Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Cozmodius · 03-03-2003, 04:44 PM

OK...let me apologize for my sarcasm...I have deserved what I have received here. I did state that I tend to be conceited and self-centered in my opinions however...but I NEVER have a problem with admiting when I'm wrong...it's the best way to learn sometimes.

For the record I DO enjoy learning, reading and researching...and spend a fair amount of my time doing just that. I also did read much of the material I was directed to, and found it to back my point completely.

I do have little patience for people that, instead of trying to have an open and intelligent discussion on a subject with someone, they instead refer them to some vague article to research (or some irreverant passage from the bible). Just because I don't know all the little catch phrases and scientific jargon that goes along with either this or that theory, doesn't mean that I don't or can't understand the gist of it...arguing semantics can get very tiring as well.

I believe that you ALL knew what I was asking...and just had a problem with the way I was asking it. It took Jesse, who obviously was looking for a fair and open-minded discussion, to at least give me the respect to explain how the question should be phrased in a jargon that the rest of you would respect.

BTW, braces_for_impact, you're about as clairvoyant as Miss Cleo. I am NOT a creationist...have not been since like the age of 12...and I resent you painting me as such. This tells me that you do in fact consider me ignorant...whereas it is you who ignored my original post where I stated that I DO agree with the Big Bang theory (at least until a better 1 comes along

). I have no idea what website you are thinking of either, but I would never frequent ANY creationist website, as creationists have to be some of the most closed-minded people on Earth...too damm frustrating.

Hokay...here goes...

Quote:

Jesse told you about a logically formed mathematical theory that does not need any higher dimensions in which an expanding space must be embedded.

Yes, this is true...and this theory more than suits our purposes for now, and probably will continue to for like the next...let's say...50(?) years or so. Eventually, it will be surpassed (or maybe even disproved?) by an even more brilliant theory.
Knowledge...like Existance (or The Universe if you like

)...is infinite! When we come to the acceptance that we know all that there is to know about anything then we become no less ignorant than creationists.

Quote:

So you're saying you think that reality must "logically" be infinite-dimensional? What is your reasoning? At an ultimate level "space" may not even be fundamental. Think of a computer simulation of a 3-dimensional universe...inhabitants of the universe would believe they live in a "space" of three dimensions, but the computer could equally well simulate a universe of any dimensionality (or perform computations that don't involve any notion of space at all, like factoring numbers), the seemingly fundamental fact of three-dimensional space would just be a result of the rules of that particular computation, its causal structure, the way events are programmed to affect each other within it. Some approaches to quantum gravity suggest that the dimensionality of space might be "emergent" in a similar sense.

In any case, do you agree that if a theory involving spacetime being embedded in a higher-dimensional space made absolutely no new predictions beyond standard general relativity, that it would make no difference in terms of the events within spacetime itself, then the question of whether such a higher space exists must be a purely metaphysical one?

Yes, I BELIEVE that true reality is indeed infinite...in EVERY sense of the word. The problem with physical reality is that in order for us to understand it we have to subject it to certain laws, rules, and measurements...thus limiting it to our finite condition, knowledge, and awareness. In this manner we come to grips with reality piece by piece.
However, logic tells us that reality is infinite, and therefore cannot ever be FULLY understood by finite means. I agree that at the ultimate level space may not be fundamental...but who can truly say that it is? If reality is infinite, then it is infinite in time, volume, and dimension. The fact that we have to develop theories to understand the minute portions of reality that we ARE ABLE TO OBSERVE is our limitation...not reality's.

Yes, I agree that the question of space and/or existance outside of our understanding (because if we cannot understand or even observe it, we have no way of knowing what predictions it is either making or effecting) is a metaphysical one (though I don't know about purely

), however much of what is common scientifc knowledge today would have been considered just as metaphysical (or in fact heretical) in the past.

And I do so LOVE metaphysics!

