The philosophy thread

[The Outsider]

Even this big-bang is an unproven theory that is held dear simply because of Occam's razor principle.

Man, CC there is tons and tons of evidence for the big bang.

[CC1981]

Man' date=' CC there is tons and tons of evidence for the big bang.[/quote'] No direct evidence for ultimate big-bang though. Remember, we have no idea how facking big the universe is. What we define as the universe is the 'observable universe'. We have no idea whether this is 90 % or 0.001% of our universe. What we know is that there is evidence of common origin of matter, anti-matter and dark matter from a super-dense object ( ie, big bang) in the observable universe. But we have no right to say that the universe originated with the big bang until we atleast have a clue about the shape, dimensions and size of the universe. It is possible that this universe started with big bang, it is entirely possible that what we see is 0.001 % of the universe and there were several 'focal points' that exploded into multiple big-bang scenarios. If that is true, it changes the nature of the universe and its evolution drastically. One problem i have with theoretical physics is that it often forgets the limitations of their evidence in the strictest sense.

[The Outsider]

No direct evidence for ultimate big-bang though.

There is tons and tons of direct evidence. Nothing more so than the Cosmic Microwave Background and its anisotropies which were predicted in the Big Bang model and have been measured to better than one percent over the last decade or so.

Remember, we have no idea how facking big the universe is. What we define as the universe is the 'observable universe'. We have no idea whether this is 90 % or 0.001% of our universe.

And that is the topic I am addressing ie. the observable universe. Whatever is outside our observations wont change one thing about the fact that the observable universe originated from a Big Bang like scenario.

But we have no right to say that the universe originated with the big bang until we atleast have a clue about the shape, dimensions and size of the universe.

Ofcourse we do. We are only talking about the observable universe when we are referring to the universe here.

It is possible that this universe started with big bang, it is entirely possible that what we see is 0.001 % of the universe and there were several 'focal points' that exploded into multiple big-bang scenarios.

Exactly and that changes nothing about the fact that our observable universe started with the big bang. There might be other causally disconnected big bangs leading to the origin of the unobserved part but it does not change the observations we make in our observable universe.

One problem i have with theoretical physics is that it often forgets the limitations of their evidence in the strictest sense.

How much theoretical physics do you know?

[varun]

Before this deteriorates into a slugfest, let me interject. You speak of the observable universe shwetabh. Hmm, so space ceases to exist outside it ? Thereby the concept of it collapsing into one small point from which the Big Bang started is it ? Pardon me for sounding like an ignoramus, but I just can't wrap my head around the concept of nothingness :sad_smile:. But then if we didn't have this "nothingness" outside the observable universe, then i'll have to grapple with the concept of "infinity".. i.e that the universe extends infinitely.. Sigh. In my opinion there always has to be "something" or some energy around that caused the big bang and produced this universe. Or maybe it's just my "rational" mind which is conditioned to the laws of the universe that thinks so ? In that case being "rational" is just a product of our observation, and anything which lies outside our observation cannot be explained by rationalization or reason. lol.

[CC1981]

And that is the topic I am addressing ie. the observable universe. Whatever is outside our observations wont change one thing about the fact that the observable universe originated from a Big Bang like scenario.

utterly false. The crux of the argument on the universe's origin now lies on the size of the universe. Period. For without size there is no context. Without context, there is no postulation for the entire universe. This is the quintessential size issue of size in engineering. People think that scale is just a mathematical muliplier but no, it can fundamentally alter theories on the grand scale. What seems plausable to you based on the observable universe can become a totally local event and irrelevant to the big picture if the observable universe happens to be 0.000001 % of the entire universe an this 'big bang' is an ongoing event in different locales, each the size of our observable universe or more. I agree that our observations may be valid for the observable universe but if you read carefully, scientists FORGET to add the disclaimer that all their guessing and theorizing is about OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE ONLY and that they have NO IDEA about the entire universe. For if our 'ovservable universe' is reduced to a miniscule localized part of the entire universe, then our big-bang is very much an 'in-between' part of the evolution of the localize part and the pre-big bang events become part of localized universe's history in continuity. Therefore, all of a sudden big bang is NOT the origin point of even our local universe but just an epochal event in its long(er) life. therefore by logical extrapolation, big bang would all of a sudden be nothing more than a supernova event on universal proportions (as opposed to galactic proportions of todays largest supernovae) and then we worry about how can a star be possibly so big, etc etc. Therefore, each time a scientist says ' this is how we think the uinverse started', i laugh- for they are talking completely out of their arse.

How much theoretical physics do you know?

