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

[disarray]

Tar, you write "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"

 

Well, yes, I am, as an individual, more concerned about what I am going to have for a snack in five minutes than I am with whether there is another universe, or whether we live in a block universe, or whether everything is happening at once or not, or that if the Earth formed at midnight and the present moment is the next midnight, 24 hours later, we modern humans have only been around since 11:59:59pm, or that the "the sun is slowly expanding and brightening, and over the next few billion years it will eventually desiccate Earth, leaving it hot, brown and uninhabitable.....No, I just want to have a bit of cereal in my favorite bowl with sprinkles of sugar and slices of banana on top, and I will be a happy camper.

 

But even if I weren't a scientist who made money by trying to figure out whether all things are fated to happen or we did or did not have a common ancestor with the gorilla, etc, I like to know when I have a spare moment, I like to think about such things.

 

When discussing such things as the possibility of life in a different galaxy or wherever, I don't really think that the "who cares" factor is all that germane.

Edited June 16, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

.d_​​​isarray,

 

​I am opposite the who cares thought. I am, as Memammal suggests operating on the basis of I care, and we care, and we have no evidence that anybody other than our forefathers and foremothers ever did care. We are the center of the universe, in that the rest is in all directions from here. And we are in the center of time, as that we exist in the present, and the past came before, and the future comes after. And we are in the center scalewise, as there are things many multiples of 10 times smaller than us, and many multiples of 10 larger than us. And the universe is noticeable to me because it is arriving at this point of focus which is TAR, now, and here. Not other places, not other times. Here and now. And my here and now is also yours, within a couple thousand miles and a fraction of a second. So the fact that we exist, as we do, differenciates us from the block universe. That there are other places and other times is true, but not materially important. The closer to here and now, in time and distance the more pertinent. The further from here and now in time and distance, the less pertinent. Taking a godlike stance, as is required if one is to consider reality a static block of time and space is mentally possible, but not practical. The only practical stance is to view the place from the human point of view, including our common a priori understanding of space and time. Other viewpoints are conceivable, but not notably helpful.

 

So yes Memammal I am at the center of the universe, and you live in my neighborhood.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited June 16, 2016 by tar

[Memammal]

The only practical stance is to view the place from the human point of view, including our common a priori understanding of space and time. Other viewpoints are conceivable, but not notably helpful.

TAR, you may think of it as practical but unfortunately it is not very scientific.

[tar]

hum, and what is the point of science, to be impractical?

Memammal,

 

I like to think about science. I read this board, I muse about gravity and electrons and vast times and immense places. But I have noticed we are insulated from the beginning and the end of the universe by this same vast time, and insulated from the majority of the universe, by Immense distances. Being scientific and mathematical you can model the whole place in analogies and formulae, but you are just as insulated from it all, as I am. Neither of us can get outside it and look at it as an object. There will always be the subjective human experience, because that is ALL we have, the either of us, to work with.

 

We cannot transcend the situation, and act as if being human is not important, crucial and the central aspect to our existence. Because being human is the only thing we have, the only point of view we can experience.

 

Regards, TAR

[disarray]

MeMammal said, "TAR, you may think of it as practical but unfortunately it is not very scientific." My thoughts exactly.

 

And yes, Tar, you are indeed actually just saying the same thing I said, you care about the immediate to you, but not the remote.

 

It is, as I have somewhat said earlier, as if you are just being sentimental and poeticizing....I am reminded of Walt Whitman....just when I think you might be taken the discussion

seriously, or rather, scientifically, you fall back on the issue of immediate practicality and personal concern.

 

Here is a couple of Whitman quotes to give you an idea of what I mean about your remarks:

I heard what was said of the universe, heard it and heard it of several thousand years; it is middling well as far as it goes - but is that all?

The whole purpose of the universe is unerringly aimed at one thing - you.

Edited June 16, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

So, must one renounce their humanness in order to be a scientist? I have thought about this, and have noticed that however objective you wish to be, you can never take that last step and sever your relationship to yourself. In this both the scientist and the Eastern religion's loser of oneself is thwarted by definition.

 

You can never not be you, because once you achieve that, it is you that did it.

[disarray]

Tar,

 

No, of course scientists have a human side, and love puppies and kittens, and weekend family picnics, and a colorful sunset, a sirloin steak with the neighbors, and bowling night with the guys, or whatever.

 

That's not the point. Evidently, retaining ones humanity and being you, or whatever, is something that has some significance to you for some reason, and you feel compelled to interject such humanistic or humanitarian remarks from time to time, but I just see it as distracting from the flow of the discussion.

