Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonBut we do not know what is "not so".
I have already answered that - ones that do not presume something that is not so.
We can only describe what might be using terms like "beyond" , "outside" , "caused" and "before" . However , limited these words might be they are still the only words we have. We are limited to using words that imply maybe time or 3d space or causality because that's the only thing we know.
For example , I might sometimes describe eternity as infinite time but actually it is more than that. But using time based concepts is often the only way because we live in time and space.
My suspicion is (and always has been) that objections to language are a convenient way of shutting down debates on this subject. It's hard to ask these questions because they are not always scientifically accurate , but they are philosophically valid nevertheless.
Also , the idea of the big bounce makes asking " what came before the big bang" valid because the answer would be "the big crunch" would it not? So how can you say that asking these questions is meaningless?
Originally posted by knightmeister…But we do not know what is "not so". ..…
But we do not know what is "not so".
We can only describe what might be using terms like "beyond" , "outside" , "caused" and "before" . However , limited these words might be they are still the only words we have. We are limited to using words that imply maybe time or 3d space or causality because that's the only thing we know.
For example , I ...[text shortened]... ch" would it not? So how can you say that asking these questions is meaningless?
Sometimes -yes.
…We can only describe what might be using terms like "beyond" , "outside" , "caused" and "before" .. .….
Not in the context where there is no "beyond" , "outside" , "caused" and "before".
Instead, why not just stick to words that DO make sense in that context such as “at” and “beginning” and “finite” etc?
…Also , the idea of the big bounce makes asking " what came before the big bang" valid . ..…
True -but ONLY in the context of THAT scientific theory and NOT in the context of the main-stream big bang theory.
…So how can you say that asking these questions is meaningless?. . …
Whether it is “meaningless” or “meaningful” is dependent in the context it is asked.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonNot in the context where there is no "beyond" , "outside" , "caused" and "before".
[b]…But we do not know what is "not so". ..…
Sometimes -yes.
…We can only describe what might be using terms like "beyond" , "outside" , "caused" and "before" .. .….
Not in the context where there is no "beyond" , "outside" , "caused" and "before".
Instead, why not just stick to words that DO make sense in that context such as “ ...[text shortened]... it is “meaningless” or “meaningful” is dependent in the context it is asked.[/b]
Instead, why not just stick to words that DO make sense in that context such as “at” and “beginning” and “finite” etc?
----------------------hammy----------------------------
So what you are saying is that only words which fit neatly the known universe can be used and any other words that attempt to ask questions regarding anything else cannot be used?
You say there is no "beyond , before , caused, outside" but at the same time you admit that you do not know what "is not so".
In effect , you admit that you cannot say that the universe is the only thing in existence but at the same time you seem to restrict any questions that might go beyond the known.
The whole point is that we just don't know what a question like "what came before the Big Bang " might signify. We don't know what the actual context is . And yet you seem to sound as if you DO know the context and you also know that therefore these questions are meaningless. But how can that be? (since you don't know).
You don't know whether this universe is all that there is or whether it forms a minute part of a much greater existence (God or no God). However, you still talk as if you "know" that such questions are in the wrong context when you must realise that the context is not known by you.
5 edits
Originally posted by knightmeister…So what you are saying is that only words which fit neatly the known universe can be used..…
Not in the context where there is no "beyond" , "outside" , "caused" and "before".
Instead, why not just stick to words that DO make sense in that context such as “at” and “beginning” and “finite” etc?
----------------------hammy----------------------------
So what you are saying is that only words which fit neatly the known universe can be used he wrong context when you must realise that the context is not known by you.
In the context of whatever is the standard theory of the known universe -only the use of certain words make sense.
…and any other words that attempt to ask questions regarding anything else cannot be used? .. .….
No -I didn’t say that. There is no harm in speculating.
