The Eternal, Infinite Universe
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: The Eternal, Infinite Universe
You brought up the idea of higher dimensions of space, which I won't elaborate on because the subject is quite complex and is really beyond the scope of a philosophy chat board, but I will say that your statements reveal that you haven't really grasped the concept. I will, however, give you some "hints" concerning the topic.
1. All of the dimensions of space beyond the first three are experienced by us as time. We can only experience the 4th and higher dimensions of space as events, as "before, now, and after". We cannot experience them like we do the first three - as spatial coordinates (length, width, and height).
2. All the moments of time, from beginning to end (assuming a beginning and ending) exist concurrently and simultaneously. However, due to the limitations of our consciousness, namely its inability to "spatialize" beyond 3 coordinates, we can only be aware of one "moment" of time. All the rest, although also existing just as the present does, we refer to as the "past" or the "future", simply because our awareness isn't experiencing them at the moment. If we believe we did, we say that time has "past". If we believe we will, we say that time is "coming". Yet in reality all of the past, present, and future exist eternally and concurrently.
3. None of the above proves an eternal or infinite Universe, because when I said "eternally" this is not to be taken as an absolute truth. It's only true as long as Everything exists....
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: The Eternal, Infinite Universe
Er, but how do I know I'm on a planet, revolving around the sun and that every star in the sky is a star, many of which also have planets, with different properties all moving, with testable theories of relativity and black holes and dark energy and dark matter and a big bang and actually walking on the actual moon etc etc etc.Science cannot really study cosmology
No you're right, there's no such thing as cosmology, what has cosmology ever done for us.
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: The Eternal, Infinite Universe
As per your usual lack of rational, logical common sense statements. I still recall your stating, that, space does not exist.Atreyu--Science cannot really study cosmology, because it is outside of their domain.
What we know about our finite, occupied space Universe is finite, whole set. Again, you appear to me to doing some kind of philosophical hand waving, that lacks rational, logical common sense.Scientists cannot study the Universe as a whole. Therefore, cosmology is properly entirely within the realm of philosophy.
Scientists make plenty of test of their scenarios and arrive at conclusions based on those tests. Its called fallibility.We can think about it, but not test or experience any of our conclusions.
Ditto my aboveWhen scientists speak of "cosmology", they are really operating outside of their domain - actually they are doing philosophy "on the side" when they make statements about the Universe as a whole.
1. All of the dimensions of space beyond the first three are experienced by us as time. We can only experience the 4th and higher dimensions of space as events, as "before, now, and after". We cannot experience them like we do the first three - as spatial coordinates (length, width, and height).
Youve stated space does not exist, and here above your action like space exists ergo the rest of comments lack rational, logical common sense.
Irrational, illogical and lacks common sense.Yet in reality all of the past, present, and future exist eternally and concurrently.
I'm sorry Atreyu, is this latter above have some kind of rational, logical common sense pathway? Philosophical mumbo jumbo is how these and some other of your comments appear to me.3. None of the above proves an eternal or infinite Universe, because when I said "eternally" this is not to be taken as an absolute truth. It's only true as long as Everything exists....
When Ive asked for clarifications in past you were cooperative for short period of time and then never heard from you again. To be clear here, I'm not looking for clarifications from you now. as theyhave never appear rational, logical or having much common sense to me.
I just need to say irrational illogical lack of common when I see it, sometimes.
r6
r6
- Sandis36
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 19
- Joined: March 2nd, 2017, 4:42 pm
Re: The Eternal, Infinite Universe
I was speaking of the 4+1 universe because "Rr6" liked to speak of it. I like very much your broader view of the cosmology. That was my intention here in philosophical forum. We must make the distinction between the philosophical cosmology and the astronomical cosmology even when both are cosmologies.Atreyu wrote:Science cannot really study cosmology, because it is outside of their domain. Scientists cannot study the Universe as a whole. Therefore, cosmology is properly entirely within the realm of philosophy. We can think about it, but not test or experience any of our conclusions. When scientists speak of "cosmology", they are really operating outside of their domain - actually they are doing philosophy "on the side" when they make statements about the Universe as a whole.