Electrical(electronics- control system) Engineer who picked quantum physics courses from 2nd/3rd year for science electives. Ie, i know theoretical physics to do with mechanics; quantum physics to approx 3rd yr undergrad level (eg: up to Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization/Schroedinger in 3d) and everything undergrad related to electromagnetics/semi-conductor devices. Keep in mind i am talking undergrad as in North-American level, not IIT nutcases who call grad-studies courses as undergrad.:wink_smile:

[varun]

Bhaiya I am down with pollen-attack and slowness of mind is one of the symptom and then there is anti-hitsmine dose which is keeping me dorwsy all day . Aur us par se bhari bahrkama squestion. I hate freaking pollination time of summer.

Dada this thread is missing your inputs :wink_smile:

[The Outsider]

Hmm, so space ceases to exist outside it ?

No idea, no clue whatsoever. One thing can be said with certainty though, that the observations and theories which apply to the observable universe won't change by whatever is happening in the unobserved part. Moreover, we are causally disconnected from it ie. whatever events that have happened in that part of the universe have had no bearing on our part of the universe.

Thereby the concept of it collapsing into one small point from which the Big Bang started is it ?

Correct. Because we cant make any observations of that part of the universe, we cant say how it originated, we cant even say if it exists or not.

In my opinion there always has to be "something" or some energy around that caused the big bang and produced this universe. Or maybe it's just my "rational" mind which is conditioned to the laws of the universe that thinks so ? In that case being "rational" is just a product of our observation, and anything which lies outside our observation cannot be explained by rationalization or reason. lol.

Precisely. What we have not observed we cannot comment upon.

[The Outsider]

utterly false. The crux of the argument on the universe's origin now lies on the size of the universe. Period. For without size there is no context. Without context, there is no postulation for the entire universe. This is the quintessential size issue in engineering.

You are getting into a philosophy debate and though the thread is on philosophy my arguments were purely scientific. ALL theories and observations by definition have to be on what you observe. You cannot say anything about an unobserved, causally disconnected piece of the universe. So talking about it from a scientific point of view is pretty much a waste of time.

I agree that our observations may be valid for the observable universe but if you read carefully, scientists FORGET to add the disclaimer that all their guessing and theorizing is about OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE ONLY and that they have NO IDEA about the entire universe. Therefore, each time a scientist says ' this is how we think the uinverse started', i laugh- for they are talking completely out of their arse.

The disclaimer you are talking about is implicit. Universe as is used in science, astrophysics, cosmology means the observable universe ONLY. If some one is writing a paper on what happens outside the observable universe like the multiverse model etc. THEN he makes the distinction explicit. So its not the scientists talking out of their arse, its your lack of knowledge of the accepted norm of using these terms in cosmology. Regarding theoretical Physics in the end the goal of each and every theory is to make it aligned with observations and make predictions which can be observed, so I dont quite see how theoretical Physics is far removed from reality.

[CC1981]

If some one is writing a paper on what happens outside the observable universe like the multiverse model etc.

Multiverse model relates to the concept of seperate universes, not unobservable parts of this universe where the laws of our physics still can hold true.

So its not the scientists talking out of their arse, its your lack of knowledge of the accepted norm of using these terms in cosmology.

No, it is the scientists who themselves forget that they are talking about the observable universe. This much is evident from all the talk on origin of universe being debated furiously without ANY ATTENTION or scholarly commentary done on the idea that big bang may've been a local event pertaining to this part of (theoretically) universe, aka observable universe from our vantage point. And therefore, if its a local event, then big bang is NOT the causal event of any part of the uinverse - our part, observable part or beyond but just a big event. And there goes the entire significance of big bang, doesnt it ? The lack of scholastic research into this thought process is what leads me to think that most theoretical physicists in this issue get ahead of themselves. Ie, it is not just a question of 'oh we are only talking about our observable part and atleast in that we are right'. For that logic is flawed and exposed in the case of big bang being a local event (on the total universal scale). Therefore, without size in context, we cannot be right for even the observable part with any certainty.

[Anakin]

Varun, read dial's post for the idea of all this being a dream or play (leela), a way to discover/see/feel itself. How does the eye see itself or knife cut itself? So when this is all over (not sure how exactly), the godhead wakes up, and may be goes on another dream, another world who knows.

[The Outsider]

Multiverse model relates to the concept of seperate universes, not unobservable parts of this universe where the laws of our physics still can hold true.

I know that, was just quoting an example about when a distinction needs to be made it is made, else it is IMPLICIT that the talk is about the observable universe only.

