Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Before Big Bang God or Singularity
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 317 of 405 (454674)
02-08-2008 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 315 by ICANT
02-08-2008 8:21 AM


Created, or not created?
I still don't fit in any of those groups.
Whether or not you agree with some particular members of a named philosophy is not really the point, though. My point remains quite firmly in place - your idea is less parsimonious. It would have been easier for you to just have accepted this and said that you are not interested in parsimony. It would be nice if you could get this over with in what remains of this thread since it would conclude it nicely.
Which is a better idea? Well that depends on what you look for in an idea. Personally I think an idea should reign in its unparsimonious entities because once you have one, there is no philosophical reason to stop adding more. I think we should stick with what we know and explore the mysteries we can 'see' as opposed to creating new mysteries that cannot, by their very description, be solved.
You think that because God seems to solve one problem that is all that matters: it makes the idea much better. My main issue is that it doesn't solve the mystery at all. I don't know who killed this man, it is a mystery, therefore a Djinn killed this man. That hypothesis completely solves the mystery. Therefore it is a good hypothesis. Better than the hypothesis that his brother killed him, which has some contradictory evidence for it which is hard to entangle. Forget hard problems, Djinn are much easier and completely solve the murder case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by ICANT, posted 02-08-2008 8:21 AM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 358 of 405 (454911)
02-09-2008 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by ICANT
02-09-2008 8:55 AM


Re: Big Bang.
I ask "Where did the space and time come from"?
Everybody here tells me it just is, and I must believe it just is. That is science.
Not quite. What we are trying to communicate here is that in the standard big bang model, the universe just is. You don't have to believe what the standard big bang model says about the universe, but you have to believe that it does say that. At the moment you seem to be having great difficulty understanding this.
I say God just is. Just about everybody here says "Nonsence" or "Rubbish". That is religion or a myth.
If I believe God is I must believe it by faith.
What is the difference?
Parsimony.
You use the North Pole analogy/explanation.
I state that the North Pole is in a physical place.
I then say the space-time is in a place that does not exist yet.
How can spacetime exist in a place at a time (not existing 'yet'?)? It makes absolutely no sense unless you suppose that there is space and time within which spacetime is embedded. This is not the standard model.
You then tell me, "It is not a coordinate in an absence of anything."
But if there is nowhere for it to be it has to be in the absence of anything since no thing exists.
Of course it is somewhere, you know the coordinates of where it is!
Do I understand what is being said. Yes
The questions you are asking betray you, if you understood what is being said, they'd sound as nonsensical to you as they do to others.
Singularity existed at a point in the curvature of space-time.
GR says it must exist. Because it breaks down and cannot explain what is happening.
GR doesn't say it must exist. GR doesn't work when describing that part of spacetime geometry. The reason we say it doesn't work is because it reaches what is known as a singularity. It is a known mathematical glitch that can show up in a number of fields. The brittleness of glass at various temperatures has been put forward as an example. At a certain temperature, the model that glass can shatter no longer describes glass and the maths reaches a singularity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2008 8:55 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2008 11:36 AM Modulous has replied

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


Message 360 of 405 (454932)
02-09-2008 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by ICANT
02-09-2008 11:36 AM


Re: Big Bang.
Somebody or something declares a singularity to be there.
I thought that something was GR because it could not tell us what was there.
Is it the "we" (whoever you include) declaring the singularity to be there?
The mathematics of GR 'breaks down' there. Nobody is declaring there is a singularity in the mathematics, there just is. That does not mean there is a 'singularity' in reality, just that there is a singularity in the mathematical model. That just means that the mathematical model isn't completely accurate when describing all of spacetime, just most of it.
Prior to T=O was there an absence of anything?
According to the model we are describing when we talk about T=0, there was no 'prior' to it. Prior doesn't exist at T=0, by definition. If there were a time prior to T=0, it would not be T=0, it would be T>0. T=0 is defined as a point in time for which there is no time period prior to it.
You seem to be using the letter 'O' to represent 'zero' in all your posts. Hopefully that isn't causing you trouble, but I though it would be wise to point it out, just in case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2008 11:36 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by tesla, posted 02-09-2008 12:44 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 362 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2008 12:47 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 363 of 405 (454941)
02-09-2008 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by tesla
02-09-2008 12:44 PM


