Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 802 of 1482 (833666)
05-24-2018 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 800 by GDR
05-24-2018 7:39 PM


Re: Meaning of life
That is a great post Modulous and thank you for it.
Thanks!
I agree, but it isn’t about trying to solve a problem. The question, for which there is no certain answer, is whether or not we are the result of intelligence. It becomes a matter of belief. Ascribing special properties to a deity is a separate issue.
Well I was addressing an ICANT argument. It goes along the lines of 'the energy of the universe must have come from something, there has to be an end to the regression of explanation, that must be an eternal god of infinite power'.
My point would be that physicists speculate about some of the same things that a theist might. For example there was a headline on the cover of Scientific American that read, Hidden Worlds of Dark Matter — An entire universe may be interwoven silently with our own. Essentially this is roughly how I speculate about my theistic beliefs.
Sure - humans speculate along many lines and theists and physicists are both humans (and sometimes a physicist is a theist!).
The difference is that physicists are constrained in what speculations they can run with, and how they operate...when they are doing physics at least.
I see our world with our 5 senses as being an emergent property of a greater reality.
"How do you know but every bird that cuts the airy way, is an immense world of delight, closed by your senses five?" -- William Blake
I would only ask the question of wouldn’t it make sense that if there were 3 dimensions of time we could move in time infinitely, in the same way that with our 3 spatial dimensions we can move around infinitely in space.
I don't think we can move infinitely in 3 spatial dimensions. We can move along three axis. If there were 4 dimensions we could move along 4 axis.
If there were 3 dimensions of time, it'd be the same kind of deal. We'd have more axis of time to progress along.
I mean if the universe was two dimensional - one space and one time. We could 'move infinitely' along the spatial direction but still be constrained in the time direction. The directionality of time seems to be related to entropy and probability more than the fact that there is only one dimension of it.
I think that there is intent in the evolutionary process to a greater degree than the instinct for survival as in the rustling in the bushes. I would contend that the universe was brought into existence with the high probability through randomness that it will eventually bring into existence creatures that are able to act and love sacrificially. I also contend that the point of that, is that ultimately that will bring about a world where sacrificial love is the overriding feature of existence.
To what end? The problem with implying a plan of sorts is that it's got to make sense, right? Cui bono, as they say. If there was only God in the beginning, and God is a being of supreme sacrificial love - then it was already the overriding feature of existence. Why all the extra stuff if the goal is to arrive where you started from?
No, but neither does a simply materialistic belief.
But it's not simply materialistic - it's quite detailed and complex, coherent, consistent and testable that results in predictions, advances in technology....
I do contend though that intelligence from an intelligent root is more reasonable than believing that it has risen from a non-intelligent root.
I understand that you believe it, but on what grounds is it more reasonable? I already gave my argument as to why it is not, so what is your argument in favour - if its not just a gut feeling but one based on reason?
But I’d suggest that you are only looking at it from a scientific POV. There is also the philosophical.
I'd like to point out that the scientific POV is philosophical. It is based on the epistemological position that we can understand the world by applying reason to experience.
Ultimately are our lives meaningful? Certainly materialists can find meaning in work, family, acquiring things, helping others etc but ultimately does it matter?
Well the question really then is, what makes the mattering ultimate. If the final thing that cares about what matters is us - then it does ultimately matter.
As a theist I believe that it does and that ultimately our lives do have meaning beyond what we are able to find in this life, and that lives that are based on sacrificial love or if you like the Golden Rule, do have ultimate meaning and purpose.
And you are of course, welcome to your belief.
However, from a philosophical position - asserting your belief isn't much. Is it possible to defend or support it beyond 'I just believe it?'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 800 by GDR, posted 05-24-2018 7:39 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 804 by GDR, posted 05-25-2018 1:04 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 805 of 1482 (833671)
05-25-2018 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 804 by GDR
05-25-2018 1:04 AM


Re: Meaning of life
I realize this is rather wild speculation but here goes. I'm not at all sure why you say we can't move infinitely in our 3 spatial dimensions. Even if there were just 2 I could infinitely circle the globe either backward or forward. With 3, I have the additional possibility of getting airborne.
Well exactly - the number of dimensions doesn't impact our capacity to move through them. Thus adding more time dimensions would not necessarily grant us more freedom to move through them than we do the one time dimension that we have.
Well, not being a Biblical literalist I don't go along with the idea that this all started out that way. I do think though that there is a plan and it does ultimately wind up with a recreated world where sacrificial love is the norm.
So God is just making do?
It's all of those things but it still does not answer the question of what if anything is behind it all.
But it does. You just don't like that answer
IMHO it is far more likely that intelligence would have an intelligent root as opposed to the chance combination of mindless particles that have combined together to bring about conscious intelligent beings with a sense of morality. I can't prove that as we know, but in my mind it is logical.
But "more likely" and "more reasonable" have meaning. I'm not asking you to prove that intelligence was the root - but I am asking you to justify your stance on likelihood and reasonableness. Otherwise, it's just a feeling - however compelling that feeling is.
