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

[tar]

Memammal,

 

it is difficult when a metaphor is literally defended. And not required. A metaphor does not refer to the physical thing it depicts. It is the meaning behind that is important.

 

B. John Jones,

 

If you think faith has a physical size, you missed the point of the mustard seed thing. It was an analogy. Which is how we think, one thing standing for another. That is what symbols and language are all about. That is why a Chinese person can make a sound that means snow, and you can make a sound that means snow, and the two sounds are completely different.

 

Regards, TAR

but the snow is still crystalized H2O

[Strange]

B. John Jones,

 

If you think faith has a physical size, you missed the point of the mustard seed thing. It was an analogy.

 

Noooo! Every single word in the Bible is literally true. There is not a single fable, analogy or metaphor in there.

[tar]

disarray,

 

So why do people ask the question in the first place? I don't know, but I am thinking in terms of personal property, and the roles of first, second and third person in our thinking and language.

 

This universe would be mine, it would also be yours, it is also their universe. However another universe would only be their's.

 

 

So perhaps we ask, wanting to know if there is any part of reality that we have no claim to.

 

Regards, TAR

[Memammal]

tar & disarray,

 

That definition of knowledge (“Knowledge is going to be more narrowly defined as that information for which we have either direct experience and/or data to confirm that it represents a, more or less, accurate interpretation of the world around us.” ) as well as some of your recent exchanges and a much earlier reference to the Block Universe Theory refer. Is there perhaps not merit in exploring the idea of such a block universe, i.e. something that has always existed in its complete form without beginning or end, that is being observed by a variety of observers as they momentarily interact with it, process said data/observations into information and for said information to form the observers' reality of their observable universe, i.e. their knowledge of "that place, at that moment of time"...which in reality is only a sneak peak into part of the bigger picture that has always existed? Replace the idea of universal consciousness with universal information (akin to "cloud storage"), i.e. a multitude of observations that form our perception of reality (a representation of information). Also consider a great variety of observers with different perceptual abilities not only in our own eco system, but also elsewhere (perceived as different times) in the block universe. Although this block universe appears to change according to a perceived arrow of time as we observe and determine said information when we briefly interact with it, it is actually the observers moving through it that "light up the pixels" of each previously undisclosed reality. As such more and more of this static block universe (think about a huge black screen) lit up as the observers gather information.

 

But that’s just my two cents...

[disarray]

@Memammal: Yes, that rings a bell...some scientists claim that everything is happening at once, but it seems as if time is flowing because of the different perspectives that people have. But, I fail to see how that relates to the issue of whether the universe was created or whether there are other universes, or whether there is life on other planets, or whether the universe is conscious as a whole. Indeed, when it comes to emotions, it seems to me that the solid block universe that you describe is likely to be deterministic....which, to most people, suggests a lack of free will. Personally, I am not opposed to the idea of a deterministic sort of universe (though it would have to somehow incorporate quantum randomness). However, it seems to me that even if it does endlessly repeat itself, even if only apparently, there will always be some sort of creative growth, be it the creation of more energy somewhere or of more consciousness or whatever...much like a windmill produces electricity.

 

@tar: The aborigines of Australia as well as the 'traditional' Native Americans considered the lands on which they roamed as being sacred and defining who they were. In some cases, individual Native Americans felt that their spirits were firmly connected to the exact place/circumstance in which they were born, and there names often reflected this.

 

Malraux and Nietzsche claimed that people's culture could be predicted from their environment, e.g., harsh, cold, language and austere Protestantism of Germans in contrast to warmer mellifluous language and colorful Catholicism of Italians.

 

And circa, 1940, both Germans and Italians seemed to be especially tied emotionally to their Homelands.

Perhaps you have just extended the perimeters quite a bit to include your affiliation with the entire universe.

 

But, basic psychological terms aside, such as the idea of sibling rivalry (e.g., our universe in contrast with perhaps a sister mirror universe of our own), or the idea of abandonment (e.g., a deistic God sometimes giving attention to other universes), it does seem to me that you are using familial if not quasi-spiritual terminology to describe your 'ownership' of the universe, as if it gave birth to us, or that we belong to it, or it is our property, or it is where we live, etc.

 

Perhaps you are not really attempting to provide reasonable arguments for or against the existence of other universes or other life supporting planets in our own universe at all. It sounds to me more as if you are trying to teach some sort of lesson to others, e.g., feel that you are part of something bigger than yourself, or the universe gave birth to you so you were put here for a reason, or take care of your environment and it will take care of you, or don't worry about life in other parts of the universe but rather focus on what is right in front of you, or we are all part of the human endeavor in this big, beautiful world of ours, etc.

Edited June 10, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

Memammal,

 

Possibly, but the block universe has this static aspect to it, like everything already exists, and has already happened and that just does not seem to be the way it works. And it needs some greater kind of consciousness to contain it, to transcend it, which we don't have any idea of the kind of "reader" that would see the whole picture at once

It seems more reasonable to me, that the universe has not yet done what it is about to do. This of course assumes there is a universal now, that is 13.8 billion years old, everywhere. And it assumes that whatever is done now, at each location in space will not be announced to the rest of the place at the same time. Close stuff will get the message first then further away stuff and then far away stuff and perhaps really far away stuff never, if the expansion of the place is outrunning the photons making the announcement.

