23 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzMy understanding is that time/space dimensionality and causality are:
Cause and effect does not apply to the start of the universe.
(1) conditions of and within the cosmos; or
(2) a priori principles imposed by the structure of our consciousness (Kant?).
In neither case does it make any sense to talk about them except in an intra-cosmic way. In either case, our cognition itself is conditioned by the fact that we are part of the same cosmos, and have no “view from elsewhere” (or “view from nowhere” ) from which our cognitive capabilities are freed from that conditionality.
In other words, there are limits to what we can know. There may be aspects of the natural order (without introducing a supernatural or extra-natural category) that transcend our cognitive abilities—I don’t know why we would assume that we are the only beings whose cognitive abilities are not so limited.* In any event, it would seem that the “edge of the cosmos,” so to speak, is the furthest limit of our cognitive ability. At that boundary, one can either indulge in metaphysical speculation (to which I have no objection, so long as it’s honestly done), or—stop.
* I do not think that a scientist, qua scientist, can make this assumption however: it would mean setting some sort of pre-emptive limits on the scope of scientific investigation of the natural order.
23 Oct 06
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomGo read "a brief history of time". That Einstein chap was quite clever you know.
time is just an idea, not an actual thing. you dont need anything to have time, even if there was no big bang or universe you would still have time; just an uneventful time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
If you are merely working in "Euclidean geometry", then you could be said to be right. It's just a shame that Euclidean geometry isn't really up to the task of describing the universe fully. Perhaps Minkowski space is better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space
You see, at the big bang event everything came into existance, even time did not exist before (although before is not a fair word to use, because there was no before) the big bang. It is absolutely pointless to try and attribute a cause to the big bang since cause and effect did not operate, since it requires a time dimension, of which there was none.
It's very, very hard to contemplate this type of thing - our brains evolved in a world where most things are medium sized and operate at medium pace. The way things work at the very very small scale, or very very fast are hard for us to comprehend, but that doesn't make them "wrong".
23 Oct 06
Originally posted by vistesdIndeed, however, current theory suggests nothing can transcend a big bang-esqe singularity, so the question seems rather moot. At the time the previous universe collapsed into itself or whatever happened that gave rise to our universe, the clock either restarted or just simply started. The simplest option is that the universe just popped out of non-existance, although it is not very satisfying for most people since (a) they are used to causality and (b) they don't see its elegance and relevance (i.e. it is parsimonious) and (c) it doesn't make them feel special (i.e. no warm-fuzzies of a benevolent god).
My understanding is that time/space dimensionality and causality are:
(1) conditions of and within the cosmos; or
(2) a priori principles imposed by the structure of our consciousness (Kant?).
In neither case does it make any sense to talk about them except in an intra-cosmic way. In either case, our cognition itself is conditioned by th ...[text shortened]... g some sort of pre-emptive limits on the scope of scientific investigation of the natural order.
23 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzisnt that just theory though? i was also trying to make sense of the 4th and 5th dimensions. what if it was God who just said "let there be light..." and then snapped his fingers and the big bang formed the universe?
Go read "a brief history of time". That Einstein chap was quite clever you know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
If you are merely working in "Euclidean geometry", then you could be said to be right. It's just a shame that Euclidean geometry isn't really up to the task of describing the universe fully. Perhaps Minkowski space is better. ...[text shortened]... , or very very fast are hard for us to comprehend, but that doesn't make them "wrong".
23 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomwithout time ,,God's fingers couldnt snap.
isnt that just theory though? i was also trying to make sense of the 4th and 5th dimensions. what if it was God who just said "let there be light..." and then snapped his fingers and the big bang formed the universe?
edit btw ,,Minkowski 4-space is the same thing as Einsteinian space-time
23 Oct 06
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomBut even the existence of god is a theory also. There is no material evidence of it. There is no evidence that the world was created in 6 days only. There is no evidence that the world is only several thousand years old. In fact there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is much, much older than that. I am also not sure that men have one lesser rib bone compared to women.
isnt that just theory though? i was also trying to make sense of the 4th and 5th dimensions. what if it was God who just said "let there be light..." and then snapped his fingers and the big bang formed the universe?
It seems strange, but there might just be a possiblity that our entire being came into existence randomly. The possibility for it to happen randomly is somewhat very, very remote to me, but we just don't have the evidence that it didn't happen that way.
