Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

what if it just was?

Page 2 of 4 [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Saitorosan
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 30
Location: The Bronx, NY

18 Feb 2010, 5:30 pm

Sand wrote:
SirLogiC wrote:
So this is a thought I've had. I guess this might be a form of thought experiment? Don't take it as real science, just as something to think about.

Lets just say that scientists discovered conclusively as fact that:

the universe was curved- going in any direction long enough will bring you back to where you started, even if it takes many billions of years
the universe was finite in mass and volume- any apparent changes are thus just a reconfiguration of what was already there
the universe had no beginning, so time had no beginning. Also meaning the universe and time couldn't have an end.**

So essentially the universe is constantly changing but never had a start, it just "is". No beginning and no end.

How would you handle hearing that?

People have a long history of trying to explain things they don't understand. Creation stories exist in many religions past and present. Now science is also trying to explain how things started.

Do you think people could handle something like the universe not having a beginning or would they always try to find a way to explain a beginning, against fact and reason? How do you think religions would handle it, creation stories suddenly being disproved beyond all doubt?

**just as a small nut buster- can something with no beginning have an end?


The Big Bang which was a beginning is fairly clearly nailed down.


The only thing that's nailed down is our devotion to human interpretation of vastly incomplete data. When we can reliably define events, objects, and other penomena outside of our little neck of the universe, maybe these ideas will hold some credibility with me, but until then, we are nothing more than ignorant little beings lost in a vast universe.


_________________
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

18 Feb 2010, 7:56 pm

Saitorosan wrote:
Sand wrote:
SirLogiC wrote:
So this is a thought I've had. I guess this might be a form of thought experiment? Don't take it as real science, just as something to think about.

Lets just say that scientists discovered conclusively as fact that:

the universe was curved- going in any direction long enough will bring you back to where you started, even if it takes many billions of years
the universe was finite in mass and volume- any apparent changes are thus just a reconfiguration of what was already there
the universe had no beginning, so time had no beginning. Also meaning the universe and time couldn't have an end.**

So essentially the universe is constantly changing but never had a start, it just "is". No beginning and no end.

How would you handle hearing that?

People have a long history of trying to explain things they don't understand. Creation stories exist in many religions past and present. Now science is also trying to explain how things started.

Do you think people could handle something like the universe not having a beginning or would they always try to find a way to explain a beginning, against fact and reason? How do you think religions would handle it, creation stories suddenly being disproved beyond all doubt?

**just as a small nut buster- can something with no beginning have an end?


The Big Bang which was a beginning is fairly clearly nailed down.


The only thing that's nailed down is our devotion to human interpretation of vastly incomplete data. When we can reliably define events, objects, and other penomena outside of our little neck of the universe, maybe these ideas will hold some credibility with me, but until then, we are nothing more than ignorant little beings lost in a vast universe.


You can sit back and describe yourself as totally unqualified to understand anything since all data is incomplete or you can take that which we do know and attempt to make some kind of integrated sense out of it that an be a useful instrument for further inquiry. Smugly giving up out of incomplete knowledge is merely accepting total defeat and that gets you nowhere since all data is incomplete.



Saitorosan
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 30
Location: The Bronx, NY

18 Feb 2010, 8:49 pm

Sand wrote:
You can sit back and describe yourself as totally unqualified to understand anything since all data is incomplete or you can take that which we do know and attempt to make some kind of integrated sense out of it that an be a useful instrument for further inquiry. Smugly giving up out of incomplete knowledge is merely accepting total defeat and that gets you nowhere since all data is incomplete.


I was merely saying that calling the Big Bang "nailed down" is going a bit far. We barely even know about our own galaxy, an infinitesimally small corner of the universe, let alone the entire picture. The world being flat was "nailed down" at one point. Now we have a more complete picture, and know this not to be the case.


_________________
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

18 Feb 2010, 9:59 pm

Saitorosan wrote:
Sand wrote:
You can sit back and describe yourself as totally unqualified to understand anything since all data is incomplete or you can take that which we do know and attempt to make some kind of integrated sense out of it that an be a useful instrument for further inquiry. Smugly giving up out of incomplete knowledge is merely accepting total defeat and that gets you nowhere since all data is incomplete.


I was merely saying that calling the Big Bang "nailed down" is going a bit far. We barely even know about our own galaxy, an infinitesimally small corner of the universe, let alone the entire picture. The world being flat was "nailed down" at one point. Now we have a more complete picture, and know this not to be the case.


