The age of the universe thread

Originally posted by apathist
Map v terrain. A description of something v that something itself. Physics math v physical reality. The word 'tree' v the tree.

And?

Your last two sentences. They merely restate that space itself can expand - and not because the things in it move apart. Rather, the things in it can move apart because the space itself can expand. Which leaves my question unaddressed. What does space itself consist of such that it can expand?
Have you considered the possibility that it is the laws of physics that might be changing?

Actually go faster than c? We've observed this have we?
Yes.

More likely, you merely conflate suggestions derived from physics maths with the actual nature of reality.
No. I am not nearly as confused about map vs reality as you appear to be.

Originally posted by apathist
How comfortable you are with offering an assertion that contains a direct contradiction. I bet you were unaware of it. Some sort of cognitive dissonance.

No cognitive dissonance necessary as no contradiction was made. Just somewhat loose language.

Originally posted by apathist
Well okay then. So what is it?

Its volume in three dimensions; I am sure you would find that a disappointing answer but its like "asking what is time if time is 'something'?"; or like asking "what is the meaning of life if meaning is 'something'"; it is extremely unlikely you would ever get a satisfying and reasonably meaningful answer.

I wonder too, should it ('empty' space, which is something but I don't what) be considered as different from whatever surrounded the original singularity? In what way?

As far as current science generally assumes, there was nothing, not even empty space, surrounding the original singularity (at the start of BB) thus that is an unanswerable question. Even ever since the big bang, the still continues to be, as far as current science generally assumes, no space or anything else 'surrounding' the universe. Even if there exists other universe, it would probably be incorrect to say they 'surround' our universe because that would imply some sort of 'space' between them, which we have no evidence of nor reason to believe exists.

originally posted by twhitehead
And?
You asked; I answered. And... your response was an opportunity to demonstrate reading comprehension and perhaps offer insight or something.

Have you considered the possibility that it is the laws of physics that might be changing?
Yes. Why do you ask? Is it supposed to suggest an answer to my question?

Yes.
Here is where a person interested in honest communication would have attempted to offer some sort of justification for his assertion.

No, we have not observed anything moving faster than c.

No. I am not nearly as confused about map vs reality as you appear to be.
You've amply demonstrated your confusion. Also you've amply demonstrated your tendency to offer tit for tat when you have no point.

No cognitive dissonance necessary as no contradiction was made. Just somewhat loose language.
You posted a direct contradiction, regardless of how loose the language was. That you are unaware of this indicates you have another huge fundamental blind spot that inhibits your ability to communicate, in addition to the other three blind spots I've already pointed out.

And look! Once again no progress made towards clarifying issues or reaching resolution! I'd think you do that on purpose except that since you have those four giant communication deficiencies I suppose its likely you just have a fifth one as well.

originally posted by humy
Its volume in three dimensions; I am sure you would find that a disappointing answer but its like "asking what is time if time is 'something'?"; or like asking "what is the meaning of life if meaning is 'something'"; it is extremely unlikely you would ever get a satisfying and reasonably meaningful answer.
If that were so, then there is nothing to expand or curve, and the two analogies (meant to help explain gravity and also the fact that the farther away other galaxies are from us the faster they are moving away) don't make sense.

As far as current science generally assumes, there was nothing, not even empty space, ...
Look what you just did. You made a distinction between 'nothing' and 'empty space'. Obvious as sunshine you imply that empty space is something other than nothing.

As far as current science generally assumes, there was nothing, not even empty space, surrounding the original singularity (at the start of BB) thus that is an unanswerable question. Even ever since the big bang, the still continues to be, as far as current science generally assumes, no space or anything else 'surrounding' the universe. Even if there exists other universe, it would probably be incorrect to say they 'surround' our universe because that would imply some sort of 'space' between them, which we have no evidence of nor reason to believe exists.
I am sure science does not make that assumption. Science makes assumptions based only on evidence, and we no evidence other than what we find here in our universe. Here you're talking about philosophy, not science.

