Various scientific and philosophical matters pertaining to space

[Catastrophe]

Please post here to avoid off topic problems

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).


I have moved this here to avoid off topic problems.

 

[Catastrophe]

IG, you posted: "Cat, with all due respect, you know, you are kind of disagreeing with yourself. A universe that is cyclic and something that has been cyclic forever must be infinite. I mean, at least, logic says so"

That is just misunderstanding the word infinite (imho). Cyclic is endless, yes. Without beginning or end. Where is the end of the surface of a sphere? In another dimension. Infinite is anything divided by zero which is a mathematical contrivance.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio, you posted: Cat said:

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. "
This is really quite minor. Being at location moves "east". He observes a little new of east, but loses a little west. Do a sigma and that defines the margins. Cat

 

[IG2007]

I am a little busy right now, I will check this thread tomorrow, but for today:

Where is the end of the surface of a sphere?

At the point you started measuring it.

 

[Helio]

This is really quite minor. Being at location moves "east". He observes a little new of east, but loses a little west. Do a sigma and that defines the margins.

Ok, I'll play and milk it if I may. If one continues to move East then eventually, if the path doesn't deviate much, the person will return to his original location.

My point is that this analogy is true for the Universe as defined by BBT, at least for a "flat" version of it. Light, in theory via a gedankenexperiment, will essentially return to the sender.

If we wish to argue, however, that there might be regions where the light beam we send outward will travel (in principle) outside of the Universe, then we will need some objective reason to do so if we want to call this view science.

I suspect we aren't that far apart on our view of the term Universe.

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio, you know the principle I was alluding to very well. East-West North-South Up-Down. Come on. Generalise that into as many dimensions as you like. Any movement loses part of an observed universe and opens up others. The "Universe" is not limited to the perspective of one individual at one location.

I will agree with you that this would not "prove" the existence of a pseudo- infinite unobserved "Universe" but it does suggest that the "observed universe" is far from the totality.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

I am a little busy right now, I will check this thread tomorrow, but for today:


At the point you started measuring it.

IG, come on IG. Was that a typo?

 

[sam85geo]

I actually began to follow the posting, but being a direct, cause and effect as well as simplistic type, I'm in the "woods" so I'm going to sit this one out interesting as it is.

 

[Catastrophe]

OK. I hope the other contributors from different parts of the world (Asia, Europe and America) will find their way here.

We were unfortunately getting way off topic and had to move.

Cat

 

[Helio]

I will agree with you that this would not "prove" the existence of a pseudo- infinite unobserved "Universe" but it does suggest that the "observed universe" is far from the totality.

Agreed. But my view has limits on an observable Universe to include things "in principle". IOW, not just things we see through a monster telescope but what we could see and measure through an unimaginably large one after traveling both east and west as far as imaginable.

The difference is that science, in accord with BBT, shouldn't include regimes that take us into regions that science says no one can possibly go. We can all go east and west, so science would argue that we will see new things. Indeed, that is why larger telescopes are being built.

So, science isn't about restricting things to what it doesn't know but to things which are clearly unknowable by any imaginable means. ["Subject to change without notice." ] This limit is objective-based. Subjective views, for instance, that there are other universes aren't included in science because they are falsified, but because there is no way to falsify them. That is the key difference. Those universes may be there, and some fancy math suggests that may be a reasonable supposition, but it is limited to being only subjective supposition as there is no hypothesis that allows any test of any kind for even one other universe.

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio, "Agreed. But my view has limits on an observable Universe to include things "in principle". IOW, not just things we see through a monster telescope but what we could see and measure through an unimaginably large one after traveling both east and west as far as imaginable."
Of course I agree. The "up-down" could also mean telescope up - microscope down. Not as I first intended, but certainly appropriate,

"Those universes may be there, and some fancy math suggests that may be a reasonable supposition"
Conversely, see my "Singularities" section which reports their possible demise, the fancy math may be removing parts of "previous science". I am not saying singularities have been "proved" not to exist - simply that their existence is questioned. Hurrah for "one in the whatever" for division by zero.

