Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8904 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-18-2019 11:28 AM
26 online now:
edge, JonF, kjsimons, ooh-child, PaulK, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (7 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,701 Year: 4,738/19,786 Month: 860/873 Week: 216/376 Day: 9/57 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
22232425
26
27Next
Author Topic:   Before Big Bang God or Singularity
Modulous
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 7789
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 responded

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

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 377 of 405 (454983)
02-09-2008 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 376 by Modulous
02-09-2008 4:12 PM


Re-Universe at T=O
Hi Mod,

Modulous writes:

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said, sorry.

You said:

Modulous writes:

There maybe a universe as we know it at those coords.

"as we know it" If you had said I that would have made a difference.

We know the universe as we see it by looking out the window, up at the sky or through a telescope. I am just guessing.

ABE maybe I should have said I also.

I don't think I would recognize it at 1 quintillion degrees.

I am sorry if I confused you.

God Bless,

Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 4:12 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 5:02 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 378 of 405 (454985)
02-09-2008 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by Modulous
02-09-2008 2:17 PM


Re: Imperical Observable Models; Not Algorithmal
Modulous writes:

Buzsaw writes:

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.

Merriam Webster definition of algorithms:

a procedure for solving a mathematical problem (as of finding the greatest common divisor) in a finite number of steps that frequently involves repetition of an operation; broadly : a step-by-step procedure for solving a problem or accomplishing some end especially by a computer

I don't understand proceedural matmatical algorithms as imperical and observable models


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 2:17 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 4:59 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 7789
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 responded

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

Modulous
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 7789
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 yet responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 7789
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 yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 382 of 405 (455013)
02-09-2008 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by Modulous
02-09-2008 4:52 PM


Re: Big Bang.
Hi Mod,

Modulous writes:

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).

He moves too fast for me to get all those mesurements.

The only thing the time element can tell you is when he was at a particular point in the room.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 4:52 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 6:52 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 7789
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 yet responded

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

tesla
Member (Idle past 2161 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 384 of 405 (455022)
02-09-2008 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by Modulous
02-09-2008 6:52 PM


Re: Big Bang.
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.

at the singularity, all laws of science and math break down.

your trying to solve a mathematical equation with zero understood variables. including lack of time.

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.

but at true T=0, there is no before. whatever was, was timeless. with no points of observation.

singular for that reason.

everyone just keeps skipping the reality of the issue. including you modulous. i like you. your smart. think about it please?

Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

Edited by tesla, : spelling etc.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 6:52 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 7:58 PM tesla has responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 7789
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 responded

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

tesla
Member (Idle past 2161 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 386 of 405 (455024)
02-09-2008 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by Modulous
02-09-2008 7:58 PM


Re: Big Bang.
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.

then please do tell me, what is AT the north pole?


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 7:58 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 8:19 PM tesla has responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 387 of 405 (455025)
02-09-2008 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by tesla
02-09-2008 8:01 PM


Re: Big Bang.
then please do tell me, what is AT the north pole?

You can look it up. If you are actually asking what is at T=0, you have already received an answer to that question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by tesla, posted 02-09-2008 8:01 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by tesla, posted 02-09-2008 8:27 PM Modulous has responded

tesla
Member (Idle past 2161 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 388 of 405 (455026)
02-09-2008 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by Modulous
02-09-2008 8:19 PM


Re: Big Bang.
last post i made before these you never followed up.

this argument has been a revolving door to nowhere. evading questions is not answering them.

saying "no one knows" isn't an attempt to answer them.

at one point, discussing the singularity it was described by science as "singular energy". then when i asked some hard questions, people put on the "dumb" face and said it doesn't say that.

what is the truth modulous? what can or cannot be said of the singularity, as it MUST be, because we are, and T=0 is inevitable?

what IS at the north pole, as opposed to what might be?


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 8:19 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 8:41 PM tesla has responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 389 of 405 (455030)
02-09-2008 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by tesla
02-09-2008 8:27 PM


saying "no one knows" isn't an attempt to answer them.

It is the only answer we have. I'm not currently employed as a cosmologist, nor have I had the necessary education to stand a hope of advancing the science. As it stands, there are people who are currently trying to answer these questions and those related to them. Hawking's idea has been presented as one of them.

at one point, discussing the singularity it was described by science as "singular energy". then when i asked some hard questions, people put on the "dumb" face and said it doesn't say that.

I don't remember anybody mentioning singular energy. Since I don't know what that means it would be odd of me to say that this is so.

what is the truth modulous?

I honestly don't know, and I'm not going to try and make something up and pretend I do.

what can or cannot be said of the singularity

That it is an artefact of a mathematical model. That is all that I know that can be said with any sense of certainty.

as it MUST be, because we are

No, it doesn't have to be. Our existence does not demand that a singularity must exist in the universe.

what IS at the north pole, as opposed to what might be?

Each time you ask, you receive the same answer: I don't know. That is the only truth there is. If I knew, I'd probably write a paper and maybe claim my money from Nobel's prize. If you don't want to discuss some of the possibilities, then all we have is the stark truth. We don't know.

It would be a shame if you think that saying 'I don't know' is evasive. I think it is upfront honesty. The only alternatives are to say I do know but I'm not telling you, or taking one idea and claiming special knowledge that means I know it to be true. Those alternatives seem dishonest to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by tesla, posted 02-09-2008 8:27 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by tesla, posted 02-09-2008 8:49 PM Modulous has responded

tesla
Member (Idle past 2161 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 390 of 405 (455032)
02-09-2008 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 389 by Modulous
02-09-2008 8:41 PM


That it is an artefact of a mathematical model. That is all that I know that can be said with any sense of certainty.

i like your honesty. but lets explore honestly, the possibilities and the implications past the numbers.

No, it doesn't have to be. Our existence does not demand that a singularity must exist in the universe.

it is inevitable. mathematically, and realistically, for any other conclusion. before that's do stop at one thing. and truly singular means timeless.

reality modulus, is that something cannot come form absolutely nothing, regardless of appearance. you don't dispute that.

so lets try to ask some questions about what that means of the mathematical time-point (T=0).

no pressure, lets just see what happens when we try to determine the "what" at the "where".

would you then answer for me?

can we say absolutely, that at the coordinates of all that is being singular, that the something at T=0 would have to be "energy"?


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 8:41 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 9:24 PM tesla has responded

RewPrev1
...
22232425
26
27Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019