Nothing Outside Of This World / Nothing outside Of This Universe

[Atlan0001]

A few thousand years ago it was argued almost violently that nothing came before this lone world, that there was nothing outside of this lone world. This lone world was all there was, all there had ever been since Creation, and all there ever would be until the end of time. It was said that there were solid proofs of this existing. Pretty much indisputable proofs. If anyone attempted to shrug off those proofs, well there were some pretty dumb people in the world.

Today it is argued almost violently that nothing came before this lone universe, that there is nothing outside of this lone universe. This lone universe is all there is, all there has ever been since Big Bang, and all there ever will be until the end of time. It is said that there are solid proofs of this existing. Pretty much indisputable proofs. If anyone attempts to shrug off these proofs, well there are some pretty dumb people in the universe.

Nothing has changed in the vast majority of human minds and emotions, nothing at all in thousands of years, except for a gaseous inflation of balloon juice.

 

[Helio]

I suspect a lot of people feel as you do. But it's worth noting some things in those viewpoints:

A few thousand years ago it was argued almost violently that nothing came before this lone world, that there was nothing outside of this lone world.

Aristotle admitted that they didn't really have answers as they couldn't go out there to see what was there or not. They had only what they saw and could reason through various ideas at what seemed best at the time.

It's different with BBT. The discovery that the regions beyond all possible observations are expanding away from us, and accelerating, reveals that we won't ever have observations that will help us decide what's out there or not.

Today it is argued almost violently that nothing came before this lone universe, that there is nothing outside of this lone universe.

If science can't go even to t=0, albeit extremely close to that, then science is limited to suppositions on what may or may not have formed those critical initial conditions that we may never be able to quantify. This is philosophy.

It is said that there are solid proofs of this existing. Pretty much indisputable proofs. If anyone attempts to shrug off these proofs, well there are some pretty dumb people in the universe.

Well, science cannot offer proofs, unlike mathematics. That's why models are required to be falsifiable. Galileo tried to "prove" the Copernican model using tides. He failed because his tidal explanation was falsified.

Nothing has changed in the vast majority of human minds and emotions, nothing at all in thousands of years, except for a gaseous inflation of balloon juice.

The modern scientific method changes all of that. This allows us to take step after step to build better and better models. From these have come incredible technology.

 

[Atlan0001]

I suspect a lot of people feel as you do. But it's worth noting some things in those viewpoints:

Aristotle admitted that they didn't really have answers as they couldn't go out there to see what was there or not. They had only what they saw and could reason through various ideas at what seemed best at the time.

It's different with BBT. The discovery that the regions beyond all possible observations are expanding away from us, and accelerating, reveals that we won't ever have observations that will help us decide what's out there or not.

If science can't go even to t=0, albeit extremely close to that, then science is limited to suppositions on what may or may not have formed those critical initial conditions that we may never be able to quantify. This is philosophy.

Well, science cannot offer proofs, unlike mathematics. That's why models are required to be falsifiable. Galileo tried to "prove" the Copernican model using tides. He failed because his tidal explanation was falsified.

The modern scientific method changes all of that. This allows us to take step after step to build better and better models. From these have come incredible technology.

I spent almost all my life, before I retired, involved in high tech ("incredible technology"). And my principle sideline interest and study for 66 of my 73 years has been history (histories). I also have an aptitude for "visual mathematics" (I've been told since my teenage years) and a little feel for physics (natural laws), and the question I keep asking myself is where might "space age" technology have gone if there hadn't been an 'iron curtain' across the space frontier for the past nearly 60 years. If we hadn't been slogging through treaties' "All Mankind's" commune perfect wet cement regarding the greater frontier. If there had been an open systemic advancement of technology rather than a closed systemic, essentially entropic or dark age, advancement (not really "space age" at all). If there had been no nearly 60 years of 'complicate embryo'.

There will always be two directions for science and technology to go, either into the "space age" or into the "dark age." Ancient history's Greek period was leading into a early space age, then came Rome's period (the "Pax Romana") leading into a dark age. There was "science" and there was "incredible technology" during the entire Roman period but it wasn't "space age." It was in-turning. It was inbreeding.