This world as we know it will to come to an end whether it is the sun burning, the big crunch, a nuclear holocaust or whatever. When all of sentient life is gone from the planet then there is no ultimate meaning.
Again - ultimate means 'final'. If the final meaning is our own, then there is ultimate meaning. That meaning may not transcend us, but I don't see a problem with that.
If however, if God is going to recreate our world, where existence is characterized by sacrificial love then there is an ultimate purpose.
But is there a purpose to recreating the world in this way? Some purpose that transcends God? If not, then I don't see how it more meaning than the meaning we give things - just because some other entity also gives meaning doesn't mean our meaning is any greater or lesser.
We both have our beliefs, and we both do what we can to explain our rational for what we believe. In the end though it is belief, as neither of us has absolute knowledge.
Naturally (heh) - but we can put forward a defence. Simply saying 'I believe' doesn't get us anywhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 804 by GDR, posted 05-25-2018 1:04 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 824 by GDR, posted 05-25-2018 7:36 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 828 of 1482 (833728)
05-25-2018 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 824 by GDR
05-25-2018 7:36 PM


Re: Meaning of life
Again I agree that this is wild speculation but even with two dimensions of time ,as the mathematics suggest we should have, we could go backwards and forwards reversing entropy and would mean that we could be eternal.
Going backwards and forwards requires only one dimension. Having two dimensions would mean we could forwards in a time and leftwards in time. But it doesn't mean we can go backwards in time or rightwards in time.
It's not that I don't like the answer that you come up with, I just don't agree with it. Are you saying you can prove there is no god?
No - I'm just commenting that your claim that naturalism doesn't 'answer the question of what if anything is behind it all.' by saying that it does.
However where it becomes much more of a grey area is when we consider the question of why the evolutionary process came into being in the first place. If we then discover what process initiated evolution then we ask what process initiated that and it is turtles all the way down.
But why is it more reasonable to resolve the infinite regress by appealing to a supernatural intelligence than some fundamental and simple entity?
We can choose a mindful or a mindless origin of our world. You choose one and I choose the other, by belief, as we do not have empirical evidence that proves the issue one way or the other.
But I gave my reasons, you seem to want to resort to 'I just believe it'. I think that shows something about our approaches.
We are both putting forward a defence, but it is about defending what we believe knowing that there is no absolute evidence for either of our positions. I do prefer to say the "I believe" to saying that this is how is, out of honesty.
I don't see the defence. You claim you think it is more logical and more reasonable to see things the way you do, but when asked for your reasons and logic you either repeat how reasonable or logical you think it is and conclude that ultimately you just believe it.
There's no dispute that it's belief, but if you believe it is more reasonable - that means you have reasons. If you want to concede its purely faith without reason that's fine - but you talked about reason and logic and I don't think I'm out of line for asking about your reasons. 'I believe' is a statement of fact, but it is not an argument that justifies that your belief is more reasonable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 824 by GDR, posted 05-25-2018 7:36 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 832 by GDR, posted 05-25-2018 9:09 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 836 of 1482 (833736)
05-25-2018 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 832 by GDR
05-25-2018 9:09 PM


Re: Meaning of life
I don't want to belabour the point as discussing this with you is like taking a knife to a gun fight, but as I understood from what I read, is that math tells us that time should flow backwards of forwards but due to entropy we only experience it in one direction. I just kinda assumed that if we experience two dimensions of time, we would then be able to reverse entropy.
Heh. But no, that's not really how it works. The laws of physics seem to be time independent. You look at the interactions of particles and there is no intrinsic directionality. However, in the big picture - what we see today looks different than yesterday because entropy has increased. That's a probabilistic thing - energy is going to distribute itself evenly. It seems a fundamental fact. So given that energy at one point in the universe's history was very undistributed - it was very ordered, there is a directionality towards disorder.
I don't think adding more time dimensions will prevent entropy from increasing - it just means it will increase in two different axis. Whatever that would mean.
OK, but it isn't any less of a belief than what it is that I believe.
Which was my point. You seem to be suggesting that there is a superiority (of sorts) to your belief because the supernatural answers the question of what's behind it all. I was saying, on this we're actually equal.
If we can show that evolution naturally resulted in life today it tells us nothing about why that is the case or why or how the process of evolution existed in the first place.
On the contrary - part of showing evolution occurs naturally involves explaining why this is the case and how it can exist. The end result is that one should see that evolution is inevitable.
The anthropic principle.
I'm not sure how that helps. I mean it must be true that a universe that is observed by intelligence must be compatible with the emergence of intelligences that can observe it. It doesn't suppose a deity of any sort.
The world appears to be designed.
Well this is dangerously close to being circular. You are defending the notion that it is more reasonable to suppose some ultimate designer by saying it appears there was one. But does it? What would an undesigned world appear like?
Mankind has always looked to something beyond ourselves.
Sure, but then how does that suggest there is an intelligence behind our intelligence? Without reference to anything else - it seems equally reasonable to suppose we're in error to think there is something beyond ourselves. After all - we make cognitive errors all the time.
The accounts of the life of Jesus.