Originally posted by apathist
originally posted by [b] humy
Its volume in three dimensions; I am sure you would find that a disappointing answer but its like "asking what is time if time is 'something'?"; or like asking "what is the meaning of life if meaning is 'something'"; it is extremely unlikely you would ever get a satisfying and reasonably meaningful answer.
...[text shortened]... other than what we find here in our universe. Here you're talking about philosophy, not science.[/b]

Its volume in three dimensions; I am sure you would find that a disappointing answer but ...
....
If that were so, then there is nothing to expand or curve,

How on earth do you conclude that? Why can't space curve or expand if it is volume in three dimensions?

As far as current science generally assumes, there was nothing, not even empty space, ...
Look what you just did. You made a distinction between 'nothing' and 'empty space'.

Correct. Empty space isn't 'nothing'.

Obvious as sunshine you imply that empty space is something other than nothing.

Correct. That is what I have been explicitly saying all along. Space is something.

As far as current science generally assumes, there was nothing, not even empty space, surrounding the original singularity (at the start of BB)
...
I am sure science does not make that assumption.

Then you assume wrong. Science quite rightly makes that assumption for the reasons I just gave. I have studied basic physics at university and I can tell you science DOES indeed make the assumption that there was no space surrounding it; and for some good reasons.

Science makes assumptions based only on evidence, and we no evidence other than what we find here in our universe.

Exactly! so where is the empirical evidence (or, if not, some deductive reason to believe) within our universe that there was space outside that initial singularity?

Here you're talking about philosophy, not science.

No, I am talking about what science says. And it wouldn't be even valid 'philosophy' let alone science to assert without evidence that space existed outside that initial singularity; that would be just wild speculation.

Originally posted by apathist
Here is where a person interested in honest communication ......

......when you have no point.

Sorry, but I have never seen you even attempt honest communication.
You believe I have no point because you didn't read my post. Your loss

originally posted by humy
How on earth do you conclude that? Why can't space curve or expand if it is volume in three dimensions?
I'm perplexed about why you're perplexed by the question. A volume of gas can expand or contract by heating or cooling it. The volume within a container can increase or decrease by changing the size of the container. Do either of those situations seem to describe the situation here?

Empty space isn't 'nothing'.
Space is something.
Right. Space is a 3d volume. Volume of what? (And we can't say it's a 3d volume of empty space because that is circular.)

Then you assume wrong. Science quite rightly makes that assumption for the reasons I just gave. I have studied basic physics at university and I can tell you science DOES indeed make the assumption that there was no space surrounding it; and for some good reasons.
You are wrong on this point. There may be good reasons for such assumptions, but those assumptions are not made by science. The natural sciences study the material universe; the social sciences study people and societies; and there are applied sciences and maybe formal sciences like math. No science studies what is outside of our universe for the very good reason that we cannot access it.

Scientists and university professors teaching science can speculate about what is outside our universe, but then they are waxing philosophical and are not speaking for science.

Exactly! so where is the empirical evidence (or, if not, some deductive reason to believe) within our universe that there was space outside that initial singularity?
Exactly! so where is the empirical evidence (or, if not, some deductive reason to believe) within our universe that there was no space outside that initial singularity?

Seriously, if 'space' refers to the 3d volume of our universe, I'd say that outside of our universe must be something like uberspace (a term I made up long ago to capture this concept). Because by visualizing the initial singularity we have to recognize that it (the singularity) was bounded - it had a boundary, which implies the other side of that boundary must have some sort of existence. This may be a failure of imagination caused by the nature of our psychology but there it is.

