22 Aug 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeAnother reason why where did everything come from was never answered in the Big Bang.
'Where' the singularity was [if it existed] is easy to answer.
It was everywhere.
It wasn't an event that happened 'in space', all of space and time were contained inside it.
Everything and everywhere, from where you are now to the most distant galaxies and beyond were all inside
this one point.
A place is something, so it is part of everything, a thing that contains other stuff is a thing
that contains other stuff, and other stuff is in the container, again not something from
nothing.
22 Aug 15
Originally posted by vistesdI believe the request itself is incoherent but our intuition has difficulty with it.
I have no clue.
We are comfortable with the Euclidean plane with two infinite dimensions. We can also happily handle three dimensions. Introduce a fourth and our minds just can't handle it intuitively. But what I am introducing instead is polar coordinates where any point on the plane is defined by an angle and distance from the origin. Interestingly the angle dimension is finite ( 0 - 360 degrees) yet wraps around itself in such a way that we are quite happy going beyond 360 or less than 0 and covering old ground.
But what about r, the distance from the origin? That dimension is finite in one direction and infinite in the other. It doesn't make a lot of sense to have a negative distance from the origin. One could handle a negative r as being on the other side of the origin I suppose and that way we would merely be covering old ground as we do with the angle. But it is less intuitively the case that we should do that.
Also, we have managed to cover the whole euclidean plane formerly defined by two infinite dimensions with two new dimensions one of which is finite and the other is finite in one direction.
22 Aug 15
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadWith an infinite plane isn't identification of an "origin" arbitrary? (I'm really now out of my depth in terms of maths.)
I believe the request itself is incoherent but our intuition has difficulty with it.
We are comfortable with the Euclidean plane with two infinite dimensions. We can also happily handle three dimensions. Introduce a fourth and our minds just can't handle it intuitively. But what I am introducing instead is polar coordinates where any point on the plane i ...[text shortened]... ensions with two new dimensions one of which is finite and the other is finite in one direction.
Originally posted by moonbusThe evidence I cite is evidence, circumstantial...really it goes to the point of the whole
The 'evidence' you cite is circumstantial at best. That animals exist is not in doubt; that God created them is another matter entirely,
So what does the creation myth offer: creation ex nihilo.
What is creation ex nihilo but everything from nothing--exactly what you say is incomprehensible, inexplicable, impossible. A great big mystery. ...[text shortened]... rtue that it does not require belief in magic, and no one doubts the existence of physical laws.
process, those that want to do away with it maybe because it doesn't fit their view
of reality. Animals exist no doubt, how they got here, what processes do we see that they
are going through are real questions, and just saying God is a myth or mystery is also
coloring all other views on the same topic that do not have air tight proofs.
I acknowledge what we can see and test in the here and now as solid evidence for what
I believe to be true about the past, those that wish to believe in a common ancestor for
all life have to look at fossils and draw upon their imaginations/theories/best guesses/
educated guesses/and so on to find ways to make the pieces fit what they believe. I'm not
doing that I'll accept those things we can do today from beginning to end. I'm not the
one claiming what I believe about the past is anything more than what I believe, my faith.
I'm at least honest about it, and I'm not attempting to belittle another by bringing in a
Magic Fairy to dismiss their point of view. I believe those that come up with the dots are
doing their level best to get it right, and they are hampered by what they think occurred.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
22 Aug 15
Originally posted by KellyJayThat wasn't the point. [and no, math is not 'just numbers', in fact only a subset of mathematics deals with 'numbers']
Math doesn't always reflect reality as good as it is, it is still just numbers.
In science mathematics is the language used to describe reality.
However the map is not the territory, which is why science is always updating and improving itself.
22 Aug 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeI like your way of describing it better and it also shows my point for what it was. The map
That wasn't the point. [and no, math is not 'just numbers', in fact only a subset of mathematics deals with 'numbers']
In science mathematics is the language used to describe reality.
However the map is not the territory, which is why science is always updating and improving itself.
must be updated all the time in an ever ending cycle of improvement, it has to because
our knowledge is so wanting with respect to reality.
So can you describe how everything can come from nothing, doing nothing, to nothing?
If you cannot describe it, you believe it can happen?
23 Aug 15
Originally posted by vistesdYes. It is tempting but wrong to assign special meaning to the origin. Space-time is a little different as one dimension - time - is directional which does set it apart from the other three and makes it more natural to choose it as a dimension. But I am sure that it is still possible to use a completely different set of 4 dimensions and still cover every point in space-time.
With an infinite plane isn't identification of an "origin" arbitrary? (I'm really now out of my depth in terms of maths.)
