Jump to content

Is it the Universe created alone? Yes or not? Only Yes or Not.


Enric
 Share

Recommended Posts

Tar, this is why I don't argue with you. You are a liar who flip flops all over the place. Making up a diminesion? This dimension is time. This is physics 101. It was quite clear that the second time diminesion was an example to show it would be absurd to claim the block universe was created. I didn't say a fifth dimension existed. I claimed for the block universe to be created would probably require a fifth dimension and a fifth dimension most likely does not exist. Do you even read these posts before you respond. Your responses are like your theory of time. Inconsistent with what was said and flip flopping all over the place. You did the same thing with the Wikipedia article. You blatantly lied about what it said. I am tired of your lies and flip flopping. It is clear based off your "dividing a sphere" thread that you have way too much free time. Try spending more time reading books on math and physics and less time playing with clay. Maybe then you will understand what others are saying. And the block universe has been supported by Einstein, Godel, Weyl, Eddington, Jeans, Carrol, Davies, and Penrose. You claim I am making up an imaginary block universe. This veiw has been supported by many. It is an example of a universe that.

A. It makes no sense to say it was created.

B. It makes no sense to say it emerged from nothing.

C. It has a beginning of time consistent with Big Bang theory.

Your answer to the question changes post to post just like your theory of time. I have wasted far too much time on your lies and nonsense.

 

In 1952 Einstein added the fifth appendix Relativity and the problem of space to the fifteen edition of his book Relativity: The Special and General Theory in which he seemed to have arrived at the same conclusion: It appears... more natural to think of physical reality as a four-dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three-dimensional existence

 

"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time))

 

 

http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2012/09/24/time-free-will-and-the-block-universe/

 

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2011/08/18/the-flow-of-time/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk-Putnam_argument

Edited by david345
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David345,

 

In the Rietdijk-Putnam argument..."The argument is not about what can be "seen"; it is purely about what events different observers consider to occur in the present moment."

 

That implies to me that the consideration is not what is currently being seen (as the place is 2.5 million lys away) but what is "currently" happening. How you can say that this does not presuppose a "current moment" that is happening everywhere, (even if this moment is not seen 'til later) is beyond me. You call me a liar, for stating there are two senses that we use the word now in, when it is obvious from the Rietdijk-Putnam argument, that everybody already accepts this as being the case.

 

My disagreement with you is that the unchanging block universe exists. If that puts me at odds with most of the physics world, then it puts me at odds, but that does not make me a liar.

 

I personally feel that the universe has never been in this configuration before, and it has already been in its previous configurations, and will never be in those particular configurations again.

 

That it is impossible to take a god's eye view of universe, and see it all at once, is obvious. That on a case by case basis we can imagine things that we cannot see is obvious. That light must currently be on its way from distant places, in order to reach our eyes tomorrow, is obvious.

 

The Karl Popper discussion with Einstein is interesting to me in that Popper's stance is similar to the kind of stance I am taking here.

 

Regards, TAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tar, this is why you should contradict or experimentally disprove a theory instead of focusing too hard on what you personally can not see. Have you personally seen the nerves connecting your eyes to your brain? Have you personally observed your brain in action. You claim you can observe things with your senses. You have not even observed your senses. How do you know everything you see isn't an illusion that is created by advanced aliens? How do you know that you are not hallucinating? You can use these type of arguments on any theory. This is why you should show something that contradicts or experimentally disproves the block universe. Past theories were brought down by experimental contradiction. Newton was brought down by experiments which showed the speed of light was the same for all observers. Experiments which showed time dilation. These results were inconsistent with what Newtons laws predicted. Diffraction and interference of electrons were inconsistent with classical predictions that electrons had definite position and momentum. Experiments showing time dilation have contradicted your universal now. The unobservable is a problem when it requires an unecessary addition to the laws of physics. The block universe requires no additions to relativity. Relativity would not work without it. For only the present to exist would require a present that is the same for everyone. Lorentz ether theory requires the unecessary additional requirement of an unobservable ether an ether which could never be observed at any time (not just unobservable at the present). This among other reasons is why it has been rejected.

 

Once again you are lying. You have lied again about your response to the Wikipedia page. The experiment is based off the experimentally proven fact that there isn't a current moment happening everywhere. Dilation contradicted universal simultaneity. The invasion can be seen at a later date. Therefore it can be seen. Once it is seen then they can conclude that one persons present was another's future. The point is that they don't even need to wait for the results. They simply use the experimentally proven fact that there is no universal simultaneity in relativity. For the experiment to be wrong the observers present times must not actually exist. (Not exists is not the same as not observed even though you have flip flopped all over the place on this one). Eventually the events will be observed thus showing that they actually existed. Just because you personally are not observing something at the moment does not require that it be referred to as a different kind of now. This makes no sense at all. It does not change it's position in time when it is observed. This only applies to certain interpretations of quantum mechanics. It doesn't apply to relativity. Looking at something doesn't change it in any way in relativity. Therefore there is no reason for your two definitions of now.

