Understanding the Universe: Exploring Perception and Reality in Science

[Physics-Learner]

everything about science, including relativity, is all about how we measure things. how our surroundings affect us.

in other words, our knowledge is based upon how we perceive things. this can be different from how things actually are, and in my opinion, i think it probably is different from how things actually are.

while our perception of the universe is of interest to me, not nearly so much as what the universe actually is. the frustrating part of this for me, is that i do not think it is knowable for us. we are stuck in the black box of our perception.

for example, if you take a surface area of a sphere (at any radius), and imagine 2-dimensional beings living on it, they have no way of knowing that they are part of a sphere, with an actual center to it.

whereas we could view the sphere in its entirety, and know exactly what it is.

i have often wondered if that same analogy is at work in our universe. in other words, is our universe part of a greater dimensional thing ?

 

[wuliheron]

The statement is incoherent. Asserting that there is some sort of reality we are unaware of is, in its own rite, a statement about reality and an assertion that we can know something about it.

 

[Insanity]

for example, if you take a surface area of a sphere (at any radius), and imagine 2-dimensional beings living on it, they have no way of knowing that they are part of a sphere, with an actual center to it.

whereas we could view the sphere in its entirety, and know exactly what it is.

i have often wondered if that same analogy is at work in our universe. in other words, is our universe part of a greater dimensional thing ?

Have you read Flatland by Edwin Abbott?

 

[brainstorm]

It can be hard to face the fact that no matter much your analysis of your perceptions seem to transcend the immediacy of that perception, it is still part of your subjectivity and thus your perception. By definition, no one can ever "know" anything beyond human knowledge. The moment a human knows something, it exists within the realm of human knowledge. Therefore, if anything exists in any form that is totally unknowable, it will never be known to humans. If it is in any way knowable, it will probably eventually be known. Interestingly, there doesn't seem to be any limit to how far knowledge can progress, perhaps because of the role subjectivity plays in synthesizing perception with the ability to analyze and process the data and resulting knowledge ever further.

So the question I think you should be asking is "what is it about your subjectivity that causes or allows you to imagine that there is more to reality beyond your perception and/or knowledge-capacity?"

 

[Physics-Learner]

hi insanity,

i have heard of the term flatlanders, but i have not read the specific book that you mentioned. i know carl sagan uses that term in his tv series, "cosmos".

hi brainstorm,

i stated an example whereby the "flatlanders" will never know the sphere. it is outside of their ability to know. i simply think that we are also in this same situation.

for example, when we look out among the stars, we do not see how things are, but how they used to be. this is because the speed of information is not instantaneous. i think this gives us a skewed perception of our universe.

i think there may be things within this universe that are not knowable to us. because of our size, we may have limits in either direction. quarks supposedly make up protons and neutrons. does something make up a quark ? does something make up the something that makes up a quark, etc. there simply may be limits as to how small we can ever have perceptions about. or how big.

but outside of the universe, by definition, is not knowable to us.

"outside of the universe" is still reality, but we are not connected to it.

you asked why my subjectivity ponders that possibility, or thinks it is likely - partly because i am humbled by it all. partly because of our limitations on perceiving the universe. partly perhaps of gut feelings after living 55 years.

i suspect that spacetime is not what einstein thinks it is. just like Newton had equations that fit very well, his idea on what gravity is, is way different than einstein's version of what gravity is.

i very definitely relate to einsteins comment about "i want to know the mind of god. don't bother me with the details." i think this statement has something to do with wanting to know the purpose of us and the universe. but i also think it has something to do with how things really work at the highest level, and not how they seem to work by our perceptions.

i think time and light represent barriers for us that we won't be able to overcome. i don't think humanity has the foggiest idea of what time really is. we simply perceive it as a way of separating two events. if there was no motion, would there still be such a thing as time ?

i was a math, science, and computer major in college, and continue to keep up an interest in various aspects of science. but it is my guess that science has its limitations.

i am agnostic about god, because by our very definition of god, he "exists" outside of this universe, because he is given credit for creating it. therefore, there is no rational opinion about god, cause there is no information with which to have an opinion.

but i am hopeful that god exists, and that i may become aware of the mysteries of life that most of us think about every now and then.

 

[Upisoft]

the frustrating part of this for me, is that i do not think it is knowable for us. we are stuck in the black box of our perception.

That is why it's time to repaint the box in some other color. What color? Well, use your imagination.

And speaking about imagination this is one of my fantasy stories that "answer" the question "what is the universe?":

[fantasy story]
The universe is one big simulation project. Unfortunately the developers were not careful and left back doors to the main computer resources. As we are already tapping into the main computer resources with our quantum computing the supervisor will notice there is something wrong. On 21 Dec 2012 he will run his equivalent of anti-virus program to wipe out the anomalies...
[/fantasy story]

 

[Rasalhague]

The sphere might not be the best example to illustrate your point. It turns out you can potentially identify a whether a universe is spherical without reference to "outside of the universe". If you're able to make measurements over big enough portions of the surface, given the sensetivity of your instruments, you'll find that Pythagoras's theorem doesn't work as it would on a plane, that the angles of a triangle add up to more than 180 degrees, that the circumference of a circle is less than 2πr. Walk far enough, and you'll get back to where you started.