How do those accounts make it more reasonable or logical to suppose an intelligence is behind it? If I was to point to biographies of Richard Dawkins would that not have equal potency for the argument of the absence of a supernatural intelligence at the root of it all? I think it does - and that the strength of either argument approaches zero as far as reason and logic go.
The fact that the vast majority of religions have as part of their faith the Golden Rule.
Reciprocity is common among social animals, the fact that it is a common ideal for us doesn't seem compelling in any way towards the idea that an intelligence was required to develop intelligence.
In general people do have a sense of purpose and deep down believe that we are teleological
I'm not sure how our feelings on the matter make it more reasonable to believe they're true. It certainly explains why we might think its true, but its not a reason to suppose it actually is. In general people believe they have a higher than average IQ. And in general people think their beliefs are right. But the former must be false by definition, and the latter must be sometimes false in a world with mutually contradictory beliefs.
Our mythologies usually involve something beyond ourselves
That's the definition of mythology. But why do the stories we tell ourselves make it more reasonable to suppose those stories hold some truth than the idea that they're just stories we tell ourselves?
Regardless of culture we do have a general sense of things that are right or wrong and we know that right is the one we should choose whether we do it or not.
Well, we're social animals. It comes with the territory. We do, however, wildly (and often violently) disagree on what those right and wrong things are. I'm not seeing how this makes it more reasonable to suppose an intelligence beyond our own is involved.
That fact that we have emotions.
Again, not sure what the logic is that would lead us to err towards an intelligence being behind this.
Given time I could come up with more but at least that's a start.
See, the problem I have is that these don't look like logic or reason to me. They may be reasons you tell yourself to justify why you think it's more reasonable, but I don't see any sort of connection from them to the conclusion that an intelligence is more likely as a result. These seem like rationalisations for how your beliefs which stem from how you feel about things. That is you - you believe first, and use these kinds of things try and justify the belief. In contrast to these things being the reason you believe.
I guess however, it's the best shot you - or indeed anyone - can give for the idea. So I commend you for putting them out there.
What simple entity would you use. Would that entity have intelligence? The idea that all of attributes of sentience evolving from mindlessness doesn't resonate with me in the way that sentience from pre-existing intelligence does.
I saved this for last. I don't hold a belief about what the most fundamental simple entity would be. However, an example might be a field. It doesn't have intelligence.
As apes who evolved under the conditions of being part of social hierarchy it's natural for us to extend the notion to some transcendent ape as being the cause and explanation for everything. It is decidedly unnatural for such creatures as ourselves to suppose that we're made of atoms, which are made of subatomic particles that are perturbations in some omnipresent field. It is no surprise that you find this....soulless...idea doesn't resonate. But what resonates with us is only relevant to our lives as social apes - it doesn't indicate what is actually true. Time and again, what is actually true has always been... something non-intuitive. Something that doesn't seem to 'make sense' at a visceral, gut level.
Quantum physics doesn't really resonate with any of us - but if we assume it holds truths and act accordingly, we build lasers. So there must be something in it.
On the other hand - operating under the notion that there is an intelligence behind it all...at best gives us reassurance and makes us comfortable. But since comforting falsehoods are everywhere, it wouldn't be reasonable to trust something as true just because it is comforting though it is understandable that we may sometimes choose to do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 832 by GDR, posted 05-25-2018 9:09 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 841 by GDR, posted 05-26-2018 2:18 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 845 of 1482 (833756)
05-26-2018 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 842 by ICANT
05-26-2018 3:32 AM


Re: complexities don't always translate into analogies
What is the available evidence that took place when there was nothing but a hot mass of Plasma.
There's a lot of stuff about how particles work out there. We can look at energy conditions that existed at around 10−11 seconds in particle accelerators.
Then why did you say in answer to a question say that fundamental particles already existed.
Can you specify what you are referring to?
The part that says Inflation should be a circle around the white big bang circle.
Feel free to draw your own diagram but this one does depict the inflationary universe sufficiently well. The y-axis is time, the x-axis is the radius of the universe. As time increases, the radius increases. During inflation the rate of inflation was very high, as represented by the slope of the line.
I mean - if you don't know how graphs work, the subject you are discussing is way too advanced for you.
I would like to see the empirically derived evidence to support any of the claims prior to the 380,000 years after big bang.
Glad to hear it! In the meantime, since you are the one who is attempting to criticize the inflationary universe at a basic level - let's stick to that. In a few years after you've gone over the empirically derived evidence we can drill down to more details.
But all information I can find says nucleus formed after the 380,000 year mark. Where the visible universe begins.
No, the information you can find says atoms formed here. You've even said so several times.
Where is any empirical evidence to support NASA'S assertion about neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons, photons and neutrinos?
It can be found in physics papers. They're very difficult to understand.
But what slowed it down and when did it slow down?
At about 10-32 seconds - as you can see from the labelled diagram I gave you.
But NASA had neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons, photons and neutrinos already existing.
No. The NASA statement clearly says "According to NASA, after inflation the growth of the universe continued, but at a slower rate... One second after the Big Bang, the universe was filled with neutrons, protons....'