We do what we can with what we know and when that doesn't work we find out why. The alternative of watching open mouthed and empty brained at the immensity of what we don't know is to give up. We nail down all the data we know and at the moment that looks like the big bang. Empty speculation with no data can be marginally useful if it motivates verification but otherwise it's comic book stuff.



ryan7585
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 26

18 Feb 2010, 10:08 pm

PLA wrote:
ryan7585 wrote:
PLA wrote:
ryan7585 wrote:
[...] they recently discovered the universe is quite possibly a giant hologram [...]

If, by "recently", you mean "in the mists of prehistory".


care to elaborate?


Though popularised in Western thought as the Cartesian daemon in the 1640s, the idea had lurched about in human beliefs and thought experiments for a very long time even before that.

Unless, of course, I have utterly misconstrued what you meant to indicate by the words "giant hologram", in which case I would necessarily be off target.


"The holograms you find on credit cards and banknotes are etched on two-dimensional plastic films. When light bounces off them, it recreates the appearance of a 3D image. In the 1990s physicists Leonard Susskind and Nobel prizewinner Gerard 't Hooft suggested that the same principle might apply to the universe as a whole. Our everyday experience might itself be a holographic projection of physical processes that take place on a distant, 2D surface."

This is explained in further detail here-- click.



ryan7585
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 26

18 Feb 2010, 10:14 pm

Sand wrote:
Saitorosan wrote:
Sand wrote:
You can sit back and describe yourself as totally unqualified to understand anything since all data is incomplete or you can take that which we do know and attempt to make some kind of integrated sense out of it that an be a useful instrument for further inquiry. Smugly giving up out of incomplete knowledge is merely accepting total defeat and that gets you nowhere since all data is incomplete.


I was merely saying that calling the Big Bang "nailed down" is going a bit far. We barely even know about our own galaxy, an infinitesimally small corner of the universe, let alone the entire picture. The world being flat was "nailed down" at one point. Now we have a more complete picture, and know this not to be the case.


We do what we can with what we know and when that doesn't work we find out why. The alternative of watching open mouthed and empty brained at the immensity of what we don't know is to give up. We nail down all the data we know and at the moment that looks like the big bang. Empty speculation with no data can be marginally useful if it motivates verification but otherwise it's comic book stuff.


I agree that it's important to try to create a complete reality out of all the available data. But that's no reason to pretend we have complete data. Your wording suggested that it's nearly known as fact. We're nowhere close yet- there are too many holes to be filled before we get cocky.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

18 Feb 2010, 11:13 pm

ryan7585 wrote:
Sand wrote:
Saitorosan wrote:
Sand wrote:
You can sit back and describe yourself as totally unqualified to understand anything since all data is incomplete or you can take that which we do know and attempt to make some kind of integrated sense out of it that an be a useful instrument for further inquiry. Smugly giving up out of incomplete knowledge is merely accepting total defeat and that gets you nowhere since all data is incomplete.


I was merely saying that calling the Big Bang "nailed down" is going a bit far. We barely even know about our own galaxy, an infinitesimally small corner of the universe, let alone the entire picture. The world being flat was "nailed down" at one point. Now we have a more complete picture, and know this not to be the case.


We do what we can with what we know and when that doesn't work we find out why. The alternative of watching open mouthed and empty brained at the immensity of what we don't know is to give up. We nail down all the data we know and at the moment that looks like the big bang. Empty speculation with no data can be marginally useful if it motivates verification but otherwise it's comic book stuff.


I agree that it's important to try to create a complete reality out of all the available data. But that's no reason to pretend we have complete data. Your wording suggested that it's nearly known as fact. We're nowhere close yet- there are too many holes to be filled before we get cocky.


It's not a matter of getting cocky, its just a pragmatic method of not getting cuckoo. To talk vaguely about the great unknown may have some emotional or poetic value but there's no point in denigrating what we do know.



peterd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Age: 73
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,374

19 Feb 2010, 5:06 am

Ah, bollocks. Yes, it's important to know whether the universe will drop us over the cliff inside the next decade. It's just that we've no way to tell. If we just decide to live as though that were so, what will be different?

In the meantime, there are a wide range of things that influence ordinary people's life expectations that can be analysed in ordinary greatest good for the greatest number ways, and there are all sorts of things to get heated about that actually make a difference that come to light through that analysis. Let's get real.



PLA
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Sweden

19 Feb 2010, 6:41 am

ryan7585 wrote:
PLA wrote:
ryan7585 wrote:
PLA wrote:
ryan7585 wrote:
[...] they recently discovered the universe is quite possibly a giant hologram [...]

