A universe by definition is everything. You can't have a universe within a universe.
I would not get too hung up on the universe thing. The universe's size is as big as our knowledge of it.
I would also like to point out that Einstein was a regular user of a drug called nicotine.
He said "I believe that pipe smoking contributes to a somewhat calm and objective judgment in all human affairs".
While I am not interested in what level of drug you consider defines a "stoner", Einstein did spend the bulk of his time pondering life at the end of a pipe.
I would not get too hung up on the universe thing. The universe's size is as big as our knowledge of it.
I would also like to point out that Einstein was a regular user of a drug called nicotine.
He said "I believe that pipe smoking contributes to a somewhat calm and objective judgment in all human affairs".
While I am not interested in what level of drug you consider defines a "stoner", Einstein did spend the bulk of his time pondering life at the end of a pipe.
Please can we do something more useful, like correcting the false thinking of brain surgeons (as I suggested)? I'm sure they would love to hear our thoughts. Much more useful than cosmology.
After that we could turn our attention to a few of the unsolved problems in pure mathematics. Hopefully we will be able to assert that as we don't understand the problem we can conclude that the problem does not exist so doesn't need a solution.
After that we could turn our attention to a few of the unsolved problems in pure mathematics. Hopefully we will be able to assert that as we don't understand the problem we can conclude that the problem does not exist so doesn't need a solution.
Feel free to start a thread about brain surgeons.. 😉
But I'm not sure they will be that interested in our thoughts about them.😀
I used to smoke tobacco, and at one time smoked a pipe. I don't find my perception to be any different now that I don't smoke a pipe than when I did.
I'm still trying to get my head around an infinite universe.
1. the universe started as a point and expanded outward in all directions
2. there were ripples in the expanding matter that resulted in nonuniform expansion and non uniform distribution of matter.
3. the universe has a radius of approximately 63 billion light years (Lang)
4. Earth is in a spiral galaxy (Milky Way)
5. We see residual background microwave energy in all directions in a near uniform distribution
Logical conclusions are that:
A. The universe is roughly spherical.
B. We are near the center of the universe.
Is this in agreement with current cosmological thinking?
If so, then if I go in one direction far enough then I should come back in the opposite side of the sphere?
I'm still trying to get my head around an infinite universe.
1. the universe started as a point and expanded outward in all directions
2. there were ripples in the expanding matter that resulted in nonuniform expansion and non uniform distribution of matter.
3. the universe has a radius of approximately 63 billion light years (Lang)
4. Earth is in a spiral galaxy (Milky Way)
5. We see residual background microwave energy in all directions in a near uniform distribution
Logical conclusions are that:
A. The universe is roughly spherical.
B. We are near the center of the universe.
Is this in agreement with current cosmological thinking?
If so, then if I go in one direction far enough then I should come back in the opposite side of the sphere?
Hi Bob,
I'm not sure what it is you would like my opinion on. Is it the article that the Universe Shouldn't Exist (which brings us back to Leibniz's old question of why there is something rather than nothing), or something else.
My avatar is simply a playfully thrown together 'sculpture' that one of my sons constructed as a school project (he had to construct an object from naturally found materials--grade 4). I like its whimsical character.
And what exactly is it of which we cannot speak? 😕
I find it ironic that you condemn non-scientists who try to reflect upon these kinds of questions while at the same time condemning Metaphysics, a field of study which you yourself confess to having avoided. I've encountered this kind of knee-jerk, dogmatic condemnation of metaphysics (and philosophy) more often that I care to recall and have found that, more often than not, it comes from people who have very little experience in or knowledge of the field.
What I find even more ironic is that all people, including scientists, actually have a working metaphysics that underlies and constitutes their general world view which they uncritically accept as 'true' (e.g. assumptions and presuppositions regarding the nature of existence, the gradations of being, the role of space and time within the order of being, the ontological status of the possible, the ontological status of mind, and so on). The problem is that they are often so deeply immersed within their own 'normalized' metaphysics that they don't even recognize that it's there.
The old joke about why the college dean liked philosophers comes to mind... 😀
As someone who is generally read on philosophy (not a specialist by any means, but I've put in the basic work), I've found some very useful stuff there (I particularly liked Peirce, Popper, Dennett, and Searle). But when it comes to understanding how the universe works, generating testable predictions, and testing them to discard incorrect hypotheses and create theories that give accurate representations, I'll take Feynman over Latour.
Many things. I've pointed out a few of them earlier in the thread. A grammatically and syntactically correct sentence can still have no physical meaning.
As someone who is generally read on philosophy (not a specialist by any means, but I've put in the basic work), I've found some very useful stuff there (I particularly liked Peirce, Popper, Dennett, and Searle). But when it comes to understanding how the universe works, generating testable predictions, and testing them to discard incorrect hypotheses and create theories that give accurate representations, I'll take Feynman over Latour.
