statistical possibilities. It comes down to semantics, but if there were such a species, their understanding of Universe would be totally different from our own. Semantically, we would be part of the same Universe but their understanding would be different to ours. Their senses might be completely different, for example.

Whilst I am not suggesting that analogies prove anything (they don't) they can offer insights.
If flatlanders existed, then their understanding of their 'universe' = "all there is" to them, could be contained many times over. If flatlands existed, each would be their universe to them, even though we might observe zillions of them - or just more than one, if you so wish.

All I am suggesting is that we can discuss (within obvious limits) our observable universes, but it is wrong to confuse this with THE Universe, which is far beyond our senses and our brains to understand in its totality. Therefore, I suggest that we should confine references to our observable universe, and not pretend that we know anything beyond that. After all, science is meant to be based on observation and experiment, not guesswork. Can we say that Cosmology is a science, in the light of this, or are we making exceptions to suit our egos?

Cat

 

[Helio]

Are you then saying that what we have not observed cannot exist (or has existed or might exist)?

It should be clear that I make no argument for what cannot be since it's impossible to falsify ideas that are currently beyond measurement. "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Thus, it becomes a personal preference story that may, or may not, overly influence those less understanding of the discipline of science. Multiverses, singularities, etc. too often become accepted as reality vs. supposition or metaphysics.

 

[Atlan0001]

Can we agree that 'Cosmology' is not all science since, and because, it is something far greater and more encompassing than [inside-the-box] science?

 

[Classical Motion]

Like a religion perhaps?

 

[Atlan0001]

Like a religion perhaps?

To a priestly some it is a religion per their defining zealotry.

I have one, too. I'm a zealot for opening SPACE / TIME Frontiers for my children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and more. A zealot for making sure Stephen Hawking's prophecy of a 1,000 years to Mankind's extinction (if there is no breakout to the outer space / time frontiers) does not come to reality. That is my religion.

 

[Catastrophe]

I believe that it is generally accepted that the 'BB' itself [I think we all know what that means - what comes (allegedly) before BBT, having any connection with singularity (what I call t = 0)], is technically metaphysics because a treatment of Einstein's equations leads to division by zero, and so-called infinite results. Can we just take that as an initial assumption as I don't really want to go over old ground. Nevertheless, that does not mean that it is necessarily accepted by all. Neither do I think it productive to refer to it as t = 0, as that unfortunately would lead to ambiguity. Can we just refer to it as BB, just taken to mean "the initial event" without all the accompanying trappings (no pun intended)?

My personal belief is that any suggestion requiring division by zero is flawed. I think this suggestion should be up for consideration.. Please see Helio's comment.

Page 2 - Early BB at the edge of time

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

forums.space.com

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

I believe that it is generally accepted that the 'BB' itself [I think we all know what that means - what comes (allegedly) before BBT, having any connection with singularity (what I call t = 0)], is technically metaphysics because a treatment of Einstein's equations leads to division by zero, and so-called infinite results. Can we just take that as an initial assumption as I don't really want to go over old ground. Nevertheless, that does not mean that it is necessarily accepted by all. Neither do I think it productive to refer to it as t = 0, as that unfortunately would lead to ambiguity. Can we just refer to it as BB, just taken to mean "the initial event" without all the accompanying trappings (no pun intended)?

My personal belief is that any suggestion requiring division by zero is flawed. I think this suggestion should be up for consideration..


Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

I believe that it is generally accepted that the 'BB' itself [I think we all know what that means - what comes (allegedly) before BBT, having any connection with singularity (what I call t = 0)], is technically metaphysics because a treatment of Einstein's equations leads to division by zero, and so-called infinite results. Can we just take that as an initial assumption as I don't really want to go over old ground. Nevertheless, that does not mean that it is necessarily accepted by all. Neither do I think it productive to refer to it as t = 0, as that unfortunately would lead to ambiguity. Can we just refer to it as BB, just taken to mean "the initial event" without all the accompanying trappings (no pun intended)?

My personal belief is that any suggestion requiring division by zero is flawed. I think this suggestion should be up for consideration. Note Helio's comment.

"Science is always wiser to start with known models and stretching them, rather than trying to stretch wild speculation to fit known science. Each stretch (new or improved hypothesis) must be falsifiable." My emphasis.

Cat

Note; I am experiencing strange things in posting at the moment. E.g., while editing, chunks of text 'disappear' but sometimes reappear on 'saving' the post.

 

[Helio]

I believe that it is generally accepted that the 'BB' itself [I think we all know what that means - what comes (allegedly) before BBT, having any connection with singularity (what I call t = 0)], is technically metaphysics because a treatment of Einstein's equations leads to division by zero, and so-called infinite results. Can we just take that as an initial assumption as I don't really want to go over old ground. Nevertheless, that does not mean that it is necessarily accepted by all. Neither do I think it productive to refer to it as t = 0, as that unfortunately would lead to ambiguity. Can we just refer to it as BB, just taken to mean "the initial event" without all the accompanying trappings (no pun intended)?

My personal belief is that any suggestion requiring division by zero is flawed. I think this suggestion should be up for consideration.. Please see Helio's comment.

Usually the t=0 view is stated as the “bang” moment. hence BBT, per Hoyle’s pejorative coinage in 1949, IIRC.

An informal BBT view that includes space-time creation is certainly reasonable and even hard to avoid.

But more formally, science comes a screetching halt for tine before 1E-12 sec. This has allowed a host of wild, and not so wild, speculation leaving a reader confused about science’s delineation.