Philosophy Discussion Forums

Philosophy of Cosmology

I have a few statements to start off this thread:

1) The simple definition of cosmology is, "a description of the universe":

A) It could be said that the universe is "reality". That would be an example of a simple cosmology, though not intended to be a cosmology for this particular discussion.

B) I could refer to Big Bang Theory, and that would be an example of a cosmology that the scientific community calls the "consensus".

C) Or I could describe the universe using scientific observations, plus my own speculations to fill in where the scientific community has conflicting theories or cannot yet answer our questions. I would refer to that as a personal view of cosmology that has a broader scope because it goes beyond where the scientific method can take us.

2) A philosophy can be derived from your description of the cosmology of the universe.

A) For example, if your cosmology is, "The universe is reality", then the philosophy might be based on your personal definition of "reality".

B) If Big Bang Theory is your choice of cosmology, then your philosophy may be influenced by what BBT tells us or does not tell us, i.e. was there a singularity, were there preconditions to the big bang, did the universe come from nothing, did God do it, or has the universe always existed. Many philosophies can be derived from the scientific consensus.

C) If your description of cosmology is said to be complete, i.e. it addresses questions of a beginning and an end, it addresses the potential infinities of space and time, it addresses the "finites" of both the micro and macro realms in terms of mechanics (QM and GR), it claims to be internally consistent while not inconsistent with observations and data, it is said to be based on observational science, and it invokes speculations that conform with a "reasonable and responsible" methodology, then a unique philosophy can be derived from that view of cosmology as well.

It is my version of that latter view of cosmology which I will describe in this thread and from which I derive the personal philosophy that I will present for appraisal and criticism.

3) And beyond that, I hope to learn what "reality" means to the members. I propose that reality is as personal as one's views of the universe, i.e. there can be as many "realities" as there are individuals who profess a cosmology? Is there a consensus on the meaning of "reality" in the philosophical community? Can a person speak about their evolving personal view of reality or is that simply a personal delusion that changes over time?

I'll try to cover my personal views of cosmology, and the philosophy I derive from those views, and thereby expose them to appraisal and criticism. And I will try to defend my philosophical views as being "reality" to me, as well as listen and learn from what ever input I get about the meaning of "reality" to others.

-- Updated March 3rd, 2012, 1:56 pm to add the following --

Reality and truth

You can see from the OP that there are stages that have to be developed in order to run this thread as I am hoping.  I want to link to a description of my views on cosmology and explain how my philosophy is derived from those speculative views and will do that when I qualify.  (Do I need twenty posts to post a link?)

I have a thread in the Against the Mainstream (ATM) forum at BAUT Forums (that's Bad Astronomy and the Universe Today), which is a reputable astronomy forum.  My thread is "The Grand Puzzle" and discusses my views of cosmology called Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC).  

Getting to the twenty post threshold here should happen as I post and respond to posts in my thread and on other threads but until I get to that threshold I guess I can add to this thread even though no one responds.  I know from experience that my topic doesn't interest very many people.  I just post to establish an Internet presence with my ideas just in case, and then update them as the ideas evolve.

I have written an essay about the philosophy of QWC which I would like to post and discuss on my thread here.  If I don't get to twenty posts for awhile, my plan is to post a summary of my cosmology in lieu of a link in case anyone here wants details, then post my essay on the Philosophy of QWC, and then discuss  that philosophy.

One step would be to see if anyone would share their views on the difference between reality and truth because I want to use those terms in the thread but need some input to try to use them in a context that people would find proper.

When the question of "reality" comes up, I always refer to Einstein's famous quote: "A human being is part of the whole called by us universe , a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty...We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive." - Albert Einstein.

Most of us, perceive "reality" in a very limited form (as Einstein alluded to), and the "truth" may be much more expansive -as he noted. The genius of Einstein as a "scientist" is that he is able to include this vastly expansive view of "reality" - one which was unique in his time and is still very rare today! It has overtones of a mystical/spiritual view of the "cosmos" and is the closest approximation of a "religious" Einstein!

The biography "Einstein: His Life and Universe", by Walter Isaacson, is a favorite of mine. I use it for reference, quotes, and both my wife and I have read it and enjoyed it. She usually rolls over and sticks her hands and feet in the air like I am killing her whenever I try to discuss science and philosophy with her, lol, but she read Isaacson's bio of Steve Jobs and liked his style so she worked her way through Einstein's biography because of that. It really opened the door to many interesting discussions between us.

I perceive "reality" in my own peculiar limited way, just like you suggest most of us do, and I describe my view of it as a personal view. Beyond that though, I believe there is one truth and so I guess I am distinguishing a personal view of reality from the "truth" by saying that we can all develop a view of reality but they all seek to describe the same truth. Though no two people can literally agree on every detail of their views on reality, the truth itself will remain the same and neither person can lay claim to it.

I say, the universe is as it is and could be no other way. And I would add that it means the same to me as saying that "reality" is as it is and could be no other way.

-- Updated October 23rd, 2012, 9:50 pm to add the following --

I have been waiting for someone to read that last comment of mine and agree or disagree, lol. But in the months since I started the thread I have contemplated how I look at reality, and I would phrase it "apparent reality".

There is a new theory about how the universe came into being, called "The Lightning Theory of the Origin of the Universe."
It can be found on Amazon, and should be read for the reasons explained below:

Did you ever wonder what caused the universe to come into being in the first place? The Lightning Theory of the Origin of the Universe is an extraordinary, eye-opening book with a new and unique theory that explains How the Universe was Created! (Other books say what the universe might be like, but not how it came into being.)
Moreover, this new book goes even further by explaining How Gravity is Created, which is a question that even NASA has not been able to answer!

The Lightning Theory of the Origin of the Universe is a “must read” for anyone who ever doubted the “big bang” theory because this new book exposes the big bang theory’s false assumptions, distorted concepts of physics, unexplained phenomena, and illogical deductions, which are causing that theory to be abandoned.

The new Lightning Theory of the Origin of the Universe offers clearer definitions for the basic concepts of “space,” “time,” and the “universe,” which are all needed to resolve previously unexplained phenomena of the universe. Using standard logical analyses, this book explains the true nature of the relationship between space and time, explains why space cannot be curved, resolves the questions of “dark matter” and “dark energy,” and explains why the speed of light may not be a true speed limit!

And did you know that you are traveling at over 1.8 million miles per hour, right now? In discussing space and time, The Lightning Theory of the Origin of the Universe also explains how you are moving through intergalactic space at an amazing speed, even if you are sitting still!

Regarding Gravity, The Lightning Theory of the Origin of the Universe is the only book to offer a clear explanation for How Gravity is Created! That age-old question has never been convincingly answered before, but this book uses logical reasoning both to identify the source of gravitation and to demonstrate what causes gravity!

This book is scientific, yet very readable as it is written in clear, easy-to-understand language. It is also a book that appeals to inquiring minds because it is filled with many interesting and fascinating facts about the universe!

Taormina wrote: ↑January 25th, 2019, 10:04 pm There is a new theory about how the universe came into being, called "The Lightning Theory of the Origin of the Universe."

The universe has not time point of its origin. The Big Bang idea is an irrational one.

Moreover, this new book goes even further by explaining How Gravity is Created, which is a question that even NASA has not been able to answer!

Gravity is due to ether and matter that is a complex form of ether.

The new Lightning Theory of the Origin of the Universe offers clearer definitions for the basic concepts of “space,”

In my understanding, there is no space in the universe (apart for colloquial meaning). For example: for neutrino which in order to stop it one would need 4 light-years thick lead. It means lead could be a comfortable space for the neutrino to travel in it. The similar situation is within the universe. We cannot observe subatomic ZOO. The entire universe is filled with ether, which seen from its perspective would resemble a dense fog.

“time,”

Time is a concept. Autonomously does not occur. We cannot define time (of something) because we should use synonyms. Time is motion, change. Does motion/change exist in the universe? My description of time is: "Time is the motion of any form of matter in relation to any form of matter" also: "Time is the motion of anything in relation to anything".

and the “universe,”

Before the accidental formation of matter (not the universe (!), as some scientists believe) some 14 billions years ago (if properly calculated) the universe consisted exclusively of ether. After the creation of matter, there appeared gravity.

And did you know that you are traveling at over 1.8 million miles per hour, right now?

No way. The universe does not expand.

--
Those who admit to understanding relativity, automatically admit to understanding nonsense