Many things. I've pointed out a few of them earlier in the thread. A grammatically and syntactically correct sentence can still have no physical meaning.
When it comes to generating testable predictions about specific aspects of the natural world, I'll take Feynman over Latour as well. No problem there. Addressing those kinds of specific, localized questions is exactly what the special sciences (e.g. physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, psychology, and so on) do best. When it comes to other kinds of questions, however, such as those relating to metaphysics, logic, ethics, mind, and so on, I'll take Whitehead or Peirce over Feynman or Einstein any day.
As for remaining silent about those things about which we cannot speak, Wittgenstein's claim must be taken in its proper context as well (which the person who quoted it failed to do). Wittgenstein's claim arises from and applies only within the very narrow 'picture' oriented model of thought and meaning that he outlined in the Tractatus, a model of thought that Wittgenstein himself later rejected (or expanded upon, depending upon your take) as overly narrow and inadequate. Of course there are lots of utterances that don't seem to make a lot of sense in most contexts (e.g. "It's true that I have a square circle in my hand."), but that's not the kind of thing to which Witgenstein's claim refers. "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence" refers to the limits of thought in general, not the particular limits of any specific person's ability to understand.So while some my have a hard time understanding modern conceptions of space (and I include myself among them), there are also some mathematicians and theoretical physicists who are able to think about the kinds of complex equations involved in such conceptions. It follows that we should not remain silent in our attempt to understand such things.
As I noted before, I personally think that we as a society have an obligation to try and make sense of these kinds of issues in everyday terms, as part of a general public discourse. Failure to do this puts the scientist in the traditional, authoritarian role of Priest or Philosopher King, who has a kind of privileged access to a secret knowledge that others cannot hope to understand. Science is very important, but it is simply part of a more general effort to understand the world and our place within it. All too often we see people appealing to claims like Wittgenstein's (or variations on it) as a way of trying to silence those who cannot speak the secret language. This kind of attitude is dangerous and should be called out far more often than it is. It is here that Latour is to be applauded, for he recognizes the importance of restoring the proper place of the sciences within our overall attempt both to understand the world and to try and determine how it is we should try and live within it.
Regards the multiverse "Enter M and string theory".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsAz_P8Go9c
Regards
M. Gregg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsAz_P8Go9c
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
I think I see my problem.
I am thinking of space.
The equations describe Space-Time and thus have different dimensions than the three dimensional space as we perceive it / in which we live.
I am thinking of space.
The equations describe Space-Time and thus have different dimensions than the three dimensional space as we perceive it / in which we live.
Last edited:
The data that supports my hypothesis is the same data that supports the "big bang" hypothesis. It is merely a different explanation for the same data, and was "synthesized" in the same way as any theory.
The fact that one theory seems more sound than the other is simply due to the myriad of assumptions underlying our present "knowledge" of the Universe.
This is only true if the theories about how radiation propagates in the Universe are correct.
I couldn't agree more. I've had this conversation so many times and it always ends the same way. I am sure you know what I mean.
I guess there is no reason at all to self-imposed censorship... Besides, speech follows thought, thus if we are not allowed to talk about something, it's also useless thinking about it, limiting a person to what he/she already knows..
imho, speaking of matters you know nothing about is a way of learning about things and other people.
Imho, your comments relating to the Picard horn, Moebius strip, Klein bottle or similar interface / shape of the universe which causes isotropy / infinite directions, so to speak, is only theory.
Afaik, there is little data or evidence which support these infinity type shapes of the universe.
Afaik, there is only a single piece of data which supports the isotropical nature of the universe - the analysis of the cosmic microwave background / CMB information - which indicates that we are very close to the centre of the universe.
The statistical chance of us existing very near the centre of the universe is considered very, very unlikely.
If we apply isotropy to the universe, then that statistical chance of us existing in the centre, is removed.
However, imho, the statistical chance of isotropy actually existing in real life is very, very low as well.
Multiverse theory - Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That theory is part of our reality (universe).
_____________
What man/men/women make of it (scientists and not) is just that; it.
As for pipe smoking; he can smoke all the pipes he wants, it makes no difference.
Yeah, start your own thread on that subject. Meanwhile here we'll talk about the universe. ...And into what it might expand; that, is what we like to expand on.
🙂
no matter what the elves will tell you, you will forget right away when you come back 😀
They will say something along that you are the One, you are light, ignorant, a big cosmic joke, and you believe in it!
They will laugh at you for taken everything so seriously and show you your universe and you will come back and not be able to remember the 1/ 100000 th of all youv experienced.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.