You brought up the idea of higher dimensions of space, which I won't elaborate on because the subject is quite complex and is really beyond the scope of a philosophy chat board, but I will say that your statements reveal that you haven't really grasped the concept. I will, however, give you some "hints" concerning the topic.
1. All of the dimensions of space beyond the first three are experienced by us as time. We can only experience the 4th and higher dimensions of space as events, as "before, now, and after". We cannot experience them like we do the first three - as spatial coordinates (length, width, and height).
2. All the moments of time, from beginning to end (assuming a beginning and ending) exist concurrently and simultaneously. However, due to the limitations of our consciousness, namely its inability to "spatialize" beyond 3 coordinates, we can only be aware of one "moment" of time. All the rest, although also existing just as the present does, we refer to as the "past" or the "future", simply because our awareness isn't experiencing them at the moment. If we believe we did, we say that time has "past". If we believe we will, we say that time is "coming". Yet in reality all of the past, present, and future exist eternally and concurrently.
3. None of the above proves an eternal or infinite Universe, because when I said "eternally" this is not to be taken as an absolute truth. It's only true as long as Everything exists....
1. The 4. dimension is a space dimension, a wholeness- dimension. It exists independently of our experience. If the realism is true The space itself has no time. It is a coordinate, a vector, the 4. one. Then the time is 5. one, +1. For any more dimensions it can be so as you state. I don't think that there is other dimensions, they are something else, the spirit world, the Gods worlds, the worm holes and so on, not space- dimensions, not dimensions, as people often talk.
2. Time is the most difficult of all the concepts of the cosmology. Maybe the space of the universe has no time, time is only for particles in the space. The space of the universe has no beginning no end. The stars have beginnings and ends. The whole universe has not. Here is the difference between the astronomy and the philosophy. The astronomers can not understand this.
3. Philosophically the universe is eternal and infinite (in the sense on no border, limit or edge). Because to think otherwise is absurd. Beginning? No. Finite? No possible.
- Sandis36
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 19
- Joined: March 2nd, 2017, 4:42 pm
Re: The Eternal, Infinite Universe
This maybe has two exceptions. There is truths which are rational and not empirical. Descartes' cogito, ergo sum. There at least is something that thinks.Fooloso4 wrote:Sandis36:
What is must be determined by empirical evidence not by rational thought. Kant’s antinomies give a rational demonstration of the limits of pure reason. Some have been content to argue about what must be, but time and again we see that how things are does not accord with speculation about how they must be. It is foolish to assume that the universe must conform to our ability to conceive it.
And the universe as a whole, the whole universe exists. In these two cases the logic tells something of the reality, contrary what we normally say in the philosophy. This is why the cosmology is more philosophy than astronomy, as said here elsewhere. And the cosmology is so big thing, we must have models of it and then test the models, first a rational model, then the empirical tests.
And logical and mathematical truths also, but they are just tautologies.
Can you argue against these two?
The level of certitude of the thought of the eternal and infinite (no border) universe is not clear, of course. It can be stated that it is a logical truth, because it is rationally sound and the opposite is absurd. The beginning of the universe is absurd, and its being finite is absurd. And it is absurd that it is totally infinite.
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: The Eternal, Infinite Universe
None of what you are describing is cosmology. Cosmology is the study of the Universe as a whole, at the most macro level. None of that is necessary to understand any details of the Universe, nor is it necessary for things like going to the moon. Knowledge of gravity, rocket propulsion, theoretical black holes, and an awareness that most of the Universe is outside of empiricism (dark matter/energy) is not a knowledge of the Universe as a whole and how and why it all fits together and works the way it does. Cosmology implies a general understanding of the Universe, and that is the one thing that science has no knowledge of whatsoever.Eduk wrote:Er, but how do I know I'm on a planet, revolving around the sun and that every star in the sky is a star, many of which also have planets, with different properties all moving, with testable theories of relativity and black holes and dark energy and dark matter and a big bang and actually walking on the actual moon etc etc etc.Science cannot really study cosmology
No you're right, there's no such thing as cosmology, what has cosmology ever done for us.
But it does not. Space is merely a cognitive construct which we use to make sense of our world. In reality, everything is Here, and everything is happening Now.Rr6 wrote: As per your usual lack of rational, logical common sense statements. I still recall your stating, that, space does not exist.
