We can look at the universe like this, as shown by the picture behind me or like this in the way Einstein did with his Einstein field equations (EFE).
For your information (^_^) :
The EFE collectively form a tensor equation and equate the curvature of spacetime (as expressed using the Einstein tensor) with the energy and momentum within the spacetime (as expressed using the stress-energy tensor).
And what is more interesting when you start calculating with these formulas, which is in fact a way of deductive reasoning, you come to conclusions which you can test by observations through telesopes and other instruments.
The fact that we can measure redshift in the light from distant galaxies tells us that the galaxies are receding from us, and from each other.
It only takes a little logical deduction to conclude that as they are now all receding from one another, then at some finite point in the past (believed to be around 13 billion years or so) they must have all been at the same point.
And thence we come to our question: Where does the Universe come from?From a bang, a BIG BANG. This theory explains a number of cosmological phenomena, not everything, but you know how it is with science: we are working on it.
However, there is absolutely nothing in this theory that tells us how it was before this big bang. So it can't be the answer to our question, because we are still left with the question of what caused the big bang?
The first thing we may observe is that we are trapped in causal thinking. Don't misunderstand me, it works fine in a lot of situations, but when we apply the principle to our question we get in trouble.
What caused the big bang? For some it is a solution to say: God. But that leaves us with the legitimate question: Where does God come from?
Some might answer that God has no cause. He/She is an exception to the rules of causality. Fine, but how do we know that? Who told us that except our own mind?
One of the characters in Law's book says: " Maybe wasn't the universe caused by something. Maybe its existence is a simple fact."
Maybe we have to be pragmatic indeed and accept the existence of the universe as a kind of axiom and play with our Einstein calculations to explain what can be deduced from that axiom.
Stephen Law leaves us with four alternatives:
1. Answer the question by giving a cause for the existence of the universe.
2. Claiming that the universe has a cause, but that we are (not yet) able to discover it.
3. Claiming that the universe might not have a cause - its existence is just a simple fact.
4. Denying that this question makes sense at all.
There is something to say about this question indeed. By asking "WHERE ..... FROM? we are automatically trapped by spatio-temporal thinking. Even worse, not only trapped....we are completely unable to think otherwise.
All we communicate about is solely the result of our thinking And this thinking has its limitations. Therefore it is not surprising that Kant said, that we are unable to know "das Ding an such" (the reality as such).
And other philosophers came with the thesis that the only reality is the reality of the mind. And in regard to our question you might get the feeling that all we actually have is only our mind.
The Discussion
[13:26] herman Bergson: So I suggest that we dont discuss, but just vote....lol
[13:27] Paula Dix: :))
[13:27] hope63 Shepherd: well.. i think we don't know any more about our mind/brain as we do about the universe..
[13:27] Teleo Aeon: a democratic view of the universe ? :)
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: lolol
[13:27] herman Bergson: You might be right Hope
[13:27] herman Bergson: But yet this question takes us to our limits
[13:28] hope63 Shepherd: the limits of you capacity to understand..
[13:28] Paula Dix: Whats to deny a creator thats not mystical?
[13:28] herman Bergson: yes....
[13:28] hope63 Shepherd: therefore we looked for a god who would understand all..
[13:28] hope63 Shepherd: and have him with us:) not against us:)
[13:28] herman Bergson: But that doesnt work....
[13:29] herman Bergson: we still keep coming with the question ...Where are you from ?
[13:29] Lian Hornet: and fill it with the god of the gaps
[13:29] Samuel Okelly: or science of the gaps
[13:29] hope63 Shepherd: where from where go.. that is exactly space time limits
[13:29] Samuel Okelly: pseudo-science at best
[13:30] herman Bergson: Science wont help here either I am afraid Samuel
[13:30] Samuel Okelly: i agree herman
[13:30] Marya Blaisdale: I think the question tends to point to the fact that we may not be thinking about it the 'right' way - and that putting things down to a 'first cause' is perhaps the wrong way of doing it - I keep wondering why it is that people seem to presume that there was ever 'nothing' - which brings up the question of why is there something rather than nothing (which is the same core point as 'where does the universe come from)
[13:30] herman Bergson: Reading about cosmology is fascinating
[13:30] Qwark Allen: i have 3 things, that i`ve been thinking about 1st- the speed of light it`s not a absolute value, it changes with some conditions. gravity it`s one of them! in consequence of it, einstein was close to the truth, but not to the truth it self 2d- the universe doesn`t have 13 bilions years. they say. but we don`t know where we are at a specific point of the universe, to have this reference. we know that the light traveled 13 bilion years until we get it, but we are not at the edge of the universe, to state that it`s is lifetime so far 3rd- if we are in a universe in expansion, where are we expanding?
