Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are Multiverses possible?
hsweet
Junior Member (Idle past 620 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 31 of 69 (645431)
12-26-2011 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by jar
12-26-2011 10:48 PM


Re: non physical universes
We are going around in circles. A fundamental concept is that there is the concrete and the descriptive. There is the real and it's fantasy variations. There is the language of relationships.
Love, for example, is not an absolute concrete thing but, instead is referential to the relationship, for example, between a man and a woman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 12-26-2011 10:48 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 12-26-2011 11:11 PM hsweet has replied

  
hsweet
Junior Member (Idle past 620 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 33 of 69 (645433)
12-26-2011 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by nwr
12-26-2011 11:01 PM


Re: mathematics
I have to admit ignorance here; my math education only took me through 4 years of high school math and a smattering of it in college. Interestingly enough, I never needed anything professionally that I didn't learn in grammar school. On the other hand, I did use intermediate algebra, logarithms and trigonometry in my hobby.
What can you do to make things meaningful to me?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by nwr, posted 12-26-2011 11:01 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by nwr, posted 12-27-2011 12:36 AM hsweet has not replied

  
hsweet
Junior Member (Idle past 620 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 35 of 69 (645435)
12-26-2011 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by jar
12-26-2011 11:11 PM


Re: non physical universes
Abstractions eventually become relative. Beauty is not descriptive of no thing.
A line is a concept but is relational to a plane which, in turn, is relational to a solid which exists in reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 12-26-2011 11:11 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by jar, posted 12-26-2011 11:26 PM hsweet has not replied

  
hsweet
Junior Member (Idle past 620 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 40 of 69 (645440)
12-26-2011 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Dr Adequate
12-26-2011 11:30 PM


Re: multiple big bangs ?
OK. hypothetical to the hilt, though as with no possible interaction, that leaves us out of the picture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-26-2011 11:30 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-26-2011 11:57 PM hsweet has replied

  
hsweet
Junior Member (Idle past 620 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 42 of 69 (645445)
12-27-2011 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dr Adequate
12-26-2011 11:57 PM


Re: multiple big bangs ?
Talk about healthy undertakings! Good Luck.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-26-2011 11:57 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-27-2011 12:10 AM hsweet has replied

  
hsweet
Junior Member (Idle past 620 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 44 of 69 (645447)
12-27-2011 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Dr Adequate
12-27-2011 12:10 AM


Re: multiple big bangs ?
Perhaps far out might be more correct than rule out.
It's when we start hearing other universe descriptions presented as an alternative to the anthropic that we start seeing science getting edgy about religion.
Eastern time here. Time to quit for the night.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-27-2011 12:10 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-27-2011 1:30 AM hsweet has replied

  
hsweet
Junior Member (Idle past 620 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 47 of 69 (645464)
12-27-2011 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Dr Adequate
12-27-2011 1:30 AM


Re: multiple big bangs ?
Far out? That's olde hippie talk meaning way beyond the normal scope of things. Dictionary: marked by a considerable departure from the conventional or traditional
See my response in message # 15 for a few words on science and religion. But the subject there is far to alien for those few words to be of any meaning to anyone not previously exposed. Just consider it to be a referential statement.
BTW, I an not a theist. Neither am I a materialist nor an agnostic. The vectors into this morass I've found relevant are mythological, historical, psychological, logical and experiential. But that's for another forum!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-27-2011 1:30 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-27-2011 4:38 PM hsweet has replied

  
hsweet
Junior Member (Idle past 620 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 51 of 69 (645508)
12-27-2011 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by New Cat's Eye
12-27-2011 12:41 PM


multiverses
Hello Catholic Scientist. For a moment there I thought that I read 'Catholic Saint'. Now there would be a real authoritative source!
I agree with your etymology. Thus far, I've been pursuing what, IMHO, is the errant logic of projecting the contents of creation (the known universe) to the Source of Creation.
Some have argued that other universes could have come from that same source but, if so, they are way out of our ballpark maybe conceivable through advanced mathematics.
Anyone thinking of taking a trip there, at today's level of knowledge, reminds me of those in ancient times whose view of space travel required the use of bird like wings!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-27-2011 12:41 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-27-2011 2:29 PM hsweet has replied

  
hsweet
Junior Member (Idle past 620 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 53 of 69 (645516)
12-27-2011 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by New Cat's Eye
12-27-2011 2:29 PM