 

But this view of the place is not compatible with events having already occurred. For instance right now, me typing this has not happened yet, anywhere. Tomorrow it would be in our past, but in Alpha Centuri''s future. I think the universe, in terms of what is happening now, does not happen all together, but takes eons if not forever to completely happen. And as such, what happens anywhere is sort of the effect of all the causes in the universe, arriving at any one point in totality and in sequence. That is, if it takes three generations of stars to produce iron then we would not expect to see the signature of iron emanating from any galaxy that is far enough away for our image of it to be young enough, that there was not the time for it to have experienced three generations of stars.

 

Regards, TAR

disarray,

 

Yes, I guess I am doing those things you say I am doing. But in the spirit of "we are all in this together", as in you don't need a special key to reach nirvana or the father or whatever.

 

My constant admonishment relates to anyone, including myself, or the least of us, or the best of us, considering what is in our minds as being transcendent to reality.

 

That is we can be modest about our role and not be wrong. At the same time as we can be in and of the place, fully.

 

Regards, TAR

or perhaps I mean to say, we cannot trump ourselves, we can not get to a spot and look back down and see us poor mortal souls mucking about

This because we are exactly the poor mortal souls we are, and the capability we have is exactly that which we can conceive of having and bring into existence.

[disarray]

Tar:
You write, "My constant admonishment relates to anyone, including myself, or the least of us, or the best of us, considering what is in our minds as being transcendent to reality."

 

I can only guess what that means. I tend to agree that there is no separate transcendental realm, if that is what you are suggesting. It was Augustine who, under the influence of Plato, emphasized the concept that God was in some immaterial world (aka heaven) separate from the world we see around us.

 

Again, I don't think that there is any need to rule out the possibility that consciousness, in one form or another, survives bodily death, though I would agree that it is perhaps a little anthropomorphic to assume that the body must go to another realm or universe distinct from nature. Indeed, Buddhists, who claim to have intuitive experiences of altered consciousness claim that heaven (aka Nirvana) is not some place that you go to, but rather it is 'all around' one at the present moment, e.g., trees, rivers, sky, etc. One just has to be in the "right frame of mind" to perceive reality in a more "realistic" manner.

 

My point is that the Nirvana of Buddhism does not take anyone to a different universe...it is the same ole universe we have always lived in. I find this plausible, though far be it from me to say that this is true, though I think that it certainly is true that, owing to different levels of serotonin, dopamine, etc., the way that we perceive reality (aka consciousness) is much like a spectrum from 'very tense' (e.g., schizophrenia) to 'very relaxed (e.g., meditative experiences in which people feel themselves merging with their surroundings).

 

So I personally tend to agree that, for all practical purposes, there is no need for the average person on the street to concern him or herself with the question of whether there is another universe, either in a scientific or in, perhaps, a spiritual sense...since, as seem to keep pointing out, this is our universe and the only one we need.

Edited June 10, 2016 by disarray

[Moontanman]

Actually, according to the Christian faith, no human being has ever had any attribute ever enabling them, or is enabled to be saved. Christ himself, by taking their punishment, through one perfect act of obedience to his Eternal Father, emptying himself of deity, laying down his life as a friend, for his enemies, by his own goodness saves men, through their faith, and utter trust in him.

So scapegoating is the path to being saved? Disgusting and immoral not to mention deceptive. What did Jesus really sacrifice?

 

 

 

The God kind of faith, by the Christian definition, is not an attribute. It's physical matter. Christ said, that faith, if it is of a certain physical size (that of a mustard seed), can move this particular mountain (visible from the Temple in Jerusalem).

See any mountains moved? Only a bad salesman requires you to have faith...

 

Which is why Christian faith is neither a religion, nor among them.

Christian Faith is the very definition of religion. Please elaborate or give a citation..

 

And no mature Christian would hope to be the only one whom God loves. Every mature Christian would be willing to die for any other man, woman or child, if their death would bring eternal good to the other.

So you are dressing up no true scotsman now?

 

And to the contrary, God is not busy creating universes, but building a city with his own hands, a city for his church: 1,400 miles cube (12 stories), according to the Judeo-Christian Scripture.

And you know this how? The Judeo Christian Scripture is not evidence of anything, it is the claim that requires evidence

[tar]

disarray,

 

I thought about the Nirvana thing, and logically falsified it by considering this. If the Monk on the mountaintop becomes one with all the universe, that would have to include me, as I am part of the universe. Therefore, when the monk reaches Nirvana, he should be taking the rest of us with him and there would be no divisions between us. If however the rest of the population of the Earth feels nothing, and does not realize the Monk has reached Nirvana, then he has made the trip by himself, and has not left his own imagination.

 

The best analogy I can draw, in terms of the dopamine you speak of, is the drug addict, super high and feeling on top of the world, victorious and invincible...while in reality he is lying in his own filth in the gutter, penniless and friendless.

 

Where we can go in our minds, in our dreams, in our imagination, in our muses and calculations is indeed a kind of transcendence, but its not actual. It does not matter to any other part of the universe but us, what dopamine is circulating in our brains. Except of course those who love us and consider our joy their joy, and some dopamine flows in their brains, to see us happy.

 

But the waking world has repercussions when a thing is done. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, everything fits and is connected. The butterfly flaps his wings and the hurricane forms on the other side of the world as the turbWulence ripples through. The mind however can put things together that don't actually fit, don't actually work, don't actually make a ripple and change the waking world, that we all have access to.