Edited June 16, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

oh

 

but on the other hand, since the discussion is about there being something other than here and now, and other than "my" universe, it is central to the discussion

[disarray]

Tar: Well, to be honest, I think that the opening statements in this thread were excessively vague in the first place so that the overall direction of the discussion was vague.

 

That said, your remarks seem to almost offer some sort of Rogerian therapy as to accepting one's place in the universe, being yourself, bonding with ones family or fellow man, or whatever, rather than to explore the big picture in a more scientific sense (e.g., the full range of possibilities offered by the theory of evolution in providing the possibility of the existence of life forms elsewhere).

 

In particular, your constant refrain that we all belong to our universe, in so many words, is a commonplace remark, such as, be happy with where you are. This is fine, but when you interject it sporadically to dismiss discussions of such things as what is happening on far away galaxies, or whether there might be life in other universes, or on other inhabitable planets in this one, or whatever, I find, as I mentioned above, that it just seems to distract from the flow of the discussion, however benevolent and laudable your intentions.

Edited June 16, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

disarray,

 

Yes, but...the discussion of far away places in a scientific sense, should be accompanied by a qualifier, of from what perspective one is speaking...and the purpose of the hypothesis in terms of how it relates to us, and when that connection will be made. If there is no way to verify the truth of the contention within our lifetimes then the contention itself is not a scientific one, but instead a philosophic one, or perhaps just a flight of fancy or an exercise in thought experimentation, or perhaps an effort to establish a gods eye objective view of reality superior to that available to a human.

 

My efforts are to ground the scientist in the data available, not to derail the conversation. If it is guesswork, my guesses are equally valid to Lawrence's and I am as free to notice the implications of a measurement as any highly trained and highly skilled scientist. A scientist is not free to tell me what is happening on the other side of the Milky Way, because he is not privy to any special information about it. What he sees in his telescope is what the other side of the galaxy was doing 100,000 years ago. How can anyone around here know what it is doing today?

 

My repeated reference to this inability is pertinent to the topic, in that if we cannot know what is going on on the other side of our own galaxy, why would we trust our knowledge of what is going on on the other end of our universe...and what does this mean to anything we could possible say about what is going on in another universe, that we don't even have anything to say about to even run a thought experiment?

 

Regards. TAR

Disarray,

 

So you want the discussion to be a numerical one that could model the evolution of life based on first principles, basic laws and forces and guided only by random chance, and once the model works, test it against other universes, that have different factors and see if life could still develop under the other parameter. And simultaneously you want to establish that the model is so likely to produce life, that it would be unlikely that it has not run its course and produced life all over the galaxy an probably therefore all over the universe, simply because the universe is set up to produce life, so that is what it will do. On its own. By accident.

 

Regards, TAR

[disarray]

Tar. You state, "If there is no way to verify the truth of the contention within our lifetimes..then perhaps [speculation] just a flight of fancy or an exercise in thought experimentation

 

Well, one never knows until one tries.....Einstein's theories of relativity were almost entirely based on thought experiments with a bit of data used in conjunction with mathematics to make predictions that, indeed, continue to be verified after his death. People never dreamed that they would ever find any evidence of evolutionary theory....but hey, evidence is still pouring in to support it. Ditto for things such as quarks, Darwin's notion of evolution, etc.

 

But the point is that, even if we have to entirely speculate about some things, what scientists try to do is to build up a coherent "theory" of the universe, even if some of the parts of the puzzle can or never will be filled in....the flights of fancy serve to fill in the blanks sometimes just so we can continue putting together a particular model (e.g., as is the case with string theory, which most likely will never be "verified" in our lifetimes). And indeed, we often have to accept different degrees of verification and falsification in order to get our model to make sense sometimes, though there is of course a kind of limit to how much we can fudge the data or make hypothetical assumptions.

 

We have already agreed a few posts back that scientists do indeed have a better idea of what is beyond our immediate perceptions, e.g., determining what happens in parts of a second after the Big Bang based upon extrapolations made from the data from such things as background cosmic radiation, so I don't know why you (it seems to me) backtracking now.

 

Of course, if a scientist has no data or feasible mathematical models whatsoever, his or her ideas about something such as a multiverse or even the probability of life on other planets is no more worth listening to than a two-year-old's....but that is not the case. You are merely harping over an obvious tautology that if you know nothing, than you know no more than someone else who knows nothing.