 

You claim my theory requires a god's eye veiw. Have you took a god's eye veiw and seen the past disappeared? It was at that position in space time once and was never not seen at that position in space time. You apply the god's eye argument to me but not your self. Another example of your hipocracy and flip flopping. Once again you are flip flopping on the subject of now. Previously you said it exists. Now you are claiming that because you personally can not observe it that it is a "different " now. You can observe the present it just takes time for the light to reach you. The present isn't instantly observable but it can be observed at a later time. Those in what you call the future observe this future. You claim they don't exist. They could use your same argument and claim they are the present and you are the nonexistent past. Now is relative. You aren't the center of the universe. Your now isn't necessarily everyone else's now. You can deny the future exists but you will be disproved a moment later.

 

You have repeatedly danced around the question's I have asked you. I am tired of you avoiding the question's I have asked. If you are just going to flip flop around and avoid the questions then why even respond.

 

1.Have you fully observed the nerves connecting your eyeballs to your brain. Do you have a complete explanation of your eyes and brain? How can you claim you can observe things if you have no proof you even know what observation is?

 

2.One can move in space because of time. How does one move in time? How does time flow?

 

3.Do you actually have something that disproves or contradicts the block universe?

 

4.Yes or no. Have you took a god's eye veiw and seen the past disappeared.

 

5. Yes or no. Does something not exist because you can't observe it at the present moment?

 

6. How do you explain the experimental eveidence showing time dilation? How does this agree with your universal now?

 

7. You still have avoided answering weather the universe had a beginning or has been around forever.

 

8. Yes or no. Do you believe in universal simultaneity?

 

9. Is time the fourth dimension?

 

10. How fast does time flow?

 

11. If your theory is LET then why do you keep talking about what can't be observed when LET is based off the additional assumption of an unobservable ether?

 

12. If the present doesn't exist then does the light you see come from things which did not exist?

 

13. How does one detect this universal reference frame which represents the universal now?

 

Please number your answers so it is clear you are not avoiding questions. Unlike you I actually have a job. I don't have time for your games. If you are just going to flip flop around and avoid the questions then go find someone else to talk to. Personally I find your comments uninteresting, unoriginal, and uneducational. You sound like someone trapped in the 1700's. It appears your theory is the long ago discarded Lorentz ether theory. A theory which ironically was discarded because of additional assumptions which could never be observed.

Edited by david345
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...

The existence of the Universe is, more or less, as irrational as the existence of "The I" who are watching it.

 

They both have solution in the time, but it will be the remains of these irrationalities.


Sorry. I want to say: "but it will be there the remains of these irrationalitites"

 

Why so many irrationalities?


Who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my modest and ludicrous opinion, this universe can be so cruel because is logical till the last consequence, even cruel.

 

It is logical to be manipulable and habitable. If it would be ilogical, may could be habitable but not manipulable.

 

And in all this logic, appears two irrationalities: the existence of the universe itself, ("Is it created alone? yes or not? and which answer is more irrational?) and the existence of "The I" who is or was watching it. Similars in essence.

 

The rest are impeccable in logic... till the end.

Edited by Enric
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Invoking God is not logic, it is faith.

 

I was implying the universe is god, like pantheism? Not so much faith as a belief. It comes under glossary of philosophy on wiki

 

worth a read and totally relevant to this thread. Some people mis-interpret the use of the word god,

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

(what faith do i need to believe in a god of this description?)

 

Sorry got lost on wiki,

 

oh also theres;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandeism

 

which is a cop out version were they unify "creation" and "being" into one, where as pantheism simply states that the universe and everything within is by definition god, pandeism says god created the universe then became it.

 

Are you familiar with extropy strange?

 

may also want to read

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extropianism

Edited by DevilSolution
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes the universe can be alone but only for a finite time period. I see this with the presumption that at one point a void existed, and that there is now something in that previous void. That would infer a series of steps going from nothing to something as a form of inevitable mutation, given nothing to prevent it. I use the "1 nothing" as my favorite candidate for that initial step. Each of these steps should have required some amount of accumulated change, which we identify as time. This is also to infer that these steps are ongoing, as time still flows...