​

There is the world, and then there is our model of it. The model can never be superior to the thing it is modeling. The universe is a mighty big place. It cannot fit inside our skull. Whatever model we may hold of it, does not do the place justice. We cannot transcend the place. We can only recognize its immense nature and its long life and consider it greater than us...by definition. We are in it and of it and would be nothing without it. I doubt the soul can exist without a body/brain,/heart group, that has been with us since our conception. Without the body/brain/heart group we would have no identity. No place for dopamine to flow. No place for blood and hormones to be. No body to take a position in the world. No focal point, no image.

 

And yes, another universe would be quite useless to us in this one. If there is no connection, no history, no future, no way of the one affecting the other, then the one is pretty much nonexistent to the other.

Regards, TAR

Edited June 11, 2016 by tar

[Memammal]

@Memammal: Yes, that rings a bell...some scientists claim that everything is happening at once, but it seems as if time is flowing because of the different perspectives that people have. But, I fail to see how that relates to the issue of whether the universe was created or whether there are other universes, or whether there is life on other planets, or whether the universe is conscious as a whole. Indeed, when it comes to emotions, it seems to me that the solid block universe that you describe is likely to be deterministic....which, to most people, suggests a lack of free will. Personally, I am not opposed to the idea of a deterministic sort of universe (though it would have to somehow incorporate quantum randomness). However, it seems to me that even if it does endlessly repeat itself, even if only apparently, there will always be some sort of creative growth, be it the creation of more energy somewhere or of more consciousness or whatever...much like a windmill produces electricity.

I am not sure if you have ever read the link that was given much earlier in the thread (page 4), but it will explain all there is to explain about the issues that you raised above including the (false) impression that some sort of creation is required, free will (note that although the universe would be a given, i.e. static or deterministic, it does not necessarily imply that observers cannot move or act "freely" within it), etc. The important aspect to bend your mind around is the tenseless theory of time in such a block universe. Once you grasp that, the rest of the bigger picture will start falling into place. No need to speculate whether there are other universes or not (although I realise that this thread topic so dictates). In a block universe it could be one big universe or multiple universe scattered around in the same "block" (or in other "blocks"?). Ditto for life on other planets. As I already alluded to, there may well be other observers with the ability to observe parts of this block universe that we cannot; we just don't know as we cannot detect them (see my analogy below). As for a conscious universe, like I already mentioned it would make more sense to refer to it as a universe filled with existing data waited to be observed. Here is the link: http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2012/09/24/time-free-will-and-the-block-universe/

 

 

Possibly, but the block universe has this static aspect to it, like everything already exists, and has already happened and that just does not seem to be the way it works. And it needs some greater kind of consciousness to contain it, to transcend it, which we don't have any idea of the kind of "reader" that would see the whole picture at once

It seems more reasonable to me, that the universe has not yet done what it is about to do. This of course assumes there is a universal now, that is 13.8 billion years old, everywhere. And it assumes that whatever is done now, at each location in space will not be announced to the rest of the place at the same time. Close stuff will get the message first then further away stuff and then far away stuff and perhaps really far away stuff never, if the expansion of the place is outrunning the photons making the announcement.

But this view of the place is not compatible with events having already occurred. For instance right now, me typing this has not happened yet, anywhere. Tomorrow it would be in our past, but in Alpha Centuri''s future. I think the universe, in terms of what is happening now, does not happen all together, but takes eons if not forever to completely happen. And as such, what happens anywhere is sort of the effect of all the causes in the universe, arriving at any one point in totality and in sequence.

No, we don't have a reader that would see the whole picture at once, but that is no different to our existing paradigm. Why the need for a greater kind of consciousness? As I posted before, there may be a multitude of different observers scattered around in this greater block universe, each having their peak of a part of the whole. Some kind of God..? Well, something like Spinoza's "Nature" God will make sense. Like I told disarray, once you get to grips with the tenseless theory of time, you will understand that different "now's" in time may be mere illusions of our minds. You have to imagine a bird's eye view of a really big (possibly round) black screen (representing our block universe(s)) where you would, every now and then, see pixels lighting up in different locations on (or around) it. See those as multiple and scattered observations that establish reality (the glowing pixel which is representative of information). These may all be clustered in our eco system (our planet) at what we (as observers) perceive to be different times (only they are not), or they may include observations in other parts of the universe. Imagine looking from above or outside, very much like an astronaut inside the ISS who may see the lights from mega cities on both the west and east coast of America simultaneously, only back on earth they can't see each other. I get the feeling that you still think like an observer stuck at one of those locations and as such your interpretation is clouded by our existing paradigm.

Edited June 11, 2016 by Memammal

[disarray]

Tar: Dopamine and serotonin are just chemicals that seem to affect consciousness. Consciousness does not rely upon the presence of dopamine or serotonin to exist, I would think. Comments to the effect that an expanded consciousness might swallow up the universe or other people, or that conscious models of the universe cannot themselves contain the universe fail to see that it is not a matter of one thing edging out or containing another, anymore than everyday consciousness edges out, excludes, contains, other people or other objects or whatever. This is all speculation of course, but based on my understanding of Buddhism, meditative experiences, etc., consciousness rather blends in with its surroudings on its own wave length (much as it usually does anyway) so that there is no conflict.

 

Sartre made similar comments, as I perhaps mentioned elsewhere, that consciousness (pour soi) cannot blend with its surroundings (en soi), though, from a philosophical standpoint, Heidegger disagreed, and, not surprisingly, found that his philosophy was in line with Buddhistic thought when he started reading Eastern literature later on in life.