No, it is the scientists who themselves forget that they are talking about the observable universe. This much is evident from all the talk on origin of universe being debated furiously without ANY ATTENTION or scholarly commentary done on the idea that big bang may've been a local event pertaining to this part of (theoretically) universe, aka observable universe from our vantage point. And therefore, if its a local event, then big bang is NOT the causal event of any part of the uinverse - our part, observable part or beyond but just a big event. And there goes the entire significance of big bang, doesnt it ?

Man, CC I have been interacting with Astrophysicists and Cosmologists for a good 10 years now. No one would say with any certainty that the unobservable universe has 100% originated from the Big Bang because of the simple fact that we have not observed it. There is a decent enough reason to believe that it has because the unobservable universe, called the superhorizon will later on enter the horizon and this has been going on since the origin of the universe. What was once the superhorizon has entered the horizon and we do not see any anomalies till now. The bold part I did not understand at all. Big Bang IS the causal event which triggered what we observe. The superhorizon and us are not in causal contact so our origin CANNOT be explained by what happens anywhere except in our horizon.

[varun]

I believe we've explored the first part quite a bit in scientific and religious terms, since that is the realm of theoretical astrophysics, and we've got a few people here who are familiar with the area :teeth_smile: What about the other two questions ? These pertain to us on a more intimate level and are inexorably linked to the answer that one believes in for part 1 (i.e. origin of the universe.. scientific.. act of god etc). I haven't heard a lot of scientific thoughts about this yet. They would also be more suitable for doctors and biologists to answer I believe. > Who are you ? > What happens when you die ? Let me rephrase this. -> What is consciousness ? Have you guys ever really "felt" the dread that comes with the realization that you will cease to exist. I mean really feel it. If you have, then how do you come to terms with your existence in the first place ? What's the point of doing anything at all if we are all nothing but stardust (scientifically speaking) and our consciousness is an ephimeral collection of memories and neuro impulses ? Heck even sand has memory, put a stone on it, and it leaves an imprint. What's so special about us except that we are complex ? PS: If people think this is being overdone, I'll have another thread with another set of questions tomorrow to ponder upon :cantstop:

[CC1981]

Big Bang IS the causal event which triggered what we observe.

Whether it is the ultimate causal event or merely a step in the chain that goes back to ultimate causal event is something that cannot be known until the extent of the universe is known (thereby settling the issue of whether the currently 'observable universe' is a major or insignificant part of this universe). Ie, if our observable universe is indeed the lion's share of the universe and thus causal event here is the causal event of the univerese, then current hypothesises are true. If our big bang is found to be one of the many 'localized big bangs' in this universe, then the big bang is not a causal event for our universe in any form - the entire universe or the observable universe, but a 'mid process' step which would push back the 'causal event' to pre-big Bang days. It is entirely possible that what we postulate as the big bang for 'startup of this universe' is nothing more than a super-star going supernova. ( super-star in universal scale, not galactic scale). Which would mean that then the big bang is nothing more than a supernova of gargantuan proportions and the causal factor is further pushed back. There is already a hypothesis ( given credence in the science community) that the first stars were super-massive blue giants that burnt furiously and were 1000+ times larger than our sun. This was in pre-galactic days and only the explosion of those stars started smaller star-burst formations that created today's galaxies. it is entirely possible too that the super-dense condensate that was the pre-big-bang mass, too, was a ginormous star encompassing matter of thousands of galaxies. This is the fundamental deduction based on the size of the universe.

[The Outsider]

Boss, CC your going on and on about the unobservable universe is a futile exercise. That part of the universe is NOT in causal contact with us had NOTHING to do with us EVER. Moreover, since we are not going to observe that universe any time in the near future it is as good as non existent for us. Also, what we see in the universe today was in some point in the past NOT part of our observable universe. The superhorizon gradually entered the horizon with time and NO anomaly has been observed in the Big Bang. That is an EXTREMELY compelling argument that as the current superhorizon enters our horizon in the future things will fall into place. Not 100% mind you, but for all purposes that part of the universe does not exist for us. Sorry to say but your analogy of supernovae and big bang is completely bankas. How would you form a star with quarks? Where will you get the Hydrogen for that? Also, supernovae explode after the core of a star COLLAPSES. Anyhow, I am off for the evening pretty soon. Maybe we can continue it later.

[CC1981]

Boss, CC your going on and on about the unobservable universe is a futile exercise. That part of the universe is NOT in causal contact with us had NOTHING to do with us EVER.