23 Oct 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou've got a bit of a bee in your bonnet about this stuff haven't you?
Go read "a brief history of time". That Einstein chap was quite clever you know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
If you are merely working in "Euclidean geometry", then you could be said to be right. It's just a shame that Euclidean geometry isn't really up to the task of describing the universe fully. Perhaps Minkowski space is better. ...[text shortened]... , or very very fast are hard for us to comprehend, but that doesn't make them "wrong".
Be careful, you're starting to sound as dogmatic and zealous as some of the religious nuts on this site.
The notion of spacetime being created at the Big Bang and therefore never having existed prior is one interpretation of the early universe, but far from the only one.
In fact, I think you'll find there is some serious debate amongst cosmologists and quantum theorists about this very issue, so it's far from decided yet.
23 Oct 06
Originally posted by ckoh1965but obviously with all these theories you don't always need evidence, just assumption.
But even the existence of god is a theory also. There is no material evidence of it. There is no evidence that the world was created in 6 days only. There is no evidence that the world is only several thousand years old. In fact there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is much, much older than that. I am also not sure that men have one lesser rib bone ...[text shortened]... t very, very remote to me, but we just don't have the evidence that it didn't happen that way.
23 Oct 06
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomI think it is up to you to set your own standard to satisfy yourself. However, in my opinion, even if one were to apply an assumption(s), it should not be a reckless assumption(s). That assumption(s) itself must also be subject to the test of reasonableness.
but obviously with all these theories you don't always need evidence, just assumption.
Imagine that we found a tiger for the first time. What can we assume about this animal? Can we say that it is a meat eater? Well, we don't know for sure until wee see it for ourselves. But can we make assumptions in order to make a good guess? Perhaps we can. We investigate and and we can see that it has fangs, and we also see the other teeth in its mouth. We can then say, oh yes, this animal is probably a meat eater based on the 'evidence' of its teeth. We haven't really seen it eat yet, but we can guess the truth by adopting assumptions based on available evidence. In such a case, the assumption is 'reasonable'.
Now we proceed to ask ourselves, can this animal fly? And again we can make reasonable assumptions. Oh, it can't fly because it has no wings, and so on and so forth...
Now in both cases, it is more reasonable to believe that the tiger eats meat and it can't fly than otherwise. Even if we haven't actually see it eat meat, it is more reasonable to guess that this is indeed the case.
Now we ask ourselves, it is reasonable that the earth was created in 6 days? Which is more reasonable to believe? How much evidence do we have for and against it?
Again we ask ourselves, is it possible that the earth is only several thousand years old, as opposed to millions of years old? Well, we were obviously not there when the world came into being, so there was no conclusive evidence if you want an eyewitness to confirm the fact. But other evidence are available. For example dinosaur bones have been found, and this have been tested by scientific means to determine the age of the fossils, which in turn proved beyond reasonable doubt that these fossils are millions of years old.
So to answer your questions, yes, it's up to you to come up with your own theories. But what are those theories based on?
23 Oct 06
Originally posted by ckoh1965No! God is an idea. Not a theory. Unless you are using the non-scientific usage of the word "theory". He is definately NOT a scientific theory!
But even the existence of god is a theory also. There is no material evidence of it. There is no evidence that the world was created in 6 days only. There is no evidence that the world is only several thousand years old. In fact there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is much, much older than that. I am also not sure that men have one lesser rib bone ...[text shortened]... t very, very remote to me, but we just don't have the evidence that it didn't happen that way.
23 Oct 06
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomTime and space are both properties of the universe. To say "out of nothing" or "before the big bang" are both meaningless within the normal usage of the words time and space. There is no such thing as before the universe and therefore no "nothing" to be making universes out of. Why can people conceptualize time and space external to the universe but cant conceptualise them external to a hypothetical being called God? Who made God, what came before him? How was he made out of nothing? They answer those so easily without even thinking about it but cant apply the same answers to the universe!
i know an atheist who told me about how he used to be a christiand and how he became an atheist and what it is like to be an atheist and he tried to prove christianity wrong to me, cuz im a christian. he asked,"If God made everything, then who made God? You can't make yourself."
i didnt have an answer to it, but now i do have an answer to it: "how ...[text shortened]... ave to say it had to be God. only God, somebody with divine powers could do the impossible.