New evidence of previous universes:

Originally posted by TitusvE
I don't agree. Our laws of physics don't say anything about the initial conditions of the universe. Starting from a certain starting condition, our physics laws aim to predict how it is evolving. The big bang theory evolves from observations of the motion of the planets and stars around us as far as we can see. Backpropagating the equations of motion seem t ...[text shortened]... fferent big bang, but it is so far away that is doesn't interfere with our big-bang-universe.

That is what the implication of the circles in the CMB shows, that in fact our universe WAS effected by being 'bumped' by another universe, the idea being they could be side by side in a higher dimensional sense and still interact.

That said, it is still conjecture till stronger evidence comes in.

Originally posted by TitusvE
Sorry. Your reply in confusing as you interrupt my quote several times while giving a reply which is exactly the same as the continuation of my story. In the end I could not tell whether you agree or disagree with me.

I disagree that:

1, “....Our laws of physics don't say anything about the initial conditions of the universe. ...”

that is because I agree that:

2, “....Backpropagating the equations of motion seem to suggest that maybe all these objects came originally from a single point ...”

assuming I haven’t misunderstood your meanings, 2, contradicts 1, because:
Proposition 2 being true implies proposition 1 is false because those ”equations” said in 2 are the expression of the laws of physics and so 2 implies that the “laws of physics” can tell us that everything “ came originally from a single point” (as you said) and since “a single point” is an example of a “initial conditions of the universe” (in 1 ) , proposition 2 implies the laws of physics say something about the initial conditions of the universe. Have I misunderstood your comments?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I disagree that:

1, “....Our laws of physics don't say anything about the initial conditions of the universe. ...”

that is because I agree that:

2, “....Backpropagating the equations of motion seem to suggest that maybe all these objects came originally from a single point ...”

assuming I haven’t misunderstood your meanings, 2, ...[text shortened]... say something about the initial conditions of the universe. Have I misunderstood your comments?

Well, that is because I make the distinction between laws of physics, which we may hope to be true everywhere in the whole universe/all universes AND the observation of the current state. However, this observation is limited to our observation horizon. We can just reason that everything that we see came from a single big-bang. But, in my view, it is a centralistic view that EVERYTHING, even matter far beyond our observation horizon, comes from the same big bang.

Originally posted by TitusvE
Well, that is because I make the distinction between laws of physics, which we may hope to be true everywhere in the whole universe/all universes AND the observation of the current state. However, this observation is limited to our observation horizon. We can just reason that everything that we see came from a single big-bang. But, in my view, it is a centra ...[text shortened]... w that EVERYTHING, even matter far beyond our observation horizon, comes from the same big bang.

The notion that not everything came from the same big bang does not contradict the notion that laws of physics can say something about the initial conditions of the universe we observe.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
The notion that not everything came from the same big bang does not contradict the notion that laws of physics can say something about the initial conditions of the universe we observe.

The laws of physics + the observation of the current state can say something of an earlier state. But the laws of physics itself doesnot imply any initial state.

In my mind, from life's experience as a general bum, I see that principals of physics and such are created from observations we have made of the things around us and within, both looking far out and far within. We make make assumptions that everything is constant and that things should behave, within the parameters of the laws and equations we have drawn from our observations. On numerous occasions we have been proven wrong and have been forced to move the goal posts of our 'laws of physics' to incorporate each new anomaly that we have discovered. Even now with the sum of all of the greatest scientific and theological minds that live and have lived, we still fail to present a workable explanation to life and the universe.

I dream of seeing the day that makind can comprehend the immense thing that we live in and call 'The Universe', but I doubt very much that we will ever fully appreciate all of its complexities and quirks. Since the birth of our existence we have tried in vain to explain it through ideas such as gods, science and beyond.

Should we not just admit defeat and just appreciate it allfor all of its beauty and just accept that the human mind is just not capable of understanding something so massive and complex?

You can't fit a square peg in a round hole.

🙂

Originally posted by jimslyp69
Should we not just admit defeat and just appreciate it allfor all of its beauty and just accept that the human mind is just not capable of understanding something so massive and complex?

No, because this quest, although a "complete" understanding is unattainable, does give us some nifty gadgets like the computer you are sitting behind right now.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
No, because this quest, although a "complete" understanding is unattainable, does give us some nifty gadgets like the computer you are sitting behind right now.