Which if they existed the space between them would expand over 900 feet every 1 millionth of a second.
No, the rate of expansion was closer to 70km/s per megaparsec.
But the raisins don't move anywhere. The space expands between them.
Well the raisins might not - but fundamental particles are active buggers - it's difficult to get them to stop moving around.
How would dark energy if it exists slow down expansion?
No body knows anything about dark energy, or if it even exists.
Well, we're talking about the inflationary theory. In inflationary theory dark energy is what is causing the expansion.
How would you get any other configuration?
Maybe you need to explain how expansion works.
Does it expand in every direction equally?
If not what causes it to do anything else?
Yes - but it may have curvature.
I thought the universe had a fabric around it?
I don't know anybody that suggests this.
What does having no edge have to do with the shape of the universe.
Ask a flat-earther. They propose the earth has edges. Everyone else says it doesn't.
There are 3 pictures and one of them is supposed to be the shape of the universe.
One is a rectangular sheet which would have 4 edges.
Nobody thinks the universe is a rectangular sheet. You are talking about a 'flat' universe. One with no curvature. The consensus being if this is the case the universe is infinite or is of a shape that wraps around itself in interesting ways. And therefore there are no edges.
quote:
In a universe with zero curvature, the local geometry is flat. The most obvious global structure is that of Euclidean space, which is infinite in extent. Flat universes that are finite in extent include the torus and Klein bottle.
One is a rectangular sheet which is curved like a saddle and has 4 edges.
This is referring to a universe with negative curvature. This too is infinite:
quote:
A hyperbolic universe, one of a negative spatial curvature, is described by hyperbolic geometry, and can be thought of locally as a three-dimensional analog of an infinitely extended saddle shape.
The other is a sphere which has no edges.
quote:
A positively curved universe is described by elliptic geometry, and can be thought of as a three-dimensional hypersphere, or some other spherical 3-manifold (such as the Poincar dodecahedral space), all of which are quotients of the 3-sphere.
-Quotes taken from wiki
I have never figured out how we could get inside either of the other two. As there is no depth to them like a sheet of paper.
They are 2D maps of a 3D environment. That would be like your clients complaining that the house you designed is two small to fit inside and the rooms don't have any height.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 842 by ICANT, posted 05-26-2018 3:32 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 860 of 1482 (833864)
05-27-2018 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 859 by ICANT
05-27-2018 2:07 PM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
In Message 794 I asked you four questions which you did not answer
They have been answered.
Is the claim made that the space is what is expanding in the universe with objects not flying through space?
This question is simply asking you to confirm expansion or to explain it if what I said was wrong.
Both space is expanding and objects fly through space. The reason galaxies (objects that are very far away) seem to be moving away from us is because the rate of expansion exceeds any speed they might be travelling through space.
Closer objects can more easily be moving towards us as the expansion of space between us and them is much lower.
2. Is the claim made that when expansion and inflation began it was at the speed of light?
If that is correct a simple yes would answer the question. If no you could explain exactly what was taking place and at what speed.
It depends on the model. Using inflationary theories the expansion was greater than the speed of light. This epoch was between 10−36 seconds and 10-32 seconds.
Is the claim made that no knowledge of the early universe can be seen until 380,000 years after the BB?
I read that so the claim has been made. If you disagree you could tell us when empirical data was available. You could even explain what it was.
We cannot observe light from before this time. But we can use empirical observations to understand what was happening before this time. These empirical observations draw conclusions with a very high level of certainty back to about 1 second after the big bang. The certainty drops off but we have confidence about some things going back from there.
4. Is it a fact the first atom was formed 380,000 years after the BB?
If that is correct a simple yes would be fine. If no you could explain when the first atom was formed. If you desired you could explain exactly how that atom was formed and what it was composed of.
The first nuclei were created within the first few minutes but the universe had not cooled enough for electrons to join in creating atoms until about that time.
Everybody likes to talk about empirical evidence but nobody wants to present any.
What are you looking for?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 859 by ICANT, posted 05-27-2018 2:07 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 877 by ICANT, posted 06-03-2018 4:27 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 869 of 1482 (833982)
05-28-2018 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 866 by ICANT
05-28-2018 6:08 PM


arms
I am only 5' 7.5" and my forearm is 22.5".
That seems....huge.
If your upper arms are in proportion they'd be about 28" Your total arm length would be about 50". You're 67 inches tall, I imagine your arms are only 55 inches or so off the ground. Your fingers must be scraping along the floor!
I assume you mean your forearm length plus your hand? Even so, that's pretty big.
So anyway, back to the topic. Since we've dealt with science and the Bible, are we going to 'move on to how God might have accomplished that event.'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 866 by ICANT, posted 05-28-2018 6:08 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 870 by ICANT, posted 05-28-2018 11:25 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 879 of 1482 (834342)
06-03-2018 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 877 by ICANT
06-03-2018 4:27 PM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Maybe to your satisfaction, but not mine.
They were basically yes/no questions. What else do you want?
What objects fly through what space? What propels them?