I am not talking about the part of universe that is not in causal contact. Technically that would make it a different universe as theoretically speaking, the concept of universe rests on the idea that its an area of space/matter/time conglomerate that has causal common beginning. I am merely talking about universe that lies BEYOND the observable universe- still part of our universe, still causally related and we have zero idea now how big it is. The size of this 'causally related space in entirity', ie, our universe ( made up of the observable and unobservable space) is what determines its origination. I do not see merit in your assessment that the universe that is beyond our observable rim is not in causal contact with our own. That would be like a fish saying that the water it cannot see has nothing to do with the water it can see in the ocean. This is like we (mankind) is a submarine with headlights in a vast body of water( our observable universe) with all indications that it started from one big well-spring of water (big bang). Trouble is, we have no way of knowing whether this 'vast body of water' we are in and we are observing some lake or ocean ; whether we are seeing nearly the whole pond or whether we are stuck in a lagoon thinking the lagoon to be the ocean. The size of it, once approximated with any accuracy, will play a critical role in the position of this well-spring of water that is feeding or fed the water to our 'body of water'. It could very well be the only well spring, it could be one of many. Dunno if this analogy made any sense but if you dont still get it ( and by your argument tending towards the causally unrelated universe, i dont think you are getting what i am saying), i can not explain any further. We simply do not know whether even this big-bang event was the casus belli of our universe but merely one step in the middle of the rung sowewhere in the steps from the very conception of our universe. This can only be known once we can say how big our universe is.

[CC1981]

How would you form a star with quarks? Where will you get the Hydrogen for that? Also, supernovae explode after the core of a star COLLAPSES.

It was meant to be a visual analogy, not specific analogy in physics. I am merely insinuating that this super-dense condensate that went 'big bang' to create our universe could be the earlier version of 'heavenly bodies' in the universe and possibly one of many too.

[The Outsider]

I am merely talking about universe that lies BEYOND the observable universe- still part of our universe, still causally related and we have zero idea now how big it is.

Arre Baba, thats what I am trying to explain to you. The observable universe has been observed through the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation. Anything in causal contact with us has been observed through the CMB, and as far as we know nothing travels faster than light and so we know the exact size of the causally connected universe. And whats more the Big Bang theory has not only predicted the temperature of the CMB coming from the ENTIRE observable universe, it has also predicted the anisotropies in it upto accuracies of greater than 1%. Check out the following to see the accuracy of the predictions :

[King]

I'm not an absolute believer in science. What Newton proved was disproved by Einstein and hence forth. With technological advancement in future I'm sure many theories that are floating around will be redundant. Science is based a lot on theories so is religion, god et al. I believe people are not dumb enough just to believe whatever the religious text says. There have been some great human beings before us and they know a thing or two about what's beyond death. I would like to think there is a world beyond death. There are way too many unexplainable things in this world and scientists have done zilch IMO in explaining the unexplainable. Scientists are still learning to crawl I would like to think and they will need a lot of time before they are able to walk. As for the 3 questions here are my opinions : - Where did the world come from ? There cannot be anything without a creator. Nothing happens on its own. There is someone (a group perhaps) that do these things. I can't believe the planets started to revolve around the sun as a coincidence. I also cannot believe the moon just started to circle the planet Earth all by itself. Physics says nothing can be created in a void. Medical science is not able to replace a brain as yet. Even medical science has only gone so far. It can replace heart, lungs but a day when the brain can be replaced it will well and truly have arrived. - Who are you ? I'm yet another being on this wonderful planet whose future is already decided. I can do as much as I want but I can't quite change destiny. I can decide where I'm going to be at 1 am tomorrow noon and get there but I can't precisely point out when I'm going to vanish from this planet. Does this intrigue me? Yes it does. I'm sure a lot of us are capable to reach a state where we rise above everything like a lot have done before but we are way too arrogant to do that. We are what you call smart arses. - What happens when you die ? I believe in recycle of some kind. I will be recycled and will get into another vehicle and carry on the journey till that point in time when I'm good enough to reach a different world. This is a mere journey.

[The Outsider]

What Newton proved was disproved by Einstein and hence forth.

Not really, Ravi. Einstein's work was an extension of Newton's and what Newton said still holds for the limits in which he formulated his work. Modern attempts like String Theory are trying to extend Einstein's work into the realms of very small distances, that doesn't mean they will prove Einstein's or Newton's works wrong. They are aiming to extend their works into frameworks where they are not applicable.

[Gaurav]

Science is based a lot on theories so is religion' date= god et al. I believe people are not dumb enough just to believe whatever the religious text says.

There have been some great human beings before us and they know a thing or two about what's beyond death.

Sorry but that is total cr@p :tounge_smile: Zero evidence of that.

Not true Ravi. Some things are based on theories but mostly backed by physical evidence. Religion on the other hand is fairy tales backed by more fairy tales :hysterical: No comparison mate!