Shadowy Man · 03-03-2003, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cozmodius

I do have little patience for people that, instead of trying to have an open and intelligent discussion on a subject with someone, they instead refer them to some vague article to research (or some irreverant passage from the bible).

Referring you to Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial was not an attempt to brush you off and avoid an intelligent conversation. It is, in fact, almost common practice to do this. It is basically to ensure that the person who is asking the question can get some information on the subject. We all think that Ned's web page is an excellent starter course on cosmology and thus we send people there because so many of the questions that people ask have been answered on his web site in a manner that few of us (except perhaps Jesse) have the skill to present. Now if I had said something like go check out some obscure astro-ph article with higher level mathematics, that would have been bad.

Quote:

Just because I don't know all the little catch phrases and scientific jargon that goes along with either this or that theory, doesn't mean that I don't or can't understand the gist of it...arguing semantics can get very tiring as well.

True, arguing semantics is not a fun thing, and is not constructive. Unfortunately, it must be done sometimes because many words that are used in everyday speech can have a very different, and very specific, meaning in a scientific context. Good examples are words like "inflation", "expansion", "spin", and "energy".

Many people think they understand certain physics theories because they understand the everyday definition of a word, but they don't understand the scientific usage of that word. They then think the theory doesn't make sense rather than realize that their use of the terminology may be incorrect. "Spin" will really get you messed up if you don't understand quantum mechanics well.

Quote:

When we come to the acceptance that we know all that there is to know about anything then we become no less ignorant than creationists.

I don't think anyone here made that claim.

We have certain theories. Those theories work within given contexts. Those theories make predictions, and suggest possibilities. We shouldn't confuse the theory and its parameters for true reality. We don't know everything there is to know... far from it. I'm not sure I know any scientists that take such an arrogant position.

Quote:

The problem with physical reality is that in order for us to understand it we have to subject it to certain laws, rules, and measurements...thus limiting it to our finite condition, knowledge, and awareness.

Yes, the laws of physics are just models of reality. As the Buddha once said, "when I point at the moon, don't mistake my finger for the moon."

I, personally, am much more of a pragmatist as a scientist, and as such am not as interested in the metaphysics of it all... but that's just my leaning.

Anyway, I apologize if anything I said was off-putting. I wasn't trying to brush you off with my original post referring you to a good discussion on cosmology that I thought might best answer your questions (remember that you didn't start this thread). My later posts were more in response to your tone after that point. Hope we have no hard feelings...

Cozmodius · 03-03-2003, 09:37 PM

Thank you Shadowy Man, all of your points are well taken and appreciated!

No hard feelings at all!

ekorczynski · 03-04-2003, 07:19 PM

Hello folks:

Just when this thread may have run it's course...
I'm new to this forum, but I've read most of this thread and scanned several others, and I'll add in my perspective.

I think we're mostly "talking past each other."

It seems clear that the Big Bang evidence is strong, but that all evidence can only be logically used to trace causality to some initial "singularity".

However, we have zero evidence and only vague theories as to what "caused" the singularity. Indeed, it could be argued that since "time" itself only began with the singularity, it is inherently meaningless to discuss anything "before" the singularity.

Without clear and common definitions of terms, we indeed (as a previous post noted) "talk past each other." While I don't have great definitions myself (perhaps someone else already does?), I'm certain that terms need work:

"universe" in my definition is inspired by the thoughts of Korzybski and R. Buckminster Fuller, in that I assume there "are somethings" different from "myself", that these somethings are consistent over "time", and that I define the hypothetical super-set of all somethings (matter, energy, space, time, dimensions, etc.) whether perceived or not as "the universe". By this definition, the word is only and always singular; "multiple/parallel/higher-ordered universes" then are absurd terms with zero meaning.

I fully realize that many people like to invoke the concept of "universes" (in the plural), but to me these concepts are merely the modern era's variation on the answer to "What's below the giant cosmic turtle holding up the earth?", "It's turtles all the way down."