 

So no, this is no personal pet theory of mine. Indeed, it is in line with continental (e.g., German) idealism in general, and Hegel and Fichte's thinking in particular.

 

That consciousness is of a similar substance as ones surroundings (on whatever scale) is perhaps relevant to this thread, as the question addresses the fundamental notion of the existentialist movement about people's alienation (aka aloneness) not only from fellow human beings, but also from their environment. Buddhism merely extends the everyday sense that people have of being one with their environment when in certain relaxed moods, and takes it to the logical conclusion, if you will, that such a sensation could possibly be much more extensive after death. Whether or not that entails a conscious awareness of the entire universe is perhaps a more metaphorical notion than a literal one, so there is not much point in trying to refute it with logic, as Sartre has already made such an attempt at the end of his book, Being and Nothingness, and indeed, he famously quips that humans desire to become gods in terms of their awareness (aka knowledge) of the universe, but, given his definition that consciousness is completely non-"material", and thus the opposite of everything else in the universe, he claims that such a desire is impossible to fulfil...From there he makes the claim that it similarly impossible for God to exist, as "he" would have to be both immaterial and material at the same time, which, according to Sartre is impossible.

 

But the truth of the matter that philosophers and scientists around the world do not really know what consciousness is, so such discussion really are purely speculative. As an aside, Sartres entire philosophy is built on the assumption that just because consciousness per se seems to be the absence of everything else, then that somehow suggests that people have free will. Critics are quick to point out that this is just verbal gymnastics and presumes a far greater understanding of the nature of consciousness than anyone really has.

Memammal: We are back to the issue of verifiability/falsifiability. At present, there seems no way to get beyond idle speculation as to such things, and indeed, one wonders what difference any proof might make to our daily lives or even to scientific developments, though there would not doubt be some impact on philosophy and religion. More importantly, the block theory is not in line, apparently, with mainstream thought in physics, e.g., Big Bang, expansion, etc. Finally, the comments about free will are very ad hoc: "In Deutsch’s model, when the human comes to a fork in the road, the universe (and the person) splits into two different universes so the person is capable of travelling down both roads" or "a decision can only ever have one outcome, so only one road is travelled after the decision is made." As for the first, even quantum theories about 'many worlds' are metaphorical, not literal; as for the second possibility, the existence or nonexistence of free will makes no difference to the scenario.

 

I have no problem with there being no universal "now" but arrow of time is forward for a reason that is compatible with the nature of an expanding universe and with entropy. As for free will, it seems that scientists from many disciplines are more and more considering it to be a useful illusion. Scientists and psychologists are painting this illusion into a corner, so that, it appears that before long they will have painted it out of the picture all together.

Edited June 11, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

Memammal and disarray,

a

I read the Pearce outline and found it quite logically contradictory, at least in terms of using terms that canceled each other out to the point of meaninglessness.

 

Perhaps equations are handy to have things equal to zero and cancel each other out, but in terms of human understanding, based on the a priori understanding of space and of time, it is not understandable to say anything about our situation if you eliminate either or both, from the description...at least if you mean to have the resulting statement say anything understandable.

 

You cannot stand outside the universe and look at it, and you cannot refer to a sequence without order and direction in terms of tense.

 

I am thinking that we absolutely can depend on our understanding of space and time, and logically rely on the universe to follow the apparent plan, because we emerged from the place, and mirror the place in terms of our analog copies of the place that we house in the synapses and structures of our bodies and brains. That is, to a certain extent we operate as the universe operates since we are made of the same atoms and interplay of fundamental forces, that everything else, every other entity in the universe is made of. We can have an inside and an outside because the universe does such things as develops entities with constituents that are in turn constituents of larger entities. We don't make these patterns and forms up, we experience them, and record them, in an analog fashion in our brains or in our books and computer programs, diagrams and formulae.

 

But and this is the big but...the universe does not happen completely, anywhere. We are separated by time and space from other events and other entities. It is false to build a static model of the place that is complete and whole and completely done and finished as a static structure with no dimensions of space and time, when it is the very fact that the universe is not at one place at one time, that makes it our universe.

 

Regards, TAR

As far as now goes though, I think it interesting that you over there and me over here experience the same one, at least measurably within the time it takes radio or light signals to travel between us. That is, it is 11:57AM on 6/11/2016 in New Jersey for me now, and for you now. In an hour it will be 12:58 in New Jersey, quite independently from whether you and I agree on it or not. And if a log is floating on the Passaic at a particular spot right now, in an hour it will most likely be an hour downstream according to the current. Quite without our approval or involvement the place and all its inhabitants will together flow with the river.

I am fairly sure the universe has not yet done what it is going to do next. The pattern is too complex to not have a "next" arrangement that is unique in that it could never have happened before because for one I was never 62 before. There was never an arrangement of the universe whereby TAR on Earth was 63. Now an observer 49 light years from here could currently be seeing TAR as a 13 year old human holding a match in the air on a summer night at a North Jersey lake. But that particular event is past for Earth observers, and no observer anywhere has seen TAR at 63 because that arrangement of the universe has not yet come to pass.

Thusly the grandfather paradox is solved, because time travel is impossible. You cannot go back in time, because everything would have to be reset with you. Every photon from every portion of the galaxy and universe would have to be put back in its position at a previous moment in time. The universe does not work like that. Once it does a thing the new arrangement is manifest.

one proceeds from there

Edited June 11, 2016 by tar

[disarray]

Tar: I don't see anything in your last post that I disagree with.