 

[brainstorm]

Do you realize that each unknowable instance you describe only seems unknowable because of a conflict in conceptual frameworks?

for example, when we look out among the stars, we do not see how things are, but how they used to be. this is because the speed of information is not instantaneous. i think this gives us a skewed perception of our universe.

Here you are assuming that it would somehow be natural for light-information to exist simultaneously at different points. This may seem natural to you based on your perception of immediate surroundings relative to each other and time as you perceive it, but why would you assume that simultaneity between observer and observed is a natural state from which the heavens are a deviation?

i think there may be things within this universe that are not knowable to us. because of our size, we may have limits in either direction. quarks supposedly make up protons and neutrons. does something make up a quark ? does something make up the something that makes up a quark, etc. there simply may be limits as to how small we can ever have perceptions about. or how big.

How do you know these particles exist except as props in a scientific theory/model that make equations function well to predict outcomes?

but outside of the universe, by definition, is not knowable to us.

"outside of the universe" is still reality, but we are not connected to it.

The concept of universe, by definition has no outside. It is the set that contains all possible elements. You are assuming that if the universe is infinitely large, there must always be a subsequent container beyond each subsequent container of everything else. That is a conceptual artifact that simply produces a logical anomaly, imo.

you asked why my subjectivity ponders that possibility, or thinks it is likely - partly because i am humbled by it all. partly because of our limitations on perceiving the universe. partly perhaps of gut feelings after living 55 years.

No, I didn't mean the emotional stimuli to ponder. I meant the conceptual logics of your cognition and how these could reach the point of imagining that there is more to know than there is to know. Why wouldn't you simply assume that you can only know what you can know and no matter how far you explore or think, you will only ever be expanding possible knowledge and never transcending it? What gave you the idea that it is possible to transcend the possible?

i suspect that spacetime is not what einstein thinks it is. just like Newton had equations that fit very well, his idea on what gravity is, is way different than einstein's version of what gravity is.

What could a better theory of gravity explain that Newton and Einstein don't, iyo?

i very definitely relate to einsteins comment about "i want to know the mind of god. don't bother me with the details." i think this statement has something to do with wanting to know the purpose of us and the universe. but i also think it has something to do with how things really work at the highest level, and not how they seem to work by our perceptions.

I have read that Einstein didn't like quantum theories because they substituted pure math for intuitive models that explain instead of just predicting. I can also relate. While I see the value in predicting outcomes, I long to understand the hows and whys of what is going on with phenomena.

i think time and light represent barriers for us that we won't be able to overcome. i don't think humanity has the foggiest idea of what time really is. we simply perceive it as a way of separating two events. if there was no motion, would there still be such a thing as time ?

I don't think time exists except as delineated motion of a mechanical device deemed a clock. I don't think clocks measure anything outside themselves called "time." I think physical forces and energy produce motion and there are regularities that cause motion to occur in a predictable manner relative to other motion. Physics is basically the study of commonalities/patterns in physical behaviors, so time is basically a self-referential artifact of physics. Two clocks run at the same speed for the same reason two balls fall at the same rate of acceleration, for the same reason two identical basket balls with the same pressure will bounce to the same height when dropped on the same surface. Any machine with contant/regular motion can be delineated with markings that are synchronized to markings on another such machine (clock). Given that the markings made on the one machine are done with reference to the other and nothing changes to alter the speed of the machines, they should stay synchronized. Now don't ask me about time-dilation, though.

i was a math, science, and computer major in college, and continue to keep up an interest in various aspects of science. but it is my guess that science has its limitations.

You don't assume that science can indefinitely transcend its own limitations? I assume it can, but ironically without ever going beyond itself.

i am agnostic about god, because by our very definition of god, he "exists" outside of this universe, because he is given credit for creating it. therefore, there is no rational opinion about god, cause there is no information with which to have an opinion.

By one definition, God may exist outside the universe (although that is a logical contradiction by virtue of the definition of the concept, "universe" as I already mentioned). By another definition, God exists as part of human subjectivity, and specifically as an artifact of faith.

but i am hopeful that god exists, and that i may become aware of the mysteries of life that most of us think about every now and then.

If God exists, then you would assume that all the information needed to fully know him/her/it is available via scripture and inherent human abilities to explore one's own subjectivity/soul. I would recommend taking the somewhat scientific route of Karl Jung and exploring the idea (archetype?) of God-within-yourself. Jung discovered that by understanding the idea of God within himself, he effectively realized God's existence. This is logical, imo, because a person in total control of their subjectivity has the ability to realize true belief as well as disbelief. This may be a fancy way of talking about faith, but I remain impressed by the ability to control one's own consciousness to the point of having the choice to pro-actively believe and "know" something that is rationally doubtable.