It's common sense that we don't know everything about the Universe. We don't know if it's infinite or finite, for example. We also don't know if it had a beginning or if there will be an ending. And we certainly don't know what the Universe is (not even if it is conscious or just more like a 'big thing') nor why it exists. Cosmology would be able to answer all of those questions.Rr6 wrote: What we know about our finite, occupied space Universe is finite, whole set. Again, you appear to me to doing some kind of philosophical hand waving, that lacks rational, logical common sense.
Not in the realm of cosmology they don't. For example, how could they test for a beginning, an ending, or a purpose? How could they test for Universal Laws that might apply on all scales, from the atom to the interaction of galaxies? Only more detailed propositions can be tested empirically, not the general ones of cosmology. The whole of the Universe cannot be experienced, therefore it cannot be tested for.Rr6 wrote: Scientists make plenty of test of their scenarios and arrive at conclusions based on those tests. Its called fallibility.
Space is merely a cognitive construct, but the idea is that we can augment such a construct to help us understand the true nature of Time better. We can learn to apply the construct of space to our experience of time.Rr6 wrote: Youve stated space does not exist, and here above your action like space exists ergo the rest of comments lack rational, logical common sense.
Well, this is the modern view, which you obviously don't know about. Very basic idea within the space-time paradigm. Not to mention that the idea here is that our "common sense" views of time are quite false. Since when is the truth "common sense"? The principles of science often defy common sense, and if they didn't, we'd have nothing to know or study, because we'd all already know it. I would suppose, based on your statements, that you deny QM entirely. Is that true?Rr6 wrote:Irrational, illogical and lacks common sense.Atreyu wrote: Yet in reality all of the past, present, and future exist eternally and concurrently.
What really is illogical and lacking of any sense is the idea that only the present moment exists, but... wait... there it went. Well, it did exist, just a few seconds ago. But now, only this moment really exists. Wait.... lost it again.
A fleeting existence which comes from non-existence (future) only to pass into non-existence again (past), and a fleeting existence (the present moment) which cannot even be adequately measured and which is always actually the very recent past every time we try to "pin it down" and measure it.
That is really illogical and non-sensical, hence the creating of the space-time paradigm to correct for it.
Study up, man...
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: The Eternal, Infinite Universe
Ok I get your point, but no scientist is claiming that they have 'solved' cosmology. They only claim to be using the scientific method on what is observable in order to understand the bigger picture and like all scientists they make predictions which are falsifiable. The big bang theory is about as cosmological as science will claim to be, if you don't count that then you aren't talking about cosmology as it is defined by those who are doing it. The big bang theory isn't proved as such, it's just a model which fits the data we have. If scientists found data that falsified the big bang theory they would immediately drop or revise or extend the theory. I'm not a cosmologist, but it's a pretty bold claim to say that all cosmologists can't study cosmology. Maybe this is true according to your personal definition but it's not true according to the generally accepted definition and certainly not according to the human beings actually doing the work.None of what you are describing is cosmology. Cosmology is the study of the Universe as a whole, at the most macro level. None of that is necessary to understand any details of the Universe,
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: The Eternal, Infinite Universe
Rr6 wrote: As per your usual lack of rational, logical common sense statements. I still recall your stating, that, space does not exist.
More irrational, illogical lack of common sense from you.But it does not. Space is merely a cognitive construct which we use to make sense of our world. In reality, everything is Here, and everything is happening Now.
Rr6 wrote: What we know about our finite, occupied space Universe is finite, whole set. Again, you appear to me to doing some kind of philosophical hand waving, that lacks rational, logical common sense.
We observe a finite, occupied space Universe. This is simple rational, logical common sense that you have yet to grasp.We don't know if it's infinite or finite, for example.
Yes we do. Our finite, Universe is occupied space. This simple not complex and you have yet to grasp what is rational, logical common sense.And we certainly don't know what the Universe is (not even if it is conscious or just more like a 'big thing')
Cosmology is the study of Universe. Physical/energy--- occupied space ---cannot be created nor destroyed ergo our finite, occupied space Universe is eternally existent, is the rational, logical common sense conclusion to your queries. You have yet to grasp simple, rational, logical common sense.nor why it exists. Cosmology would be able to answer all of those questions.
Rr6 wrote: Scientists make plenty of test of their scenarios and arrive at conclusions based on those tests. Its called falsibility.
You need to study more dude. This is what loop quantum gravity went through and failed.Not in the realm of cosmology they don't. For example, how could they test for a beginning, an ending, or a purpose?
There can exist only 5 regular/symmetrical polyhedra of Universe and Universe includes any finite set of multiverses, that, are all connected minimally by gravity. Study more dude.How could they test for Universal Laws that might apply on all scales, from the atom to the interaction of galaxies?
No one here claiming otherwise. However, all physical/energy is minimally connected by gravity. Gravity if not also dark energy in complement to physical/energy is the key to knowing the whole of finite, occupied space Universe. Study more dude.Only more detailed propositions can be tested empirically, not the general ones of cosmology. The whole of the Universe cannot be experienced, therefore it cannot be tested for.
Rr6 wrote: Youve stated space does not exist, and here above your action like space exists ergo the rest of comments lack rational, logical common sense.
Three primary aspects of existence they you still do not grasp;Space is merely a cognitive construct, but the idea is that we can augment such a construct to help us understand the true nature of Time better. We can learn to apply the construct of space to our experience of time.
1} concepts of space,
2} non-occupied space, embraces the following,
3} finite, occupied space.
Rr6 wrote:Irrational, illogical and lacks common sense.Atreyu wrote: Yet in reality all of the past, present, and future exist eternally and concurrently.
Modern does not make it correct/truth, only makes it some peoples newer opinions.Well, this is the modern view, which you obviously don't know about. Very basic idea within the space-time paradigm.
Much of our experiences are rational, logical common sense truths. You apparently have noticed them ex space does exist and all the 3D space we experience is occupied. It does not take a scientist to grasp rational, logical common sense truths. For you to continue saying space does not exist obvious non-sense to those who believe in truth, and rational, logical common sense.Not to mention that the idea here is that our "common sense" views of time are quite false. Since when is the truth "common sense"?
I don't recall ever stating anywhere that QM is not true. Universe may be a mystery but is no secret. There are strange paradoxes of QM we have not figured out the, 'how does that happen', yet. Tho Ive offered my answer to entanglement mystery in few different threads and forums.The principles of science often defy common sense, and if they didn't, we'd have nothing to know or study, because we'd all already know it. I would suppose, based on your statements, that you deny QM entirely. Is that true?
Radiation being constant to all observers is the next one I would like to crack. These mysteries take time and some concentrated effort. My life has not yet given me the time and effort need to crack the constant speed of radiation.
The present is not a moment. Atreyu, you start off with incorrect perception at the get go. MO > motion > motor > momentum > mojo > momma > ergo dynamic set of events, processes over time.What really is illogical and lacking of any sense is the idea that only the present moment exists, but... wait... there it went. Well, it did exist, just a few seconds ago. But now, only this moment really exists. Wait.... lost it again.
The present is eternally existent and I have given texticonic ways of viewing as 2D area/space cross section{2D slices } of 3D volume/space in various threads here and other forums. I remember first conception/idea of this was in Brian Greene book or some dude like that. There is another with similar name.
Here it is again, in one of many formats I've presented it;
< < past < out ( * | * ) in < Future < <
Again, you have to move beyond conception of the present being a moment. It is not. Snap shots of future, present and past is moment. Three-ness is primary to "U"niverse and Universe and Ive laid those out clearly in my cosmic hierarchy and primary to consciousness, that, I also have laid out clearly.A fleeting existence which comes from non-existence (future) only to pass into non-existence again (past), and a fleeting existence (the present moment) which cannot even be adequately measured and which is always actually the very recent past every time we try to "pin it down" and measure it.
Fuller puts it approximately this way; fading past, ever present present and dawning future.
Right back at Atreyu with the addition of adding in much more rational, logical common sense before, during and after you study.Study up, man...
r6 ( * I * )
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: The Eternal, Infinite Universe
That is true in the main but not in detail. An awareness of broader phenomena, even if not understood in themselves, bring at least some nuance and context to understanding of their parts.Atreyu wrote:None of what you are describing is cosmology. Cosmology is the study of the Universe as a whole, at the most macro level.
None of that is necessary to understand any details of the Universe
If Obvious Leo was alive he would have had plenty to say in support of this :)Atreyu wrote:Space is merely a cognitive construct which we use to make sense of our world. In reality, everything is Here, and everything is happening Now.
Cosmology differs from more sciences of more accessible subject matter in that it relies more on inference that sciences where evidence is more readily available. The number of surprises researchers have enjoyed just from Voyager reaching the outskirts of our solar system makes clear the limitations of inference in complex systems. Inspired and educated guesswork is still guesswork.Atreyu wrote:Not in the realm of cosmology they don't. For example, how could they test for a beginning, an ending, or a purpose? How could they test for Universal Laws that might apply on all scales, from the atom to the interaction of galaxies? Only more detailed propositions can be tested empirically, not the general ones of cosmology. The whole of the Universe cannot be experienced, therefore it cannot be tested for.
- Sandis36
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 19
- Joined: March 2nd, 2017, 4:42 pm
Re: The Eternal, Infinite Universe
None of what you are describing is cosmology. Cosmology is the study of the Universe as a whole, at the most macro level. None of that is necessary to understand any details of the Universe, nor is it necessary for things like going to the moon. Knowledge of gravity, rocket propulsion, theoretical black holes, and an awareness that most of the Universe is outside of empiricism (dark matter/energy) is not a knowledge of the Universe as a whole and how and why it all fits together and works the way it does. Cosmology implies a general understanding of the Universe, and that is the one thing that science has no knowledge of whatsoever. [/quote]
I really like your broader, philosophical view of cosmology! That is what I expected of this conversation and why it is here and not in the astronomical forum. All others have made important points too, of course.
We can study cosmology scientifically of course, everything can be studied. But in the cosmology we must make models, and the models can be experimentally tested. This is the only way in these big things of the whole universe. It can not be made otherwise.
For example we can not deduce from the red shift that the universe is expanding. We must make a model of the universe and look if it fits with the going away of the galaxies. So we see that the 4. dimensional model of the universe fits with the red shift. In a 3. dimensional space we must take the expanding of the space to explain the movements, they are not understandable there otherwise.
Space does not exist? I would say that it has no time. The space of the universe is bigger or smaller, there is distances, how this is possible without space existing in some way? Space exists in other way than the particles in the space. It does not exist as matter and energy exist. So the words exist as words, not as physical things. The plans exist as plans, not as physical things. The space exists as space, not otherwise.
- Sandis36
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 19
- Joined: March 2nd, 2017, 4:42 pm
Re: The Eternal, Infinite Universe
Of course the cosmology is a science. In the astronomy. But in the philosophy it is more than a science. It is for example speculations of these macro- things how they might be. We can invent models that fit with the evidence better than the prevailing theories. From the evidence alone is not possible to make a suitable model, because these things are so big and we don't know yet much of them.Eduk wrote:Ok I get your point, but no scientist is claiming that they have 'solved' cosmology. They only claim to be using the scientific method on what is observable in order to understand the bigger picture and like all scientists they make predictions which are falsifiable. The big bang theory is about as cosmological as science will claim to be, if you don't count that then you aren't talking about cosmology as it is defined by those who are doing it. The big bang theory isn't proved as such, it's just a model which fits the data we have. If scientists found data that falsified the big bang theory they would immediately drop or revise or extend the theory. I'm not a cosmologist, but it's a pretty bold claim to say that all cosmologists can't study cosmology. Maybe this is true according to your personal definition but it's not true according to the generally accepted definition and certainly not according to the human beings actually doing the work.None of what you are describing is cosmology. Cosmology is the study of the Universe as a whole, at the most macro level. None of that is necessary to understand any details of the Universe,
The expansion is deduced from the evidence, but it contradicts the rational view of the universe, so there is good motivation to find a better model that fits the evidence. 4+1 model is a candidate for that, and it is inside the mainstream, the General Relativity. The GR equations can be transformed from 3+1 model to 4+1 model. And the 4. dimension exists in the reality, it is the fact that in the space of the whole universe there is everything and there is no outside.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023