• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Age of Universe - Big Bang theory is childish and wrong

pkane

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Patreon Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
657
Likes
736
#21
That I is just as socially constructed as every other word on that passage. You are not born as an I but spend your baby time thinking everything is a part of you (Freud and Lacan here).
The 'I' in this case is just a process that is making the statement I think therefore I am. The nature of this process, anything that came before it or after is forever suspect. Including the concept of I, or others, or time. Freud, et al, come way after making a ton of assumptions about reality that cannot be objectively validated without taking a leap of faith.

The only objectively valid statement about reality is that I exist. Whatever that I happens to be. I'll never be able to get outside of my mind, bypassing my senses, memory, and subjective interpretation to experience the 'true reality'. At least not without some serious drugs ;)
 

mansr

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
508
Likes
1,191
Location
Hampshire
#22
It is the only statement that I can make about reality that doesn't require a leap of faith. Everything else, from the existence of others, to gut bacteria or the existence of other universes, cannot be logically derived from first principles without making some assumptions about reality.
It's still making the assumption that you exist. The existence of a self then presumes the existence of other things, or the notion of self would be meaningless. Even allowing for non-existence supposes the possibility of existence and with that some notion of what existence entails. There is no escape.
 

pkane

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Patreon Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
657
Likes
736
#23
It's still making the assumption that you exist. The existence of a self then presumes the existence of other things, or the notion of self would be meaningless. Even allowing for non-existence supposes the possibility of existence and with that some notion of what existence entails. There is no escape.
Why? Maybe I'm the only thing that exists. I can't prove the existence of anything or anyone else outside of my mind. Every memory, every thought, every experience, every sensory perception exists inside my mind. I have no way to validate the nature of true reality.
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
11
Likes
8
#24
The 'I' in this case is just a process that is making the statement I think therefore I am. The nature of this process, anything that came before it or after is forever suspect. Including the concept of I, or others, or time. Freud, et al, come way after making a ton of assumptions about reality that cannot be objectively validated without taking a leap of faith.

The only objectively valid statement about reality is that I exist. Whatever that I happens to be. I'll never be able to get outside of my mind, bypassing my senses, memory, and subjective interpretation to experience the 'true reality'. At least not without some serious drugs ;)
But whatever that I means MATTERS and it has a social history. You can't say whatever it happens to be. You can't take philosophy OR SCIENCE out of sociality and history. (Remember the good old days when they were one and the same? Actually strike that, we are not that old. lol.) It shapes the reality that we make for ourselves; it is a part of it! Some would argue that this is the true vileness of capitalism: that, as it has developed historically, it prepossesses and thus enacts an individual, self-determining agent--which is the most stupid idea ever and is also really code for white Western male. This creates a form of selfishness that is almost ontological. This is why we destroy our environment (see the earth itself as a "resource") and have such high degrees of inequality. (Personally, I agree that there is no 'true reality' to be reached--I am still a good Kantian boy.).

Also, a hard pinch tells me as much about myself and the world as descartes cogito argument. Can't forget about the body!!!
 

pkane

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Patreon Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
657
Likes
736
#25
But whatever that I means MATTERS and it has a social history. You can't say whatever it happens to be. It shapes the reality that we make for ourselves; it is a part of it! Some would argue that this is the true vileness of capitalism: that, as it has developed historically, it prepossesses and thus enacts an individual, self-determining agent--which is the most stupid idea ever and is also really code for white Western male. This creates a form of selfishness that is almost ontological. This is why we destroy our environment (see the earth itself as a "resource") and have such high degrees of inequality. (Personally, I agree that there is 'true reality' to be reached--I am still a good Kantian boy.).

Also, a hard pinch tells me as much about myself and the world as descartes cogito argument. Can't forget about the body!!!
Circumstantial evidence, that pinch. Try telling an amputee that the itch in that leg that's been removed years ago means that the leg is still there.
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
11
Likes
8
#26
Circumstantial evidence, that pinch. Try telling an amputee that the itch in that leg that's been removed years ago means that the leg is still there.
But he could still use that to think he exists if he wants to, which is what we are discussing.
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
11
Likes
8
#28
Yes, and that's been my point from the beginning. But I do suspect we are veering far off from the original topic, even if this whole conversation is all taking place in my mind ;)
and in the minds of the 15 people reading this. lol. as long as the amputee doesn't believe himself to be the "descartian" i and is more the "wittgensteinian" skeptic i am ok with it. (i can't say for certain that if i run in front of this moving car i will be hit, but i am not taking that chance!)
 