 

If we take the evolution of life forms as a touchstone, nature seems to work largely (but not entirely judging from developments in epigenetics) on the basis of trial and error in something of an organic/creative manner. Any version of a static universe seems to contradict such a principle, not to mention that there doesn't seem to be any point for the universe to exist.

 

As I recall from Stephen Hawking's book, A Brief History of Time, he believed at one stage that time would go forward as the universe expanded and that at some point the universe would stop expanding and then start contracting (and perhaps thereby create a cycle of contractions and expansions). What was weird, though, was that he claimed that time would go backward as it contracted, so that everything that people did when the universe was expanding (arrow of time going forward) would be done backwards when it contracted, though people wouldn't notice it because everything would be running smoothly...I guess an example would be that one might unsharpen a pencil so that, as time went backwards, the pencil would become blunt....kind of like pushing the reverse button to see a movie run backwards.

 

At some stage physicists found that the data suggested that the universe is not slowing down, but gradually expanding slightly faster and faster, and that it is not going to eventually contract, but just keep expanding and expending energy (i.e., entropic "decaying") until all the stars eventually fizzle out. Bottom line is that Hawking had to change his mind about time being able to run backwards. Quantum physicists also used to entertain the idea that electrons could go backward in time (e.g., the double slit experiment), but that also seems to be a theory that is not holding water. I wonder if Hawking ever shook his head in disbelief when he recalls that he once thought everything in the universe might run backwards as the universe contracted....scientists don't always make the best philosophers.

 

Just as Einstein suggested that space is not just an empty "nothingness" and just as some quantum physicists suggest that there is no pure nothingness out of which the universe sprang (as pure nothingness, so the argument goes, would not have something like a Higgs Boson field from which the universe could start up), so too it seems likely to me that consciousness is not just pure nothingness (as Sartre, for example, maintains), but rather some sort of je ne sais quoi substance that, like electrons, ultimately seems to be integrated with its surroundings in a mysterious way.

 

Indeed, Bergson makes the same claim about consciousness as physicists seem to be claiming about the interconnectedess of subatomic particles such as electrons:

 

'From one moment to the next, each point in the material universe receives and transmits a "snapshot" of the entire universe, a type of pulse or flash of universal information through all the lines of force or influence that connect all of the images.'

 

The quote is from a writer who is summarizing Bergson's view of consciousness, but if we substitute the word "electron" for "images" we could be reading right out of the latest book on quantum physics. Indeed, the fact that it takes time for these "snapshots" to be exchanged between particles explains why light can go no faster than a certain speed: each time light moves a certain distance, the entire universe has to rearrange these snapshots of information, and there is a limit to how quickly such rearranging can 'take place'.

 

Living Consciousness: The Metaphysical Vision of Henri Bergson by G. William Barnard

https://books.google.com/books?id=1JrlpzwhmV4C&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq=bergson+consciousness+and+the+universe&source=bl&ots=ovVRO4ehnM&sig=ExU3H8TcM5od-W3UqRk1drI67vs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi86NDY5KDNAhVVO1IKHZ3-AKcQ6AEIMjAD#v=onepage&q=bergson%20consciousness%20and%20the%20universe&f=false

 

So, no, I don't think that the universe was created, nor do I think that the universe is alone. The universe 'reflects' upon itself in a multitude of ways. For example, as physicist Lawrence Krauss, echoing the thoughts of Hegel, remarks,

"How amazing is it that, out of nothing, a trillion finely tuned biological mechanisms came together to form your morality, your consciousness, the love you feel, and all that is good and pleasurable in the world? Everything you are is part and parcel of the mathematical fabric of reality. Just think: Right now, you are the universe reflecting on itself. To choose to see that as “nothing” would be the biggest travesty of all."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-searles/universe-origins_b_1687559.html

The universe is not alone.....it is one big house of mirrors, thereby continually providing company for itself.

Edited June 11, 2016 by disarray

[Memammal]

I have, for the past few days, been distracted from participating in this thread by an onset of flu. I appreciate the fact that the block universe concept, at face value, seems to contradict our existing paradigm of time. With the block universe the present is an objective property, to be compared with a moving spotlight. By the passage of time more of the world comes into being; therefore, the block universe is said to be growing. The growth of the block is supposed to happen in the present, a very thin slice of spacetime, more of spacetime is continually coming into being [Source]. Perhaps core to the understanding of the block universe is eternalism, a philosophy of time whereby all points in time are equally real (opposed to the conventional idea that only the present is real). Eternalism is the view that each spacetime moment exists in and of itself and find inspiration from the way time is modeled as a dimension in the theory of relativity, giving time a similar ontology to that of space. It is sometimes referred to as the "block time" or "block universe" theory due to its description of space-time as an unchanging four-dimensional "block", as opposed to the view of the world as a three-dimensional space modulated by the passage of time [Source]. As such it requires a change in our perception of "time passing" to that of a metaphor for the continuous human experience of some expected future events becoming directly experienced qualia, while experienced qualia becoming just objects of memory [Source]. Here is another way of looking at it: Modern physics suggests that we can look at the entire history of the universe as a single four-dimensional thing. That includes our own personal path through it, which defines our world line. This seemingly conflicts with our intuitive idea that we exist at a moment, and move through time. Of course there is no real conflict — just two different ways of looking at the same thing. There is a four-dimensional universe that includes all of our world line, from birth to death, once and for all; and each moment along that world line defines an instantaneous person with the perception that they are growing older, advancing through time [Source]. In short, many now’s opposed to a moving now. As such we observe different glimpses of the universe as our spotlight catches a different now, or spacetime slice, which gives the illusion of a changing universe. This MIT article on a recent book, “Objective Becoming” by Brad Skow, provides a short, yet eloquent oversight of what I have just tried to convey.

