Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, I understand that. Everything, including time and space, began with that singular event.
Somewhere happened with a big bang.
That event, the source of our reality, occured in a vast ironic expanse of nothingness. But that nothingness had enough within it to spit out a universe! heh
Hence there must be an over-arching uber-reality, capable of producing typical regular realities, at least.
My college thermodynamics instructor pointed out how fortunate we are to live at a time when the universe is still far from heat death. He then remarked, "You can make a name for yourself if you can explain why the early universe had such low entropy."
Was it true that in the 1980s nobody had a good reason for this? If so, is it still true now?
Originally posted by Paul Dirac IIYou're the student. What have you learned? What is your opinion?
My college thermodynamics instructor pointed out how fortunate we are to live at a time when the universe is still far from heat death. He then remarked, "You can make a name for yourself if you can explain why the early universe had such low entropy."
Was it true that in the 1980s nobody had a good reason for this? If so, is it still true now?
Btw I like the fact that entropy proves time has a direction.
Originally posted by apathistI like the way everyone seems to be able to turn something into nothing when trying to explain the universe, but simultaneously cant accept something coming from nothing.
Yes, I understand that. Everything, including time and space, began with that singular event.
That event, the source of our reality, occured in a vast ironic expanse of nothingness. But that nothingness had enough within it to spit out a universe! heh
Hence there must be an over-arching uber-reality, capable of producing typical regular realities, at least.
The real problem is most people simply cannot picture finite dimensions. We always want to think outside the box.
If I ask you what is South of the South pole, you will refuse to accept that there is nothing, and that that nothing is not some uber reality, instead you will try to go outside the dimensions and try and find a way to extend Southness beyond the surface of the earth.
Originally posted by twhiteheadInteresting. But what you call "finite dimensions" (and based on your example) I'd call something like "arbitrary boundary". For sure there is a lot existing south of the Earth's south pole!
I like the way everyone seems to be able to turn something into nothing when trying to explain the universe, but simultaneously cant accept something coming from nothing.
The real problem is most people simply cannot picture finite dimensions. We always want to think outside the box.
If I ask you what is South of the South pole, you will refuse to accep ...[text shortened]... tside the dimensions and try and find a way to extend Southness beyond the surface of the earth.
Originally posted by Paul Dirac IIIt started out as something smaller than a proton, there isn't much scope for much disorder in something that big.
My college thermodynamics instructor pointed out how fortunate we are to live at a time when the universe is still far from heat death. He then remarked, "You can make a name for yourself if you can explain why the early universe had such low entropy."
Was it true that in the 1980s nobody had a good reason for this? If so, is it still true now?
Originally posted by apathistNo, there is nothing whatsoever South of the South Pole, not even nothingness.
Interesting. But what you call "finite dimensions" (and based on your example) I'd call something like "arbitrary boundary". For sure there is a lot existing south of the Earth's south pole!
Similarly, if time is solely a dimension of our universe and is finite in the past and started at the big bang, then it is meaningless to talk of 'before the big bang' or 'where the big bang took place' etc.
To give another analogy, that you will find it harder to skip out of the dimension and cheat, what is smaller than 0 metres?
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat is getting into metaphysics, sound of one hand crapping and all that.
No, there is nothing whatsoever South of the South Pole, not even nothingness.
Similarly, if time is solely a dimension of our universe and is finite in the past and started at the big bang, then it is meaningless to talk of 'before the big bang' or 'where the big bang took place' etc.
To give another analogy, that you will find it harder to skip out of the dimension and cheat, what is smaller than 0 metres?
Originally posted by twhitehead
No, there is nothing whatsoever South of the South Pole, not even nothingness.
Similarly, if time is solely a dimension of our universe and is finite in the past and started at the big bang, then it is meaningless to talk of 'before the big bang' or 'where the big bang took place' etc.
To give another analogy, that you will find it harder to skip out of the dimension and cheat, what is smaller than 0 metres?
No, there is nothing whatsoever South of the South Pole, not even nothingness.
There is about half of our universe there. Please lets try to avoid semantics?
Similarly, if time is solely a dimension of our universe and is finite in the past and started at the big bang, then it is meaningless to talk of 'before the big bang' or 'where the big bang took place' etc.
You are right of course, but your "if" doesn't work for me. After all, if there were no time before our universe began, then there was not enough time for it to ever happen.
To give another analogy, that you will find it harder to skip out of the dimension and cheat, what is smaller than 0 metres?
Nice, and I do think I understand your gist. But is minus one meters not smaller than 0 meters?
6 edits
Originally posted by apathistNo, there is nothing whatsoever South of the South Pole, not even nothingness.
There is about half of our universe there. Please lets try to avoid semantics?
[quote]Similarly, if time is solely a dimension of our universe and is finite in the past and started at the big bang, then it is meaningless to talk of 'before the big bang' and I do think I understand your gist. But is minus one meters not smaller than 0 meters?
is minus one meters not smaller than 0 meters?
minus one meters is not 'smaller' than 0 meters but is 'less' than 0 meters. It is larger in magnitude but smaller in absolute vector value due to it being negative.
If I move minus one meters along a straight line (relative to one of the two possible directions), I have traveled a larger and not a smaller distance along that straight line.