I don't have a computer. I communicate with The Internet via the power of my mind. Ahhhhhhhhhh.

Originally posted by jimslyp69
I don't have a computer. I communicate with The Internet via the power of my mind. Ahhhhhhhhhh.

That last was a short folks. It will take him a while to recover.

Originally posted by TitusvE
The laws of physics + the observation of the current state can say something of an earlier state. But the laws of physics itself doesnot imply any initial state.

I see what you mean.
But isn't that like saying that the laws of physics does “not imply” anything about the orbit of the planets because only
laws of physics + observation of the current position and speeds of the planets
can say something of an earlier position of the planets?
I mean, in normal discourse, if most physicists were asked “does the laws of physics does imply anything about the orbit of the planets?” I would bet they would answer “yes”.

Originally posted by jimslyp69
In my mind, from life's experience as a general bum, I see that principals of physics and such are created from observations we have made of the things around us and within, both looking far out and far within. We make make assumptions that everything is constant and that things should behave, within the parameters of the laws and equations we have drawn f ...[text shortened]... ing something so massive and complex?

You can't fit a square peg in a round hole.

🙂

“...we still fail to present a workable explanation to life and the universe. ...”

we haven’t unified the laws of physics so I would agree that we certainly haven’t got a “complete” explanation of the workings of the universe but that doesn't diminish what we DO know (which is considerable) and I don't agree with you about; “we still fail to present a workable explanation to life”.
Sure we don't have a “complete” explanation of abiogenesis or of biology but nether of those two facts are surprising since abiogenesis happened a long time ago and modern biology is hugely complex and, with the help of knowledge of evolution, I would say there are no more really 'big' mystifying mysterious left; we just don't know some of the details. But we do know overall what must have happened and where all that complexity of life came from so I would say we HAVE, overall, a “workable explanation to life”.

“...Should we not just admit defeat and just appreciate it allfor all of its beauty and just accept that the human mind is just not capable of understanding something so massive and complex? ….”

if what you mean by “ just admit defeat” is not to try and rationally understand even part of it then I should point out that we already understand a considerable amount about it and what we don't understand does not diminish what we do understand and we are understanding more and more as a result of applying scientific method and there is no reason to not believe we can continue to understand more and more of it so what reason have we got to “ just admit defeat”?
And why cannot we NOT “ just admit defeat” AND continue to appreciate beauty?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I see what you mean.
But isn't that like saying that the laws of physics does “not imply” anything about the orbit of the planets because only
laws of physics + observation of the current position and speeds of the planets
can say something of an earlier position of the planets?
I mean, in normal discourse, if most physicists were asked “does th ...[text shortened]... ysics does imply anything about the orbit of the planets?” I would bet they would answer “yes”.

They sure say a lot about the planets orbits. They predict that orbits can be stable and elleptic or that they just pass in a parabolic orbit. The funny thing is that Kepler and his companions also tried to tabulate the radii of the planets because they thought that probably one a a few orbits were possible given the masses of the two planets.
In the end, they figured out that the radius was just arbitrary, but the idea made a triumphantly comeback in QM for the description of electrons around a nucleus

Originally posted by TitusvE
They sure say a lot about the planets orbits. They predict that orbits can be stable and elleptic or that they just pass in a parabolic orbit. The funny thing is that Kepler and his companions also tried to tabulate the radii of the planets because they thought that probably one a a few orbits were possible given the masses of the two planets.
In the end, ...[text shortened]... ut the idea made a triumphantly comeback in QM for the description of electrons around a nucleus

“...They sure say a lot about the planets orbits. ...”

yes, but would you say they say nothing about a particular orbit?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...They sure say a lot about the planets orbits. ...”

yes, but would you say they say nothing about a particular orbit?

Given a position and velocity it can predicts its orbits. But this position and velocity can be anything. It is not that from the Kepler's equation it makes common sense that we have only 8 planets in our solar system and that we can predict their average distances from the sun. Notice the difference with Mendeljejev's periodic table of elements or the prediction of the positron based on the Diracs equations. These are really consequences of the theoretical equations. Big-bang is not a consequence of the physics laws, it is just one of the many possible solutions. Although it seems consistent with our observations.

Originally posted by sonhouse
That last was a short folks. It will take him a while to recover.

Thank you. At least one person understands me and that is enough for me. 🙂