If, by "recently", you mean "in the mists of prehistory".


care to elaborate?


Though popularised in Western thought as the Cartesian daemon in the 1640s, the idea had lurched about in human beliefs and thought experiments for a very long time even before that.

Unless, of course, I have utterly misconstrued what you meant to indicate by the words "giant hologram", in which case I would necessarily be off target.


"The holograms you find on credit cards and banknotes are etched on two-dimensional plastic films. When light bounces off them, it recreates the appearance of a 3D image. In the 1990s physicists Leonard Susskind and Nobel prizewinner Gerard 't Hooft suggested that the same principle might apply to the universe as a whole. Our everyday experience might itself be a holographic projection of physical processes that take place on a distant, 2D surface."

This is explained in further detail here-- click.


Ooo, interesting stuff. Thanks, mate! :)


_________________
I can make a statement true by placing it first in this signature.

"Everyone loves the dolphin. A bitter shark - emerging from it's cold depths - doesn't stand a chance." This is hyperbol.

"Run, Jump, Fall, Limp off, Try Harder."


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

19 Feb 2010, 7:13 am

PLA wrote:
ryan7585 wrote:
PLA wrote:
ryan7585 wrote:
PLA wrote:
ryan7585 wrote:
[...] they recently discovered the universe is quite possibly a giant hologram [...]

If, by "recently", you mean "in the mists of prehistory".


care to elaborate?


Though popularised in Western thought as the Cartesian daemon in the 1640s, the idea had lurched about in human beliefs and thought experiments for a very long time even before that.

Unless, of course, I have utterly misconstrued what you meant to indicate by the words "giant hologram", in which case I would necessarily be off target.


"The holograms you find on credit cards and banknotes are etched on two-dimensional plastic films. When light bounces off them, it recreates the appearance of a 3D image. In the 1990s physicists Leonard Susskind and Nobel prizewinner Gerard 't Hooft suggested that the same principle might apply to the universe as a whole. Our everyday experience might itself be a holographic projection of physical processes that take place on a distant, 2D surface."

This is explained in further detail here-- click.


Ooo, interesting stuff. Thanks, mate! :)


I have heard this hologram theory before but I cannot say I understand it. What kind of 2 dimensional surface are you suggesting and where is it? Does that mean it is all an image with nothing solid behind it? Or perhaps it's a five dimensional surface and the image is four dimensional. And is the universe, by this theory, only light with no other particles? Perhaps you can explain it since it fascinates you.



PLA
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Sweden

19 Feb 2010, 11:45 am

Sand wrote:
PLA wrote:
ryan7585 wrote:
PLA wrote:
ryan7585 wrote:
PLA wrote:
ryan7585 wrote:
[...] they recently discovered the universe is quite possibly a giant hologram [...]

If, by "recently", you mean "in the mists of prehistory".


care to elaborate?


Though popularised in Western thought as the Cartesian daemon in the 1640s, the idea had lurched about in human beliefs and thought experiments for a very long time even before that.

Unless, of course, I have utterly misconstrued what you meant to indicate by the words "giant hologram", in which case I would necessarily be off target.


"The holograms you find on credit cards and banknotes are etched on two-dimensional plastic films. When light bounces off them, it recreates the appearance of a 3D image. In the 1990s physicists Leonard Susskind and Nobel prizewinner Gerard 't Hooft suggested that the same principle might apply to the universe as a whole. Our everyday experience might itself be a holographic projection of physical processes that take place on a distant, 2D surface."

This is explained in further detail here-- click.


Ooo, interesting stuff. Thanks, mate! :)


I have heard this hologram theory before but I cannot say I understand it. What kind of 2 dimensional surface are you suggesting and where is it? Does that mean it is all an image with nothing solid behind it? Or perhaps it's a five dimensional surface and the image is four dimensional. And is the universe, by this theory, only light with no other particles? Perhaps you can explain it since it fascinates you.


This looks like it's adressing me, or at least ryan7585 plus me. But only ryan7585 would make more sense.
I don't get it; I just thought the article was fun to read.
It seems to suggest that three dimensional space is not a continuum, but composed of grains with particle-like behaviour.
Pragmatically, it suggests that steps of a chain of causality can take place outside of our space; that everything in our space represents something outside it, but that not everything outside is represented by something inside.


_________________
I can make a statement true by placing it first in this signature.

"Everyone loves the dolphin. A bitter shark - emerging from it's cold depths - doesn't stand a chance." This is hyperbol.

