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.