All objects fly through all space. They don't need propulsion - it's space. Gravity does a lot of heavy lifting here.
quote:
By time you get to today, the observable Universe, at 13.8 billion years old, extends for 46.1 billion light years in all directions from us.
Is this statement true?
Yes.
That would mean the diameter of the universe at one second old would be 19.178 light years in any direction. From what?
From the point of view of any observer.
If space between each protron and neutron or anything else in the sea of hot plasma was what expanded how far apart would each of those things be?
If the volume of the observable universe is 380,000,000,000,000 light years3... The volume when it was 20 light years in radius was in region of 38,000 light years3
So the density, was about 10,000,000,000 times greater than it is today. Today the density of the observable universe is somewhere in the region of 5 atoms per cubic metre. So after one second the density would come out to 50,000,000,000 atoms per cubic metre. I understand there were no atoms - but that's the kind of density we're talking about here on the back of an envelope for you.
To answer your question: pretty darned close.
If we can't see anything what observations are you talking about?
Our observations of particles.
Facts that support the conclusions you are talking about.
I hope I've helped you out. Any further questions?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 877 by ICANT, posted 06-03-2018 4:27 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 880 by Phat, posted 06-04-2018 7:49 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 881 by ICANT, posted 06-04-2018 8:39 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 882 of 1482 (834369)
06-04-2018 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 881 by ICANT
06-04-2018 8:39 AM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
How could that statement be true?
Well we can see objects that are about 13 billion light years away. But the light from that object has taken 13 billion years to get to us, by definition. In that 13 billion years, space has expanded. So the object right at this moment is actually further away and older than it appears to be.
But if there was a galaxy 46 billion light years from us in one direction and there was a galaxy 46 billion light years in the opposite direction. Would the diameter of the universe be 184 billion light years?
No, it would 46 x 2 billion light years or about 92 billion light years. You've multiplied the radius by 4 for some reason.
Where would the observer need to be located to see the entire diameter of the of the universe?
No observer can do this. An observer can only see the visible universe, with the time delay given to us by a finite speed of light.
If the observer was located on the line of the diameter of the universe at 4.7945 light years from one side of the universe what would he see?
There are no sides of the universe. An observer 40 billion light years away from us would see galaxies spread around him pretty much just like we do.
Where would a observer have to be to be 9.589 light years from the edge of the universe in any direction?
There is no edge.
So you are saying the space between each protron and neutron or anything else in the sea of hot plasma did not expand exponentially in every direction
When protons formed from the energy, the expansion would be about 70km/s per megaparsec. Over a distance of 1 metre, this is negligible.
Yes and they raised other questions listed above.
Questions, I should point out, that have already been answered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 881 by ICANT, posted 06-04-2018 8:39 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 883 by ICANT, posted 06-04-2018 3:47 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 885 of 1482 (834389)
06-04-2018 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 883 by ICANT
06-04-2018 3:47 PM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
If my galaxy I was in was 46 billion light years from each of the galaxies located in opposite directions from each other with my galaxy located in the middle why wouldn't the diameter of the universe be 184 billion light years?
It is 46 billion light years from each of the galaxies to me making a total of 92 billion light years between those two galaxies.
Making the diameter of the observable universe 92 billion light years.
If you were in one of those galaxies wouldn't the universe extend 46 billion light years from your galaxy in the opposite direction that I was in?
Right, and the diameter of my observable universe would also be 92 billion light years. But why stop there? Go another 46 billion light years and its the same story. Another, and that observer sees the same size of observable universe.
The observable universe is just how much we can see. What we see when we turn on our expensive telescopes is light from an object about 13 billion years ago. The source of that light is now 46 billion years away. We can't see any further than that. That's the observable universe.
Is it everything? Maybe, maybe not. We cant' know.
If the universe has a diameter, that diameter has a stopping point at each end of the diameter.
The observable universe is limited to a few hundred thousand years from big bang - beyond this point the universe is opaque so we can't see anything. That boundary isn't the edge of the universe. It's just the early stages of it. Even if we could see beyond that, it'd only get us a little further. That's why there is a limit. But it isn't where the universe ends, it's where it begins. OK, that profundity is basically wordplay but still that's what we're dealing with here. The further we look, the older it gets until it doesn't get older because its brand new. Yeah OK that's more confusion
Basically the observable universe is limited because of the speed of light. That's the same for any observer in the universe. Whether they are 46billion light years away or 4600 billion light years away. The actual universe either doesn't have a diameter because it is infinite or it does have a diameter - or something like it - but as a mathematical concept in a fourth spatial dimension which may or may not actually exist.
You know, I'm still convinced thinking about this in 2 dimensions is easier, but whatever floats your boat.
But the 1 second old universe I am talking about is only 19.178 light years in diameter. Which means the radius is 9.589 light years.
No - everything we can observe today took up a space with a radius of 19 light years then.
My question is for an observer to be able to observe the universe existing 9.589 light years in any direction from the observers location where would the observer have to be located?