 

I think its best, rather than making generalizations, to talk about specific examples. Here's one: The U.S. government spends billions and billions of dollars trying to find life on other planets in our own solar system as well as millions and millions of dollars on space radio telescopes searching the skies for signals from living creatures on planets in other distant solar systems. Do you think the scientists behind this project are out of touch with what people are or should be concerned with? Do you think Rocky Balboa knows just as much about the possibility of life on Mars as his bowling pal, Seth Shostak, senior astronomer at the SETI Institute, who predicted that scientists will find life beyond our own planet within our own lifetime?

 

You state that "What [a scientist] sees in his telescope is what the other side of the galaxy was doing 100,000 years ago. How can anyone around here know what it is doing today?"

 

Well, yes that is obviously true, but again, we have a pretty good picture about what is going on with galaxies because we can see general patterns that enable us to understand why some stars collapse or explode, or to watch what happens when galaxies collide, etc., etc. And there will always be various time lags, from a couple of seconds to several thousand or million light years when we peer through the lens...but hey, is that any reason to think we shouldn't be looking at the skies trying to figure things out, or that scientists don't know any more than Joe Blow about astronomy in general....of course not.

Edited June 16, 2016 by disarray

[marieltrokan]

It's possible that the Universe is a recreation; a means to the source of existence fulfilling its need, in order to achieve its potential. In this sense the Universe isn't division from the source, but the source re-existing.

 

 

[disarray]

marieltrokan:

 

Yes, "re-creation" is a good way to put it.

 

The idea that there is so much barren desert, so to speak, of empty space and burning stars in proportion to our lonely earth has prompted some atheists and agnostics to state that this fact suggests that there is no God(s) since, they ask, "Why would he/she bother to make so much excess real estate?"

 

Though I am not arguing one way or the other for the existence of God, I think that such statements will eventually prove to show a lack of knowledge about the way that nature unfolds. My own belief is that it is inevitable that the universe creates life, but in any case, whether one is talking about life in terms of evolution on the surface of our planet (e.g, sperm needed to fertilize and egg), or the appearance of life forms on other planets (so many planets lie barren), the universe is a dice game in which a lot of dice have to be thrown before we get a 7. ( I also like the metaphor of a bingo game in this regard)

 

But yes, were we to know more about the universe, I would suggest that more and more are churned out, or perhaps our own periodically regenerates at and explode once again. In terms of eternity, 13.7 billion years is not that long a period, so it seems that it should all happen again in one way or another.

 

In any case, my guess is that however abrupt the origins of the universe might be, and how much apparently needless suffering and waster there seems to be, the universe is calmly going about its business, knowing full well (if it could) that everything is under control and just as it should be.

Edited June 17, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

disarray,

 

So, thank you for your continued thoughtful and helpful responses. It has been hard for me on this board to ever feel like my questions are being answered, or even understood, and you seem to take things as I mean them, more than is usual and I appreciate that. My comments are mostly opinion with insights and an attempt at a consistent world view, so, as you say I usually am not saying anything new. Where I have figured it right, it is just obviously true stuff I have to say, where I have figured it wrong I just talk nonsense...but I keep repeating the same situation about something far away being unknown because there is this duality to the truth that is not always qualified and stated in a way where I know which way a talker is meaning a thing. Perhaps you can help answer this constant query of mine, and perhaps the answer in some way can help clarify the vague start in this thread.

 

Let's take a star 3 lys from here, and say a true thing about it. Well actually let's say two true things about it, that contradict each other, which is against the rules of logic, but completely in character with the universe. That star is shining in our sky tonight. That star's current shining will not be noticeable in our sky for 3 years.

 

Which is true? If both are true, why do we not qualify which aspect we are considering true when we talk about what the star is currently doing?

 

Regards, TAR

the answer to this question has direct implication to the understanding of such statements as "the universe is currently accelerating its expansion" and therefore related to such questions as "is there currently intelligent life on other planets, and can change the point of view from which one is asking the question about other universes. That is, if two things can be said, that are true of one thing, that are contradictory, can "another" universe just be this one, from another point of view?

that is, if this universe is a square, from one angle, and a circle from another would you count that as one or two universes?

Edited June 17, 2016 by tar

[disarray]

Tar: I think your question about lys is really a question for a physics expert, though philosophy (of science) is not irrelevant to the question. I tinker with physics because it deals with philosophical issues, which is really my interest, but I don't have the knack for physics that I do for philosophy.

In any case, there is an interesting clip that addresses your issue: http://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows/through-the-wormhole/is-there-a-universal-now/

It is narrated by Morgan Freeman, which is, I think, quite appropriate given his role in the film, Lucy, which I would also recommend your watching if you haven't already.