 

In “This Idea Must Die; Scientific Theories That Are Blocking Progress” there are a number of references to how our conventional paradigm may hinder our scientific understanding. In “Essentialist View Of The Mind” Lisa Barrett writes: In physics, before Einstein, scientists thought of space and time as separate physical quantities. Einstein refuted that distinction, unifying space and time and showing that they’re relative to the perceiver. Even so, essentialist thinking is still seen every time an undergraduate asks, “If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?” In “The Big Bang Was The First Moment Of Time” Lee Smolin states: What concerns me is the other meaning of Big Bang, which is the further hypothesis that the ultimate origin of our universe was a first moment in time, at which our universe was launched from a state of infinite density and temperature. According to this idea, nothing that exists is older than 13.8 billion years. It makes no sense to ask what was before that, because before that there wasn’t even time. The main problem with this second meaning of Big Bang is that it’s not very successful as a scientific hypothesis, because it leaves big questions about the universe unanswered… There is, however, a chance for science to answer these questions, and that’s if the Big Bang was not the first moment of time… For there to have been a time before the Big Bang, the Hawking-Penrose theorem must fail. But there is a simple reason to think it must: General relativity is incomplete as a description of nature, because it leaves out quantum phenomena… There is robust evidence from quantum cosmology models that the infinite singularities forcing time to stop in general relativity are eliminated…which allows time to continue to exist before the Big Bang, deep into the past. In “The Universe Began In A State Of Extraordinarily Low Entropy” Alan Guth argues: There’s an important problem, therefore, which is over a century old: to understand how the arrow of time could possibly arise from time-symmetric laws of evolution. The arrow-of-time mystery has driven physicists to seek possible causes within the law of physics we observe, but in vain. The laws make no distinction between the past and the future… The standard picture holds that the initial conditions for the universe must have produced a special low-entropy state because one is needed to explain the arrow of time. We argue, to the contrary, that the arrow of time can be explained without assuming a special initial state, so there is no longer any motivation for the hypothesis that the universe began in a state of extraordinarily low entropy. The most attractive feature of this idea is that there’s no longer a need to introduce any assumptions that violate the time symmetry of the known laws of physics. The basic idea is simple: We don’t really know if the maximum possible entropy for the universe is finite of infinite, so let’s assume it’s infinite. Then, no matter what entropy the universe started with, the entropy would have been low compared to its maximum. That’s all that’s needed to explain why the entropy has been rising ever since! He uses a metaphor of gas in a box (finite) compared to gas with no box where all particles will eventually start moving outwards and the gas will continue indefinitely to expand into the infinite space, with the entropy rising without limit. He continues: An arrow of time has been generated, without introducing any time-asymmetric assumptions. An interesting feature of this picture is that the universe need not have a beginning or an end.

 

Since the brain presumably perceives time through information processing of external stimuli, not by extrasensory perception, and obeys the laws of causality, it is hard to see how the flow of time, whether it exists or not, could make any subjective difference: all conscious beings are built to perceive time as a chain of events, whether or not it occurs as such… Eternalism addresses these various difficulties by considering all points in time to be equally valid frames of reference—or equally "real", if one prefers. It does not do away with the concept of past and future, but instead considers them directions rather than states of being; whether some point in time is in the future or past is entirely dependent on which frame of reference you are using as a basis for observing it. Since an observer at any given point in time can only remember events that are in the past relative to him, and not events that are in the future relative to him, the subjective illusion of the passage of time is maintained. The asymmetry of remembering past events but not future ones, as well as other irreversible events that progress in only one temporal direction (such as the increase in entropy) gives rise to the arrow of time. In the view suggested by eternalism, there is no passage of time; the ticking of a clock measures durations between events much as the marks on a measuring tape measures distances between places. Eternalism has implications for the concept of free will, in that it proposes that future events are as immutably fixed and impossible to change as past events. Eternalism makes two assumptions, which are separable. One is that time is a full-fledged real dimension. The other is immutability. The latter is not a necessary consequence of the first. A universe in which changes are possible may be indistinguishable from the fully deterministic many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, in which there are multiple "growing block universes". [Source]

 

In Buddhism, a special term Dharmadhatu is translated as 'total field of events and meanings' or 'field of all events and meanings.' Here the 'Block Universe' seems to be encompassing not only every possible event in the physical universe but also having a psychological component. [Source]

 

Eternalism takes its inspiration from physics, especially the Rietdijk-Putnam argument, in which the relativity of simultaneity is used to show that each point in the universe can have a different set of events that are in its present moment. According to presentism this is impossible because there is only one present moment that is instantaneous and encompasses the entire universe. [Source]

 

Hrvoje Nikolić argued that a block time model solves the black hole information paradox. [Nikolic H. (2009). "Resolving the black-hole information paradox by treating time on an equal footing with space". Phys. Lett. B 678 (2): 218]

 

In a scientific paper entitled “Is there An Alternative To The Block Universe View?” Vesselin Petkov shows that the block universe view, regarding the universe as a timelessly existing four-dimensional world, is the only one that is consistent with special relativity. The paper concludes: In this sense special relativity alone appears to provide a definite proof of the block universe view. One may argue that the arguments discussed here are insufficient for rejecting the presentist view since those arguments demonstrated that presentism contradicts only special relativity, not the other established theories (quantum mechanics, for instance). Such a position could hardly be defended because if a view contradicts the experimental evidence it is definitely wrong. There is just one way to prove that the presentist view does not contradict the relativistic effects – to demonstrate that the experiments which confirm the kinematic consequences of special relativity can be explained if it is assumed that the world is three-dimensional.

