Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 69 (645501)
12-27-2011 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by hsweet
12-26-2011 3:45 PM


Are Multiverses Possible?
I'd say they're possible, but it depends on what you mean...
In one sense, by the nature of the word UNIverse, its talking about everything that is, so even if there was another -verse, it would still be a part of the UNI-verse.
On the other hand, if we talking about our universe as the bubble we live in, then I don't see any reason why there couldn't be another bubble (that we don't live in), or even a whole sea of foam with each bubble being its own "uni"-verse. (In the former sense the whole foam would be called the universe and each bubble would be a somethingelse-verse).
So what do you mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by hsweet, posted 12-26-2011 3:45 PM hsweet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by hsweet, posted 12-27-2011 1:11 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 69 (645515)
12-27-2011 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by hsweet
12-27-2011 1:11 PM


Re: multiverses
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.
What is being referred to with "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.
If the Source generated one universe, why couldn't it do another?
It couldn't if the Source was the contents, themselves, but you're arguing against that... So, what's another reason?
In the OP (opening post), you wrote:
quote:
If each of these elements is interdependent with each of the others, then none could exist separately outside of the universe. There would be no abstract ‘fields’ of space or time or energy as some have thought.
This common concept of space or time or energy as an abstract foundation for matter is but an extrapolation of the practical reality of these elements. This is no different than any other straight line extrapolation that assumes that activity further removed is the same as what is currently experienced. We’ve seen this before when people extrapolated their observation of a flat reality to the notion that the entire earth was flat. Haven’t we just increased the scale of this kind of faulty logic?
The fields are sota like the "places" where those other things exist. If you make the fields analogous to the surface of the ocean, then the matter and energy of our universe would be the ripples and waves on that surface.
Everything is the field(s) and things don't exist independently of it/them.
But that doesn't preclude some other -verse exiting somewhere else.
I'm not entirely following your argument. How are the contents being projected to the Source and why does that eliminate multiverses as possibilities?
Oh, and I've found a minor quibble:
quote:
Without matter there would be no time to denote its movement through space as time is but the measurement of that movement.
Matter didn't exist until some amount of time after the Big Bang, so there was that little bit of time without matter.
And time is another dimension, its not just a denotation of movement.
ABE (added by edit):
I forgot to say:
Killer 'stache!
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by hsweet, posted 12-27-2011 1:11 PM hsweet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by hsweet, posted 12-27-2011 3:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 69 (645519)
12-27-2011 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by hsweet
12-27-2011 3:04 PM


Re: Source of Creation
Catholic Scientist, This is going to be a hard, if not impossible, one for a Catholic to grasp.
Excuse me? There's no need to be presumptuous and condescending. Catholicism has no impedence on my ability to grasp. And you shouldn't judge people by their names.
"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.
When we're in the Science Forum (see near the top of the page for the forum descriptions), claims are expected to be supported by evidence, so we don't really talk about god. I was under the impression we were discussing this from a cosmological perspective, but I don't care if you wanna get all philisophical on me.
I agree that the Source of Creation could have spurned off another universe.
So multiverses are possible.
My argument is that it is illogical to argue that the Source of Creation, in any way, resembles the creation.
Okay, where has that been argued? And what do you mean be "resemble"?
And what if there is no source outside of the universe itself? The universe has existed at all points in time, so I'm not even sure "source" is a good word here.
I would say that if the universe sourced itself, then the source would resemble the creation.... but it would have been a helluva lot different in the ealiest parts so maybe 'resemble' isn't a good word either.
If the Source of Creation generated other universes, they are absolutely beyond us in any way imaginable.
And how would you know that? Maybe they're just like ours... just "over there". I don't see any reason why they have to be different.
At this point, such is merely hypothesis with no substantiation.
Kinda like the existence of the Source of Creation...
I won't argue about the chronology of the events following the Big Bang -- beyond my level of competence.
Hear and now is the place and time to ask.
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?
Well, you could measure the duration of a stasis, or just entropy, or heat transference, or maybe something else... The spatial dimensions, too, are within the univers and relative. Just don't get caught in the trap that time isn't a real thing but only something used to measure movement. That's a big step in understanding Big Bang cosmology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by hsweet, posted 12-27-2011 3:04 PM hsweet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by hsweet, posted 12-27-2011 5:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 69 (645603)
12-28-2011 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by hsweet
12-27-2011 5:13 PM


Re: Source of Creation
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.
So, what is it you think about Catholics that would make them have trouble grasping this stuff?
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 dunno, non-science doesn't ever really produce much to collide with. And you don't have to have any tolerance of non-science if your just willing to say "I don't know".
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.
Because time is a part of the Universe, itself, then it would have "begun" with the Big Bang too. So therefore, there would not be any points in time in which the Universe did not exist (because time doesn't exist there either).
Now, when you get into a finite past is when it gets a little trickier... That's when we start getting towards the Hartle-Hawking no boundary proposal ~clicky
That posits a universe that is finite, yet unbounded. The surface of a sphere, just the surface and not the inside of the ball, is also finite and unbounded. An ant on the ball could walk in the same direction forever because he'd just keep going round and round, so he'd never find a boundary to his 'universe'. And you need a boundary to have a proper 'beginning'.
If you don't have any time for the Universe to not-exist in, then you don't really have anywhere for it to begin from.
In addition, that speculation will consist entirely of some combination of space, time matter and energy. Anything else is beyond imagination. Try it.
I'm imagining a universe consisting entirely of blurple mattergy....
The Source of Creation is transcendent and experiential but that is probably too much for discussion in a conventional scientific forum.
Well how do you know that? Doesn't that contradict your claim that we can't know about things outside our universe? And aren't you using terms for inside to describe this thing on the outside?
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.
But the same goes for the spatial dimenstion...
The universe is a 4 dimensional manifold of which time is a part. If you could view the universe holistically, you would see some particular shape which incorporates the objects in space and how they change through time. So, for instance, a star would not look like a point (like we see them from within) but rather it would look like a line (the path its taking through its galaxy).
Start chewing on that

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by hsweet, posted 12-27-2011 5:13 PM 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