[13:31] herman Bergson: Yes...Qwark....you point at what are the facts....
[13:31] Lian Hornet: From the observable universe, qwark, galaxies are expanding homogeneously, without a center in sight
[13:31] Paula Dix: Marya, thats why i ask if creator cant be someone "like us"
[13:31] Qwark Allen: i know
[13:31] herman Bergson: Science has only an incomplete theory...
[13:31] Qwark Allen: yes
[13:32] oola Neruda: now they feel there are pockets of space that are expanding at different speeds... they liken it to swiss cheese with the "pockets" being the mini universes
[13:32] Marya Blaisdale: Well, I don't think there is or was a creator, Paula - I think that 'something' has always existed - by 'something' i mean matter of some sort
[13:33] herman Bergson: I think that we are imprisoned in our own mind..our way of observing and thinking...
[13:33] oola Neruda: and the universe not being radially symetrical but lumpy... and no dark matter... the theories change constantly
[13:33] Paula Dix: and having a non mystical creator will only put the question more distant, not solve it :)
[13:33] Samuel Okelly: we observe that everything in the known universe has a cause and is contingent on some “other”. It is therefore perfectly logical to hold that the intricate complexity of what is observed is “caused” by something or someone that is not restricted by matter or spatiotemporal considerations.
[13:33] herman Bergson: Let me tell you about a trick...
[13:33] herman Bergson: When you have flies in the house..how to keep them out
[13:33] Paula Dix: But Samuel, that would imply on a cause to god also
[13:33] herman Bergson: You fill a small plastic bag with water and hang is in the door opening or window..
[13:34] Samuel Okelly: no it wouldnt
[13:34] Qwark Allen: yes, we use that a lot here in summer
[13:34] Paula Dix: why not?
[13:34] herman Bergson: A fly doesnt see a small bag but a huge sea it seems
[13:34] Marya Blaisdale: The thing is, Samuel, is that thinking about it in terms of just 'cause' is probalby not correct - a cause is an effect, an effect is a cause - it is a very complex system of relationships that work together, imo
[13:34] Teleo Aeon: yes I tend to agree Marya. I go with Heideggers notion of Being on that one. that the existence of a nothing is not even able to be possited in any logical way...aka, parmenides. Also, I don't believe in Time.. I think what we call Time is merely a transcoding of spatiality.
[13:35] Marya Blaisdale nods
[13:35] hope63 Shepherd: sam.. because our capacity to think is limited to cause and effect doesn't prove a thing about what is..
[13:35] hope63 Shepherd: we just have to work with those axioms..
[13:35] Samuel Okelly: because matter is of the universe, as is time., there is no reason to presume that matter or time also apply beyond what we know
[13:35] herman Bergson: Forget my fly ^_^
[13:35] Paula Dix: Samuel, im curious about your idea why everything having a cause wont imply on god having a cause
[13:35] oola Neruda: i am with Teleo... i feel that the questions about "existance" that Heidegger brings up... existance itself
[13:35] Ze Novikov: lol
[13:36] oola Neruda: existence of anything at all
[13:36] herman Bergson: Hold on for a moment
[13:36] Samuel Okelly: @paula - an uncaused cause
[13:36] herman Bergson: Yeah..that is the end..the uncaused cause....
[13:37] herman Bergson: With all due respect Samuel, but where did we humans got the knowledge from about uncaused causes..
[13:37] herman Bergson: and why should there only be one....cant there be a dozen?
[13:37] Samuel Okelly: fides et ratio
[13:38] hope63 Shepherd: we make them up.. we made up god to answer5 unsolved questions..
[13:38] herman Bergson: I think you should look at my fly who has a complete different perception of reality
[13:39] Qwark Allen: what perception we have from reality?
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: oh wow yes so many views from the eyes
[13:39] herman Bergson: we have just one way of perceiving reality and we call it of course the right way....
[13:39] Samuel Okelly: a theist might reply that ppl deny god to hide the arrogance of their own ignorance
[13:39] Qwark Allen: what our eyes see?