I know that physics in particular seems to often be self-contradictory (e.g., the notion of superposition), but I think that eventually physicists will be able to explain things in ways which are less confusing to themselves as well as to others. I am not necessarily convinced that there are other universes. And no, I don't see, just off the top of my head, that 'another ' universe is ours from another point of view.

In any case, it is important not to have too high expectations about having a high degree of truth about things....There has been to some extent an indeterminacy revolution over the last 100 years which suggests that science's (e.g., Laplace's) dream of having absolute truth about anything is an impossible one.

The distant star that Gatsby sees from the balcony of his mansion may be burnt out millions of years ago from some hypothetical God’s eye view, though his beloved Daisy across the Bay may have put out the lights to the house a split second before he actually sess the lights go out himself. Nothing he experiences is in his present...everything in his surroundings provides a sort of museum.

 

Like horses in a field of alfalfa, humans often tend to want too much of a good thing, and this, perhaps applies to those who want absolute truth, or to know everything (as Faust did) or to know everything about what their friend is thinking (and vice versa), etc. Indeed, the idea that science can’t give us as much truth about things as we would like has quite an effect on some people (e.g., John Nash, had a breakdown trying to deal with the apparent inconsistencies of quantum theory…something that also upset Einstein but to a lesser extent).

Even though it may be good to brainstorm an issue as Einstein did (i.e., boarding himself up in a room for two weeks to pencil out the theory of relativity), ultimately, as Jung suggested, it is important to adopt the principle of moderation by balancing rationality with emotional and intuitive responses to ones surroundings….which is probably what you ultimately think it is important to do, anyway.

Edited June 17, 2016 by disarray

[Memammal]

In any case, there is an interesting clip that addresses your issue: http://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows/through-the-wormhole/is-there-a-universal-now/

Thank you for that clip, disarray. It should hopefully help TAR not only to get a better understanding of the block universe model but also with his time : distance puzzle. The explanation re the latter seems to stop just a bit short, but I assume that there are follow-up clips that one could retrieve.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Memammal

[tar]

disarray,

No, the clip doesn't work for me. I get the different angle slice thing, but it is only helpful in understanding the effect of position and motion on the order of events, it has nothing to say about what happens to right of the present. That is, you can slice the cake different ways but the whole cake is to the left and everybody is on the right edge of the cake together, at the moment from a gods eye view. Or to put it another way, I figure there must be a universal now happening to provide the past events we will be seeing later. The clip starts with there is no universal now, and states the future has already happened which is absolutely not required to explain seeing events in a different order depending on your position and movement.

 

And there is no explanation for why it is required that the future already exists. It is not required to explain relativity, and makes no sense, and has no reason to be the case, so why is it a premise in the block universe idea? Makes more sense to consider that the entire place is currently the icing on the right end of the cake, and all slices of time are made through the events that are 13.8 billion years old and younger.

 

Regards, TAR

[Strange]

Thank you for that clip, disarray. It should hopefully help TAR not only to get a better understanding of the block universe model but also with his time : distance puzzle. The explanation re the latter seems to stop just a bit short, but I assume that there are follow-up clips that one could retrieve.

 

I have spent hours (possibly hundreds of hours) trying to (a) get my head round tar's mental model of time and (b) trying to get hime to understand a more "normal" model.

 

I have come to the conclusion that both these are impossible! But good luck. Maybe someone will learn something... (Tar was on my ignore list for a while because of this topic, but he is a smart guy with many interesting things to say so that didn't last long. I just ignore this subject now!)

[tar]

Lets say for instance you are blessed with the ability to imaginarily travel faster than light, toward a galaxy we see now as it was when it was 12 billion years old. As you approach it, it will be incrediblly blue shifted in appearance and will appear to be burning and evolving in fast motion, because when you arrive at the star it will be as it looks to exist in the 13.8 billion year old universe, as there is only one instance of that star, and everything in the universe is 13.8 billion years old, or less.

 

So our future is on its way here, but when it arrives it will be our present and look like a past event. There is nothing that has not happened yet that has already happened.

Edited June 17, 2016 by tar

[marieltrokan]

What about forums themselves? Or chat shows and newspapers? Do you think it's an error if these are not needed but part of the story of reality upgrading itself?

In my mind, error is need being both an ability and an inability. Could the story of the Universe be the resolution of this battle?

[tar]

Strange,

 

I thank you for the many hours you have spent in conversation, debate and instruction related to my issue.

 

I have just lost three different posts explaining the insight that started me on this way of mine of viewing the surrounding universe in a consistent way.

 

I will try again here.

