tar

Silverghoul1, As Strange said, you are the best essay checker available. For instance read your above question out loud or to yourself as if someone else was reading it, and see if it makes complete sense. You will easily find the word you meant was not the word you wrote. An automated checker, not knowing what you meant, would not be able to pick that up, for sure. Besides, if you know in what manner the checkers you used were insufficient, you must have some good idea of what a good checker would do. So do that. Regards, TAR Human judgement is the best judge. Why use someone else's judgment when you have a human judge available for free, that is always willing to check your work. Read it like it was written by someone else, who you knew had made some errors and might have some weak construction or have failed to supply some element you would have wanted present. Then you find the weakness, correct it, and it is even more your work than it was before. You are your own best critic. That is also the bedrock of scientific checking of one's own hypothesis. Look hard for the reasons why it won't work. Turn it over and over and look at it from every direction...and when you find a flaw, correct it...and look again. Pay attention to agreement, that one part of your sentence agrees with the other in tense and mood and such, and make sure you are using idioms correctly and completing ideas that might be spread out over several clauses. If it "sounds" wrong it is wrong. Fix it. It has to make sense. It has to work. It has to express the thought you wished to share.

or lets say a phase transition normally happens to universes of our type when they are 100 billion years old and something quite different starts happening everywhere local stars would look the same as always for 3 years at least, and then one by one close stars would exhibit the new behavior, Stars everywhere else in the galaxy would look the old way for up to 100,000 years, and still after they changed appearance the rest of the galaxies local to us, would look like nothing new happened. I think it is safe to say, philosophically, that the universe has not yet done what it is going to do. while everything we see the universe do is something that it already did a long time ago

we are basing the idea of an accelerating expanding universe on what of it we see at the moment That is looks like it is expanding now, could mean it was expanding before, and now it is not, or it could be contracting now, and we would not know about that until evidence arrived, which given the size of the place, could take a while to get here.

BeeCee, On topic because we are talking about the reality of the universe...in 600billion years. Hardly realistic. And exactly as accessible to philosophy as it is to science. Even the scientific claims of possible reality in 600billion years admit that the Solar system and maybe even the Galaxy will not be the same by then...so it is very far from being empirically testable today, and whether my take is reasonable or logical to the same or lesser extent than a scientist's take, we are both getting about 600billion years ahead of our selves and we are talking about a universe that is quite huge, as if it is all happening at once, which it obviously is not. So a scientific model would have the whole universe behaving according to a simple gas law and some principles of Newton's and Einstein's. A philosophical model would have the whole universe behaving as the universe behaves, and the important bits would be what we experience of it, not what it is doing right now a ly from here, but what light and energy from everywhere is hitting the planet now. In someway the second take is more empirically based than the first. So is reality what we know must be the case, or what we experience. That is, when we see the Mars Rover about to run into a hidden ditch, the Rover has actually already been in the ditch for some amount of minutes. Which take is real? Regards, TAR I was watching the Yankees live yesterday and at the same time watching live stats on my Yahoo Fantasy league. I watched a homerun and looked down to see my hr total increment, and it was already incremented. I guess there is a several second delay in the broadcast to give the station time to bleep out an inappropriate comment, whereas the stat feed beat the TV broadcast to my family room. my daughter, unknown to me, was actually at the game several rows back from where the homerun landed which I did not know until after I had texted her a comment about the game She actually had experienced the hr firsthand before even the stat feed was informed. last football season my now PhD daughter at VT would watch a game off the internet while I was watching it on ESPN. I learned to not text her congratulations on a VT score, because she had not seen it happen yet, since the internet feed was behind the ESPN feed while when she was at a game, she could text me a happening before I saw it on ESPN

"While we will continue to receive signals from this location in space, even if we wait an infinite amount of time, a signal that left from that location today will never reach us. Additionally, the signals coming from that location will have less and less energy and be less and less frequent until the location, for all practical purposes, becomes unobservable." ​Which is what I understood. It does not mean the image ever stops coming. It just gets slower and weaker. What is practical in 600 billion years may be impractical at the moment.

so if there are areas of space beyond the CMB, I could imagine that there may be some that we would never see the first light from, but everything between us and the CMB we have already seen the first light from, so there is only the second, third, fourth and 13.8billionth light that we will see from those areas of space. There is not a reason for their light to all of a sudden not be able to reach us, it is already on its way and it can only get longer in wavelength it can not decide not to get to us

we have not witnessed the furthest we can see yet

"Galaxies beyond our observational horizon are apparently moving away at FTL." But there are NO galaxies ON our observational horizon, so there is no chance of any moving beyond it.