OK so you can actually only see 300,000km since it has only been a second and light has a finite speed. Just to clear that up. To answer the question: the observable universe is the same size wherever you are. So the answer is: anywhere.
Interesting corollary: much of our observable universe is giving off light right now that we'll never see.
Are you saying no protons existed during the inflation period?
Yes, as I've said multiple times now.
If they did not exist what did?
Energy.
Not yet.
They were answered, you just didn't pay attention or did not understand. If you have any follow ups, please be my guest.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 883 by ICANT, posted 06-04-2018 3:47 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 888 by ICANT, posted 06-05-2018 7:43 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 887 of 1482 (834421)
06-05-2018 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 886 by ICANT
06-05-2018 5:23 PM


shapes
I don't have any limit as to how many dots you could place and put names on in any direction from my dot in the first picture.
But science does not have that liberty according to standard theory.
Standard theory says the universe could be infinite in size. Indeed the evidence we have points to this conclusion, but not definitively. So standard theory has no built in limits to the number of dots.
You can only look at the outside of the balloon. You can not look at the outside of the universe as you can in your 2 pictures. We are inside the universe.
Well in the 2D balloon analogy there is no 'outside the balloon' there is only the surface of the balloon. It's a 2 dimensional plane. All that exists, exists on the surface in that realm. The shape of that plane can be described mathematically as if it were a sphere in 3 dimensions - though the third dimension isn't a real thing in the example. That's just the shape of the manifold.
quote:
One-dimensional manifolds include lines and circles, but not figure eights (because they have crossing points that are not locally homeomorphic to Euclidean 1-space). Two-dimensional manifolds are also called surfaces. Examples include the plane, the sphere, and the torus, which can all be embedded (formed without self-intersections) in three dimensional real space, but also the Klein bottle and real projective plane, which will always self-intersect when immersed in three-dimensional real space.
With one dimension you can only go backwards and forwards. As an analogy to the universe there are three basic possible shapes:
1) A straight line that extends infinitely in both directions. You keep moving forward, you never get to the end. The same applies if you move backwards.
2) A circle. The line wraps around itself to form a circle. The line still has only one dimension, but it can be mathematically described as a circle embedded in a 2D environment. In this 1D universe you can keep walking forwards on the line forever, but sooner or later you'd end up where you started (assuming the line didn't inconveniently expand on you too quickly )
3) A hyperbola. The line curves like in the second version, but the 'ends' get further away from each other instead of wrapping around and meeting. It extends forever.
One of those red lines would be the kind of shape I'm talking about.
That's the 1 dimensional case.
If the universe was two dimensional then you can go backwards, forwards, left and right - but not up or down. the possibilities are
1) A flat plane/sheet. Like the surface of a piece of paper - that extends infinitely far out. You can travel forever in any of the four directions that your two axis of travel give you - or on some vector (a combination of left and forwards for example).
2) A 2 sphere (eg. the surface of a sphere/balloon/the earth). Instead of a flat sheet, it curves back on itself. You can still travel in all the same directions as on the sheet, but if you keep travelling in one direction long enough you'll wind up where you started. The sphere is just how we would describe such a sheet mathematically since an actual sphere need not exist to describe a realm that does this - if there were some god-like creature 'outside' the universe in a third dimension - they'd see a sphere. But for the mortal beings that live in that universe there is no 'inside the sphere'. Inside the sphere is simply not part of their space. If there was no expansion you'd be able to look into the far distance and see the back of your head. There are a number of shapes that can do this, but a sphere is the easiest one to discuss.
3) A saddle shape. Technically a hyperbolic paraboloid. You could also think of it as pringle shaped. Unlike a pringle however, it extends out infinitely.
So that's a 1D universe and a 2D Universe. The mathematical descriptions are easy, because they can be represented in a 3d space - which we are used to dealing with.
Here is the 3D universe. You can move up and down, left and right, backwards and forwards. You cannot move ana and kata (proposed names for the extra direction of travel a fourth dimension would give us). Those directions don't exist in our 3d space. Possible shapes include
1) Expanse. It is 'flat' in that there is no curvature and it extends infinitely in all 6 directions and combinations thereof.
2) 3sphere. This is a 3 dimensional space that curves back on itself - just like the line and the sheet in 1 and 2 dimensions respectively. It can be represented in 4 dimensional space as a hypersphere. The centre of the hypersphere is not in our space. It is anawards from us, and ana is not a direction that exists to us 3d beings. A hypothetical godlke being would see the 4d sphere and could look anawards at the centre - although like with the 2 sphere where the 3rd dimension need not exist - there needn't be anything anawards of our universe. It's just a mathematical description of the shape of our 3dimensional volume. If there was no expansion, you could keep travelling along a vector and arrive back where you started. If you could look far enough, you'd see the back of your head.
3) A shape that in 4 dimensions would be a hypersaddle. It's infinite like the 2d hyperbolic paraboloid, but there's an extra direction you can travel in.
So, if the universe is a 3 sphere, we're living on the 3 dimensional surface of a four dimensional sphere. The four dimensional sphere isn't necessarily real, but even if it was we can look 'into' or anawards the centre of the 4d sphere. We are as much on the surface of that 4d sphere as the 2d creatures are on the surface of the 3d sphere of the balloon analogy.