 

Years ago while on Guardian Talk I had this thought while discussing far away events, that an event is not over once it happens but continues outward. Consider a supernova 3000 lys away. Pretend it is spewing material out at half the speed of light. We see the flash today and then in another 3000 years we are hit by the material. The supernova "happened" 3000 years ago, in order for the photons to reach here today, but is the event truly over? I thought at the time, that the event truly was happening when the photons hit the Earth. Real photons, actually hitting our eyeballs and instrument. The event is not a past event. The photons were released 3000 years ago, but they have been on their way in an ever expanding spherical shell ever since, and once this flash passes the Earth, it will continue to expand outward and will reach a galaxy to the left of ours and a galaxy to the right of ours at the same time. That is an observer 1 million lys that way, and another observer a million lyrs the other way will see the flash at the same time 1 million years after the photons were released, meantime when we look at that spot we see only the expanding gas cloud left by the explosion.

 

This idea sets up a consistent worldview, where each location in space has events passing through it, from all directions and all distances, but there are actual photons and particles involved so the events are not "over", they are actually happening where the photons and particles from the event are striking other atoms or human eye or recording equipment.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited June 17, 2016 by tar

[Memammal]

It's possible that the Universe is a recreation; a means to the source of existence fulfilling its need, in order to achieve its potential. In this sense the Universe isn't division from the source, but the source re-existing.

I did not quite understand this earlier post. Were you implying that the existing whole "block" universe is already there but that the universe recreates itself "in the observers' minds" as it is being observed slice for slice..? If so, yes, but I am not convinced it is reliant on observers to achieve its potential.

 

What about forums themselves? Or chat shows and newspapers? Do you think it's an error if these are not needed but part of the story of reality upgrading itself?

In my mind, error is need being both an ability and an inability. Could the story of the Universe be the resolution of this battle?

In a way, yes. We observe data, process it (think and comment about it) and "store" the information in a "cloud service" where it becomes our common reality.

 

but there are actual photons and particles involved so the events are not "over", they are actually happening where the photons and particles from the event are striking other atoms or human eye or recording equipment.

I was not sure how- and if I should react to your latest posts. Let me just answer this part that I copied here, which is where you get it wrong. What you are referring to is a perceived (illusionary) time delay between the event happening and it being observed somewhere else (the "time" that it takes for the light photons to reach the observer), while in actual fact (if you had a bird's eye view) the event just occurred in a different time-space configuration (location). I am expecting an answer such as we don't have a bird's eye view or a universal reader. Yes, we don't and as such we are "restricted" by our observation capacity. Our observation capacity does not change the "actuality" of the bigger picture though. Think of looking at distant lightning and only hearing the thunder a bit later. Now take yourself inside the house where you can't see the lightning but you can still hear it. When does the lightning strike? (And if you can't see or hear it, does that imply there is no lightning on the other side of the mountain?) It is important that you should realise that an event is not reliant on whether it is being observed or not. As such it does not matter how-, when- and if we observe it.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Memammal

[marieltrokan]

I think what I meant is that the Universe isn't without a beginning, but that the identity of the beginning and the status quo represent no division; the original force of existence "is" the status quo, but has had to convert itself because of need.

The issue I'm trying to resolve is the duplication of ability: if the original force's point is to achieve, how does one reconcile the divide between ability being a means to the achievement, and the achievement itself?

 

 

If the original force needed to change, because of the problem of identity and divide being separate, can this original force cease the separation without betraying the principle of no duplication?

[Memammal]

I think I will leave this one ^ for the pro philosophers on the forum.

[tar]

mermammal,

 

but the difference between the lightning strike and the thunder is easily seen/heard, but one assumes they saw the lightning when it happened, where even those photons that announced the flash took some time to get from the electron discharge to your eye and the strike itself was not a point source, as the electrons left one cloud and leapt to the other, or went from ground to sky or sky to ground

 

The delay is not illusory, it actually takes time for the electrons to jump and for the photons to travel from event to eye. If you are to claim the lightning happened when it hit your eye, then you are on my side of this argument.

 

The event occurs when you see it. And imaginarily you know it actually had to have occurred earlier since the location was remote.

 

Regards, TAR

extend this thought to very close and quick things, that are STILL remote

 

part of the uncertainty principle is about not being able to in truth fix both the position and momentum of a particle...but if one takes a place where the particle must have been and another place it must have been at some later time and interpolate an imagine the trip between the two points, and one knows when the particle was at position A and when it was at position B, then one could imaginarily guess that during the time between the particle was in transit, while in transit, halfway between you can figure both its position and its momentum...or so I would think, as long as you don't claim to figure it leaves A at the same time as it arrives at B