[13:39] Paula Dix: Samuel, but then not everything has a cause, wich makes your first rule invalid
[13:39] herman Bergson: That is an argumentum ad hominem Samual...forbidden in this class
[13:40] hope63 Shepherd: and could beturned around..
[13:40] Samuel Okelly: said in response to "
[13:38] hope63 Shepherd: we make them up.. we made up god to answer unsolved questions.."
[13:40] herman Bergson: Also forbidden ^_^
[13:40] Lian Hornet: So this is a discussion on the anthropic principle?
[13:40] Samuel Okelly: one rule for all i propose
[13:40] Marya Blaisdale: I think starting from a premise of 'cause then effect' is probably 'causing' more problems than it needs to - I think if we were able to perceive it as a constantly flowing network of [cause is effect is cause is effect is cause etc], then it would make more sense - but that is just my thinking on this ...
[13:41] hope63 Shepherd: marya..poblemn is that people need a source..
[13:41] herman Bergson: Our fixation on cause and effect is indeed a killing factor here
[13:41] hope63 Shepherd: to understand the flow..
[13:41] herman Bergson: but we have no other way of explaining the relations between things
[13:42] Paula Dix: yes, thats my question, what to put instead of cause/effect
[13:42] Marya Blaisdale: that there are 'relations' is exactly the point I think, the way it all works is via relationships - the way things affect each other and how that passes on to and with other things
[13:42] Samuel Okelly: @paula - It would become invalid if we were to apply the rules from within to apply to the exterior
[13:43] hope63 Shepherd: well.. i shouild say humanity has gone a long way to dioscover the cause effect principle.. there might be more to discover in the future..:9 as it always happened:9
[13:43] herman Bergson: Yes PAula...that's the point....we dont know of any other relation....tho maybe a correlation based on statistics
[13:43] hope63 Shepherd: took a long time from ptolemee tpo galileo
[13:43] herman Bergson: Almost back to Hume and the billiard balls...
[13:43] herman Bergson: We just see happen A and then B.....that is all
[13:43] Marya Blaisdale nods
[13:44] herman Bergson: A did not cause B....B just happened after A
[13:44] Marya Blaisdale: the problem seems to be then applying that context of thinking to the whole instead of keeping it within its context
[13:45] oola Neruda: like keeping the camera on just the pitcher at a baseball game and never getting to see what the outfield and batter ... and all those guys are doing...
[13:45] herman Bergson: So science is nothing more then, then telling which events are seen togetther or after another
[13:45] Samuel Okelly: i think this forces to us to question what it means “to know” something
[13:46] herman Bergson: That is question 19 Samuel ^_^
[[13:46] herman Bergson: And yes Marya..I love contextual thinking and reasoning
[13:46] Marya Blaisdale nods :)
[13:46] Samuel Okelly: im sure many of the questions will overlap
[13:47] hope63 Shepherd: well.. based on premises we can deduct a lot of things.. and they work so far.. doen't mean we answer all questions.. unless we speculate..
[13:47] herman Bergson: Indeed Hope....the deductions work....a plead for pragmatism :-)
[13:47] hope63 Shepherd: do we have another chioce?
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: iI liked that oola
[13:48] herman Bergson: What did you mean by your baseball example oola..
[13:49] hope63 Shepherd: we can'0t see the whole picture..but with modern tv slit screen you could oola..
[13:49] herman Bergson: oola?
[13:50] herman Bergson: Well....at least we may conclude that science doesnt answer our question....
[13:50] hope63 Shepherd: every tv station has 20 cameras .. the fact that you see only one picture is the chioce of the responsable..
[13:50] herman Bergson: Makes it even worse with this Big BAng...for it had to take place somewhere, or am I mistaken?
[13:51] Samuel Okelly: an uncaused cause vs infinite regress
[13:51] oola Neruda: phone
[13:51] Marya Blaisdale: I think the station example is a fair one, for example, we need to understand that the one particular angle we are seeing, is just one context and we can come to some understandings about that one particular context, but should not then apply the exact same rules or thinking to other possible angles
[13:51] hope63 Shepherd: nothing wrong woth the big bang i think.. just moving thoughts to a certain point.. not answering.not trying .to answer the crucial what was before..:9
[13:51] herman Bergson: Neither makes me happy Samuel :-)
[13:52] Teleo Aeon: Herman somewhere posits a spatial position outside of space itself.. so it doesn't really work to do that from what I can tell.
[13:52] hope63 Shepherd: right marya..