BeeCee, I understand what he is referring to, and you and he are not thinking it through. We never in our lifetimes will see any area of space further than 100 lyrs away, as a star system as old as our own. That does not put such systems out of our observable universe. If a system should move out of range, as per radiation from it, today not being able to reach us, that means we will never see that system as a 13.8 billion year old system. It does not preclude us from seeing it as a 12 billion year old system or an 8 or a 2 or a 1 billion year old system, or as it was, when we see it tonight in our skies. For instance the GW we saw a couple of years ago was a system that was 12.5 billion years old at the time we saw it. If something we see at 900z was a billion years old when we look at it now, it will be closer to 2 billion years old, when we look at it in a billion years. How old do you figure it will look when we see it in 600 billion years? Your answer has to be less than 613.8billion and greater than 2. Regards, TAR

BeeCee, "Over large scales, expansion will as Professor Krauss has noted, see distant galaxies move beyond our observable universe.​" Well yes, I think that is not the proper way to think about the data. Just because the wavelengths of light coming in from far away (the CMB) are redshifted a 1000 times does not make them unobservable, just moves red to violet light out of the visible spectrum. Actually the same shift would move X-ray emissions closer to visible wavelengths. So the areas of space, currently beyond the CMB, in terms of our ability to receive the electromagnetic radiation they put off, are actually parts of space we will see later at longer wavelengths, not areas of space that have moved outside our observable universe. What I mean is that the areas of space that we currently witness as cosmic background radiation, in the radio wavelengths, are right now today probably developed star systems that maybe have gone through 3 generations of star development and they themselves are so far away that due to the expansion of space, light they put out today will never reach us, ever, we know that we can currently see that area of space when it was very young and that we will be able to see it forever, because as it ages, in terms of our view of it, the wavelengths it is putting out will be increasingly red shifted and thereby we will see the system in slower and slower motion and redshifted to a larger and larger degree, but we know we will NEVER see it as a 13.8 billion year old system, because the one instance of that system that exists has moved out of reach. So we will never see that system as a 13.8 billion year old system, but we have no way to lose sight of it as a younger than 13.8 billion year old system. Regards, TAR What Professor Krauss does not know is when the farthest back we can see will show us areas of space older than "soon after the big bang". If we could see such areas of space, we could see an outside edge of the universe and start to form an idea of the shape and size of the place and our position in it. And the vision of places in space as far as we can see in a certain direction being older than soon after the big bang, would, as time went on, surround us more and more, until no CMB was observable, and ALL directions had areas of space older than slightly after the big bang old. So given the 600billion year timeline, I would say chances are good we will be able to see the outside reaches of our universe, and thereby have more knowledge of the place, not less.

BeeCee, Understood, but probable observations of a scientist 600billion years from now, is not something sensibly forecast. We have very little information about the large scale dynamics of the universe, how one galaxy feels about another, and what information is exchanged between the two, and so on. What are voids about, what is the great attractor about, how big and long lived will scientists in 600 billion years be? He has no information about how big the universe is, and since we are just now seeing areas of space that just became transparent to photons 13.7? billion years ago, the boundaries of our observable universe are not yet reached. The wavelengths of electromagnetic waves coming to those future scientists from the limits of their observable universe may be way too long for us to see, but those future scientists would have evolved in such an environment, where maybe their information gathering facilities will be way different than ours. Evolutionarily they likely fit better than we do to that long wavelength environment, and technology wise they had perhaps 600billion years of advancements in science to work with, and perhaps they even would have record of our observations of the CMB. Dr. Krauss believes the scientists of that era will just see a few gravitationally bound galaxies, and will have no way to figure the big bang occurred. I think the Dr. is being very short sighted. If we learned so much since HST was put in orbit, extrapolate that capability and knowledge gain out 600billion years, and tell me again what scientists will and will not be able to witness. Regards, TAR Perhaps a scientist in 2037 will have the output from 12 LIGO experiments wirelessly transmitted to receptors along her optic nerve, and she will be able to see gravity waves passing through Earth. That is only 20 years away.

Right. Bad overthink on my part. Perhaps you are more ​​on the QED side, involved in quantum measurements as discussed in this paper from Oregon, 2009. https://arxiv.org/pdf/0901.0951.pdf Glossing over the paper's math, and reading some of the introduction and conclusions and internal thought processes, I would say the scientists involved in the work that surrounded the measurements taken during the construction of this paper, were as concerned with the meaning of information and thought experiments as they were with the behavior of the particles themselves.

