Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2017 5:37 PM
400 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,391 Year: 9,997/21,208 Month: 3,084/2,674 Week: 500/961 Day: 113/117 Hour: 2/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5Next
Author Topic:   Are Multiverses possible?
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15769
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 46 of 69 (645450)
12-27-2011 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by hsweet
12-27-2011 12:16 AM


Re: multiple big bangs ?
Perhaps far out might be more correct than rule out.

I can attach no meaning to this sentence.

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.

Au contraire. The combination of multiple universes with the weak anthropic principle is one of the zillion instances in which we see religion getting edgy about science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by hsweet, posted 12-27-2011 12:16 AM hsweet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by hsweet, posted 12-27-2011 5:53 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
hsweet
Junior Member (Idle past 1844 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 responded

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

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 48 of 69 (645466)
12-27-2011 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by nwr
12-26-2011 11:01 PM


Re: mathematics
No, there's a lot that isn't...

...infinite dimensional vector spaces

Well, other than the entirety of quantum mechanics

p-adic number system

Go chat to Alain Connes and he'll explain how p-adics explain the whole of physics. I couldn't really follow him 18 years ago, so I'm not even going to try now!


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by nwr, posted 12-27-2011 9:56 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5515
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 49 of 69 (645474)
12-27-2011 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by cavediver
12-27-2011 6:24 AM


Re: mathematics
nwr writes:
No, there's a lot that isn't...
cavediver writes:
Well, other than the entirety of quantum mechanics

There's a difference between saying that the mathematics is useful in physics, and saying that the mathematics is derived from what is observed in the physical world.

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 48 by cavediver, posted 12-27-2011 6:24 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11247
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


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 responded

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

  
hsweet
Junior Member (Idle past 1844 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 responded

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

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11247
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


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 responded

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

  
hsweet
Junior Member (Idle past 1844 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 responded

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

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11247
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


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 responded

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

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15769
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 55 of 69 (645527)
12-27-2011 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by hsweet
12-27-2011 5:53 AM


Re: multiple big bangs ?
Far out? That's olde hippie talk meaning way beyond the normal scope of things.

Well then, it's not a concept that you can usefully apply, since "the normal scope of things" is something we learn from experience. You can, for example, use your experience of how the world works to see that the following statements graduate from inevitable to normal to "far out":

* I have a head.
* I have a pair of shoes.
* I have a tennis racket.
* I have a tennis court.
* I have an elephant.
* I have a unicorn.

But you have to use your experience, there is nothing a priori about my not having a unicorn. So when it comes to the origin of the universe, you have no basis of experience to say whether it would be more "far out" for there to be one universe, or seventeen, or aleph-zero.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by hsweet, posted 12-27-2011 5:53 AM hsweet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by hsweet, posted 12-27-2011 5:24 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
hsweet
Junior Member (Idle past 1844 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 responded

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

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10192
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 57 of 69 (645532)
12-27-2011 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by hsweet
12-27-2011 5:13 PM


Re: Source of Creation
h writes:

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.

Given that time began with the Big Bang can you give an example of a "point in time" that is not included in that description?


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 59 by hsweet, posted 12-27-2011 5:29 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
hsweet
Junior Member (Idle past 1844 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 responded

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

    
hsweet
Junior Member (Idle past 1844 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 yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15769
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 60 of 69 (645537)
12-27-2011 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by hsweet
12-27-2011 5:24 PM


Re: 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.

I wouldn't say that there was "no hope"; and whatever can be said on this subject could also be applied to the remarkable proposition that there is only one universe. How "far out" would that be? At present that too is a wild unsubstantiated guess.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by hsweet, posted 12-27-2011 5:24 PM hsweet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by hsweet, posted 12-27-2011 5:51 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Prev123
4
5Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017