what if it just was?

Post Reply New Topic

I think we've been arguing over a misunderstanding. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't call something a fact unless it's a fact.

It appears you thought I meant that science is useless, and we should just go around dreaming all day.

Sorry I wasn't more clear.

It depends upon what you accept as a fact. Your general argument boils down to everybody's ignorance about what occurred before the big bang. Nobody is denying that people speculate about that and the speculations are interesting but there is no real information that the question even has any meaning. It's like asking what's north of the north pole.

Well, there you go. It seems obvious to me that facts don't exist. However it does make sense to pretend they do, for practical purposes. If that's what you're saying, then I agree. For practical purposes only



Not at all. Multiverse theory is a respected scientific theory supported by observations and experiments. Not many, yet, sure. But the fact is that there are observed aspects of reality that can't be explained using a singular-universe model. Things that CAN be explained by a multiple-universe model.

Does that mean that there are definitely multiple universes? Of course not. Does that mean that it's a certainty that there was some sort of reality or something "before" the dawn of time/the big bang, or seperate from it entirely? No. It doesn't. You know what it does mean? That currently, we have REASON to speculate on the matter. That we should TRY to MAKE some observations which will either support or discredit the idea, until we know for sure of its validity.

Nobody has ever said you shouldn't speculate. Of course scientists speculate. But before you start talking about facts you have to have more than total ignorance and no evidence indicating confirmation of your speculation. Get real.

I've just told you- the idea is based on observations. I also just told you that It seems obvious to me that facts don't exist.

I'm not sure why you're continuing to make this point.

If you'd like more information, or possibly some examples, I'm sure Wikipedia will be very helpful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

Read the damned article yourself. It clearly says it's hypothetical speculation. No observed facts. Your concept of facts is not pragmatically relevant.

easily. A forever-verse or an always-verse makes much more sense than a Cosmos that spring out of Nothing.

ruveyhn

"Making sense" is a very personal opinion and has to have observational backing to have any worth. There is no - absolutely no observed data on a multiverse or anything before the big bang however it calms your intuition.

Okay. It's speculation. You've thoroughly pwned me when it comes to.. well, whether it's backed up by direct observations or not.

But let's digress--



I think this is a good point at which to jump back on track.

I agree that the universe had a beginning. But I have two questions: What caused it? Where did its components come from?

Currently, we have found the beginning of the universe-- but we have not found the source... There is no reason that ultra-dense singlular point should have ever existed.

This question has been plaguing human minds since it was first asked decades ago. Those two very intriguing questions are why I'm of the opinion that there is a LOT more to the story. The only logical thing is that the story goes on forever. I would say the universe just expands and contracts and the timeline just repeats itself, but that's not what the observations are telling us--- what we're seeing is and endlessly expanding universe that will die a cold death.

None of this is intriguing to you? None of this seems worth thinking about?

It doesn't seem worthwhile to imagine scenarios in which it could have been possible, based on the current data, then try out some math and experiments to see if you can find support?

Last edited by ryan7585 on 22 Feb 2010, 4:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

True



The system of logic is based on patterns we have seen in our universe over centuries of observation. Everyone uses logic to decide what "makes sense", at least to some degree.

If I had to chose between (A) always was (i.e. no beginning) and (B) came from nothing, I would choose (A).

We are used to infinitely regressive systems, for example the negative integers. they keep going back and back with no beginning, so conceptually that is not very challenging.

Bob Kolker

Logic out of ignorance is no more valid for personal choice in a scientific background than in a religious one. My personal choice is to remain open minded until some sort of verifiable data appears.

It starts from our self-knowledge and works outward. Big bang, no big bang, eternal or inflationary universe - I think what ultimately matters is that we just stayed true to ourselves and our instincts. If all other things stayed the same as well, all the spirituality trends, human transcendentalism, constant bits of psychic phenomena that can't quite be explained or statistically answered, other small metaphysical anomalies - an eternal universe might perhaps point people more toward something like Buddhism or Zoroastrianism rather than Christianity or anything Abrahamic but all the same I don't think its a crushing weight unless people needed to pin their identities, hopes, and dreams to something as unstable as a preconceived notion that could be usurped at any time; some people do that here and now and, lets be honest its extremely dangerous to their mental health and well being.

We each confront the universe out of personal experience in a different way and come up with different conclusions. Being true to one's self is probably psychologically comforting but is unlikely to come up with permanently verifiable data.

How can you expect someone to answer this? That's like saying, OK, if there's life elsewhere then where is it?

We can't go back and verify it, but that doesn't prove there wasn't some kind of existence before the big bang.

Sand, I do apologize for my attitude, and for linking to an article I hadn't read. I understand why you chose not to continue debating with me, I'd do the same in your position.

But I think my most recent post made my position more clear, and has some questions worth considering. If it's alright with you I'd really like to hear your response, you seem to have a solid understanding of your opinions and I'm intrigued by your point of view.