SwansonT, Well thank you for the answer. Sorry I put you into the QED category, when maybe you are more in the collider field... But that does raise a question I have had since high school chemistry about the "reality" of "seeing" a particle go off in one spiral or another after a collision by noticing a trail of ionization. Is not the ionization happening on a scale much different from the scale in which the particle is to be modeled? That is, you might be able to see the path a mouse is taking through a crowd, by noticing the reaction of the startled people from high above, but you don't actually see the mouse, or know what effect the people had on the mouse's path. Regards, TAR

dimreepr, but implications are important We could half the population of the world in a short amount of time, solving population and hunger issues, by returning population levels to levels half a century ago, if light eaters each killed and pickled one heavy eater, to eat during the upcoming year, if everybody completed their task this afternoon. Math is exact, but what the implications are is the REAL question. What is standing for what? Is the speed of light taken as 1? In which case, you just took reality right out of the equation. Regards, TAR

SwansonT, My answer is immaterial, I was after your answer to the question of whether there is a different philosophy/science content to different branches of science . Regards, TAR I am a lay person, math challenged, I don't count in the discussion.

dimreepr, I will stop. My question was, in regards to the thread, whether different branches of science had different levels of empirical evidence available and applied. I was not putting myself up against SwansonT, I was putting a cosmologist (Dr. Krauss) up against a quantum physicist (SwansonT) for comparison, as to the philosophy/science content of each discipline. But I will stop. I see my question isn't being considered and only my poor ranking as a mathematician is being discussed. Regards, TAR Leaving just this last thought. What is the second derivative of a cow?

I was not actually proposing a theory. I was using an on the spot model to put up against Dr. Krauss' as being of equal standing in terms of correlation to reality. What exact amount of time? What is the mechanism that causes this doubling? What gets doubled? If before an efold there was 16 cubic Planks of Space, and after the efold there were 32, what physically happens to the 16 quarks that resided each in the center of a cubic Plank? Are there still 16 quarks but now they are further apart?

what is an efold? is that a real thing? Or a mathematical device?

So exactly how fast was inflation?

Suppose my model aligns with the Big Crunch followed by the Big Bang bevy of models, which would not require a "from nothing" assumption. The whole deal is more in the realm of philosophy than science. Science being the noticing of how reality actually behaves, actually fits together, actually works. You can notice a different piece of reality from a different angle and have a different point of view than another human, but nobody has a monopoly on being able to do science. And once somebody notices a fact about reality and reports that fact to others, and the others believe the fact to be true, well then you have the explorer/tourist situation, but it does not take the fact away from the tourist.

SwansonT, And how exactly do you propose that Dr. Krauss show his model is valid? He figures that reality popped into existence from nothing out of the false vacuum in pairs of opposite energy, thus maintaining a zero energy situation (although some little tiny bit of energy had to be the seed, which invalidates the theory, theorectically) ? Suppose my model is that there must be conservation of space, and if space bulges out here it has to compress over there, and reality did not come into existence in one set of pairs but instead six sets of pairs (like the 12 sections of the sphere.) How do we decide which of us is correct? Which is the true thing? Which is the real thing? Who is right? The universe has to be right, so we can check with the universe and see which model works...but how? It is a philosophical question, more than a scientific question. Inflation violates the conservation of space law, so obviously no scientist would subscribe to Dr. Krauss' model. The Almadine Garnet Is a real example of how space is arranged in the fashion I describe. Do I have more real proof of the validity of my model than Dr. Krauss? He has to, in his mental thought experiment, violate the speed of light limit to make his model work. And the speed of light is empirically established as the limit the universe has. I do not think he can both do science, and have this "there be the dragons" area of his model. And have the model be empirically valid. I have already proven that we are all, just by being human, point of consciousness entities, already doing science. You have no claim toward being a special breed of human. Regards, TAR Nor, according to my model is any human able to view the entire universe at once, as one model (except in the exact way, we really do when we gaze into the night sky.) It violates the common sense law.

Thread, Do you think there is a different relationship between science and philosophy in terms of the reality of the situation, depending on the branch of science? That is, if you are a material scientist, you are interested in stress and strain of materials and such for purposes of building a bridge that does not fall down. If you design and select your materials correctly the bridge REALLY does not fall down. The reality of your work and knowledge can be easily verified by reality...empirical feedback. "Is the bridge standing?" There is little argument over the reality of the answer. In quantum physics, you get a little more philosophy leaking into the arena, where the way you look at it, will give you different answers, and different scientists in the field can favor different models, but basically the ideas and models can be checked against reality, where an experiment can be designed and the results can either favor keeping, adjusting, or discarding the model. Still a little flakey sometimes, as the mathematical models of probability are not, by their very nature absolute, but usually results yea, nay or undetermined or partially true can find a consensus vote. But take a field like cosmology, where we are so insulated by immense space and incredibly long time periods, that the models can not be fully vetted. Here Professor Krauss can tell us what the universe must look like to a scientist 600 billion years from now...and we have absolutely no way to empirically check on the reality of his claims. Regards, TAR here I would propose that the philosophy to science ratio is directly proportional to the reality you are giving to the model That is, is the empirical checking happening on paper and computer and in the imagination against the model, or is the empirical data coming directly from reality and is it the actual, real behavior of the people, place and things that is the focus of the exploration.

"Science is not interested in reality per se, but to explain the universe around us by the construction of models: If by chance one of those models hits on this "reality"or "truth" then all well and good." "To those who wish to impose their definition of reality abstractly, independent of emerging empirical knowledge and the changing questions that go with it, and call that either philosophy or theology, I would say this: Please go on talking to each other, and let the rest of us get on with the goal of learning more about nature." BeeCee, To me, the person is by definition a scientist. We internalize the entire universe, in an analogous fashion, into a model of the universe constructed with the cells and synapses, connections and signals in our brains. There is not one of us, that knows better how to do this science, than any other or every other human that is so constructed, by nature. Where Lawrence Krauss goes wrong, in my estimation, is when he thinks, or knows, that his model is superior to mine. And that goes for SwansonT as well. One can construct a special club, a regimen of thought, with the same rules and language and analogies and transformations and assumptions as the next guy or girl and call that science, but the science is already done in the noticing and model building that a human does when she walks down the street and experiences reality. That I am not privy to the meeting of professors at Oregon, does not ban me from being a scientist. And the realm of multiverses and string theory and 12 dimensional universes that could have been instead of this one, are not discussions of reality at all, but discussions of the models of reality that exist primarily in the literature and the brains of theorists. So one does not gain ownership of nature, by noticing it, any more than another person gains ownership by noticing it. Where string theory and particle physics models happen to "hit on" reality, fine and good. But it is also fine and good to match your memory of an Oak tree with the Oak tree outside, look at it, go over to it and touch it, and be assured and reassured that your model of reality, your internal model of the entire universe, is actually true. Regards, TAR

SwansonT, Not sure I understand or agree or know who figures out how science should behave. Regards, TAR

Thread, Forgive me for not reading through the thread, but I have a contribution to make, from only a scan through and the reading of a few posts. The human being is, from my own personal experience, and from the stories of others, a being that senses the world through sight and sound and smell and taste and feeling, including a sense of one's body and balance, that all together associates the human being to the world that he/she is in and of. Allows the human being to move through and affect the world to his or her advantage. Given this starting point, I frame the three, Philosophy, Science and Reality in the following way. Philosophy is the study of reality from the point of view of the human being. Science is the study of reality from the point of view of an objective observer, stripped of as many human fallacies, and human subjective considerations as possible. Reality is what both study. It seems to me, that truth is going to be the case, whatever humans know about it, say about it, or think about it. However, truth also seems to be noticeable from all directions. That is a true thing is usually true in more than one way. That is I am real. I am also my sister's brother. I am also the guy that lives on the corner and mows his lawn...and so on. A big thing in science is peer review. This does not eliminate human fallacies and human considerations, as a human can not actually take an other than human point of view, but it assures us that the thing actually exists in the waking world, experiencable by others. Math is interesting because it is analogies and relationships and pattern matching and grain size switching, and one thing standing for another...all very human things to do, but it provides a framework, from which two humans can explore reality together, in an exact way, taking as much subjectivity out of the situation as possible. It looks Red. or It is reflecting electromagnetic radiation of between 630 and 700 nanometer in wavelength...are both ways of talking about the same reality. Regards, TAR The math of philosophy is logic. The math of science is algebra, geometry and calculus. The math of reality is everything fits together flawlessly. Mike Smith Cosmos, Established Dogma ain't such a bad thing. It gives us a common language with which to communicate our thoughts and feelings. Dreams are nice, but they are not, per se, of the waking world. And thusly not empirically sharable, but in an imaginary way. Regards, TAR Dreams are of reality, but they do not have to fit together flawlessly. Reality ALWAYS fits together flawlessly.