What is the true nature of our expanding universe?

[Physics-Learner]

yes, that is what i mean.

i think it is highly likely that there are things beyond our comprehension. especially if you are talking about what is outside of our black box. we have no way to definitively prove it.

i enjoy reading the latest theories which you have presented, and am willing to entertain their possibilities.

i SUSPECT that there are things even within our universe that are incomprehensible to us, although i can't say for certainty any specific thing. so i think it is great that we TRY to understand everything.

i think we will find that some things are beyond our comprehension. you asked me why ? because we are stuck within a certain frame of observation.

as i have said before, i think our conception of just our own universe would be far different and far more correct if things could be measured instantaneously.

we are in this universe, making our observations, stuck in our frame of reference. i SUSPECT that it would be way different and way more correct if there was such a thing as an observer who could see the universe from outside.

for example, we are on a surface of a ball, making our observations, seeing only parts of it. the guy on the outside looking down, sees the complete ball in its entirety.

there are many things that i don't understand - i am not using that as a springboard for what you do or don't understand. i am simply saying that i think it is likely that there are many things that we will never be able to understand. obviously, i can't say that for sure, since i don't have a crystal ball.

but when stuck in a black box, how do you jump out and look at what is beyond ? you cant, because by definition, you are stuck.

 

[Physics-Learner]

another thing that i have a problem with is reality versus measurement.

i think chronos a while back mentioned something about measurement being the only thing that we have.

and i don't disagree with that. but just because it is all that we have, does not mean that it is all that we need.

einstein's theories are all about measurements, not about actual realities. things seem to be such and such because of our measurements of them.

someone else may have much different perceptions based upon their measurements.

i think i made this comment before, which may have triggered the comment by chronos.

i am very interested in what is. i am not all that interested in what we measure. i see the story about the blind men and the elephant as a good example, here. each of the men are making conclusions about the elephant based upon their measurements, which of course give them their perceptions.

i want to be looking at the elephant, in its entirety, instantaneously, so i know exactly what the elephant is. and that seems to be what we can not do, with regards to our universe.

Newton was able to give us tremendously accurate ways of predicting the force of gravity, but is it caused by an actual attraction of matter acting at a distance ? or is it matter traveling with the least resistance in a warped space time ? or is it really something else, but we can't know because we don't have the tools or the frame of reference to use them ?

i throw out many questions, of which i have no answers. i just ask that you entertain the thought that perhaps physics doesn't have any answers either.

i mean all sorts of people know that god exists, even though they all have many different answers and gods. lol. many physicists think that they know about things with the same vigor. yet, when time passes, most of what we think we know now - we don't actually know now. i was once a brainwashed person who also thought he knew that god existed. i have matured enough to know that most of the things that i thought i knew, i never actually knew.

much of what we get taught, etc. - is not necessarily the truth. so i have taken a few steps backwards, and realize that most of us KNOW a lot less than what we think we know. and that is not a comforting thought. it takes some time to get used to. because most of us like to develop little models of whatever that we can fit everything into nice little models of understandings that give us a sense of stability and organization.

 

[marcus]

...need to have had a creator of some sort, be it a god or be it a random act of whatever. we can rule it out as the beginning source of all that is.

you seem interested in talking about a creator (of "all that is")
and in drumming in your message about the limitations of scientific knowledge.

i just ask that you entertain the thought that perhaps physics doesn't have any answers either.

i mean all sorts of people know that god exists, even though they all have many different answers and gods. lol. many physicists think that they know about things with the same vigor. yet, when time passes, most of what we think we know now - we don't actually know now. i was once a brainwashed person who also thought he knew that god existed...

I hope you can find some people with a taste for this kind of discussion, with whom you can air your views.

For my part, I find scientific knowledge reliable to large extent, and what appear as inept, or poorly informed attempts to undermine its credibility merely provide an unattractive contrast, raising my opinion of the empirical tradition.

 

[Physics-Learner]

sure, i want to know about "all that is". don't you ?

i have given some very good reasons why the space time continuum, if it does exist, is not the end all - which you have failed to contradict.

instead, once again, you seem to be stating that my purpose is to drum up that there is a god. i don't have to come to a physics forum, to drum that up - and would be a helluva lot more successful at other places.

you seem to be unwilling to admit to the limitations of science. i have simply been willing to admit that we have limitations. i don't think we can prove that god exists any more than i think we can prove anything about what exists outside of our black box. so i certainly am not trying to prove to anyone that god exists, since i don't think it is possible.

you can call that religious drumming. i think you say that about me, because you arent able to contradict what i am saying, so to make you feel good about science, you talk about me pushing god. that is quite ironic - when i talk to strict believers, and give them logical explanations based upon evidence, which i have given you - they tell me the same thing, but in reverse.

i guess the lesson to be learned here - if you attempt to show anyone good arguments about why their beliefs are not as solid as they may think they are, you get told you have some hidden motives. que sera sera.