 

I assume that most of the objections raised against the block universe model have been dealt with in the above. If not, I will try to revert to any outstanding issues that come to the fore.

Edited June 14, 2016 by Memammal

[tar]

Memammal,

 

I did not click the links in your last post, which no doubt further explained various points, but my major objection is that there is already a consistency that the universe exhibits that includes one observer experiencing a different collection of events than another, AND that works perfectly fine in terms of presentism in that a thing happening over there does not announce itself to over here until later. In such a construct or understanding, the things happening over there have 13.8 billion years of history and nobody anywhere can remember what happened at the 13.9 billion year mark, because it has not been reached anywhere, or experienced by any observer, because it has not yet occurred.

 

The block universe has a problem in that there is no observer 14 billion years old. And that is just the immediate problem. The overall problem is that there is no observer that can experience all four dimensions in their entirety...ever.

 

Just as three dimensions make no sense as experienced all at a single place, adding a fourth dimension that can be experienced all at one time, makes no sense what so ever, and is a construct that only people with expansive imaginations can even imagine. It has nothing to do with reality.

 

Regards. TAR

Edited June 14, 2016 by tar

[Memammal]

TAR, I am not exactly following you. You seem to imply that the universe or parts thereof, as well as space-time have to be observed or experienced in order to exist, or am I misinterpreting you? Think of the block universe as a big static whole where only parts thereof have been observed. That does not imply that the rest of it does not exist (to the contrary). Referring to space-time and its four dimensions, please do yourself a favour and read this article by Stephen Hawking, Space and Time Warps. It explains how we should make sense of these dimensions and how they are being perceived, including how the time and position at which one thought an event occurred would be depended on how one was moving. This meant that time and space, were inextricably bound up with each other - and that - the times that different observers would assign to events would agree if the observers were not moving relative to each other. He goes on to state this: We can actually observe this warping of space-time, produced by the mass of the Sun, in the slight bending of light or radio waves, passing close to the Sun. This causes the apparent position of the star or radio source, to shift slightly, when the Sun is between the Earth and the source. The shift is very small, about a thousandth of a degree, equivalent to a movement of an inch, at a distance of a mile. Nevertheless, it can be measured with great accuracy, and it agrees with the predictions of General Relativity. We have experimental evidence, that space and time are warped. Furthermore, gravitational waves that are (the theoretically proven- and predicted) waves of the space-time ‘fabric’ itself have now been detected.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Memammal

[tar]

Memammal,

 

I will read the link, But I have some books downstairs that I have read years ago that had the thoughts of Einstein, Hawking, Heisenberg, Sagan and others. I actually received a letter from Hawking (or one of his aides) responding to a thought of mine, correcting me on thinking that the big bang was in a certain direction from here, as we were at the location of the big bang when it happened. So I would like to respond before reading the link, and might additionally respond afterward.

 

You say that one should recognize that if they are moving in relation to another observer, they will not agree on the time of an event. This is actually the least of the problem of relative experience. The actual problem is when you are experiencing the event, and my contention, as a believer in presentism is that everyone and everything, every atom and photon, every creature and object, whether conscious or not, is happening, is extant, is manifest, NOW. As such the rest of the universe is arriving at a particular point now, even though at a location far away they are experiencing a different set of events. In both cases, here and there there are no events experiencable that did not happen yet. Past events at C can arrive at A and be in A's past, years before they present themselves to B. This has to do with light speed and lag time, and the only difference that motion would make, in my characterization of the place is upon the wavelength of light received from the event. If two bodies are moving toward each other and exchanging information, say sending off some light from a hydrogen atom's electrons changing energy level, the particular familiar line will be blue shifted in both cases. If the bodies are a light year apart, the event, the electron changing orbit, would have occurred 1 year ago. This idea assumes that the entire universe is happening now, once, this way, one time in this configuration, never to be like this again, as photons are spewing about and wavelengths of light from radio to gamma are on their way somewhere, from somewhere, and bodies and black holes are growing and shrinking and moving about to where it pwould be physically impossible to ever reproduce the pattern, the total pattern, exactly, ever again. As I say, the spherical half shell of photons, released from the match I held up when I was 13 is currently existing, in the universe approximately 49 lyrs from here, centered on the location of the Earth in the Milky Way 49 years ago. The universe remembers what it did, in this way, and as each point in the universe sees the rest as it arrives, each atom in the place has been releasing photons for billions of years and thusly each has announced itself to the rest, or that volume within a billion to13.8 billion lyrs, continually since the other location received the first light from the first. This is not a static situation, but one completely reliant on the opposite to be the case. A static block universe does not "work", does not "exist".

 

Regards, TAR

Edited June 15, 2016 by tar

[Memammal]

TAR, are you seriously suggesting that the universe reassembles itself with every light photon that is being observed?

[tar]

Well yes in a way. Any change anywhere in the universe creates a new configuration, that has never happened before and will never repeat itself exactly.

