• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

There has always been something

C

Clivedurdle

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Messages
208
Location
London UK
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic Atheist!
Once upon a time hydrogen and oxygen got married and had a baby water.

I wonder if spacetime is similar, the result of a marriage of other things, another bi product being the big bang or whatever our experiments and theories track back to.

Maybe energy and mass are also results of other things and processes? A certain equation by Einstein does suggest a relationship to something we call the speed of light.

Maybe that something is change?
 
All of what you say sounds wildly speculative.

There are a large number of hypotheses that attempt to explain where the big bang came from. Perhaps you could spend some time researching those instead of making up explanations.
 
I am possibly riffing off Wolfram https://www.wolframscience.com quantum gravity ideas like those of Smolin, and Deutsch.


I am not sure if change and complexity can happen without time.

Is there a base assumption that a first cause is mass or energy based? Why?

Might change and complexity be the first cause and are somehow the basic structure of an eternal universe?

My understanding is there is a huge amount of speculation here - goddidit is seriously proposed by many!.

Is there a problem with asking what might be the base stuff of the universe? Might it be change?
 
Any discussion of what came before time is going to be difficult. If nothing else, new grammar must be invented.

Peez
 
Clivedurdle said:
Once upon a time hydrogen and oxygen got married and had a baby water.

I wonder if spacetime is similar, the result of a marriage of other things, another bi product being the big bang or whatever our experiments and theories track back to.

Maybe energy and mass are also results of other things and processes? A certain equation by Einstein does suggest a relationship to something we call the speed of light.

Maybe that something is change?
Click to expand...
If by change you mean motion I think you've got it right. My thoughts are along the lines that spacetime isn't at all what we think it is, that things don't happen in spacetime but on spacetime. Something like that.
 
Gravitons, the Higgs boson ... these may help us get closer to some answers.
 
Peez said:
Any discussion of what came before time is going to be difficult. If nothing else, new grammar must be invented.

Peez
Click to expand...

Agreed! And defining change without using time or space! But I think we have to!

Do we also need new maths and geometries?

Do we not have clues in non-linearity? Is the curve a prime cause?
 
Clivedurdle said:
Peez said:
Any discussion of what came before time is going to be difficult. If nothing else, new grammar must be invented.

Peez
Click to expand...

Agreed! And defining change without using time or space! But I think we have to!
Click to expand...
This could be tricky, to say the least.
Do we also need new maths and geometries?
Click to expand...
Is 'math' an aspect of our universe, one that might be different 'before' or 'outside' of our universe?

My brain hurts.

Peez
 
Peez said:
... Is 'math' an aspect of our universe... ?
Click to expand...

Math is metadata—i.e. Information about information. Metadata can be seen as a dynamic event that considers at the static aspects of our Universe. Your question seems like asking whether the language we use is an inherent aspect of our Universe. Well, the words we use change and disappear as soon as we say what we say. Therefore, language cannot be an inherent, permanent aspect of our Universe. However, that to which the math language points can be an inherent aspect of the universe.

All this gets very messy for me when I examine the issue. Objectivity can be seen subjectively. Subjectivity can be seen objectively.

In summary, math seems to be an inherent aspect of our Universe. At the same time, it can appear to be an extrinsic aspect of it due to its transient, dynamic nature.

I don't know what I am talking about. Welcome to my Mind Lab.
 
For whimsical “theories” of the universe, I am kinda partial to an infinite series of nested black holes. What we observe as the universe is only our view of the black hole we are in with the event horizon what we mistakenly identify as the initial expansion, the big bang was actually the initial collapse of the black hole. Of course this makes our observed universe a black hole in a larger one that is a black hole in an even larger one, etc. Black holes that we observe are universes and what we see of them is our view from their outside. Then the black holes (universes) we see themselves have black holes, etc.

The shame is that the idea doesn’t seem to mesh with what we really see and can measure. But I find it a neat idea in the whimsical sort of way that philosophers tend to create “realities” that ain’t real.
 
skepticalbip said:
For whimsical “theories” of the universe, I am kinda partial to an infinite series of nested black holes. What we observe as the universe is only our view of the black hole we are in with the event horizon what we mistakenly identify as the initial expansion, the big bang was actually the initial collapse of the black hole. Of course this makes our observed universe a black hole in a larger one that is a black hole in an even larger one, etc. Black holes that we observe are universes and what we see of them is our view from their outside. Then the black holes (universes) we see themselves have black holes, etc.

The shame is that the idea doesn’t seem to mesh with what we really see and can measure. But I find it a neat idea in the whimsical sort of way that philosophers tend to create “realities” that ain’t real.
Click to expand...

I've never heard of this one. It is fascinating.
 
But maybe, in contrast to Barbour, time is the "something"

The book develops four inter-related themes:

1) There is only one universe at a time. Our universe is not one of many worlds. It has no copy or complete model, even in mathematics. The current interest in multiverse cosmologies is based on fallacious reasoning.

2) Time is real, and indeed the only aspect of our description of nature which is not emergent or approximate. The inclusive reality of time has revolutionary implications for many of our conventional beliefs.

3) Everything evolves in this real time including laws of nature. There is only a relative distinction between laws and the states of affairs that they govern..

4) Mathematics deals with the one real world. We need not imagine it to be a shortcut to timeless truth about an immaterial reality (Platonism) in order to make sense of its “unreasonable effectiveness” in science.
Click to expand...

http://leesmolin.com/writings/the-singular-universe-and-the-reality-of-time/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom