tar

But back to hot dense. If it was no longer a singularity, it was something with distinctions. And this something that had this area that later became the Milky Way, and that area that later became some area of space we are currently seeing as cosmic background radiation, was "small" enough so that the one area could feel the other over a relatively short period of time, even before there was photon travel. I would guess.

Thread, Let me correct what I said about being visible since the place was first transparent. I am thinking about one observation post at the time of transparency. You could only see what was right in front of your nose. Then the sphere of visibility would have expanded at the speed of light, and the edge of this sphere is right now just getting to the area of space we see as CMB. So not everything has been in view since the transparency to photons occurred. But once we see a thing, we never lose contact with it...that is, it has been continually within view since first appearance. So to speak, since one area of space can evolve and change character over billions of years. Regards, TAR

and I might add, by logic, any part of the universe that is now within view has been within view for a very long time, right back to when the place was first transparent

Strange, Granted. But what is causally unconnected now, may have indeed been causally connected before. And if so, there is no part of the universe that at one time was not within reach of every other part. Regards, TAR

String Junky, The current universe is homogeneous on large scale, and to some godlike observer, not bound by the speed of light or gravity, the thing can be considered one entity. So when do you allow a distinction between one particle and another? Regards, TAR

but does it have depth and width? to what observer would it be one entity?

Homogeneous does not imply timeless. If there was any distance between one part of the thing and another, then the two parts could not inform each other of their current status, instantaneously. As soon as there is distance and more than one arrangement, it seems to me, the timeless part is lost.

String Junky, Odd, but I was thinking about this, in a way, just now, considering the idea of the two nows I was arguing with Strange about, a while back. It seems that yes, if there was a time when the universe was very small, the effects of gravity, and any effects other than electromagnetic waves, which would have to wait until the place was transparent to photons, would, at the speed of light, or the speed of impulse, or however gravity is transmitted, have the time to reach from one end of the place to the other. Causally the place, in that one item, could "feel" all others, in a relatively short amount of time. It is still that way, that one item can feel all others, except there is a significant delay given the size of the place, from the event to the feeling of that event in a distant corner. However, in defense of the two senses of now idea, and to answer the thread question somewhat, we are just now "feeling" some of the universe for the first time, in terms of photon release, in the cosmic microwave background. So, we could have felt all of the place at one time through gravity, but as it got bigger and impulses took longer to get to us, the current arrangement of far away stuff became more and more delayed in terms of when we would feel it. So we are not privy to the current arrangement of any of the universe, but are privy to the earlier arrangement of the place, immediately. That is, our now is composed of the before arrangement but not in any dual way, but in a smoothly digressing way where we feel the current arrangement in nanoseconds or minutes or hours or days or weeks or years or thousands or millions or billions of years, depending on the distance. So, we see a star three light years away, as it was three years ago, but we were looking at it a million years ago, as well and kept our eye on it, for a million years, and watched it burn, real time, just will not see its current arrangement, for three more years. But that star is well within our causal family. We have been sending photons and gravity toward it, and it to us for billions of years. Same with stuff we just now are seeing for the first time, in the cosmic microwave background. We have known it since before photons traveled, and it us through the effects of our masses on each other.. Regards, TAR

Strange, Fair point. I get confused somethings, or think others are overstating things, when they point to an equation and consider it proof of the reality of a theory. Just because the equation works does not mean that is exactly how reality works. Often I can think of reasons why things might work a little differently than the equation forces. Like, for example, talking about how time would be affected by an object traveling 9 tenths the speed of light, without considering the effect on the system the object is inhabiting, of syphoning off enough energy to get the object traveling at 9 tenth the speed of light, or considering to what or which or how you are determining the speed of the object. Or how much mass has been converted to energy to accomplish the task and what reaction has been caused by the action, or how the object might be affected in terms of resistance or deformity, by the gamma ray energy hitting its nose, by virtue of its speed turning radio waves and visible light its running into into higher energy and frequency electromagnetic waves. That is, often, when experimenting with the real world, were everything must fit together, you get a slightly different result than the simple equation would predict, because you didn't account for the effect that Neptune's gravity, has on the media the neutrino is traveling through. Regards, TAR

Disarray, Yes, I suppose that is a problem of mine. I don't get why something should be considered real, just because an equation, which is some analogy in someone's head, says it is possible. To me, I need to know what the thing means, in an empirical sense, or it is just a hypothetical. I am not up on string theory, so I do not know, what is needed or required, or forced in terms of the equations, but if the thing just works in someone's head, and does not work in the waking world that we all experience, then what is the point? Past 4 dimensions, there is no meaning to the equations. Regards, TAR what for instance would taking the derivitive of a cow, mean? You can say some further dimension is wrapped up within a string, but what is standing for what, and how do you know the rules and causes and effects and what will work and what will not and such if you are not representing reality in some empirical sense, to where you can experiment?

Disarray But, being that the universe we know of, is already sufficient, more than sufficient, to engage our minds and provide for our needs, almost to the point of unfathomable size, extent, intricacy, duration and history, what would be the purpose of discovering "another" universe, that has no connection to this one? It is completely a fantasy if it is not empirically tied to this universe. Completely dream stuff, like Moontanman pointed out with the existence of a mirror image universe to this one. Regards, TAR

Disarray, Yes, but billions follow the Koran, and many follow the Bible, and billions again the teachings of the Eastern religions. Suppose a Humanist takes the best from each and discards the worst. They are still going to find themselves in agreement with some scriptural passage or another. I am not thinking one can construct any sort of morality at all in the vacuum of space, out of quarks. So I am an atheist, and have constructed a morality of my own out of what I learned in Sunday School and at religiously founded prep school and college, and what I have learned from my family and friends and from what I have read and run into in my travels and discovered through my own insights and muses...but it would be foolish to think I came up with the best way of being, in opposition to the way that billions upon billions for thousands of years have done it. I am thinking I must have borrowed just a little of the ideas from that which has worked before. Perhaps a child raised by wolves in the woods, could come up with stage 7 morality...but I think the odds are against it. Regards, TAR

Disarray, Well maybe so, but my complaint is with people that pretend they are not bias toward their own group's rules, and that they somehow can see the situation from an objective viewpoint. Putting yourself in someone else's shoes is obviously the way to understand others, but pretending you have a viewpoint superior to a mere mortal is silly. I think without having a human viewpoint you would have no view at all. Regards, TAR

Disarray, Perhaps I misunderstand the term 'cultural relativism' but I maintain that taking a stance, other than your own, is not realistic. That is, one cannot, from within ones head, understand themselves from the outside, looking in. This is an insight of mine, that is running close to central in my discussion of this thread question. You cannot take a position that sees this universe, from the outside, to where you could compare it, to other universes. And by definition, one can not understand the universe from any point of view, other than a human point of view. 'cause we are human and this is how we see the place. Regards, TAR

Disarray, Yes, we are getting a bit off track. The OP did not ask about whether we were alone in the universe, it asked whether the universe was alone. Other intelligent life is not really material...because as soon as we met them, and got to know them, and them us, they would not be third person any more, and could be considered "us" intelligent folk that inhabit this universe. Not sure either how we got unto morality, but it was pertinent in my estimation, in considering what is important to "us". That is, along the line of an earlier argument of mine, it would not matter if there were other universes if the other universes never interacted with this one, or were affected by this one, or caused or in some way was associated with this one. Same with morality. There cannot be a relativistic morality in the cultural relativistic way you are suggesting, in my estimation. That is, you can't call a thing within your own head, universal...unless you have a connection to something outside your head...in which case you are admitting to a connection with the cosmos and admitting that something about the place matters, even after death. Regards, TAR

nec209, Sorry to mislead you. Also sorry I can't answer your question about the efficacy of the online memory aids. One ​thought though...I think repetition, going over the list in your mind, helps to remember it. So any aid that looks like it is structured to give one a well traveled path to go over and recognize, is probably going to work. Regards, TAR

Disarray, Still, one cannot construct a morality alone. Any morality constructed solely for personal consumption, would be of dubious value. This indicates to me, that objective reality has a big say in the development of morality. What is good for the rest of reality, is a crucial consideration. The environment sets limits, as it offers possibilities. We in this way, as humans, are not created alone. Morality is somewhat utilitarian in that only what works, what fits, what is useful, will be established as the "right" way to be. And to any one man or woman, the other 8 billion people on the planet, as well as the weather and the Sun and the Moon and the stars and the birds and bees, fishes and animals, the rotation of the Earth and the plants and minerals represent objective reality. Regards, TAR Here, my wanting to have it both ways becomes obviously required. One cannot establish a morality that satisfies everyone. One must uphold the morality of the groups to which they belong. So a balance is required. One must satisfy themselves, and their family and their neighborhood, and their club and their school and (their church) and their town and their company and their association and their state and country and alliance, first, and then see if such can be done in such a way as others are given latitude to coexist. I am thinking in particular at the moment about how eating a hamburger is a revered summertime barbecue tradition...that would be considered an immoral act to some from India, for instance.

Disarray, Yes I like Freud's thinking about the ID, Ego and Super Ego. I like to short hand the understand as the ID is the physical self, responding to hormones and adrenaline and dopamine and the like, and is very pleasure/pain based. The super Ego is that unseen other I was talking about, that one converses with to be informed of the laws and morals and morays and expectations of that judge, which is standing for your group's rules. The Ego is the moderator between the animal and the society, between the ID and the SuperEgo. The stages of Kohlberg are fine, and if you parse through each stage, you see it is talking about the moderation between the ID and the Superego. It could still be as simple as I state, that one wants to please and be accepted by the group, and behaves in the manner that the group upholds as moral. I am wondering about the last stage however, and the implication that accepting sexual orientation is a universally mandated moral obligation. This is one example of recent moral change, and an example of moral changes that have occurred in just some societies, and in the hearts and minds of just some of even those society's citizens. That is it is morality under construction, and is therefore not consistent with the thought that it is a universal truth. Regards, TAR

Moontanman, Looks like that could be two symmetrical sides of the same universe. Are snowflakes created in sextets or does one snowflake have six arms? Regards, TAR

Disarray, But if you imagine that some unseen other is evaluating your actions as to their correctness, justice, fairness, or depth of understanding as to whether the action is universally "right", you have established a moral judge. Whether this judge has a police force, or a paddle is not material. Punishment is not required if you police yourself. The judge must still be imagined. That unseen other, whether a historical hero like Jesus or Mohammed, or a revered professor or grandparent or local priest or shaman, or that respected social contact or writer or speaker, is a significant other, whether real or imagined. You are not alone in your determination of what is proper behavior. You have other human beings to live up to. Other people that you want to please. This is basic and real in my estimation. We are built to be social animals. We care deeply about the "look" we get from others. Regards, TAR

Disarray, Sorry lot? That requires a sense of punishment, or lack of reaching the mark. As in, if you got it right, you would not be a sorry lot. I have been looking at things from a simplistic viewpoint over the last several years, and had developed a theory that we are very based on reward and punishment. We want to get it right, and we don't want to get it wrong. We want to be good and we don't want to be bad. It has nothing to do with fearing boiling oil in hell...yet it has everything to do with fearing such metaphorically. Regards, TAR if we were truly alone we would not care what others thought

Disarray, I would agree I am a child of Western Civilization, and the enlightenment, and the Protestant revolution and so on, but this is actually the history of my family and nation and school and such, and all that comes from my civilization is based on some of these thoughts. An objective, scientific view of what is important and empirically based and so on, can not be had, without some sort of basis of understanding of what is rewardable and what is punishable. For these thoughts one would have to base the range on human experience, or it would have no meaning to humans. Taking a stance, that one can evaluate the world, or the universe from some point of view, other than a human one, is not understandable. Regards, TAR or notably useful

Disarray, But the universe being created alone ori not, is somewhat related to the question of whether an individual is alone. There is, as you suggest, some benefit to feeling a part of something greater than oneself. This is difficult to see and embrace in the two directions, the subjective and objective senses, that one must approach questions such as this. Particularly when one feels responsible for somebody else child, as in why would I have any more responsibility for a starving child in Africa, then their parents have, or their community has, or their country has? Or as in the issue I have been struggling with since 9/11 as in why is it OK for me to stand in the way of all the world being for Allah. I am thinking it is OK to look after your own interests before others...with an eye on trying to do it in such a way as everybody wins, when possible. A shared understanding, that it is OK to be just a drop in the ocean, AND a particular drop in the ocean...at the same time. Regards, TAR or to paraphrase a saying I like a lot...to the whole world, you are just somebody, but to somebody, you are the whole world

Disarray, Well yes, you are right, I can not have it both ways...except I sense a logical requirement, that one can neither be separate from reality, nor in charge of it, and therefore one must concurrently belong to it and maintain a partial ownership of it. That is, if there is a god, we are part of that being, and if there is not a god, then we are part of the universe, in the same sense, as if there were an entity, a collective being, of which we are a part. As in, it is our universe...being that we don't have another to claim. Regards, TAR

Disarray, Well perhaps it is a logical problem. A set theory question. Do you contain yourself or not? The great consciousness of the universe, that which contains all else, would have to be related to us in some way. That is, if life grabbed form and structure from a universe headed toward entropy, and passed it down to the next generation, then the victory was achieved within the confines of the ultimate consciousness. That is, it was not accomplished alone, but with the help, of the conditions under which life emerged. Or, in other words, "we did it". And us, being universal components, "we" would have to be part of the universe. So created "alone" is something that no part of the universe can claim. Only the entire universe, taken together could be created alone, if there was nothing else but one universe. And if there were but just this one, then it would have to be a collective exercise, to be a universal component, and responsible for that part which you know, and have connection to. Only God, could claim to know the beginning and end, and God is a construct, with no evidence of existing. God cannot be a component of the universe, like us and stars and such, which means he/she/it, is not part of this universe. Which means God does not exist, per se, and must be a construct of our minds and imaginations. Regards, TAR