Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8790 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-23-2017 1:46 AM
345 online now:
Coyote, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Phat (AdminPhat), sravan (4 members, 341 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,311 Year: 23,917/21,208 Month: 1,882/2,468 Week: 391/822 Day: 1/50 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
Author Topic:   Are Multiverses possible?
hsweet
Junior Member (Idle past 1994 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 responded

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

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5533
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 62 of 69 (645541)
12-27-2011 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by hsweet
12-27-2011 5:13 PM


Re: Source of Creation
hsweet writes:
When you are discussing the origins of the universe, you are entering a netherworld where science and non-science collide.

I don't see any necessary collision, unless religion insists on having one.

I would say that it's an area where there is little common ground between science and non-science. But there no need for a fight to break out.


Christianity claims the moral high ground it its rhetoric. It has long since abandoned the moral high ground in its practices

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by hsweet, posted 12-27-2011 7:57 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
hsweet
Junior Member (Idle past 1994 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 acknowledged this reply

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 64 of 69 (645549)
12-27-2011 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by hsweet
12-27-2011 5:51 PM


Re: hope
I would like to have hope too. But I would also want to have a basis for that hope.

Well, as I have pointed out, it is in principle possible for physicists to produce evidence for other universes. So it is simply more accurate to say that there is some hope that one day they will do so than to say that there is "no hope" that they will do so. It may not be a hope in which one can place much reliance, but it's more than nothing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by hsweet, posted 12-27-2011 5:51 PM hsweet has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Phat, posted 12-27-2011 10:36 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9758
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 65 of 69 (645554)
12-27-2011 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Dr Adequate
12-27-2011 9:24 PM


Re: hope
Its interesting, in the field of psychotherapy, when a patient begins talking about the worlds problems (or the universes) and the Doctor will gently remind them to focus on themselves rather than on some grand picture. Humanity dreams of hope in space, yet we cant even solve our own problems here on this 3rd rock!

( I know, a bit of topic drift....my point being that whats possible is secondary to whats priority.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-27-2011 9:24 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by hsweet, posted 12-27-2011 10:54 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 67 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-27-2011 11:33 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
hsweet
Junior Member (Idle past 1994 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 acknowledged this reply

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

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 67 of 69 (645557)
12-27-2011 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Phat
12-27-2011 10:36 PM


Re: hope
Its interesting, in the field of psychotherapy, when a patient begins talking about the worlds problems (or the universes) and the Doctor will gently remind them to focus on themselves rather than on some grand picture. Humanity dreams of hope in space, yet we cant even solve our own problems here on this 3rd rock!

Demonstrating the existence of other universes is probably much easier than solving our own human problems, and so it only makes sense that we should try to do that first. Baby steps, Phat, baby steps.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Phat, posted 12-27-2011 10:36 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11707
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


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 yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3949
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 69 of 69 (645607)
12-28-2011 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by hsweet
12-27-2011 10:54 PM


Re: hope
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.

Miserable for the friends and family of the over focused individual; but often the over focused individual has little conception or experience of the misery.

Some people may as well live in a different universe in terms of what they expect or are prepared to give in relationships.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by hsweet, posted 12-27-2011 10:54 PM hsweet has not yet responded

    
Prev1234
5
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017