On the subject of punctuation, the rule would be - if a quote is part of a sentence, the quotes close before the full stop. If the quote is the full sentence, the quotes close after the full stop. In other words, the full stop does not interrupt the quote. Perhaps we are the same? I had great fun with this, because I edited (and wrote most of) a (scientific) book for Marcel Dekker (U.S. publishers) - as you may imagine, the proofreading was interesting - which 'language' do I adopt?

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Above, I posted "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?"
We have not responded to this have we? I cannot understand the gap between the thought and the atoms jiggling around. To me there is a compelling association (though totally unprovable, and unscientific) between thought and dark energy - if you like, 'body and soul', but not using 'soul' in an 'r' sense.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

IG, you posted "We are machines, Cat, biological machines"

I will settle for that, with the addition: 'controlled by an entity in dark matter'

Unscientific, I know. But the only way that I can 'bridge the gap'.

Cat

 

[IG2007]

Unscientific, I know. But the only way that I can 'bridge the gap'.

There is no gap, Cat, you can't bridge a 0-gap.

IG, come on IG. Was that a typo?

That was indeed not a typo.

 

[IG2007]

Above, I posted "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?"
We have not responded to this have we? I cannot understand the gap between the thought and the atoms jiggling around.

Cat, I guess you missed it. I already said what thoughts are.

"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."

I still have something to say, in addition to my point. Our thoughts and our ideas are merely effects of what we see and hear (does that bridge the so-called gap?) from the moment we are born. Our feelings are merely results of hormones and electrical impulses. We are robots, Cat, I reiterate, we are merely biological robots.

 

[Catastrophe]

OK. We agree to disagree.

 

[IG2007]

OK. We agree to disagree.

As you wish.

 

[Catastrophe]

Sorry IG. It just seems that we are getting nowhere. I think you may be too deterministic and you think I may be too non-scientific. It's only a difference of opinion.

 

[IG2007]

I think you may be too deterministic

I am not at all deterministic, Cat, I am a materialist.

 

[Helio]

Helio, "Agreed. But my view has limits on an observable Universe to include things "in principle". IOW, not just things we see through a monster telescope but what we could see and measure through an unimaginably large one after traveling both east and west as far as imaginable."
Of course I agree. The "up-down" could also mean telescope up - microscope down. Not as I first intended, but certainly appropriate,

Yes. So the observable Universe would be taken as "our observable Universe", whereas the the "Universe" would include regions that are a part of science (ie BBT), yet due to expansion, the outer regions are no longer observable by any possible means as science dictates. Is that proper?

On the subject of punctuation, the rule would be - if a quote is part of a sentence, the quotes close before the full stop. If the quote is the full sentence, the quotes close after the full stop. In other words, the full stop does not interrupt the quote. Perhaps we are the same?

Yes, it looks that way.

The biggest error I see on the forum is the misuse of "further" used for "farther". "Farther" is always used when distance is the intent.

I had great fun with this, because I edited (and wrote most of) a (scientific) book for Marcel Dekker (U.S. publishers) - as you may imagine, the proofreading was interesting - which 'language' do I adopt?

That's impressive.

 

[Helio]

I cannot understand the gap between the thought and the atoms jiggling around. To me there is a compelling association (though totally unprovable, and unscientific) between thought and dark energy - if you like, 'body and soul', but not using 'soul' in an 'r' sense.

Yes. There must be an impetus preliminary to the neuro -process before signals travel their path down the axon.

If I want to think about, say, a red apple, the "want" precedes the "think", I want to think.

I doubt I can add much else to the conversation, though I am friends, somewhat, with a grad student getting his PhD doing research on how neurons operate.

 

[Catastrophe]

I am a scientist and, believe me, I do not want to enter the jiggerpokery there is out there. But, science (quite understandably) limits itself to the observable. Happily, from what I have seen, there is a passing nod to what might be (and some of which will be).

Cat

Actually, I think I always use further. Is that OK US?

 

[Catastrophe]

I sincerely believe that the inspiration for a work of art is not a bunch of neurons running around. Sorry.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

I am not at all deterministic, Cat, I am a materialist.

IG, life is a learning process. We all have different views as we progress. Some get it "right" first time. Others take longer. We just take our choice at the time.

Cat

 

[IG2007]

"Right" is relative in nature, Cat.