The important things I wish to get at with this discussion of dimensions are:
1. Everything that can be measured using a dimension has a point on that dimension. One cannot rightfully talk of a point being beyond the end of a dimension. Anything that cannot be measured on a dimension is not 'off the end' but rather everywhere and nowhere on that dimension.
2. Applying 1. to space, if space is finite (this is no a known fact) then it is wrong to think of it as a sphere with emptiness or nothing outside of it. (or even other space or other universes). There is no outside. In my polar coordinates example there are 360 degrees and that is it. You cannot go beyond them to another plane. If you do have another plane then it cannot be placed somewhere on the angular dimension. As far as your polar coordinates are concerned, a point on some other plane is everywhere and nowhere. It is unplottable.
3. The same applies to the time dimension. If time is finite (not a known fact) then all talk or before the start of time is incoherent. Anything external to time is everywhere and nowhere and even if something external to space-time did create the universe, it created it as a whole in some other timeline, it did not create the big bang and then watch it unfold and it does not exist before the big bang. Rather it creates the universe as a static whole (from its point of view) and from our point of view it would be static too.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
23 Aug 15
Originally posted by avalanchethecatActually, looks like I'm not going to get this finished this weekend.
Well ok, I'll try to follow you on this, but from what I've read around the web on Bayes theorum you're on pretty shaky ground using it on this particular argument.
I'll post a new thread when I have got it done.
I would rather spend more time and have it be more polished than try to rush for an arbitrary deadline.
23 Aug 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadThank you. I think I'm starting to get it.
Yes. It is tempting but wrong to assign special meaning to the origin. Space-time is a little different as one dimension - time - is directional which does set it apart from the other three and makes it more natural to choose it as a dimension. But I am sure that it is still possible to use a completely different set of 4 dimensions and still cover every ...[text shortened]... se as a static whole (from its point of view) and from our point of view it would be static too.
24 Aug 15
tw: "1. Everything that can be measured using a dimension has a point on that dimension. One cannot rightfully talk of a point being beyond the end of a dimension. Anything that cannot be measured on a dimension is not 'off the end' but rather everywhere and nowhere on that dimension.
2. Applying 1. to space, if space is finite (this is no a known fact) then it is wrong to think of it as a sphere with emptiness or nothing outside of it. (or even other space or other universes). There is no outside. In my polar coordinates example there are 360 degrees and that is it. You cannot go beyond them to another plane. If you do have another plane then it cannot be placed somewhere on the angular dimension. As far as your polar coordinates are concerned, a point on some other plane is everywhere and nowhere. It is unplottable.
3. The same applies to the time dimension. If time is finite (not a known fact) then all talk or before the start of time is incoherent. Anything external to time is everywhere and nowhere and even if something external to space-time did create the universe, it created it as a whole in some other timeline, it did not create the big bang and then watch it unfold and it does not exist before the big bang. Rather it creates the universe as a static whole (from its point of view) and from our point of view it would be static too."
In sum, "before time" is nonsense (a category mistake, a howler); the concept "before" applies only to processes within some temporal frame of reference, not to time itself. Similarly, "outside space" is nonsense; "inside" and "outside" apply only to places within some spacial frame of reference, not to space itself.
Extrapolating these ideas: there cannot have been any time or place from which the universe came. Time and space apply only within the universe, not to the universe.
Extrapolating this idea: the universe neither came from nothing nor did it not come from nothing; it neither came from something nor did it not come from something. "Coming from" applies only to things within the universe, not to the universe as a whole.
"How can everything have come from nothing?" is therefore a malformed question. A howler.
I side with the Buddhists on this one: the origin of the universe is undefined. Like dividing by zero.
24 Aug 15
Originally posted by moonbusIt isn't a malformed question, it is one that science no matter how it tries has an answer
tw: "1. Everything that can be measured using a dimension has a point on that dimension. One cannot rightfully talk of a point being beyond the end of a dimension. Anything that cannot be measured on a dimension is not 'off the end' but rather everywhere and nowhere on that dimension.
2. Applying 1. to space, if space is finite (this is no a known fact) th ...[text shortened]... with the Buddhists on this one: the origin of the universe is undefined. Like dividing by zero.
for. Space and time if there were nothing, would be part of everything, which means they
would not be here as they are somethings. With NOTHING, there is no reaction, no
changes that could cause something to do anything, because there would be nothing to
change. You can dance around the question, what you cannot do is give a good answer
to it.
24 Aug 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeThat's good, I'd prefer your polished views too. Whenever you're ready is fine by me.
Actually, looks like I'm not going to get this finished this weekend.
I'll post a new thread when I have got it done.
I would rather spend more time and have it be more polished than try to rush for an arbitrary deadline.
