No. There's no space beyond the universe. The universe does not expand onto a space -- it expands and space is created.
The pending revision of the Big Bang
- Elephant
- Posts: 86
- Joined: February 1st, 2022, 1:32 am
Re: The pending revision of the Big Bang
-
- Posts: 122
- Joined: November 19th, 2022, 11:39 am
Re: The pending revision of the Big Bang
Space is relative. It is something like a vacuum. It appears to be the color black, but that is an optical illusion for certainly the color black has not existed in infinite space eternally preceding the Big Bang.
The color black is rendered by the human brain in the absence of visual data.
So space appears infinite but is not created, either. It's just naturally "apparently infinite, relatively".
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14995
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: The pending revision of the Big Bang
That's the official line and it makes no sense. It reminds of the now-discredited "there was no before" when the question arises as to what preceded the Big Bang. Each is obvious nonsense, mindless extensions of the theory that can't be adjusted until more information comes in.
If the universe is expanding, it has to be expanding into space. Otherwise it would strike a boundary. Further, the idea of an extremely small (supposed) singularity demands the pre-existence of space in which the singularity existed.
It may well be that the type of space into which the universe is expanding is of a different nature to that of the universe, empty of any objects or even radiation, just cold empty space, presumably closer to absolute zero than anywhere in the known universe (perhaps aside from ultra-cold experiments at the Centre for Applied Space Technology and Microgravity).
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: The pending revision of the Big Bang
That is not so. The concept of "space" is only coherent in conjunction with bodies occupying it. I.e., "space" and "bodies" are intertwined and inter-defined. Neither is comprehensible in the absence of the other, and cannot exist without the other. You can't measure or quantify space other than by reference to bodies, even if they're only mathematical points. So as the universe expands, it creates the space it occupies.
So what should we call that state we can imagine prior to the appearance of any bodies? Perhaps "the void," but not "space."
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14995
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: The pending revision of the Big Bang
I don't see a difference between the void and space, but I appreciate that you have used a word that can't be confused with terms with specific scientific meaning. I appreciate the technical difference, where spacetime - unlike a true void - is infused with mass and fields, bringing relativity into play, even if extremely diffuse.GE Morton wrote: ↑November 20th, 2022, 12:10 pmThat is not so. The concept of "space" is only coherent in conjunction with bodies occupying it. I.e., "space" and "bodies" are intertwined and inter-defined. Neither is comprehensible in the absence of the other, and cannot exist without the other. You can't measure or quantify space other than by reference to bodies, even if they're only mathematical points. So as the universe expands, it creates the space it occupies.
So what should we call that state we can imagine prior to the appearance of any bodies? Perhaps "the void," but not "space."
Still, if you are not a physicist or a cosmologist dealing with fine details, it's still basically all just space, as in being an apparent absence of stuff.
-
- Posts: 122
- Joined: November 19th, 2022, 11:39 am
Re: The pending revision of the Big Bang
Not incorrect but if the events of the big bang are encoded then conceivably time and space eternally preceded the generation of matter.GE Morton wrote: ↑November 20th, 2022, 12:10 pmThat is not so. The concept of "space" is only coherent in conjunction with bodies occupying it. I.e., "space" and "bodies" are intertwined and inter-defined. Neither is comprehensible in the absence of the other, and cannot exist without the other. You can't measure or quantify space other than by reference to bodies, even if they're only mathematical points. So as the universe expands, it creates the space it occupies.
So what should we call that state we can imagine prior to the appearance of any bodies? Perhaps "the void," but not "space."
It's really all just interpretations and descriptions at this point.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: The pending revision of the Big Bang
Sure, good point. If the "events" are indeed "encoded" as you say, it certainly begs the question as to whether information underpins everything. In an ordered universe that sustains (biological) life forms, including the emergence of conscious life forms, what other causal properties are logically necessary for there to exist something and not no-thing(?).d3r31nz1g3 wrote: ↑November 20th, 2022, 11:12 pmNot incorrect but if the events of the big bang are encoded then conceivably time and space eternally preceded the generation of matter.GE Morton wrote: ↑November 20th, 2022, 12:10 pmThat is not so. The concept of "space" is only coherent in conjunction with bodies occupying it. I.e., "space" and "bodies" are intertwined and inter-defined. Neither is comprehensible in the absence of the other, and cannot exist without the other. You can't measure or quantify space other than by reference to bodies, even if they're only mathematical points. So as the universe expands, it creates the space it occupies.
So what should we call that state we can imagine prior to the appearance of any bodies? Perhaps "the void," but not "space."
It's really all just interpretations and descriptions at this point.
Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
― Albert Einstein
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: The pending revision of the Big Bang
Neither of your premises are certain.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 21st, 2022, 9:14 am
Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: The pending revision of the Big Bang
Using a priori logic, they are indeed logically necessary!GE Morton wrote: ↑November 21st, 2022, 12:35 pmNeither of your premises are certain.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 21st, 2022, 9:14 am
Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
― Albert Einstein
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: The pending revision of the Big Bang
By "a priori logic," I assume you mean some logic with axioms which beg the question.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 21st, 2022, 12:39 pmUsing a priori logic, they are indeed logically necessary!GE Morton wrote: ↑November 21st, 2022, 12:35 pmNeither of your premises are certain.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 21st, 2022, 9:14 am
Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: The pending revision of the Big Bang
For any X, that X had a beginning is an empirical question. If it did, that it had a cause is also an empirical question. No "logic" can supply an answer to either.GE Morton wrote: ↑November 21st, 2022, 12:42 pmBy "a priori logic," I assume you mean some logic with axioms which beg the question.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 21st, 2022, 12:39 pmUsing a priori logic, they are indeed logically necessary!GE Morton wrote: ↑November 21st, 2022, 12:35 pmNeither of your premises are certain.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 21st, 2022, 9:14 am
Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: The pending revision of the Big Bang
According to science, deductive reasoning is the most secure form of reasoning, hence the comparison to a priori mathematics.GE Morton wrote: ↑November 21st, 2022, 12:42 pmBy "a priori logic," I assume you mean some logic with axioms which beg the question.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 21st, 2022, 12:39 pmUsing a priori logic, they are indeed logically necessary!GE Morton wrote: ↑November 21st, 2022, 12:35 pmNeither of your premises are certain.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 21st, 2022, 9:14 am
Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
― Albert Einstein
- Niebieskieucho
- Posts: 28
- Joined: December 20th, 2015, 5:53 am
Re: The pending revision of the Big Bang
In my opinion the universe does not have time point of its emergence. Just is.
It:
· was, as it is not and will never be
· is as it is
· will be, as it is not and was not
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: The pending revision of the Big Bang
That comparison is specious. Mathematical reasoning can be a priori only because its conclusions depends solely on the definitions of its terms, not upon any external facts. Some logical propositions can also verified a priori, for the same reason, e.g., "All bachelors are unmarried."3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 21st, 2022, 12:48 pm
According to science, deductive reasoning is the most secure form of reasoning, hence the comparison to a priori mathematics.
Scientific propositions and deductions, however, depend upon premises whose truth can only be determined empirically. Logic can inform you that if there are 2 trees with 100 apples on each, you can conclude a priori that you have a total of 200 apples. But no amount of logic will tell you how many apples are on either tree. Only observation will tell you that. That holds for anything external to your own mind you wish to claim exists.
-
- Posts: 87
- Joined: March 31st, 2022, 11:33 am
Re: The pending revision of the Big Bang
What am I, Where who when why am I and WHY DO I KNOW I EXIST??
101111?
The creative process consists of a singularity consciousness (1) in a universe of nothingness (0) vibrating and creating everything you imagine exists.
1001100 vibrating energy
What you hear and say decibels
What you see angstroms
What you think consciousness
All are just a creation and expression of vibrating energy
There is nothing physical
Atoms are electrons protons neutrons
Those are leptons quarks bosons
This are actually subatomic electromagnetic energy waves
NOT PARTICLES
I THINK THEREFORE “I AM
Tell them I AM has sent you.
The Creator is our collective consciousness
PURPOSE:
To make our existence as a BORED LONELY SINGULARITY CONSCIOUSNESS (1) IN A UNIVERSE OF nothingness (0) a more enjoyable experience.
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