Re: Big Bang.
T=0 inevitable.
OK...
what is the point after? the first cause of the universe.
Or the first effect. Or cause and effect are a little less intuitive and straightforward at this point. This latter position is a simplification of some current cosmological thinking.
from whence came this first cause?
If you haven't understood the answer yet, you probably won't with more explanation. In simple philosophy, there has to be a 'cause' that is uncaused. It gets complicated when we examine reality and discover cause/effect not being so straightforward.
so what is at T=0? what is at the north pole? all science and math becomes irrelevant is the argument, so science say's: no one can say.
There are some ideas, and there is no way to eliminate those ideas and we aren't even able to be sure that the correct answer is amongst some of the proposed ideas.
what kind of energy?
dunno..complex for sure
I can probably agree tentatively with what came before, but energy isn't complex. If anything, it was extraordinarily simple.
is it ordered or chaotic?
dunno, could be either.
It is lumpy, due to quantum jitters.
intelligent, or not?
Not.
if chaotic, intelligent by necessity, because it would need direction to become what is.
No, it wouldn't and there is no reason to suppose it has to be. We know that complexity can arise from simple mindless algorithms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by tesla, posted 02-09-2008 12:44 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by tesla, posted 02-09-2008 1:32 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 365 of 405 (454950)
02-09-2008 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by ICANT
02-09-2008 12:47 PM


Re: Big Bang.
OK, the Big Bang model has no prior to T=O.
Does that mean it did not exist?
No, it doesn't mean that. It means that there is no such thing as prior to T=0
You are just stating that these thing "just exist", as there can be no before.
Pretty much.
Does the universe need time to exist?
Not as far as I am aware. A universe could hypothetically exist with no time dimensions I suppose.
Does the singularity need time to exist.
A singularity doesn't need time - the north pole for instance is a singularity that requires no time dimension. The singularity at T=0 obviously does have time involved, since it is defined by its time coordinate.
Does this entity you are talking about need time to exist?
A four dimensional spacetime entity obviously needs time to be a spacetime entity. If there was no time it would be just be a space entity. It does not need to exist within a larger time dimension though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2008 12:47 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2008 2:15 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 366 of 405 (454951)
02-09-2008 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by tesla
02-09-2008 1:32 PM


Re: Big Bang.
as long as there is something else for the simple mindless algorithm to interact with.
if nothing else to interact with, it could not become more complex.
I'd say that all the energy in the universe is a lot of something else for the mindless algorithm to interact with.
due to the complexity of the scale and size of the universe and its diversity biologically, a single timeless energy to beget everything from itself with no other interactions, is far from "simple".
Why? We know simple things can beget complex things. Cosmology today shows us that the universe was a lot more simple in the past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by tesla, posted 02-09-2008 1:32 PM tesla has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by Buzsaw, posted 02-09-2008 2:15 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 369 of 405 (454955)
02-09-2008 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by Buzsaw
02-09-2008 2:15 PM


Re: Big Bang.
Do we have any confirmed imperical observable testable model all the way from inception to conclusion of this (simple to complex) today or ever in recorded history; ?
Yes, evolutionary algorithms are simple and can produce complexity from simple beginnings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Buzsaw, posted 02-09-2008 2:15 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by Buzsaw, posted 02-09-2008 4:44 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 370 of 405 (454960)
02-09-2008 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by ICANT
02-09-2008 2:15 PM


Re: Big Bang.
Are you saying there is no possibility of anything existing before T=O?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that in the standard model there is nothing prior to T=0. There are models that have the universe existing within a greater dimensional reality, but if you can't get the basics of the standard model - there's no hope of getting to grips with the less standard models.
Then where would this time exist?
Time is a dimension. It doesn't have a 'location', it is used to define 'locations'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2008 2:15 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by tesla, posted 02-09-2008 2:48 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 374 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2008 3:49 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 372 of 405 (454973)
02-09-2008 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by tesla
02-09-2008 2:48 PM


i see. so what your saying is, your current T=0, may not be "true" T=0.
Not in the quote you provided. However, yes that is possible.
but T=0 is still inevitable.
I'm not denying its existence.
and you cannot say the "universe is a lot to interact with" for whatever is at T=0.
Why not?
because there is no "universe" as we know it at those coords.
There is a universe but we don't know what it is. There maybe a universe as we know it at those coords.
at the core of "universe", in its initial timeless state, there is only a singularity.
The singularity only exists in the mathematical model. There is no reason that it has to be a real part of the universe. In some models, there is no singularity.
and whatever reaction or action from the "single" was not an interaction with anything else. (when there is "literally, nothing else but that one thing)
You are assuming there is only a single thing and that single things cannot interact with themselves. I see no reason to accept your assumptions - even if there was only a single thing, that thing could be a wave - in which case it could interact with itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by tesla, posted 02-09-2008 2:48 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by tesla, posted 02-09-2008 3:49 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 375 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2008 4:02 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 376 of 405 (454981)
02-09-2008 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by ICANT
02-09-2008 4:02 PM


Re: Re-Universe at T=O
I doubt that if Son is correct with his temperature at the earliest point we can measure the universe.
I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said, sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2008 4:02 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2008 4:29 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 379 of 405 (454986)
02-09-2008 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by ICANT
02-09-2008 3:49 PM