…You say there is no "beyond , before , caused, outside" but at the same time you admit that you do not know what "is not so". ..…
I do not know what "is not so” about what? -about there being no “before” the big bang according to the main-stream big bang theory? Or about there being no other universes? I already said that I don’t know whether or not other universes exist but, to the best of my personal reasoning, the main-stream big bang theory is probably correct so I think there probably was no “before” the big bang.
…In effect , you admit that you cannot say that the universe is the only thing in existence. …
Correct.
….but at the same time you seem to restrict any questions that might go beyond the known. …
Nope -that is a sweeping generalisation that isn’t true at all -exactly which particular questions are you referring to here and about exactly what and “go beyond” exactly what? -beyond time? -beyond existence? -beyond what?
-obviously, it all depends on the particular question asked in the given context and whether that question makes sense in that given context.
If you repeatedly and very clearly informed me you have NEVER ever smoked but I just keep asking “yes -you have never smoked, but WHY did you give up smoking?” then does that question of mine make any sense in that context? Yes or no?
…However, you still talk as if you "know" that such questions are in the wrong context when you must realise that the context is not known by you.…
I do not to have absolute certainty in most things. But, this doesn’t change the fact that I can use my brain and my reason (not “faith&rdquo😉 and whatever available evidence that there is that I am aware of to judge which scientific hypothesis is by far the most probable.
So why couldn’t I be rationally petty certain on which hypothesis is by far the most probably one?
Originally posted by twhiteheadSounds like another circular straight line to me, as you explain it.
No. It is getting larger by means of its dimensions stretching, not by means of gaining ground on some super dimension.
I suggest that both you and knightmeister consider doing a bit of reading up on what a dimension is, as the concepts under discussion are strongly tied to dimensions.
In abstract form, when you blow up a balloon, the surface of the bal ...[text shortened]... ng 'into'. There is no area of balloon surface that we can say is filled with 'nothing'.
Either way you cut it something is stretching into new areas, and you
do not do that without getting larger.
Kelly
5 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton... Singularity -> Singularity -> Singularity -> Singularity -> Big Bang
[b]…No, you don't get it, you have something that was in one state, THEN
it is in another.
....…
What was the first state of the two states and when did it exist?[/b]
One state, then another.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…Singularity -> Big Bang
... Singularity -> [b]Singularity -> Singularity -> Singularity -> Big Bang
One state, then another.
Kelly[/b]
One state, then another.
.. .….
Your original statement that I commented on was:
…No, you don't get it, you have something that was in one state, THEN
it is in another. That is change, those types of things do not just
happen, there is always a reason for the change.
..…
-and I assumed (incorrectly) that you were implying that the first state was some kind of “before” the big bang which is why I questioned but, you say here that the first state you are referring to in the above was the “singularity”.
-ok, so lets see what you meant from that above statement; you mean:
1, “you have a singularity that was in one state, THEN
you have the Big Bang that is in another. “
Correct.
2, “That is change, "
Correct
"those types of things do not just
happen, there is always a reason for the change. “
Correct (I assume) -because I assume there must be a physical reason why the singularity expanded so to no longer be a singularity so that in that very narrow sense there was a “reason” for the big bang (but I assume not the kind of “reason“ you would hope for because it is purely physical + this is a “reason“ for the “big bang“ but NOT a “reason“ for the singularity that resulted in the big bang).
-so you are NOT implying that there was a “before” the big bang here?
-so what is the point of this point?
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayQuite true. And circular straight lines do exist. A straight line (straight within the given dimensions) drawn on the surface of a sphere is also circular. In space the same sort of thing occurs, light travels in straight lines, but two parallel beams can still meet.
Sounds like another circular straight line to me, as you explain it.
I never denied that space was getting larger, what else could I mean when I talk of 'expansion'?
What I have denied is that space is expanding into a larger framework of space. I have also claimed that time does not exist in a larger framework of time.
Either way you cut it something is stretching into new areas, and you
do not do that without getting larger.