According to the standard theory space is expanding in every direction at the same time and we are inside of whatever it is that is expanding.
And in the 2d analogy the creatures are living inside the the thing that is expanding (the surface of the 2 sphere).
How can space be curved? If it is expanding in every direction at the same time?
The same way a 2d space can be curved and expanding in all of the 2d directions at the same time - as is the case for the balloon inhabitants.
You can start on a journey on the earth and if you go in a straight line you would return to the starting point.
But you start on a journey in the universe and go in a straight line you would never return to the starting point. In fact you would only get further away from it, as long as you went in a straight line.
Unless it was 3 sphere - in which case you'd end up right where you started just like Pac-Man. His universe appears flat to him - but if he keeps heading to the left, he ends up back where he started. The same for the guy in the Asteroid game.
We don't know the shape of the universe - just like a primitive human didn't know the shape of the earth. If it is a 3 sphere (a 3 dimensional surface to a 4 dimensional sphere) then that's how it would go for us.
It's complicated to picture it, but that's what we end up with with relativity - which predicts all sorts of things we can measure about the shape of the universe locally and how space curves near massive objects. What the universe is more globally is a less easy question to answer. The problem is that if the curvature is exactly 1 then the universe is an expanse - version 1. If it has even the slightest positive curvature above 1 we end up with something like the sphere from version 2. If it has even the slightest negative curvature less than 1 then we're in saddle world from version 3. We can never definitely prove the curvature is exactly 1 since our instruments will only ever get us to a finite precision with a limited accuracy. We could prove it has negative or positive curvature through measurement - but our best measurements to date don't give us sufficient error margin to say. Our measurements to date give us 1.000.02. The best guess is that it's flat but if its say, 1.02 then it's actually a 3sphere and we can't rule that out.
There are other possible shapes that meet the various criteria, but to avoid complicating the matter any further I have omitted their discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 886 by ICANT, posted 06-05-2018 5:23 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 890 by ICANT, posted 06-05-2018 10:45 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 889 of 1482 (834432)
06-05-2018 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 888 by ICANT
06-05-2018 7:43 PM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Why can't we know?
Well think of it like this. In a few billion years - there'll be loads of galaxies that are no longer visible to observers on earth that are visible today. So it stands to reason there might be galaxies that are not visible to us today. We can't know because the speed of light vs the expansion of the universe means information about those galaxies never gets to us.
Without information, how could we know?
So why isn't that all there is?
Maybe it is. We can't know.
That sounds like you actually believe the universe had a beginning to exist.
Let's stick to one thing at a time. We've been over this. There was an earliest point in time for the universe, or a smeary time like region at least.
No what?
The entire universe at 1 second old had a diameter of 19.178 light years.
No - the universe that we can observe today with its 46 billion light year radius had a diameter then of 19 light years. That is not to say the universe is 19 light years. What we observe when we look out there today was a maximum of 19 light years away from each other after 1 second.
Why would I be able to see 300,000 km?
The speed of light is 300,000 km/s. There has only been one second for light to travel. Therefore light from any object could only have travelled 300,000km. Therefore we can't see an object 600,000km away since the light from that object has not yet reached us. Ignoring the fact that the universe is opaque at this time, of course.
My concern is if space is what has expanded between each electron of the plasma there has to be miles between each electron. So how do they get back together to form anything?
As pointed out -it started out very dense. By the time it got to 19 light years wide it was still very dense. Dense enough that there are billions of particles per cubic metre. There's much much less volume, but the same amount of energy - so its going to be more dense than it is today.
The space may expand between them - but the rate of expansion once subatomic particles start forming from the energy is so small that high energy particles can easily go faster than it over even fairly large distances. I can walk faster than the expansion of space for all my needs, high energy protons can be travelling at 90%+ the speed of light. Reaching another proton when there are billions per cubic metre is not a problem. The space between them is expanding at something stupid like 0.00000000000000001km/s. My fingernail growth could outpace the expansion of space at these distances.
There aren't miles between them - because the universe isn't large enough after 1 second to fit all the sub atomic particles in it with that kind of spacing. There's not enough volume to spread them all out. I'm not going to check your maths but you reckon 743,131.55 trillion cubic miles. That's nothing!
750,000,000,000,000,000 cubic miles?
But there are like 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 particles to fit into that space.
How could there possibly be miles between them?
Actually it was called plasma. That plasma was made of electrons which is energy.
We're talking about during inflation.
So let's talk more detail. It won't support your notion - since we've already established the universe after one second was still so dense that there couldn't be miles and miles between particles, and that even if there were miles between them - 90%+ speed of light makes those distances pretty small anyway... so either way your central objection has failed. But here we go
Planck epoch: 0 - 10-43 seconds ????
Grand unification epoch: 10-43 - 10-36 seconds. The four fundamental forces are united as a single force. Gravity has separated to operate independently. As such mass, charge, flavour and colour charge are all meaningless concepts at this time. However, a small number of fundamental particles form.