Re: Big Bang.
You say there is the possibility that there was something prior to T=O.
But the standard model says there was nothing prior to T=O.
Is this correct?
In a nutshell, yes.
Why would I have a problem getting to grips with something that has the universe existing within a greater dimensional reality? When that is what I believe.
That concept is easy enough, in principle, to understand. But you seem to be having difficulty with a four dimensional reality, understanding the implications of an n-dimensional universe (where n is greater than 4) is just going to needlessly complicate issues.
Time as a location is hard to grasp.
Yes, it is. Try this experiment.
Follow a fly in your room. At any time you can describe the location of that fly with respect to its distance from the ground (height), its distance from the wall on your left (width) and the distance from the wall opposite (length). Our coordinate system is these three numbers {height, width, length} if the fly is 5 feet from the ground, 5 feet from one wall and 5 feet from the other we would say the fly is at {5,5,5}. If 10 seconds later the fly has moved it might now be at {2,5,7}.
We represent the entirety of the fly's movement by including a time coordinate. So now it looks like {time, height, width, length}
{0,5,5,5}
{1,4,5,6}
(2,3,6,7}
...
{10,2,5,7}
Now we have a four dimensional description of the existence of the fly over whatever time period we choose.
To me time is a measurement of duration.
And space is a measurement of length. We can measure the distance between two time coordinates and we can measure the distance between two space coordinates.
We can also measure the distance between spacetime coordinates - but let's not get into that right now.
But when you are referring to this dimension which is time.
Are you referring to Hawking's imaginary time?
There is no difference between them. Imaginary time is just a different way of mathematically representing the dimension of time using imaginary numbers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2008 3:49 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2008 6:43 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 380 of 405 (454988)
02-09-2008 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by Buzsaw
02-09-2008 4:44 PM


Re: Imperical Observable Models; Not Algorithmal
I don't understand proceedural matmatical algorithms as imperical and observable models
Models don't exist to be observable. However, your definition includes the broad definition: broadly : a step-by-step procedure for solving a problem or accomplishing some end especially by a computer
That is to say, simple mindless step-by-step procedures that can solve a problem or accomplish some end. We have observed this to happen, so the empirical and observable demand of yours is satisfied.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Buzsaw, posted 02-09-2008 4:44 PM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 381 of 405 (454990)
02-09-2008 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by ICANT
02-09-2008 4:29 PM


Re: Re-Universe at T=O
I don't think I would recognize it at 1 quintillion degrees.
Certainly it would have a different average energy density. The universe from 50 minutes ago also had a different average energy density. The word 'know' that I used was in response to the phraseology of tesla, I would not have normally used it - I would have simply said that there is nothing necessarily magical or special at this time, and it would be no fundamentally different from any other point in the universe as we understand it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2008 4:29 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 383 of 405 (455017)
02-09-2008 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by ICANT
02-09-2008 6:43 PM


Re: Big Bang.
He moves too fast for me to get all those mesurements.
An interesting historical note: The coordinate system used in maps, known as the Cartesian coordinate system was said to have been developed after Descartes observed the movement of a fly in his room when he was bedridden with an illness. That's why I chose it as an example
The only thing the time element can tell you is when he was at a particular point in the room.
Correct. It acts as a coordinate to tell us 'when' and the other coordinates are spatial and tell us 'where'. If you specify a time coordinate you can look up the measurements and tell someone where the fly was at that time. You can also look up all the times when the fly was 5 feet away from the floor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2008 6:43 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by tesla, posted 02-09-2008 7:43 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 385 of 405 (455023)
02-09-2008 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by tesla
02-09-2008 7:43 PM


Re: Big Bang.
at the singularity, all laws of science and math break down.
Or better: The maths breaks down because of a singularity that emerges in the equations.
your trying to solve a mathematical equation with zero understood variables. including lack of time.
More like one ends up dividing things by zero, try it on your calculator and you'll see it doesn't like it.
but at true T=0, there is no before. whatever was, was timeless.
I see no reason that it has to be timeless just because you are talking about one end of time. That's like saying that the North Pole is directionless. Of course it isn't. It's just that every direction from there is South.
even with the 4 realities your wishing to observe, you may be looking at a cause after T=0, or a complexity of what was at T=0.
I'm only talking about 1 reality with four dimensions. I am not talking about causes after T=0 and you're the only one talking about complexity.
everyone just keeps skipping the reality of the issue. including you modulous. i like you. your smart. think about it please?
Well either your communication skills are severely lacking, you don't understand the subject (so you are the one skipping the reality) or my communication skills are lacking.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by tesla, posted 02-09-2008 7:43 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by tesla, posted 02-09-2008 8:01 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 391 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2008 9:16 PM Modulous has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024