Kelly
New areas in higher dimensions maybe, but not in the spacial dimension. The balloons surface does not expand into new as yet unexplored areas of balloon surface.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt's an interesting idea though isn't. Putting partisan arguments aside for a second , what you are saying is that existence itself is actually expanding. If the Universe is all that there is (ie existence) then it's kinda wierd for existence to be increasing in size.
Quite true. And circular straight lines do exist. A straight line (straight within the given dimensions) drawn on the surface of a sphere is also circular. In space the same sort of thing occurs, light travels in straight lines, but two parallel beams can still meet.
I never denied that space was getting larger, what else could I mean when I talk of 'exp ...[text shortened]... ion. The balloons surface does not expand into new as yet unexplored areas of balloon surface.
My first thought would be this.
Is there any theoretical limit to how big the Universe could get? (assuming the big crunch does not happen)
Also , if there is no theoretical limit wouldn't that show that existence is not finite afterall? Conversely , if there is a theoretical limit to the expansion then what is it that prevents the Universe from expanding and why?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonNot my fault, I have been stressing that the changes were in the
[b]…Singularity -> Big Bang
One state, then another.
.. .….
Your original statement that I commented on was:
…No, you don't get it, you have something that was in one state, THEN
it is in another. That is change, those types of things do not just
happen, there is always a reason for the change.
..…
-and I assumed (inc ...[text shortened]... implying that there was a “before” the big bang here?
-so what is the point of this point?[/b]
singularity, and you have failed to see it. The focus has always been
the singulariity, where did it come from, why was it changing, and so
on. My argument has been getting the singularity from nothing, it is
not logical. You have something either under going some stress from
an outside force which has been denied, or it is in a state of flux, which
means you have time as well.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadYea, the logic of a bugged video game.
Quite true. And circular straight lines do exist. A straight line (straight within the given dimensions) drawn on the surface of a sphere is also circular. In space the same sort of thing occurs, light travels in straight lines, but two parallel beams can still meet.
I never denied that space was getting larger, what else could I mean when I talk of 'exp ...[text shortened]... ion. The balloons surface does not expand into new as yet unexplored areas of balloon surface.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI disgree it does grow into areas, you can measure a ballons surface
Quite true. And circular straight lines do exist. A straight line (straight within the given dimensions) drawn on the surface of a sphere is also circular. In space the same sort of thing occurs, light travels in straight lines, but two parallel beams can still meet.
I never denied that space was getting larger, what else could I mean when I talk of 'exp ion. The balloons surface does not expand into new as yet unexplored areas of balloon surface.
as it is being blown up, it is getting larger, it is taking up more space,
you put that ballon into an area where it cannot expand do to lack of
space it will not expand, stand on a ballon and try to force air into it,
you will move, or you will not get the ballon to expand.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay…The focus has always been
Not my fault, I have been stressing that the changes were in the
singularity, and you have failed to see it. The focus has always been
the singulariity, where did it come from, why was it changing, and so
on. My argument has been getting the singularity from nothing, it is
not logical. You have something either under going some stress from
an outside f ...[text shortened]... e which has been denied, or it is in a state of flux, which
means you have time as well.
Kelly
the singularity, where did it come from,
. ..…
The main-stream big bang theory implies that it didn’t “come from”.
…why was it changing,. .….
Why not? -what would be stopping physical change? -it was changing for the same reasons why the universe is still changing today -the various effects of the various laws of physics conspire to create change with time.
…My argument has been getting the singularity from nothing, it is
not logical..…
It is not part of the main-stream big bang theory that the singularity came from “nothing” -it didn’t “come from”.
…You have something either under going some stress from
an outside force which has been denied, or it is in a state of flux, which
means you have time as well. …
Correct -and in this case there was no known “outside force” and you have time: t=0 and t=0.0000000000000000000001 etc and there would have been “changes” within the singularity during that extremely brief moment of time until it no longer was a “singularity” -I fail to see what the problem is here.
P.S. when I talk about “singularity” here I do so rather loosely and do not necessarily mean something that is literally “infinitely” dense and “infinitely” small although, no doubt, it must have been extremely dense and small.