Personality Cafe banner

21 - 34 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,908 Posts
Does a lack of relevance remove the existence? I will agree that any time prior to TBB is probably quite irrelevant from a scientific perspective, because as you say, nothing happened(probably).
No, no, I did not say that nothing happened before the big bang, there is no possible way for me to know that. I was talking about time in general and not time in relation to the singularity. I can't know if the singularity was in equilibrium or not, it could as well be not and time could exist, I can't know that. What I was trying to say is that it is possible for time not to exist.

I get the impression that many of you go by "if we can't measure it, it probably didn't exist", is that right?

Does that mean that if I have a measuring tape that is 3m long, I can say that there is nothing with dimensions longer than 3m, because it is clearly unmeasurable for me? Yes, it is a silly simplification, but hopefully you get my point.
The length example doesn't land. It's like saying I got a clock that counts 12 hours but I can't measure anything greater that this. Which is false. If you have a measure, any measure, then anything that is measurable by this measure can be measured. LOL. Maybe you have tied time with your own existence very tightly and can't imagine it by its own. The arrow of time is highly related with entropy. When entropy reaches its maximum in a closed system then time does not exist anymore. I don't know how else to say it. Time is a measure, it's not a thing by its own.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,461 Posts
Discussion Starter #22
No, no, I did not say that nothing happened before the big bang, there is no possible way for me to know that. I was talking about time in general and not time in relation to the singularity. I can't know if the singularity was in equilibrium or not, it could as well be not and time could exist, I can't know that. What I was trying to say is that it is possible for time not to exist.


The length example doesn't land. It's like saying I got a clock that counts 12 hours but I can't measure anything greater that this. Which is false. If you have a measure, any measure, then anything that is measurable by this measure can be measured. LOL. Maybe you have tied time with your own existence very tightly and can't imagine it by its own. The arrow of time is highly related with entropy. When entropy reaches its maximum in a closed system then time does not exist anymore. I don't know how else to say it. Time is a measure, it's not a thing by its own.
:confused:..ok, I have to admit defeat here. This is now over my head. You are either very smart or very good at making things up:tongue:.

I will however keep my foolish beliefs regarding time and find comfort in that no one, probably, can prove me wrong.

But no, I have not tied time with my own existence. Its more like I have separated time from the physical realm...or something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
520 Posts
:confused:..ok, I have to admit defeat here. This is now over my head. You are either very smart or very good at making things up:tongue:.

I will however keep my foolish beliefs regarding time and find comfort in that no one, probably, can prove me wrong.

But no, I have not tied time with my own existence. Its more like I have separated time from the physical realm...or something.
Out of curiosity, when you fall to sleep at night, and happen to not dream, what do you experience?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,908 Posts
Time doesn't exist per-say. The illusion of time exists because there is an order to when stimulus is encoded into our brain; if nothing was conscious, everything would happen instantaneously, thus we can't even be sure that the universe exists unless one is outside of it, but then that would mean it's no longer a closed system. Ha, maybe we're just a wave-function waiting to be collapsed.
Mind fuck! You seem to have taken it to the next level. Care to tell more about the bold part?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2fast4u2

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,461 Posts
Discussion Starter #25
Out of curiosity, when you fall to sleep at night, and happen to not dream, what do you experience?
Pure bliss? I love dreamless sleep, it's the best thing to be invented since air-conditioning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
520 Posts
Mind fuck! You seem to have taken it to the next level. Care to tell more about the bold part?
Well, if we assume that it's the encoding of memories, of an observer, that produces an illusion of time, then what's stopping everything from happening all at once, but in the specified order of things? An observer outside of the universe would be required to confirm or deny that our universe has a duration at all.

I guess from the perspective I was getting at, our whole experience of the universe is merely part of its process.

I can't help but think my line of reasoning and axioms concluded in a scenario where nothing was really happening except for a playing out of probability. Now that I think back, this would assume symmetry does exist and it's a play between nothing and something. This is where reasoning breaks down. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,154 Posts
So, I believe in a modified version of the big bang theory(lets call it TBBT like that show). I think there was time before the big bang, and surrounding the energy ball, or whatever the hell blew up, was just vacuum as in 'nothing', not like some "scientists" believe; 'nothing, not even vacuum'.

The notion that there would be nothing, not even be vacuum seems silly to me. does that mean it was incased in 'Nothing'? Was there blocks of Nothing surrounding it?
I'll preface all of this by saying that I don't believe in the objective existence of time or space. I think that our idea of the existence of these things arises from the relationships that we observe via our limited perceptions, which themselves arise from our limited senses.

Empty space and "nothing" are not the same thing. Space (even empty space) has the attribute of extension; "nothing" has no attributes. Anything that is capable of surrounding/encasing something else is not "nothing", because to be capable of doing so would require that thing to exist. Nothing doesn't exist. Even a vacuum is "something".

IMO existence is necessarily infinite. There is no room for nothingness to surround it.

The one(yes, i'm pretending there's only one) hole I found in my TBBT is the question of how long was the energy ball there for? It can't be forever as I deem that impossible. So there has to have been something to create it. My random guess is that photons were created from nothing bundled up, and et voilà, a huge energy bomb that can create a universe...why not, right?
Time is relative to the perspective of the viewing subject. If you're working under the assumption that the singularity was unchanging and all that existed, then there was no time. If you're working under the assumption (as you seem to have indicated via your multiverse theory) that there was something outside of the singularity, then the time that the singularity existed is relative to the place that you are viewing it from.

How can "nothing" be bundled up? In order to bundle something up, there must be something to bundle up.

The only thing that really irks me about my theory is that I have to at some point believe in 'something from nothing'. I find no way around it.
Unless, of course, "something" has always existed.

On the quantum level electrons and etc. appear out of nothing and what's more, this phenomenon doesn't break a single law of quantum physics and doesn't break a single law of nature.
...according to the current (and very possibly incorrect) paradigm of quantum physics, of course.

Asserting that there was time before the big bang and is a wild claim. First and foremost, if that were the case time would have to be measurable as extending beyond 14 billion years. On top of that there should be inconsistencies in the mathematical formulas supporting the big bang. I wonder why that isn't the case especially since said formulas even display that the universe is expanding upon the PREMISE of the big bang?
Because data is always interpreted in the light of theory. Within the framework of a paradigm that supports the big bang, the math makes sense because of the assumptions of the paradigm. Any inconsistencies are seen as puzzles which simply haven't been solved yet.

From outside of the paradigm, those same "puzzles" might be viewed as falsifications.

"The mind isn't big enough to fathom the concept of nothing." I'm also not sure about that. The mind seems to be capable of unlimited growth, and if not, take a look at A.I. The human mind can create things that surpass itself. Who's to say that it wont someday be comprehensible? We can't know that.
Sure we can.

The mind is capable of many things, but it is not capable of comprehending logical self-contradictions.

Try to conceive an idea of a married bachelor without changing the definition of either word. Now try to picture a square circle without changing the definition of either word.

For something to be able to be comprehended, it must have attributes. "Nothing" has no attributes (nor is it "something" at all), and so it cannot be comprehended without changing the definition of nothingness. The closest you can come to comprehending nothingness is to conceive of all the things that it is not, but in that case you are still not really comprehending nothingness itself.


Because of time and space the universe operates based on the law of cause and effect. Every action has a reaction etc.
David Hume actually has a very interesting argument against this claim. Our idea of cause and effect is not certain. There is nothing certain that links one event to another in a cause and effect relationship. Our idea of cause and effect (though it may or may not actually be correct) is based on habit, custom, and experience.

Leibniz's harmony theory provides a plausible alternative to cause and effect, though you may or may not agree with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
This is by far the most interesting thread I've stumbled upon in here so far. I wish I knew more math and physics to contribute. Keep up the discussion, I'm waiting to read more :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
514 Posts
I have always denied the notion that there was nothing outside the universe, or the notion that there was no outside at all, even as a child. Also, your theory is interesting, but obviously (to me) not correct. I have never created a definitive answer for myself as to what lay outside the universe, but I'm sure something has to. The paradox here is that it is seemingly likely impossible for matter to continue forever in all directions, but also impossible for an end to matter. Another question is: If the universe ends at a specific point, with no matter outside, is it called a matter-less area? Or is it not space at all, because it's not even there? And if I'm correct there has to be matter for things to exist meaning that with no matter there is no space. NOTHING. I'm rambling about space and literal nothingness. I have to stop writing now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,908 Posts
I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.
-Socrates
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,728 Posts
indeed, we all have issues with understanding our existence, this is just something we feel we need to know in order to understand our existence..

From what Ive gathered, the universe is a sphere, go to one edge, and you come back in from the other side, just one big singularity. This is where I value my wifes insight, as she simply doesnt care, and is comfortable with that, so I envy her lol..

Relativity at the core is a "theory".. remember, no one actually has a clue, we are using 10 boxes of puzzles to complete one picture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,154 Posts
The paradox here is that it is seemingly likely impossible for matter to continue forever in all directions, but also impossible for an end to matter.
How so?

Another question is: If the universe ends at a specific point, with no matter outside, is it called a matter-less area? Or is it not space at all, because it's not even there? And if I'm correct there has to be matter for things to exist meaning that with no matter there is no space. NOTHING. I'm rambling about space and literal nothingness. I have to stop writing now.
If it has an outside at all, then the outside is just space without matter. The concept of "outside" relies on the concept of space.

There has to be matter for things to exist? By that logic, does nothing exist in the empty space within our solar system/galaxy/universe? How do you explain the perceived space between celestial objects if there is nothing between them?

There's also the consideration that energy can travel across space without any matter being present.

I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.
-Socrates
+100

The Apology FTW!
 
21 - 34 of 34 Posts
Top