Rationality causes a knee-jerk reflex to disbelieve certain things and believe others, which limits the total possibilities of human subjectivity to that which rationality permits. I think exploring irrationality has to be done with healthy regard for the caveat that irrationality can have dire consequences, but so many people are self-destructively exploring irrationality without even doing so out of conscious will, that I don't think a responsible safari into the realm of God-faith is quite so risky in comparison.

 

[Physics-Learner]

Here you are assuming that it would somehow be natural for light-information to exist simultaneously at different points. This may seem natural to you based on your perception of immediate surroundings relative to each other and time as you perceive it, but why would you assume that simultaneity between observer and observed is a natural state from which the heavens are a deviation?


How do you know these particles exist except as props in a scientific theory/model that make equations function well to predict outcomes?

hi brainstorm,

you present too much for me to respond at one time, so i will respond to these two points, first.

i did not mean to imply that lack of simultaneity is a deviation. the universe is what it is. i simply say that the tools that we have skew our ability to understand the universe as it is. i realize of course, that the purpose of the universe is not necessarily constructed so that we could have a perfect understanding of it.

i don't PERSONALLY KNOW that said particles exist (quarks and beyond). i can't even say that i know that protons, neutrons and electrons exist. these are things that i was taught. i believe them to exist because of the science behind them.

although our model of the electron has changed quite a bit - from the planetary model to something much stranger.

 

[brainstorm]

hi brainstorm,

you present too much for me to respond at one time, so i will respond to these two points, first.

i did not mean to imply that lack of simultaneity is a deviation. the universe is what it is. i simply say that the tools that we have skew our ability to understand the universe as it is. i realize of course, that the purpose of the universe is not necessarily constructed so that we could have a perfect understanding of it.

i don't PERSONALLY KNOW that said particles exist (quarks and beyond). i can't even say that i know that protons, neutrons and electrons exist. these are things that i was taught. i believe them to exist because of the science behind them.

although our model of the electron has changed quite a bit - from the planetary model to something much stranger.

Well, you seem to be aware of the artificiality of scientific modeling relative to the existence of things in an empirical sense. What's more, you seem somewhat comfortable with the inherent disconnect, which causes undue tension for many. Personally, I have the ability to regard modeling in a tentative way without either accepting or rejecting them as true representations of underlying realities. I do find it interesting to look for spots where the existing models can be questioned, refined, or revised as well as points where the models reveal cognitive artifacts of human perception. Your post has made me think about conceptualizing space in terms of relative simultaneity of light-emissions. It's as if the universe at the largest observable scale exists of echos and as you zoom in on a locality, the echoes begin merging into a single sound, which is simultaneity. I don't know if you intended to paint such a picture, but that is what I got out of it.

 

[Physics-Learner]

The concept of universe, by definition has no outside. It is the set that contains all possible elements. You are assuming that if the universe is infinitely large, there must always be a subsequent container beyond each subsequent container of everything else. That is a conceptual artifact that simply produces a logical anomaly, imo.

hi brainstorm,

no, i am not assuming that there are always subsequent containers. it is a little hard for me to grasp that anything is INFINITELY large. but the size of our universe has nothing to do with my thought process.

since everyone uses the term "universe" already, it makes more sense to me to talk about a super-universe, as opposed to trying to rename our universe as a sub-universe.

by my definition of our universe, it is everything that is connected to us. something outside of that connection would be part of the super-universe. however, i don't think that there is an endless number of super-universes.

since there is no information about what is outside "our universe", i have no opinion based upon facts.

it would not surprise me though, that the process (god or otherwise) that gave rise to our universe also gave rise to other universes.

remember that no matter how large our universe may be, we are talking about our dimensionality. there are an infinite amount of 2-dimensional surface areas that can fit in a 3-dimensional sphere. likewise, there could be an infinite number of spheres that fit in a 4-dimensional object - of which i have no ability to comprehend what a 4-dimensional object looks like.

 

[Maui]

i don't PERSONALLY KNOW that said particles exist (quarks and beyond). i can't even say that i know that protons, neutrons and electrons exist. these are things that i was taught. i believe them to exist because of the science behind them.

Protons, neutrons and electrons do exist but it's hard to find anything more substantial than relationships to their existence.

 

[Evo]

remember that no matter how large our universe may be, we are talking about our dimensionality. there are an infinite amount of 2-dimensional surface areas that can fit in a 3-dimensional sphere. likewise, there could be an infinite number of spheres that fit in a 4-dimensional object - of which i have no ability to comprehend what a 4-dimensional object looks like.