Perhaps there is a self-consistent definition of "universes", but I've yet to see it.

Respectfully,
edo

Shadowy Man · 03-04-2003, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ekorczynski

It seems clear that the Big Bang evidence is strong, but that all evidence can only be logically used to trace causality to some initial "singularity".

I don't think it follows at all that you can trace the expansion of the universe back to a singularity. This is an extrapolation of a simple cosmological theory, that in light of inflationary theory, may no longer be an appropriate viewpoint.

ekorczynski · 03-05-2003, 11:51 AM

I wrote without adequate precision. Thanks for the correction.

I should have written that _at most_ we can trace evidence back to a "singularity". That is to say, whether there is sufficient evidence to trace universal causality back to a "singularity" or not, we certainly cannot meaninfully discuss anything "prior" to said hypothetical "singularity".

My main point being that since "causality", "before" and similar concepts have meaning only within the concept of "time" as we hold it, and since "time" is considered as only beginning with "space" in the Big Bang, it is meaningless to discuss a concept of "before" the "Big Bang".

Likewise, it is meaningless to ask "what is outside of the universe," since "universe" is defined as the superset of all matter/energy/time/space/etc.

If someone else has significanly different definitions of "before" "time" and "universe"
that solve this semantic absurdity, please share with the rest of us...

03-04-2003, 07:19 PM	#114
ekorczynski Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: San Jose, California Posts: 24	Semantic issue with "before" the Big Bang Hello folks: Just when this thread may have run it's course... I'm new to this forum, but I've read most of this thread and scanned several others, and I'll add in my perspective. I think we're mostly "talking past each other." It seems clear that the Big Bang evidence is strong, but that all evidence can only be logically used to trace causality to some initial "singularity". However, we have zero evidence and only vague theories as to what "caused" the singularity. Indeed, it could be argued that since "time" itself only began with the singularity, it is inherently meaningless to discuss anything "before" the singularity. Without clear and common definitions of terms, we indeed (as a previous post noted) "talk past each other." While I don't have great definitions myself (perhaps someone else already does?), I'm certain that terms need work: "universe" in my definition is inspired by the thoughts of Korzybski and R. Buckminster Fuller, in that I assume there "are somethings" different from "myself", that these somethings are consistent over "time", and that I define the hypothetical super-set of all somethings (matter, energy, space, time, dimensions, etc.) whether perceived or not as "the universe". By this definition, the word is only and always singular; "multiple/parallel/higher-ordered universes" then are absurd terms with zero meaning. I fully realize that many people like to invoke the concept of "universes" (in the plural), but to me these concepts are merely the modern era's variation on the answer to "What's below the giant cosmic turtle holding up the earth?", "It's turtles all the way down." Perhaps there is a self-consistent definition of "universes", but I've yet to see it. Respectfully, edo

03-05-2003, 11:51 AM	#116
ekorczynski Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: San Jose, California Posts: 24	Tracing causality back to a "singularity" I wrote without adequate precision. Thanks for the correction. I should have written that _at most_ we can trace evidence back to a "singularity". That is to say, whether there is sufficient evidence to trace universal causality back to a "singularity" or not, we certainly cannot meaninfully discuss anything "prior" to said hypothetical "singularity". My main point being that since "causality", "before" and similar concepts have meaning only within the concept of "time" as we hold it, and since "time" is considered as only beginning with "space" in the Big Bang, it is meaningless to discuss a concept of "before" the "Big Bang". Likewise, it is meaningless to ask "what is outside of the universe," since "universe" is defined as the superset of all matter/energy/time/space/etc. If someone else has significanly different definitions of "before" "time" and "universe" that solve this semantic absurdity, please share with the rest of us...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-03-2003, 09:37 PM	#113
Cozmodius Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Brooklyn Posts: 18	Thank you Shadowy Man, all of your points are well taken and appreciated! No hard feelings at all!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.