"Run, Jump, Fall, Limp off, Try Harder."


ryan7585
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 26

19 Feb 2010, 1:40 pm

Sand wrote:
I have heard this hologram theory before but I cannot say I understand it. What kind of 2 dimensional surface are you suggesting and where is it? Does that mean it is all an image with nothing solid behind it? Or perhaps it's a five dimensional surface and the image is four dimensional. And is the universe, by this theory, only light with no other particles? Perhaps you can explain it since it fascinates you.


The article explains beautifully, much better than I could. Give it a read! 8)

Seems like a pretty serious discovery.



ryan7585
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 26

19 Feb 2010, 1:55 pm

Sand wrote:
ryan7585 wrote:
I agree that it's important to try to create a complete reality out of all the available data. But that's no reason to pretend we have complete data. Your wording suggested that it's nearly known as fact. We're nowhere close yet- there are too many holes to be filled before we get cocky.


It's not a matter of getting cocky, its just a pragmatic method of not getting cuckoo. To talk vaguely about the great unknown may have some emotional or poetic value but there's no point in denigrating what we do know.


I'm not saying we should. I just think it's important to keep questioning anything that's remotely questionable, until we have the final answer, without question. Without the right questions, we'll never know what kind of reality we live in.. That's probably our ultimate destiny anyway, but really- are you saying we should give up that easily?



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

19 Feb 2010, 9:09 pm

SirLogiC wrote:
So this is a thought I've had. I guess this might be a form of thought experiment? Don't take it as real science, just as something to think about.

Lets just say that scientists discovered conclusively as fact that:

the universe was curved- going in any direction long enough will bring you back to where you started, even if it takes many billions of years
the universe was finite in mass and volume- any apparent changes are thus just a reconfiguration of what was already there
the universe had no beginning, so time had no beginning. Also meaning the universe and time couldn't have an end.**

So essentially the universe is constantly changing but never had a start, it just "is". No beginning and no end.

How would you handle hearing that?

People have a long history of trying to explain things they don't understand. Creation stories exist in many religions past and present. Now science is also trying to explain how things started.

Do you think people could handle something like the universe not having a beginning or would they always try to find a way to explain a beginning, against fact and reason? How do you think religions would handle it, creation stories suddenly being disproved beyond all doubt?

**just as a small nut buster- can something with no beginning have an end?

I would say 'very interesting' and continue with my life?


_________________
.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

20 Feb 2010, 12:28 am

ryan7585 wrote:
Sand wrote:
ryan7585 wrote:
I agree that it's important to try to create a complete reality out of all the available data. But that's no reason to pretend we have complete data. Your wording suggested that it's nearly known as fact. We're nowhere close yet- there are too many holes to be filled before we get cocky.


It's not a matter of getting cocky, its just a pragmatic method of not getting cuckoo. To talk vaguely about the great unknown may have some emotional or poetic value but there's no point in denigrating what we do know.


I'm not saying we should. I just think it's important to keep questioning anything that's remotely questionable, until we have the final answer, without question. Without the right questions, we'll never know what kind of reality we live in.. That's probably our ultimate destiny anyway, but really- are you saying we should give up that easily?


It is the essence of science to have doubts and to question. But science progresses by making observations and creating concepts in conformance to theories that take the observations into account. There are many current theories about the nature of the universe that are taken seriously but kept in reserve until observational evidence indicates they have some validity. To discount accepted theories that have an observational basis on the basis that other unobserved things are possible is total foolishness and counter to the way science functions.



ryan7585
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 26

21 Feb 2010, 6:19 pm

Sand wrote:
To discount accepted theories that have an observational basis on the basis that other unobserved things are possible is total foolishness and counter to the way science functions.


Don't call me a fool, it's counterproductive in resolving a debate. I'm not trying to discount anything. Yeah. The Big Bang happened. I'm not saying it didn't. Okay? Can we move on from that now?

All I ever said is that I don't see that as a beginning. The beginning of our space-time continuum, sure. But most scientist will agree with me that it's not even close to the whole story. If you've read anything about string theory, multiverse theory, the finer details of the big bang theory itself, you know that there is a lot more to be explained that goes far beyond the big bang.

And annyway, scientists don't just go around without a thought in their head, dryly recording observations and turning what fits together into theories. Speculation & imagination is what fuels the sciences. The thought experiment is the catalyst that allowed Einstein to find theory of relativity. The ability to ask "what if" is what inspires most of our innovations, not to mention the arts.

You're acting like there's something wrong with people who think.