Juhazi

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2018
Messages
403
Likes
347
Location
Finland
#30
Big Bang is plausible if placed in the context of M-Theory. Where the universe exists in infinite parallels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory (String theories)
Heterotic M-theory[edit]
Because of the difficulties with G2 manifolds, most attempts to construct realistic theories of physics based on M-theory have taken a more indirect approach to compactifying eleven-dimensional spacetime. One approach, pioneered by Witten, Hořava, Burt Ovrut, and others, is known as heterotic M-theory. In this approach, one imagines that one of the eleven dimensions of M-theory is shaped like a circle. If this circle is very small, then the spacetime becomes effectively ten-dimensional. One then assumes that six of the ten dimensions form a Calabi–Yau manifold. If this Calabi–Yau manifold is also taken to be small, one is left with a theory in four-dimensions.[69]
Heterotic M-theory has been used to construct models of brane cosmology in which the observable universe is thought to exist on a brane in a higher dimensional ambient space. It has also spawned alternative theories of the early universe that do not rely on the theory of cosmic inflation.[69]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology
Brane and bulk[edit]
Main article: Brane
The central idea is that the visible, three-dimensional universe is restricted to a brane inside a higher-dimensional space, called the "bulk" (also known as "hyperspace"). If the additional dimensions are compact, then the observed universe contains the extra dimension, and then no reference to the bulk is appropriate. In the bulk model, at least some of the extra dimensions are extensive (possibly infinite), and other branes may be moving through this bulk. Interactions with the bulk, and possibly with other branes, can influence our brane and thus introduce effects not seen in more standard cosmological models.

Ok this is pretty much how I how see it too. This is easy for me because I don't have to verify anything, define the basic laws of physics or derive any models.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Search for evidence[edit]
Around 2010, scientists such as Stephen M. Feeney analyzed Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) data and claimed to find evidence suggesting that our universe collided with other (parallel) universes in the distant past.[16][17][18] However, a more thorough analysis of data from the WMAP and from the Planck satellite, which has a resolution 3 times higher than WMAP, did not reveal any statistically significant evidence of such a bubble universe collision.[19][20] In addition, there was no evidence of any gravitational pull of other universes on ours.[21][22]


About time, it certainly is a real phenomenom per se and unidirectional, a basic thing independent of the big bang, expansion or oscillation. This is also why it is an important factor in many formulas. Time has no beginning or end. If there was, what would be there beyond?

Edit: We humans trying to find explanations to universe and basic phenomena, and defining "laws" are the really funny thing. Our modern science is very young and most likely will go to extinction without really understanding all this.
 
Last edited:

Snarfie

Active Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
263
Likes
115
#31
Regarding the Big band an it beginning we can model this process remarkably closely at least until to the very early nanoseconds or less.


So basically there was nothing before the big bang is for now an possible conclusion that is very likely.
And with the inflationary universe that is measured we end in such way that on the Planck scale everything will be ripped apart leaving you with also nothing. What is more interesting is the theory of Gerard t Hooft (Nobel price winner) who theories the Holographic universe based on string theory. Basically he calculated that a string must be a 2 dimensional particle where (at the basic fabric) we/matter all exit off. So on the Planck scale (so divide atoms electrons quarks etc etc etc you will end up in a 2 dimensional entity called a string). At this moment Fermi lab The Large Haydon Collider are trying to prove this concept/theory now. Basically it means you and me are a holografic projection if this is proven. An daily a scenario (from the Source or Holografic lens for that matter) is presented to you and me sounds like the Matrix. Gerard t Hooft did calculate (his theory information will never been lost theory) where this source must be located and his theory is that it is at the event horizon of our own black hole in the middle of our galaxy. He calculated (from a physical point of view and that information will never been lost) that it is possible that everything we see around us is stored in this 2 dimensional event horizon let say like a like a HDD.

It could mean (from a philosophical point of view) that taking in account a HDD (which part of the HDD you want to access past present future?) that time not exist and that we are projections/scenario's with a purpose you have to guess or give meaning too.
 
Last edited:

pkane

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Patreon Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
657
Likes
736
#32
Regarding the Big band an it beginning we can model this process remarkably closely at least until to the very early nanoseconds or less.


So basically there was nothing before the big bang is for now an possible conclusion that is very likely.
And with the inflationary universe that is measured we end in such way that on the Planck scale everything will be ripped apart leaving you with also nothing. What is more interesting is the theory of Gerard t Hooft (Nobel price winner) who theories the Holographic universe based on string theory. Basically he calculated that a string must be a 2 dimensional particle where (at the basic fabric) we/matter all exit off. So on the Planck scale (so divide atoms electrons quarks etc etc etc you will end up in a 2 dimensional entity called a string). At this moment Fermi lab The Large Haydon Collider are trying to prove this concept/theory now. Basically it means you and me are a holografic projection if this is proven. An daily a scenario (from the Source or Holografic lens for that matter) is presented to you and me sounds like the Matrix. Gerard t Hooft did calculate (his theory information will never been lost theory) where this source must be located and his theory is that it is at the event horizon of our own black hole in the middle of our galaxy. He calculated (from a physical point of view and that information will never been lost) that it is possible that everything we see around us is stored in this 2 dimensional event horizon let say like a like a HDD.

It could mean (from a philosophical point of view) that taking in account a HDD (which part of the HDD you want to access past present future?) that time not exist and that we are projections/scenario's with a purpose you have to guess or give meaning too.
It's hard to argue about things we don't have a definition for, like time, universe, reality. Theories like holographic projection are incremental. They are built on top of a little empirical knowledge that we've acquired over centuries, which is very limited by how we experience and perceive the world, shaped by our senses. Time is a construct of our consciousness/brain/senses combination (yet another one of those not well-defined terms -- consciousness). If time exists, it is most likely not anything like what we perceive or think about it. Reality is also similar. Just think about quantum weirdness: Copenhagen interpretation, particle entanglement, vacuum fluctuations, etc. Completely nothing like our intuition or our 'real-world experience' would tell us it should be.

Maybe once we pass through the singularity event, we'll evolve to be smart enough to figure it all out ;)
 

andreasmaaan

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
3,517
Likes
2,758
#33
Can you imagine putting an army of chimpanzees onto solving these questions: What is the universe? Did it begin and if so how? Is there anything beyond it and if so what? Etc etc.

We (humans) are a just infinitesimally more intelligent version of that chimp army.

Pursuing answers is fascinating, worthwhile, wonderful.

But doomed to failure.
 

watchnerd

Major Contributor
Beer Hero
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
5,342
Likes
2,195
Location
Seattle Area, USA
#34
I think that the universe has always existed and it is in a fluctuating state.
You might be right, but...

1) Current data doesn't indicate the universe will collapse back on itself and start the cycle over again. Of course, this could change. But at the present, the consensus among cosmologists is that it isn't fluctuating.

2) More importantly, the state prior to the Big Bang is currently unknowable by empirical means we have available and is thus beyond the realm of science to answer questions about.
 

watchnerd

Major Contributor
Beer Hero
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
5,342
Likes
2,195
Location
Seattle Area, USA
#35
What else I find rather fascinating is that - if the big bang theory is correct - life on earth has existed for around 1/4 of the total time that the universe has existed. Of course each of our individual lives is just a blip in the scheme of things, but life itself (even if it is only located on one planet) is by any timescale a lasting phenomenon.
Life may be resilient, but civilizations may not be.

Brian Cox thinks it's possible we might be the only current intelligent civilization in our galaxy:

 

Juhazi

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2018
Messages
403
Likes
347
Location
Finland
#36
You might be right, but...

1) Current data doesn't indicate the universe will collapse back on itself and start the cycle over again. Of course, this could change. But at the present, the consensus among cosmologists is that it isn't fluctuating.

2) More importantly, the state prior to the Big Bang is currently unknowable by empirical means we have available and is thus beyond the realm of science to answer questions about.
---
Well., that's what most scientists think now, or have calculated with man-made formulas. The molecules and nuclear particles, gravity, time etc. don't know anything about these formulas and reactions they should follow.

Rocks, gases or animals don't give a damn to these questions, neither did our forefathers before Aristoteles. Most of them had some kind of religious explanation that there is some universal power, god or gods and demons etc. that sent us thunderstrikes, winter, solar eclipse etc. That was a very satisfactory and functional paradigm. But even I must admit that modern science has given us humans mostly good things, but at the expense of rest of the nature on this planet and surroundings.

A funny thing, we say a universe or the universe. My native language Finnish is so arcaic that we don't even have those articles! Role of language in philosophy and science is actually perhaps bigger than we think!
 
Last edited:

Snarfie

Active Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
263
Likes
115
#37
Just think about quantum weirdness: Copenhagen interpretation, particle entanglement, vacuum fluctuations, etc. Completely nothing like our intuition or our 'real-world experience' would tell us it should be.

Maybe once we pass through the singularity event, we'll evolve to be smart enough to figure it all out ;)
An than to think that your quantum weirdness (particle entanglement or so called Superposition) is already a past station for sceintist like van t' Hooft he is already thinking regarding string theory about Pre Quantum conditions who are possible more weird than particle entanglement.:cool: Ha ha sometimes if i look to the sceince i star trek they are way behind current knoledge which understandebly is extreem difficult to be explaind to their audience or for that matter to them self.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom