The Universe - explained.
-
- Posts: 267
- Joined: September 6th, 2019, 12:02 am
The Universe - explained.
Aristotle(384 - 322 BC) created a comprehensive system of philosophy, encompassing Ethics, Aesthetics, Politics, Metaphysics, Logic and Science. He conducted the earliest formal study of Logic. His conception of Logic has had an unparalleled influence on the history of Western thought. Aristotle defined logic as "new and necessary reasoning", "new" because it allows us to learn what we do not know, and "necessary" because its conclusions are inescapable. Aristotle also popularized the use of axioms (self-evident principles requiring no proof), claiming that nothing can be deduced if nothing is assumed. Aristotle knew that space was infinite, he called it "borderless", and he knew that time was eternal, he called it "continuous."
A 16th-century Italian philosopher and former Catholic priest, Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for heresy. He refused to reject his beliefs, and to adhere to the Pope's beliefs. The Pope thought that the Earth was at the center of the Universe, and the Sun moved around the Earth. Bruno insisted that space was infinite, and didnt have a center, and he believed in the Coperican model of the Solar System, with the Earth moving around the Sun. Bruno became known as “the first martyr of the new science” after he was burned at the stake in 1600.
To know the truth about about the Universe, telescopes are useless, and worthless. Astrophysicists can tell you about Stars, Galaxies, the Rings of Saturn, etc. But to understand the Universe, you must learn about it Logically. And it's very simple:
1 Space is either Infinite, or finite. This is a true statement, or Axiom, that a logical argument starts with.
2 Space can not be finite. Because you can't account for the area that would lie beyond an end of space.
3 Based on 1 and 2, Space is Infinite. This is true, the Logic is simple, and undeniable.
Anaximander, Aristotle, and Bruno, all knew this was true.
The Big Bang Theory claims that the Universe had a beginning - it didnt. It claims that space expands - it doesnt. It claims that gravity can slow or even stop time - that's false too. It is so flawed, I'm amazed that anyone believes it, and yet the Scientific Community has accepted it, as being true. The BB theory was conceived by Georges Lemaître, 1894 - 1966, a Catholic priest, mathematician, astronomer, and professor of physics. He was the first to identify that the recession of nearby galaxies can be explained by a theory of an expanding universe. He also borrowed from Einstein's belief that gravity affects time. He was trying to discover how the Universe began, and why some distant galaxies were moving the way they were.
The truth is, the Universe has always been here, it didnt have a beginnng. Space continues forever in every direction, it always has. Time is the measurement, and labeling of the Constant Now. Its always now, in every spot of the Universe. There was no beginning of time, and it will continue forever. Time never slows, or stops, and its unaffected by any force in the Universe. Many are confused about what Time Dilation is, and claim its proof that time slows. Time Dilation is the effect that gravity has devices that measure time, but not on time itself. Matter has been acting according to the forces applied to it, forever. Forming everything from DNA strands to Galaxies.
That's it, it's simple, when you know the truth.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: The Universe - explained.
No, it you who is confused here. You completely failed to understand my posts in the afterlife thread, and now you have started a new thread based on your misconception.
To recap, I spoke of time dilation as being subjective.
To those unfamiliar with the term:
subjectivity
- the quality of being based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
- the quality of existing in someone's mind rather than the external world.
This clearly has nothing to do with spacetime.
What I had spoken about was the sense of time dilation during dreams. That is, within the space of just one minute in a dream you can, for instance, be conversing with a friend on the International Space Station, running from a mugger in a city street and falling over a waterfall in South America. Do you believe it is possible to do all of these things in real life?
First, you would have to qualify to work in space. Then qualify to be an astronaut. Prepare and train to work on the ISS. Be cleaned, scrubbed, kitted out, determining dietary requirements, medical checkups, going to the toilet, eating, saying your goodbyes, brushing your teeth, organising a ride to the launch pad ...
We haven't yet considered what it takes to go from the ISS back to a city street where you were escaping a mugger. Ect.
THAT is how time dilation works. THAT is how one can fit months into minutes. THAT is what I was talking about, not magically compressing time itself.
In the afterlife thread I went into detail on this, noting that researchers have found that the time correlation between dreams events and waking life was 1:1. That is, when you have a conversation in a dream, the words come out at the same pace as in real life. The difference is that you don't have any extraneous detail, only the most emotionally resonant events.
That is data compression, not freakin' magic (sheesh!). Simply, you keep the most important bits and leave out the least potent detail. This is how a WAV file of 50MB can be reduced to an MP3 of 5MB, with the song sounding mostly the same. That is why people using a few minutes of brain oxygen can report a whole lot happening subjectively. If you asked them what happened between event x and even y, they would have no idea. In dreams people rarely commute, rather they simply appear.
And that is how subjective time dilation works.
As for physical time dilation, we can also refer to the ISS, whose time runs more quickly than time does on the surface (and clockas are adjusted to deal with this fact). That, of course, has nothing to do with what I was speaking about in the afterlife thread and, thus, has nothing to do with this thread. Just saying for the sake of completion.
-
- Posts: 267
- Joined: September 6th, 2019, 12:02 am
Re: The Universe - explained.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: The Universe - explained.
Gater has framed this as science v superstition.
No. He misread my post and, perhaps for pride's sake, he is still attacking a superstition strawperson.
Nothing in my above post contradicts current science. By "afterlife", I simply referred to the journey of the mind during the last few minutes of brain oxygen. No scientist disputes that the brain retains oxygen for a few minutes when one dies, and that thoughts continue. This limitation was explained multiple times in the other thread. I call it "afterlife" because:
1) at that point your life is done, and
2) due to subjective time dilation effects, those few minutes at the end of life may well feel like a whole other life (as has been recorded from those experiencing NDEs).
All of this is subjective, of course. No one is claiming fancy physics.
I find absurd the histrionics people go into to avoid the dreaded word "afterlife". More power to Camus.
As far as I am concerned, when I am on the slab, unable to move, see, hear, feel or respond to any stimuli, then my life is over. What goes on in my head at that point will be "after life". Technically, duh, it is still life, but such Twitter-level sophistication is tiresome on a philosophy forum. Few here need to be told such basic things and, if they do, it's not going to be worth the bother.
BTW, no one understands time. The nature of time is one of the great mysteries. The best we have are the second law and the possibility that the arrow of time is generated by dark energy.
So this thread is not a waste of time, here is a talk by physicist, Carlo Rivellli, about the nature of time, which has nothing to do with this discussion but it is interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6rWqJhDv7M
- Consul
- Posts: 6036
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: The Universe - explained.
The truth is we don't know the truth! We just don't know whether space or time is finite or infinite.
-
- Posts: 52
- Joined: February 21st, 2020, 6:50 pm
Re: The Universe - explained.
While I disagree with some particulars, I think gater here may be correct with thinking that there is at least something you can argue apriori (metaphysically) with regards to physics that has to be understood without a need to science. Science is a type of 'top-down' politic used to determine reality from where one is at AMONG many people. It had evolved due to how logical argumentation alone could appear to defend many competing views without universal agreement. Galileo actually begun his effort to prove that gravity operates independently equal upon all matter regardless of apparent weight or density, etc. But because the logic, though rational, is hard for many to follow without extensive investment OR that one cannot agree to ingoing premises as being 'sound', more direct physical interactive methods became more appealing to get concensus on what is or is not true. [By the way, many of Galileao's experiments only conicided with the logic but was intent to discover particular constants, like the PARTICULAR strength of gravity by the Earth. Scientific presentation helps to determine the value of inputs to deductive argument but deduction still reigns supreme over the mere induction of seeking patterns that help hint at what the laws of Nature are about.]
For gater: It might help to first speak on Totality (versus our particualr Universe) when discussing how you might infer something logical about the Universe. In the way you assume infinite space and time, a particular Universe may be potentially finite. So I believe what you are thinking (and what you might be able to argue better with) is to how Totality, not just our particular Universe, has to be logically without "limitations". To speak of space or time as being infinite is questionable because you then have to rely on the definitions that everyone convenes to agree to through science or have the onus to specify what and why certain phenomena are as they are, such as how doppler shifting is or is not proof of expansion of space.
-
- Posts: 267
- Joined: September 6th, 2019, 12:02 am
Re: The Universe - explained.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8266
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The Universe - explained.
First a nit-picking point, but one that I think is important, given the assertions being made here. An axiom is an assumption; a guess. It is accepted without proof only because there is none. If we had proof, we would present it. An axiom is not "self-evident", it is merely necessary for our cogitations. We use axioms when we have nothing more concrete, and it would be clearer for all if we called them "guesses", for that is, truly and honestly, what they are. They are guesses that we hope are true, nothing more (or less).
1 You correctly describe this as true, but you fail to mention that it is pointless too. Space is finite or infinite, but we don't know (and will probably never know) which. We gain no information at all from the statement "Logical variable X has the value TRUE or FALSE". We already knew that, because X is a logical variable. To state it, when we cannot resolve it, is misleading. Oh, and it's not an axiom either.gater wrote: ↑February 22nd, 2020, 7:45 pm [T]o understand the Universe, you must learn about it Logically. And it's very simple:
1 Space is either Infinite, or finite. This is a true statement, or Axiom, that a logical argument starts with.
2 Space can not be finite. Because you can't account for the area that would lie beyond an end of space.
3 Based on 1 and 2, Space is Infinite. This is true, the Logic is simple, and undeniable.
8<
That's it, it's simple, when you know the truth.
2 Unfounded assertion. We "can't account for the area that would lie beyond an end of space" because that area would not exist, if space was finite, and nothing lay beyond its end.
3 This is not logic, it's assertion without foundation or justification. The 'logic' is clear: without a justification better than the wishful thinking you currently employ, your supposed argument reduces to a few baseless assertions.[/list]
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 267
- Joined: September 6th, 2019, 12:02 am
Re: The Universe - explained.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2020, 8:04 amFirst a nit-picking point, but one that I think is important, given the assertions being made here. An axiom is an assumption; a guess. It is accepted without proof only because there is none. If we had proof, we would present it. An axiom is not "self-evident", it is merely necessary for our cogitations. We use axioms when we have nothing more concrete, and it would be clearer for all if we called them "guesses", for that is, truly and honestly, what they are. They are guesses that we hope are true, nothing more (or less).
gater wrote: ↑February 22nd, 2020, 7:45 pm [T]o understand the Universe, you must learn about it Logically. And it's very simple:
1 Space is either Infinite, or finite. This is a true statement, or Axiom, that a logical argument starts with.
2 Space can not be finite. Because you can't account for the area that would lie beyond an end of space.
3 Based on 1 and 2, Space is Infinite. This is true, the Logic is simple, and undeniable.
ax·i·om - noun - a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.
Its not a guess, or an assumption. Its accepted truth, on which a logical argument is based.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: The Universe - explained.
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: The Universe - explained.
RJG wrote:1. A "finite" space (i.e. a space that contains all space) is logically impossible [X<X]. Therefore if Space exists, it can only exist "infinitely".
2. A "beginning" of time (i.e. a time before time) is logically impossible [X<X]. Therefore if Time exists, it has always (permanently/infinitely) existed.
3. Something coming from Nothing is logically impossible [X=~X]. Therefore if Something exists, it cannot come from Nothing.
Firstly, it is "finite" space that we are talking about here. It is logically impossible [X<X] for anything "finite" to contain ALL "finite" objects! ...because it cannot contain itself (its "finite" self)!Pattern-chaser wrote:1. Why do you think a space that contains all space is impossible? Do you know and understand enough about space to say for sure that it must carry on forever? If so, how do you know this?
If it helps, try to imagine a box big enough to contain all boxes. Now ask yourself, does this big "finite" box contain ALL boxes? NO! - it is missing one box, - itself! This, and any, "finite" thing cannot logically contain all "finite" things. X<X is logically impossible. It can't exist outside of itself to capture itself.
Therefore if space exists it can only exist infinitely, for a "finite" space (as the totality of ALL space) is a logical impossibility.
It has nothing to do with the details of time itself. It has to do with the logical impossibility of something existing BEFORE it exists. Again, X<X is logically impossible. Whether this is time or space or anything else, nothing can exist BEFORE it exists! Time cannot exist before it exists so as to then "begin" or "start" itself.Pattern-chaser wrote:2. Again, do you know and understand enough about time to say for sure that it had no beginning? If so, how do you know this?
Science that disregards Simple Logic is Bad Science. The Big Bang Theory is Bad Science, plain and simple. Not only is "something coming from nothing" logically impossible [X=~X], but "something existing before it exists" [X<X] is logically impossible. If space-time-matter did not yet exist, then:Pattern-chaser wrote:3. Some interpretations of the Big Bang theory describe how something came from nothing. According to the Big Bang theory, the universe was born as a very hot, very dense, single point in space.
And where did that tiny point come from? Was it already there, and if not, where did it come from? From nothing, it might appear....
- 1) there was no-'where' for this BB to happen,
2) there was no 'before' or 'beginning' or 'start' to this BB to happen, and
3) there was no-'thing' that banged.
Again, Science that disregards Simple Logic is Bad Science. Most scientists are too caught up in their indoctrinated beliefs, to grasp Simple Logic. So they continue spinning their wheels, wasting a good life chasing after nonsense, when the answers are easily solved by Simple Logic.
Simple Logic:
- X=X is true
X=~X is logically impossible
X<X is logically impossible
-
- Posts: 267
- Joined: September 6th, 2019, 12:02 am
Re: The Universe - explained.
2600 years ago Anaximander, considered the founder of Astronomy, knew that space was infinite.
I believe what I posted is true and accurate.
Time is another thing that people have difficulty with.
I tried to present an argument featuring 3 of the great minds in history, to help bolster my claim. Apparently Aristotle's name doesn't carry as much weight as it used to.
I believe what I posted, will in time, become common accepted knowledge.
It will take time for those that have been taught flawed theories, to abandon their beliefs. Some never will.
Any new concept can be difficult, but as you grasp it, it becomes clearer, until it becomes obvious. That's when you begin to accept it as true.
It's a good thing the Pope isn't looking for me
- Papus79
- Posts: 1798
- Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm
Re: The Universe - explained.
Agreed, this was the same thing i was thinking when I read the OP.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2020, 8:26 pm "Beyond the universe" is incoherent whether the universe is infinite or not.
If we actually have a conversion factor between space and time then most of what we think, theoretically, about being able to go up, down, left, right, forward, or backward infinitely gets lost because on one hand we're thinking three dimensional space has some type of steady fixedness and doesn't curve, which it does. We've noticed that there's enough positive curvature to conclude that it is spherical, ie. go far enough in the same direction and you end up back in the same place. While there could be an outside in the technical sense it wouldn't fit any of our intuitions, ie. it wouldn't be Euclidean space, and we'd need a lot more mathematical knowledge - once we've actually pruned the absurd number of quantum theories - to then figure out what kind of manifold could hold this sort of structure.
I believe Sir Roger Penrose has probably come up with the most sensible/intuitive answer as to how you'd have a big bang in this environment - ie. near infinite time or space would place the other near zero. Thus the approach of heat death and the final black holes popping out of existence would recede into another big bang and this would happen on loop ad infinitum.
-
- Posts: 52
- Joined: February 21st, 2020, 6:50 pm
Re: The Universe - explained.
What is provable in your statements is that space is 'bound', not necessarily, 'infinite'. I also agree that you can make a logical argument by exhausting all possibilities. I argued on this very subject in depth and rely on it for my own working theories on physics. That is, you can argue that the concept of a singularity is false, for instance, something that bothers me about the Big Bang theory. However, I noticed that you deny expansion without understanding what it means. A Steady State type of reality can be the case, for instance, that holds where space expands. This means that either the universe is infinite or bound (meaning that the approach to what appears as a singularity is never reachable).
"Bound" space or sets are any relatively defined concepts such as "0 < x < 1", where the '0' nor the '1' are themselves defined as a part of this closes space/set. ["Bound" space/sets also happens to mean that the ends CAN be defined, such as "0 <= x <= 1", where 0 and 1 are included, by the way.]
The question I pose to you is that IF an infinite space exists, can it not be possible that not all of it is 'visible' or actie all the time?
- Consul
- Posts: 6036
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: The Universe - explained.
If for a finite space to contain all finite spaces is for all finite spaces to be part of it, then there's no logical impossibility, because parthood is a reflexive relation in mereology, with everything being part of itself. Therefore, there's nothing contradictory about a finite space which is such that all finite spaces are part of it, including itself. Note that a mereological sum of things is not like a box or a set!RJG wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2020, 8:56 pmFirstly, it is "finite" space that we are talking about here. It is logically impossible [X<X] for anything "finite" to contain ALL "finite" objects! ...because it cannot contain itself (its "finite" self)!
If it helps, try to imagine a box big enough to contain all boxes. Now ask yourself, does this big "finite" box contain ALL boxes? NO! - it is missing one box, - itself! This, and any, "finite" thing cannot logically contain all "finite" things. X<X is logically impossible. It can't exist outside of itself to capture itself.
Therefore if space exists it can only exist infinitely, for a "finite" space (as the totality of ALL space) is a logical impossibility.
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