The tesseract has always been one of my favorites, great sci-fi short story about it.

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

 

[Upisoft]

Protons, neutrons and electrons do exist but it's hard to find anything more substantial than relationships to their existence.

Can you find anything more substantial than relationships to their existence for any other objects?

 

[brainstorm]

it would not surprise me though, that the process (god or otherwise) that gave rise to our universe also gave rise to other universes.

If the same process gave rise to multiple universes, they would all be subsets of the universal set that contains all products of that process. "Universe" refers to boolean set theory, I believe, and I just googled the etymology and it means "all together" or "turned into one." So having multiple universes is an oxymoron because they would not be "all together" or "turned into one." Hence the term "subset" would make more sense.

remember that no matter how large our universe may be, we are talking about our dimensionality. there are an infinite amount of 2-dimensional surface areas that can fit in a 3-dimensional sphere. likewise, there could be an infinite number of spheres that fit in a 4-dimensional object - of which i have no ability to comprehend what a 4-dimensional object looks like.

2-dimensional planes do not "fit" in a 3D region because they do not have volume in the sense that 3d objects do. Volume is a measure that refers to 3D. The 2D equivalent is surface area. A 4D object is a 3D object in motion and/or flux.

 

[Maui]

Can you find anything more substantial than relationships to their existence for any other objects?

What's your point? In my frame of reference everything that's observable(from electrons to cars and dogs) has definite properties and values.

What the deep nature of the 'things' we measure and observe is, is hardly a question for science to answer. Certainly not at this point.

 

[Siv]

The tesseract has always been one of my favorites, great sci-fi short story about it.

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

Yup. Robert Heinlien's "And He Built a Crooked House." Awesome sci-fi.

Actually I agree with Physics Learner. It has always been a pet theory of mine that human brains evolved to survive and reproduce in the African grasslands, living as nomadic hunter gatherers.

Its a great privilege that we do understand so much as it is. I don't think our brains can understand all the fundamental concepts re: the origins of the universe.

 

[Physics-Learner]

No, I didn't mean the emotional stimuli to ponder. I meant the conceptual logics of your cognition and how these could reach the point of imagining that there is more to know than there is to know. Why wouldn't you simply assume that you can only know what you can know and no matter how far you explore or think, you will only ever be expanding possible knowledge and never transcending it? What gave you the idea that it is possible to transcend the possible?

hi brainstorm,

i am assuming that the last word should have been "impossible" ?

your post is my whole point. i know it is not possible to transcend the impossible.

or as the borg put it, resistance is futile - LOL.

but unfortunately, that is the information that most interests me. as einstein put it, the mind of god.

there is no way to prove anything outside of our universe, or sub-universe, if you prefer.

but i do suspect that it is there. and i do have rational thought processes for that.

this universe had a beginning. this is easily seen from the way that time has manifested itself in our universe. if it had no beginning, then everything in it must also be eternal.

this universe is a causal one. so the universe did not create itself.

therefore, i conclude that "something" was responsible for its creation.

trying to go any further than that is total speculation, with no information to back it up.

 

[Siv]

this universe is a causal one. so the universe did not create itself.

therefore, i conclude that "something" was responsible for its creation.

Oops.

 

[brainstorm]

i am assuming that the last word should have been "impossible" ?

your post is my whole point. i know it is not possible to transcend the impossible.

I'm not getting this concept over sufficiently. What I'm saying is that anything that humans have ever been capable of or will ever be is indeed "possible." My issue is with the fact that people define the realm of the possible in a way that lends itself to the idea of transcending that realm. So people will say, "so and so did the impossible" but if it was impossible, it wouldn't have happened. To make it more analytically explicit, Sartre has a concept of a "field of possibles" in his book on methods that looks at (im)possibility as a subjective artifact that structures people's actions. So what is subjectively regarded as possible is always a subset of what is objectively possible.

or as the borg put it, resistance is futile - LOL.

Not true. Resistance in any form is always generative of some effect.

but unfortunately, that is the information that most interests me. as einstein put it, the mind of god.

Every time I read you quote this, it seems like you are more interested in the effect of talking about God in this way than the actual meaning. Maybe I am misreading you, though.

there is no way to prove anything outside of our universe, or sub-universe, if you prefer.

but i do suspect that it is there. and i do have rational thought processes for that.

Again, I have not explained my point adequately. Universe is a term that refers to everything. "Everything" cannot have an outside because if it would then it wouldn't be "everything" but "some things" or "most things." "Everything" must literally contain the set of EVERY-THING or it is not "everything." I.e. if there is something outside "the universe" then it would be a sub-set of the universe and not the universe itself. "Universe" refers to the set that does not exclude anything.

this universe had a beginning. this is easily seen from the way that time has manifested itself in our universe. if it had no beginning, then everything in it must also be eternal.

Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. That is the law of conservation of matter-energy.

this universe is a causal one. so the universe did not create itself.

If the universe includes the set of all possible precursors to everything, whatever created it would be part of it and therefore you could say it created itself.

therefore, i conclude that "something" was responsible for its creation.

I follow your logic, but the implications you're alluding to about God are not theologically productive, imo. If you want to understand God, physics is not the place to begin. Physics only leads you to awe of vastness, which leads to the least possible intimacy with divinity. Scripture or Jungian psychology or even some philosophy would work more in your favor, theologically, I think. Theology is really more about understanding man's role [sic] in his knowledge of the universe and life purpose, not so much the knowledge of the universe itself. If you want to understand God, you should ask why humans seek knowledge, not what knowledge they have.

 

[Physics-Learner]

If the same process gave rise to multiple universes, they would all be subsets of the universal set that contains all products of that process. "Universe" refers to boolean set theory, I believe, and I just googled the etymology and it means "all together" or "turned into one." So having multiple universes is an oxymoron because they would not be "all together" or "turned into one." Hence the term "subset" would make more sense.


2-dimensional planes do not "fit" in a 3D region because they do not have volume in the sense that 3d objects do. Volume is a measure that refers to 3D. The 2D equivalent is surface area. A 4D object is a 3D object in motion and/or flux.

we seem to be getting hung up on the use of the word "universe". i will continue to refer to the world in which we live as the universe, with the concept of a super-universe. this is how most people refer to it as, so hopefully you can adjust. the big bang theory, for example, says that our universe started as a singularity, where all matter and energy was concentrated. the use of the term universe is too wildly spread.

what i am saying is that i think there is something outside of our universe, something outside of the big bang, that was not a part of the big bang.

one commonly held theory is that we have a super-universe that gives rise to universes like ours, with the same big-bang technology. of course, it is all speculation, for we can glean no information outside of our own universe.

i don't think you can define what a 4-dimensional object is. but when we look at it geometrically, an infinite number of surface areas of a sphere fit into any radius of a sphere, just like an infinite number of points fit on a line, and an infinite number of lines fit on a plane.

and what i am suggesting is that there may be the same analogy between a 3-dimensional object, and a 4-dimensional object. no one has any idea of what a 4-dimensional object looks like. we can only make 3-dimensions in this universe. no matter how you want to talk about a tesseract, anything that we can construct is a 3-dimensional object.

just like we can talk about a point, a line, and a plane but any representation of those ideas is a 3-dimensional object. but it is easy for us to at least talk about 1 and 2-dimensional objects, because we do experience those 2 dimensions, in the sense that our objects all do have length and width. they just all happen to have depth as well. we don't have even the foggiest clue of a real 4th spatial dimension, any more than our "flatlanders" could understand volume.

 

[Physics-Learner]

I'm not getting this concept over sufficiently. What I'm saying is that anything that humans have ever been capable of or will ever be is indeed "possible." My issue is with the fact that people define the realm of the possible in a way that lends itself to the idea of transcending that realm. So people will say, "so and so did the impossible" but if it was impossible, it wouldn't have happened. To make it more analytically explicit, Sartre has a concept of a "field of possibles" in his book on methods that looks at (im)possibility as a subjective artifact that structures people's actions. So what is subjectively regarded as possible is always a subset of what is objectively possible.

i am not sure how we got started talking about this. i think i may have mislead you on one of my posts. i do not think that it is possible to do the impossible. if something really is impossible, that means it has no possibility. as far as i can tell, we are in complete agreement on this point.

 

[Physics-Learner]

or as the borg put it, resistance is futile - LOL.Not true. Resistance in any form is always generative of some effect.

"the above was supposed to be a joke"
but unfortunately, that is the information that most interests me. as einstein put it, the mind of god.

Every time I read you quote this, it seems like you are more interested in the effect of talking about God in this way than the actual meaning. Maybe I am misreading you, though.

"i don't understand what you are stating, here"

 

[Physics-Learner]

this universe had a beginning. this is easily seen from the way that time has manifested itself in our universe. if it had no beginning, then everything in it must also be eternal.

Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. That is the law of conservation of matter-energy.

"i understand the law that you qouted, but i do not understand its relevance as a reply to what i said."

 

[Physics-Learner]

therefore, i conclude that "something" was responsible for its creation.

I follow your logic, but the implications you're alluding to about God are not theologically productive, imo. If you want to understand God, physics is not the place to begin. Physics only leads you to awe of vastness, which leads to the least possible intimacy with divinity. Scripture or Jungian psychology or even some philosophy would work more in your favor, theologically, I think. Theology is really more about understanding man's role [sic] in his knowledge of the universe and life purpose, not so much the knowledge of the universe itself. If you want to understand God, you should ask why humans seek knowledge, not what knowledge they have."i agree that physics can not explain god. i am not trying to use physics to explain god. in fact, just the opposite. so i think we are in agreement, here. whatever (god, event) was responsible for the universe - we have no access to.

however that doesn't dictate that it shouldn't be more interesting to me, though. it simply means that i can not satisfy my curiosity about it.

but even in this universe, i am more interested in how things really are, and not how we perceive them to be. as i said, one big problem we have is that information is not instantaneous.

our universe does exist totally at any given moment. but we don't have access to this. if we could really see our universe totally, as it is at any given moment, i suspect that most of our science would change.

remember, that our science and knowledge and the way that we think, is all based upon our perceptions. those perceptions can change, and have changed, as we use different tools.

for example, are we flesh, with arms and legs ? that is different from what an x-ray would show us to be. which is different from a bunch of protons, neutrons and electrons, etc.

if it was ever possible for us to use a tool that would transcend the speed of light, and allow us to see the total universe at a given moment - that again is what interests me most about our own universe - what it really is, and not what we perceive it to be."

 

[Siv]

therefore, i conclude that "something" was responsible for its creation.

Isn't that a very human way of looking at things. We evolved in a cause-effect world, and so cannot conceive of any other way of things. Everything should have been created by someone or something.

Unfortunately the tine remote corner of the universe we evolved in may have little similarity to the universe as a whole or how we comprehend it.

 

[Physics-Learner]

well, you can shoot down my theory by simply giving me one thing in our universe whose effect has no cause.

 

[brainstorm]

First of all, why do you reply to the same post with 4 different response posts? This is the first time I've had to use the multiquote button to reply to the same person's response to my own post.

what i am saying is that i think there is something outside of our universe, something outside of the big bang, that was not a part of the big bang.

Ok, now I see what you mean. I have the same sense. That there could be an extensive infinite realm of matter-energy that extends far beyond the big bang and that other "big bangs" could eventually conflate with this one. Total speculation, of course.

just like we can talk about a point, a line, and a plane but any representation of those ideas is a 3-dimensional object. but it is easy for us to at least talk about 1 and 2-dimensional objects, because we do experience those 2 dimensions, in the sense that our objects all do have length and width. they just all happen to have depth as well. we don't have even the foggiest clue of a real 4th spatial dimension, any more than our "flatlanders" could understand volume.

Two points designate a line. Two (intersecting) lines designate a plane. Two (intersecting) planes designate 3D space. Two intersecting 3D spatial frames designate motion through a temporal dimension, no?

Every time I read you quote this, it seems like you are more interested in the effect of talking about God in this way than the actual meaning. Maybe I am misreading you, though.

"i don't understand what you are stating, here"

Sometimes people mention God just for the effect without making any kind of meaningful theological claim. I just couldn't tell if this is what you were doing or if you were actually trying to make a claim about "knowing the mind of God."

this universe had a beginning. this is easily seen from the way that time has manifested itself in our universe. if it had no beginning, then everything in it must also be eternal.

Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. That is the law of conservation of matter-energy.

"i understand the law that you qouted, but i do not understand its relevance as a reply to what i said."

Because if it can't be created, then it must have been transformed from another state. It cannot have emerged from nothing, in other words.

therefore, i conclude that "something" was responsible for its creation.

This is a very vague reference to the universality of causation and presumably you're trying to imply something about divine will. I would recommend you reflect on whether it is possible for human minds to conceptualize something happening without "something" being responsible for it happening. In other words, can human minds possibly conceive of anything that escapes causation? If not, you conclusion about something being responsible for the creation of the universe is tautologous.

"i agree that physics can not explain god. i am not trying to use physics to explain god. in fact, just the opposite. so i think we are in agreement, here. whatever (god, event) was responsible for the universe - we have no access to.

But you have access to a metaphorical philosophy of creation in the book of Genesis and elsewhere in the bible. Sorry to cite scripture, but the best creationist insight into the relationship between human knowledge and creation is the opening passage in the book of John where he says, "in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God." The reason I cite this is with the interpretation of "the word" as theory-forming. So, in other words, humans create theories and the creation of theory is itself divinity (creative power) and it emerges from creative power. So you cannot have access to what preceded the universe, but you do have access to the power that creates theories/knowledge of how the universe emerged. Thus by learning and creating knowledge for yourself about the universe, you experience creative power for yourself, which is the essence of God, at least as conceptualized in the bible. So there you go - you CAN know the mind of God by knowing "the word" as created by humans. I don't think "the word" has to refer only to scripture but can refer to all human expressions, since all human creativity can be viewed as divine expression insofar as humans were created as expressive in the image of their creator, according to the biblical logic of creation anyway.

however that doesn't dictate that it shouldn't be more interesting to me, though. it simply means that i can not satisfy my curiosity about it.

Then get to work! You're never going to be satisfied as long as you're alive, so accept the gift of drive and use it - with an eye for ethics, of course.

but even in this universe, i am more interested in how things really are, and not how we perceive them to be. as i said, one big problem we have is that information is not instantaneous.