 

The key to understanding my way of looking at it, is that what you see happening is one aspect of the arrangement and the actual arrangement can not be seen but has to be extrapolated. As such, one's model of the actual universe has to be constantly updated to be accurate, but one cannot experimentally verify such a model because it is, though actual, only available to the imagination. The senses on the other hand, experience the latent image of what has already actually occurred, but that is the real component of the universe.

 

So it seems contradictory to say it, but the actual configuration of the universe is only available to the imagination, and the image of the universe is the only one available to the senses. But the actual image is available to each position in the universe so regularly and fittingly, that it is the image of the entire universe, arriving at a single point continually, that is existence and that is the universe. Atoms do not need to be conscious, to be observers. As soon as they are hit by a photon, the electron physically responds. The event has been witnessed and is manifest.

Hawking's paper was summarized by a paragraph that basically put warping space enough for time travel in the area of science fiction. Possible, but possible only if tremendous advances in our ability to manipulate huge energies and masses occurs. And even then, the paradoxes introduced preclude it from being possible. Time travel is still out.

I have been thinking, since I joined this board, that the inability to join general relativity and special relativity and quantum physics into one coherent theory, is the incomplete techniques of making unified shifts of scale and position. That is what is happening at one corner of a sugar cube is not immediately true to the other corner.

Edited June 15, 2016 by tar

[Memammal]

TAR: I am familiar with that school of thought, but to be honest I see it as much further removed from "reality" than (most) other prevailing models. I now understand why you kept on (over)emphasising the role of the observer(s) and all the permutations associated with the observer/universe interaction.

 

My reference to Hawking's paper was an attempt to elaborate on space-time and the perception of dimensions, not to discuss time travel.

[tar]

what is happening on Earth is not immediately true to Mars

as such, a simple gas law, including an area of space that includes both the Earth and Alpha Centuri is somewhat of a mixed metaphor

Mermammal,

 

I understand that I cannot do the dimension drops and replacements in my mind that you can do. But I would argue that what ​additional mental capabilities that you have to my abilities does not change reality a whit. What is true will remain true, with or without our involvement, or understanding of it.

 

Regards, TAR

[Memammal]

TAR, whether it is true (experienced) on Mars or not has no significance on whether it occurred. Let me try to illustrate it by throwing it around using this uncomfortable truth: As you know our sun will (only) last another 5 billion years odd until it finally "burns out". Our solar system will become inhospitable long before that though, in approximately 600 million to a billion years from now. Our species might not even survive that long, but here are the facts that I want to stress:

• When our solar system dies the rest of the universe will be unaffected, it will still be and it will "carry on without even noticing it";
• It is a future event, yet easy predictable and unavoidable.

The block universe stands, not only w.r.t. the above scenario but also w.r.t observations of its earlier passages as well as being consistent with prevailing scientific theories and observations (as set out earlier). You don't need to do dimension drops and replacements in the mind, or require additional mental capabilities. In fact, from where I stand your model seems considerably more mind blowing than the basic fundamentals of a block universe. You nailed it in your last sentence "What is true will remain true, with or without our involvement".

[disarray]

String-Junky....You write with regards to attempts to discredit the concept of a multiverse on the basis of the meaning of "universe," that "Deeply mathematical" supersedes "deeply etymological", of course."

 

Here, here. I tried to make this point way back, but the idea that there is not a one-to-one correspondence between words and reality (as per early Wittgenstein's logical atomism, which he later rejected in favor of seeing language as a game that may or may not 'hook up' with reality) seems to elude some people.

 

If anything, the development of human ideas is hampered by the fact that the assumptions built into our use of words tends to lag behind new discoveries and ways of thinking. For example, people assume that science only deals with material things, and thus things that everything is just made up of matter (not realizing the ramifications of Einsteins equating of matter and energy, for example)....from there, they argue that, unlike "spiritually" -minded people, scientists must be cold-hearted and greedy and just concerned with acquiring material things in their lives.

 

I am, of course, not arguing about whether scientists are or are not cold-hearted, but just giving an illustration of the way that language tends to discourage new ways of looking at things. Ditto for those who resort to analyzing language in an attempt to dismiss the concept of a multiverse as a logical impossibility.

 

 

[tar]

Memammal,

 

So what are you saying. That according to the block universe idea there is more reality where we have not yet emerged, and where we ceased to exist, so percentage wise we don't exist that much?

 

If we were created alone, that is, with no siblings, and as a species are the only conscious beings in this solar system, this galaxy this universe, and potentially the only such creatures in all the multiverses and all the cosmos and all of reality at all scales and places and times, in any dimension you might figure is available, then this particular time and place is significantly different than all the block universe put together, and this reality, with its places and past present and future, is what really matters.

 

Regards. TAR

[Memammal]

TAR,

 

I cannot pinpoint percentages, but i.t.o. of the block universe model the proposed permanent existence of the universe obviously outlasts the comparative speck that our species will be around. We acquired the technological capability that enabled us to observe the earlier stages of our universe, that part is true. But that does not change anything re the actual existence of the rest of the unobserved universe. We did not actually observe the huge meteorites that bombarded our earlier solar system, yet we can identify their footprints. We might have missed thousands of supernova's, but that does not mean they never happened. You evidently take a strong anthropocentric stance and that seems to cloud your viewpoint. For example, you refer to our species as the only conscious beings in this solar system. Why do you consider our species to be conscious but not other species? What evolutionary process would justify such a differentiation? Why are we so important that only our eco system matters? It would appear that you (still) believe that we are the centre of the universe..?

Edited June 16, 2016 by Memammal