Source of Creation
Catholic Scientist, This is going to be a hard, if not impossible, one for a Catholic to grasp. "Source of Creation" would be a non personified creator deity which seems to be an oxymoron. Another way of looking at it would be as god, impersonal.
I agree that the Source of Creation could have spurned off another universe. My argument is that it is illogical to argue that the Source of Creation, in any way, resembles the creation.
It is interesting that you mentioned the ocean and wave metaphor. That is a common Indian (India) metaphor relating the ocean of Consciousness to us, the individual waves that merely come and go.
If the Source of Creation generated other universes, they are absolutely beyond us in any way imaginable. At this point, such is merely hypothesis with no substantiation.
I won't argue about the chronology of the events following the Big Bang -- beyond my level of competence.
Time has been called a dimension but that dimension is within the universe and is relative to motion of particles and energy. Without that motion what would time be measuring?
(I do manage to keep the 'stache under control. I had a friend, once, whose beard grew by the minute but the poor guy couldn't grow a decent mustache. )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-27-2011 2:29 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-27-2011 3:38 PM hsweet has replied

  
hsweet
Junior Member (Idle past 620 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 56 of 69 (645530)
12-27-2011 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by New Cat's Eye
12-27-2011 3:38 PM


Re: Source of Creation
Well, Catholic Scientist, you have given me a lot to think about.
I am not attempting to be condescending but, instead, respectful of other views. The title. "Catholic" implies what it says -- especially when it is a self chosen pseudonym.
When you are discussing the origins of the universe, you are entering a netherworld where science and non-science collide. So, even in a science forum, some tolerance of non-science is needed.
I have heard arguments that postulate some baseline 'energy field' or unintentionally treats space and time as stand alone infinite entities. The logic that I have presented is that these are but constituents of the universe.
By resembling the creation, I mean that it would be illogical to perceive the Source of Creation in terms of the creation. It would be neither matter, nor energy nor space nor time. To choose energy as baseline, for example, would be saying that the energy source of creation manifested a universe in which it was but a component. Illogical.
According th Big Bang theory, the universe is 13.7 billion years old. This would mean that it has existed for that length of time and not 'all points in time' -- unless you meant something different by that term than what I am understanding.
I agree that 'Source of Creation' is a term that could be improved on. We are into a region where words, whose task is to symbolize what is within creation, lose their strength. Other descriptions that I have heard include 'underlies manifest relative reality'. We are at the limits of science here. Examining space, time, matter and energy is going to confine us to this side of the Big Bang.
We can hypothesize that other universes may exist and what they may look like but will never be able to go any further. In addition, that speculation will consist entirely of some combination of space, time matter and energy. Anything else is beyond imagination. Try it.
The Source of Creation is transcendent and experiential but that is probably too much for discussion in a conventional scientific forum.
I am not claiming that time is not real -- just that it is relative to the other elements and, as such, does not exist independently as, for all practical purposes, such is true in the here and now.
Stasis? In the deepest sense, I would have to ask a physicist whether permanent stasis was a reality. Entropy and heat transference do involve change which is motion.
There, I think I have covered it all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-27-2011 3:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Straggler, posted 12-27-2011 5:19 PM hsweet has replied
 Message 62 by nwr, posted 12-27-2011 6:38 PM hsweet has replied
 Message 68 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-28-2011 11:09 AM hsweet has not replied

  
hsweet
Junior Member (Idle past 620 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 58 of 69 (645533)
12-27-2011 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Dr Adequate
12-27-2011 4:38 PM


far out
Well, I don't want to get into a deep discussion on the meaning of the term 'far out'. Suffice it to say that discussions on the nature of other universes are in the realm of guesses that have no hope of ever being substantiated. We are all happy to apply the scientific method to understanding the relationship between space, time, matter and energy but that is as far as science will take us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-27-2011 4:38 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-27-2011 5:42 PM hsweet has replied

  
hsweet
Junior Member (Idle past 620 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 59 of 69 (645534)
12-27-2011 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Straggler
12-27-2011 5:19 PM


time
Straggler, My question was to Catholic Scientist wondering if, by point in time', he was referring to something outside of the 13.7 billion years that is under our lens. My view is coincident with your's -- that time is a constituent of the universe and not a stand alone infinite entity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Straggler, posted 12-27-2011 5:19 PM Straggler has not replied

  
hsweet
Junior Member (Idle past 620 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 61 of 69 (645539)
12-27-2011 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Dr Adequate
12-27-2011 5:42 PM


hope
I would like to have hope too. But I would also want to have a basis for that hope. Until then, I will contain myself to the one universe that is a known fact.
You guys have given me a real run for the money! Most of what I've heard has been well thought out and not so easy to write off!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-27-2011 5:42 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-27-2011 9:24 PM hsweet has not replied

  
hsweet
Junior Member (Idle past 620 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 63 of 69 (645547)
12-27-2011 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by nwr
12-27-2011 6:38 PM


origin or universe
I will broaden things even further to say that non science is not limited to religion. But I am not suggesting that we get into that in this science forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by nwr, posted 12-27-2011 6:38 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
hsweet
Junior Member (Idle past 620 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 66 of 69 (645555)
12-27-2011 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Phat
12-27-2011 10:36 PM


Re: hope
Phat, You hit the nail on the head there! Biographies of the most accomplished all to often show a miserable family life that comes from its neglect and total focus on the professional objective. The name Einstein comes to mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Phat, posted 12-27-2011 10:36 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Larni, posted 12-28-2011 11:32 AM hsweet has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024