Well, you're stuck with human authority like everyone else is unless you believe in authority that transcends that of humans. Many scientists believe in the authority of nature or empiricism and transcending human authority. You could also go with Holy Spirit, if you can come up with an adequate interpretation of what that means to milk any authority out of it. Ultimately, how are you going to know "how things really are" except by deciding for yourself what to believe. People can reason with you about logic and rationality, but why would you ultimately trust them or yourself or your senses without some sense of belief in what works for you to believe?

our universe does exist totally at any given moment. but we don't have access to this. if we could really see our universe totally, as it is at any given moment, i suspect that most of our science would change.

Again, you're assuming that the universe transcends the non-simultaneity caused by non-instantaneous light and that the perspectival nature of our knowledge of it is not inherent in the nature of the universe.

if it was ever possible for us to use a tool that would transcend the speed of light, and allow us to see the total universe at a given moment - that again is what interests me most about our own universe - what it really is, and not what we perceive it to be."

Well, you're right. Many of us are trying to transcend our limited perception and gain access to realities beyond what is immediate to us. Build theories, test/check their validity, revise, etc., and engage in claims-making about realities beyond human perception. Just be aware that all the knowledge you receive and create is within the realm of human knowledge and perception insofar as we have access to the knowledge itself, albeit not the realities that knowledge is supposed to represent, at least not direct access anyway.

 

[Physics-Learner]

hi brainstorm,

when i hit the multi-quote button, it turns blue, but it does nothing that i can tell. sometimes i like to respond to various points at separate times, and in separate posts, so that the posts don't become too large back and forth. i don't know how to respond such that they come out like yours do.

i simply don't know what a 4-dimensional spatial object is, because i am a 3-dimensional object.

i understand that matter, in our universe, can only be transformed. i just don't get what that had to do with my statement that our universe had a beginning.

i did not quite understand your statement about tautologous. i do not think it is possible for us to understand an effect without a cause, because we live in a causal universe. but there are many things that may be impossible for me to conceive, due to the environment in which i am placed. that does not mean said things don't exist.

if i speak of god, in a literal sense, i do not mean words created by humans. by the definition that we use when we use the term "GOD", we refer to a divine being who created the universe. a being who existed when our universe did not exist. we have no direct connection to god, assuming he exists.

i do realize that these things are not knowable for me - so yes, i am STUCK. LOL.

i don't think i am assuming anything. every point in the universe exists at an individual moment. but we have no tool with which to see every point at that same moment. if we did, i think we would have a hugely different perspective on what our universe actually is.

according to physics as we know it today, we can not transcend the speed of light. while of my own personal accord, i can not say for sure that it is impossible, but i suspect that it is not possible, and therefore accept the fact that i won't know what the universe really is. it doesn't keep me from wanting to know, though.

 

[Physics-Learner]

i think the blind men on the elephant is an appropriate analogy, here.

each man is touching one part of the elephant, and the guy touching the tail thinks it is a rope, etc.

that is how i feel we humans are doing. we are doing the best that we can, with the tools that we have, but are only able to access a portion of the universe - thereby not getting an accurate picture of it.

 

[brainstorm]

when i hit the multi-quote button, it turns blue, but it does nothing that i can tell. sometimes i like to respond to various points at separate times, and in separate posts, so that the posts don't become too large back and forth. i don't know how to respond such that they come out like yours do.

If you hit the multi-quote button and make it blue for several posts, then hit the reply button, your reply will include all the quotes you selected by making them blue.

i simply don't know what a 4-dimensional spatial object is, because i am a 3-dimensional object.

What happens in your mind when you read my explanation? Do you understand how time can be a dimension? Do you understand that 3D objects change through time the same way a point changes position through becoming linear and a line changes position by becoming planar or a plane changes position by becoming voluminous? I don't see how to explain this. If you don't understand dimensions as being inter-related, how can you understand the relationship between 3D and 4D? It has to be analogous to the relationship between 1D and 2D or 2D and 3D, right?

i understand that matter, in our universe, can only be transformed. i just don't get what that had to do with my statement that our universe had a beginning.

Because how can the universe have a beginning if at that moment, the contents had to be transformed from something else? Then that something else would be prior to the beginning, correct? And if something is prior to a beginning, then it's not really a true beginning because the thing coming prior to it would be, right?

i did not quite understand your statement about tautologous. i do not think it is possible for us to understand an effect without a cause, because we live in a causal universe. but there are many things that may be impossible for me to conceive, due to the environment in which i am placed. that does not mean said things don't exist.

Tautology means that because you look for something everywhere, you see it everywhere. That is why I asked you if the human mind has the capacity to NOT attribute causation to anything it examines. If not, claiming that the universe is the source of universal causality seems tautologous to me, i.e. you see it everywhere because that is what your mind is trained to see in everything period.