Inflationary epoch: 10−36 - 10-32 seconds. Rapid expansion of space. As a rough guide a nanometre's worth of space expanded to about 10 light years. The energy density in that nanometre of space was so huge, that it was still significant once it had expanded out 10 light years (this is the bit that kills your objection). This sudden drop in volume also means a drop in temperature. And this results in the sudden appearance of a very dense collection of fundamental particles such as quarks and gluons.
Electroweak epoch: 10-32 - 10−12 seconds. The strong and electroweak force seperate from the unified forces. This is the era of the quark-gluon plasma. Other exotic particles such as Higgs Bosons, W and Z bosons make an appearance. We're entering the realms of 'strongly empirically verified' physics.
Quark epoch: 10−12 - 10−6 seconds. The fundamental forces have separated into their distinct forces we see today. Quarks, electrons, neutrinos form as the temperature continues to drop allowing them to exist in large (and dense) numbers.
Hadron epoch: 10—6 seconds to 1 second. Things start cooling down even more allowing quarks to team up to form protons and other Hadrons. Electrons collide with protons to form neutrons and neutrinos. It's party time! But alas - Hadrons are getting annihilated by anti-hadrons. Eventually the mass of the universe is no longer dominated by hadrons but...
Lepton Epoch: 1 second to 3 minutes - Leptons! The electrons, the muons the neutrinos, the positrons - they dominate the mass of the universe. But oh no! more annihilations and the leptons no longer dominate the mass of the universe its time for
Photon Epoch: 3 minutes to 240,000 years. The first 20 minutes is the time of nuclear fusion - where protons and neutrons are colliding to form nuclei the temperature is about a billion degrees and falling. This time is where the energy of the universe is dominated by photons.
Recombination/Decoupling: 240,000 to 300,000 years. Temperature has dropped to a mere 3,000 K (surface of the sun temperatures) - this allows the nuclei formed during the photon epoch to capture electrons to form atoms. The drop in free electrons means photons are no longer interacting so much with them which renders the universe transparent. This is the 'barrier' we spoke of.
OK so that's the gist. Electrons aren't a big player during inflation. At best we have, what I described as a 'sea of energy', with a few particles here and there which eventually cooled to form the quark-gluon plasma. I'd recommend you avoid trying to 'gotcha' me, I'll out-Um, Actually you all day ( ) and you just verify that you aren't asking questions in good faith.
If you think so. That's alright I got a lot more.
Cool. Are you going somewhere with this?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 888 by ICANT, posted 06-05-2018 7:43 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 898 by ICANT, posted 06-06-2018 3:07 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 891 of 1482 (834434)
06-05-2018 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 890 by ICANT
06-05-2018 10:45 PM


Re: shapes
The age of the universe limits it's size.
No it doesn't. It only limits the size of the observable universe.
The balloon has two surfaces one inside and one outside. Have you never turned a balloon inside out?
We're only talking about the outside surface, obviously. A 2 dimensional plane. You are either being deliberately silly or this discussion is too far above your head to make it into your book.
If the third dimension isn't a real thing how does it represent one?
Mathematically.
Why do you go from directions of movement to shapes?
The universe can only be one shape.
Yes it can, but what shape that is, we can't be sure.
The universe is expanding at the same rate in all directions. That creates a sphere and nothing else.
Nope. The shapes I mentioned would also expand at the same rate in all directions.
A 2d circle is not a sphere.
I didn't say it was. I said the circumference is a 1 dimensional line that mathematically describes a circle in 2 dimensions.
You don't exist on the outside of the universe. You are inside the universe
That's what I said. We're on the inside of the universe. I said it multiple times in fact.
How can a sphere curve back on itself?
The same way a 2d sheet can. By following a topology that in a higher dimension would be a hypersphere.
I told you that discussing this in 3d was more difficult than 2d. Hyperspheres aren't really something we can imagine as we're wired for 3d.
Is the universe expanding in every direction equally?
Yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 890 by ICANT, posted 06-05-2018 10:45 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 892 by ICANT, posted 06-06-2018 12:37 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 896 of 1482 (834457)
06-06-2018 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 892 by ICANT
06-06-2018 12:37 AM


Re: shapes
According to the standard theory did the universe begin as a very small, very hot, very dense
The standard theory makes no claim to the size of the universe. The standard theory just says the early universe was very hot and dense. Our observable universe, which is finite, was certainly very small. As to the size of the universe itself? It could have been infinite or infinitesimal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 892 by ICANT, posted 06-06-2018 12:37 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 897 by NoNukes, posted 06-06-2018 2:45 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 899 of 1482 (834460)
06-06-2018 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 897 by NoNukes
06-06-2018 2:45 PM


Re: shapes
I don't believe that is a possibility for the early, pre-inflationary universe.
If it's infinite now, it must have been infinite then. You can't grow from finite to infinite in a finite amount of time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 897 by NoNukes, posted 06-06-2018 2:45 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 900 by NoNukes, posted 06-06-2018 3:49 PM Modulous has seen this message but 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