Edited by hoola
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The question is actually easily answered through logical reasoning alone.

 

The universe is by definition all that exists. -> Creation requires a creator. -> If a Creator exists, the Creator cannot create the universe because the universe already exists through the Creator's existence itself. -> The universe cannot have been created.

 

Another way towards that conclusion:

 

Creation requires causality (i.e., cause and effect). -> Causality requires the existence of time. -> Time is a property of the universe. -> The creation of the universe requires the universe to already exist. This is a paradox! -> The universe cannot have been created.

 

 

Interesting question: Was the observable universe created?

To be fair the OP's question implies a definition of the universe = observable universe. (And unobservable parts which are oupside our hubble volume, but contingent with the big bang).

 

The concept of time/space can be extended if we consider time to be a final dimension. Rather than general relativity's 4D it is really 3D+1. Since 0 dimensions (points) 1 dimension (lines) and 2 dimensions (planes) all exist in our 3 dimensions (solid); we can speculate our 3D slice of time existing in a 4D geometrical shape slice of time. Time which is the cumulative of all moments in all 4 dimensions becomes a 5 dimensional space-time.

 

As a 3 dimensional observer, we are aware of only 4d time but there may be higher dimensional areas outside our observable universe, in which at some point our universe began.

 

This speculation can the extend to a limitless number of dimensions. +1 of time.

 

Now I consider it, our time space could have come into being within another larger time space with equal dimensions. Like a balloon expanding inside a Swiss ball. We just see the point we expanded from as a limit of observation. Actually our limit is at about 300 million years after, the supposed, creation event, at the epoch called recombination in cosmology.

 

However the answer is still, I don't know. It may be possible to find out one day though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

This Universe is cruel because it's logic and we are only an effect of the Chemistry. But it's also curious that our apparition and presence was "foreseen" or "included" in a standard way inside the Chemistry at the beginning of all, when it was created. Another curious and absurd thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Included" inside the Chemistry and inside the Logic, when they were created. Another curious and absurd thing in a curious and absurd Universe.


Well, if it is Logical, maybe the Universe it's not so, so absurd. But at least its creation, alone or not alone, it's quite absurd.


An impeccable Simphony by the perfect Orchestra. But, the Orchestra, the partiture and the Author are self-created from the Nothing, or created by Something unknown. At least, curious. We can suspect everything, like the great part of the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

Rajnish Kaushik,

Welcome back from your two year suspension. You may want to review the forum rules (http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules) now that you have returned. Please try and leave the pseudoscientific claims out of other people's threads. If you have your own scientific ideas to discuss, please do so by opening a thread in Speculations.

Do not respond to this within the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such a discussion for a topic I can hardly understand the english of. OP can you rephrase your question please.

Did you mean - Is our universe the only universe ? In that case I would answer that no, it is not the only universe, and that there are other universes out there, to which we have limited or no access to at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such a discussion for a topic I can hardly understand the english of. OP can you rephrase your question please.

Did you mean - Is our universe the only universe ? In that case I would answer that no, it is not the only universe, and that there are other universes out there, to which we have limited or no access to at all.

'Universe' means everything that exists... there can only be one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Universe' means everything that exists... there can only be one.

Our universe is basically a big 3d space with all sorts of things inside it, I don't think it is everything that exists. I have mentioned about my theory in another thread but it is relevant here too so I will say it again.

 

Our universe is part of the Everything. Which I call from hebrew the Clal. The Clal includes everything, including everything outside our universe, and is very ambiguous and hard to percept. Our universe is a certain formation from within the Clal. The Clal contains many detached worlds or universes.

Edited by Eldad Eshel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our universe is basically a big 3d space with all sorts of things inside it, I don't think it is everything that exists. I have mentioned about my theory in another thread but it is relevant here too so I will say it again.

 

Our universe is part of the Everything. Which I call from hebrew the Clal. The Clal includes everything, including everything outside our universe, and is very ambiguous and hard to percept. Our universe is a certain formation from within the Clal. The Clal contains many detached worlds or universes.

 

Evidence? Or just more stuff you have made up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our universe is basically a big 3d space with all sorts of things inside it, I don't think it is everything that exists. I have mentioned about my theory in another thread but it is relevant here too so I will say it again.

 

!

Moderator Note

NO! This is called hijacking, taking a thread and making it about your idea instead of the question asked originally, and it's against the rules you agreed to follow. If you can't discuss this without hijacking the thread, then don't participate. Speculative ideas go in Speculations.

 

Formal warning. Don't do this anymore. And don't derail the thread further by responding to this modnote. Report it if you disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.