[/quote]if i speak of god, in a literal sense, i do not mean words created by humans. by the definition that we use when we use the term "GOD", we refer to a divine being who created the universe. a being who existed when our universe did not exist. we have no direct connection to god, assuming he exists.[/quote]
I don't know what you call "direct" or not, but if people didn't have any connection with God, what was the source of inspiration for the writers of all the scriptures?

according to physics as we know it today, we can not transcend the speed of light. while of my own personal accord, i can not say for sure that it is impossible, but i suspect that it is not possible, and therefore accept the fact that i won't know what the universe really is. it doesn't keep me from wanting to know, though.

How could anything move faster than light if light in fact has no mass and therefore no resistance to translating energy into motion?

I don't think you really want to know as much as you keep saying. Otherwise, I don't think you would avoid contemplating your own questions as you seem to do. You seem to prefer to state them and then claim to simply be unable to answer them. You don't really struggle with them. Maybe you won't ultimately be able to answer them (conclusively), but you could reason with them critically and submit your thought processes publicly in a forum for feedback.

 

[petm1]

well, you can shoot down my theory by simply giving me one thing in our universe whose effect has no cause

Big bang.

 

[Physics-Learner]

Big bang.

you have a smiley face, so i assume that you are kidding ?

 

[Physics-Learner]

i did not have success yet with the multi-quote, so i will reply to each of your paragraphs with a separate one of my own.

we may loosely define time as a "dimension", but it is not a spatial dimension. personally, i don't think it is a dimension at all. i do not think that einstein's theory about gravity is correct. as i mentioned, when i said a 4-dimensional object, i said a spatial one. we have length, width and depth. a 4-dimensional object would also have lewipth, which is understood by you and me about as well as the name that i gave it. i don't think we have the foggiest idea of what time is. all we know is that it is something that we experience as a separation of events.

again, when i use the term universe, i speak in the common terms of the world that we live in. this is a causal universe. it had a beginning, based upon how time (whatever it is) reveals itself to us. it has nothing to do with matter. the rules that you quote about transformation of matter only apply to our universe. no rules necessarily apply to the singularity at the time of the big bang. in fact, if i recall from most of my reading in the past, the big bang is the creation of the universe. and in so doing, created space, time, and matter. there is nothing in our universe that is necessarily true in the super-universe. if one assumes that our universe had no beginning, then one arrives at an incorrect conclusion, thereby realizing logically that it must have had a beginning, since its inhabitants have limited lives. if our universe had no beginning, then there would be an infinite amount of time that had elapsed at any given point in time. which means that we could never have been born, since an infinite amount of time would have to elapse before we could be born.

well, if there was such a thing in our universe that could have an effect without a cause, we might be able to realize it. every effect so far can be contributed to a cause.

you tell me. everyone has their own ideas. humans writing books that say they were inspired by god does not necessarily make it so. i could say that this thread was inspired by the easter bunny. would you really believe that ? i had enough catholic brainwashing in my life, that took most of my current life to rid myself of. no one knows if god exists. people like to believe they do, because it is like taking a happy pill. heck i hope god exists, and i hope i get to go to a place like heaven. but hoping is not knowing. religion has been the premier way that the wealthy have controlled the commoner. so these books are much more likely to have been inspired by greedy humans, than by god. have you read any of the old testament ? gosh, i consider it to be an embarrassment to the idea of god as a loving father type of being. i have to laugh at the catholic church. (the other christian churches arent much different, but i have a lot of experience with the catholic church). they all want you to think that they are the last word about god. they tell you what to believe, and you then believe it. when asked about why they make changes, they tell you that they have evolved in their thinking. doesn't anyone see the irony in that ? if they really had some direct connection with god, they would have no need to evolve. all these organized religions don't have the slightest clue about god. they just want to herd as many people into their flock as possible. and btw, at the same time, they happen to get donations. the most spiritual thing i have done in my life is escape all that crap, and spend some time thinking for myself.

i don't know. but that logic has been used a million times in the past, and has been wrong a million times in the past. how could we possibly go to that twinkle in the sky ? then when our knowledge reaches a certain point, we can explain how we can get to that twinkle in the sky.

avoid my contemplations ? i am 55 years old. did you think my opinions simply came by osmosis ? i would liken it to living long enough to know when to beat your head against the wall, and when it might behoove me to stop, because i realize that it is futile (a borgism - LOL). americans, especially, put all this silly emphasis on doing the "impossible". for each person that succeeds, a million fail. but it doesn't stop us from glamorizing it. i have very specific thought processes and very specific reasons for my opinions about my contemplations.

 

[Max™]

In order to register change in a point, you need a line.

In order to register change in a line, one needs a plane.

In order to register change in a plane, you require a volume.

In order to register change in a volume, you need another dimension, time works.