No, I am talking about what science says. And it wouldn't be even valid 'philosophy' let alone science to assert without evidence that space existed outside that initial singularity; that would be just wild speculation.
No, science doesn't speak of things it cannot access. I'm sure you refer to philosophy based on science rather than science (or scientific findings) itself. Regardless, I'm irked at your double standard here. We have no evidence from outside of our universe, so your speculation that it would be nothing not even empty space is at least as wild as mine that it would be something akin to empty space.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Sorry, but I have never seen you even attempt honest communication.
You believe I have no point because you didn't read my post. Your loss

Projection. Par for your course. You have serious issues, my man. I'm sorry your joie de vivre is so stunted. 🙁

Originally posted by apathist
originally posted by [b]humy
How on earth do you conclude that? Why can't space curve or expand if it is volume in three dimensions?
I'm perplexed about why you're perplexed by the question. A volume of gas can expand or contract by heating or cooling it. The volume within a container can increase or decrease by changing the size of the ...[text shortened]... not even empty space is at least as wild as mine that it would be something akin to empty space.[/b]

The 3d volume of space can be defined as the area (of space) between objects such as planets, stars, asteroids etc. Space didn't exist at the singularity because there were no distinct objects separated by space. The idea of nothingness is difficult to grasp and cannot be visualized because there is (quite literally) nothing there to grasp onto or visualize.

Originally posted by lemon lime
The 3d volume of space can be defined as the area (of space) between objects such as planets, stars, asteroids etc.

No, that would be a flawed definition of 3d volume of space because it would be significantly incomplete. Not sure if such a definition can ever be reconciled with general relativity and spacetime curvature etc, but I doubt it. We also can validly conceive of a 3d volume of space without reference to specific objects as there is no logical contradiction of that concept; the mere fact that we can do that without contradictions proves we don't need reference to specific objects to define it. Whether a universe exists or at least is causally possible to exist with empty space within it but with no objects within it anywhere is an entirely different matter, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with a valid definition of empty space.

The idea of nothingness is difficult to grasp and cannot be visualized

and empty space isn't nothingness and I find it easy to grasp.

because there is (quite literally) nothing there to grasp onto or visualize.

You can, without contradictions, very easily visualize imaginary boundary lines around some arbitrarily defined volume of empty space thus showing empty space isn't nothingness for it is nonsense to talk about 'imaginary boundary lines around' nothingness or 'volumes' of nothingness for that would imply the nonsense that you can have a quantity of nothingness!

So empty space isn't nothingness. Then what is it. That's been my question all along.

Originally posted by apathist
So empty space isn't nothingness. Then what is it. That's been my question all along.

The kind of answer to that question you want doesn't exist. It isn't possible to fully define the meaning of literally each and every word in the language without getting into invalid meaningless circular definitions (defining x only as its relation to y but then define y only as its relation to x thus define neither x or y) for those of the most basic concepts; 'space' is one of those such words.
The best we can do is define its relation with other things and define some of its properties but the question if 'what is it' is pretty much meaningless if what you are really asking is 'what is it' beyond what we experience of it or how we measure it.

Originally posted by humy
No, that would be a flawed definition of 3d volume of space because it would be significantly incomplete. Not sure if such a definition can ever be reconciled with general relativity and spacetime curvature etc, but I doubt it. We also can validly conceive of a 3d volume of space without reference to specific objects as there is no logical contradiction of that ...[text shortened]... othingness for that would imply the nonsense that you can have a quantity of nothingness!

No, that would be a flawed definition of 3d volume of space because it would be significantly incomplete.

That's why I said "can" be defined rather than 'is' defined.

I don't know how you're able to talk about space without saying something (anything) definitive about it. If a definition (any definition) of space doesn't allow for distances then how do you go about measuring distances? Distances in a singularity can't be measured before expansion because there are no distinctly separated points to measure.

Originally posted by lemon lime

I don't know how you're able to talk about space without saying something (anything) definitive about it. [/b]

That is incorrect; I can say much about it except saying much about what what it is. I can say much about its properties and relations with other things, such as distances, areas, volumes, spacetime etc; but that by itself isn't a definition.

If a definition (any definition) of space doesn't allow for distances

Whether we have really properly defined what space actually is or not, either way, we can still talk about distances in space or between objects and we still can measure distances. Measurements don't depend on a good definition of what it is we are measuring.