[13:52] Samuel Okelly: occam's razor to decide which is preferable from a logical viewpoint?
[13:52] herman Bergson: That brings us back to my fly who everybody missed..:-)
[13:52] Ze Novikov: lol
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: i did not
[13:52] hope63 Shepherd: lol.. the water bag..:?
[13:52] Lian Hornet: Cosmic Inflation theory describes an event less than a second after the big bang, and allows for the possibility for an infinite universe that could have no actual center
[13:52] herman Bergson smiles
[13:53] hope63 Shepherd: so why are still flies around when you live close to the ocean..
[13:53] Paula Dix: Marya, the way you talk (cause=effect) is dialetic? Clear talk about that all the time
[13:53] herman Bergson: Lian..that timeing I regard as utter nonsense :-)
[13:53] Ze Novikov: all the dead fish Hope
[13:53] hope63 Shepherd: lol
[13:53] Lian Hornet: timing?
[13:53] oola Neruda: i meant.... that we have certain tools and points of view... and they limit us... we need the rest of the camera that hope is keeping to himself
[13:54] hope63 Shepherd: some of the humans must smell like dead fish too then ze..:)
[13:54] herman Bergson: Yes..a second after the big bang....
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: we have to go soon Herman
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: what is the next chapter????
[13:54] Ze Novikov: lol
[13:54] Alarice Beaumont: that gay question
[13:54] Lian Hornet: Oh, I would have to be a physicist to judge it that why... but cosmic inflation is accepted by most cosmologists
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: are we going in the book order or skip;ping around
[13:54] Lian Hornet: *that way
[13:55] herman Bergson: Ok..oola..that brings us back to my statement that we are trapped in the limitations of our mind....causal, spatio-temporal thinking
[13:55] oola Neruda: yes
[13:55] Qwark Allen: we need to first know about our blindness to reality
[13:55] Marya Blaisdale: Paula, I'm afraid I don't understand the question?
[13:55] hope63 Shepherd: what about the theory that universe expands only to meet again in a point and becomes the some melting pot of materia?
[13:56] herman Bergson: But that is a paradox Qwark...
[13:56] hope63 Shepherd: what about anti.materia?
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye
[13:56] herman Bergson: ye Gemma
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: see you tuesday
[13:56] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye gemma :-)
[13:56] Samuel Okelly: bye gem
[13:56] herman Bergson: How can we see when we are blind? :-)
[13:56] Ze Novikov: bb Gemma
[13:56] Qwark Allen: not a melting pot af mateia! a quark plasma
[13:56] hope63 Shepherd: discovered i think in cern at geneva..
[13:56] hope63 Shepherd: anyway they are looking for it
[13:56] Paula Dix: Marya, Clear says this idea of cause=effect=cause is dialectic, but i dont understand this word well, would you use it there?
[13:57] Qwark Allen: because our senses are made to see a very little portion of reality
[13:57] Marya Blaisdale: Mmm, who is Clear?
[13:57] Qwark Allen: very small one
[13:57] Qwark Allen: i was amazed when i read about
[13:57] Paula Dix: Marya, my friend FL
[13:58] herman Bergson: Be well Qwark :-)
[13:58] Qwark Allen: you need to know what is light it self, to understand what i`m saying
[13:58] hope63 Shepherd: takle care Q
[13:58] Marya Blaisdale: ohh, okay Paula :)
[13:58] Qwark Allen: cya soon frinds
[13:58] Alarice Beaumont: bye qwark :-)
[13:58] Ze Novikov: cy Q
[13:58] Paula Dix: :))
[13:59] herman Bergson: I think we can discuss this till the outer limits of the universe..
[13:59] Paula Dix: lol
[13:59] herman Bergson: So I would suggest to return back to earth and thank you for your participation
[13:59] Marya Blaisdale: Dialectic (also called dialectics or the dialectical method) is a method of argument, which has been central to both Eastern and Western philosophy since ancient times. The word "dialectic" originates in Ancient Greece, and was made popular by Plato's Socratic dialogues. Dialectic is rooted in the ordinary practice of a dialogue between two people who hold different ideas and wish to persuade each other. The presupposition of a dialectical argument is that the participants, even if they do not agree, share at least some meanings and principles of inference.
[13:59] Marya Blaisdale: Wiki :)
[13:59] Ze Novikov: TY Herman
[13:59] herman Bergson: And I especially want to greet an old old friend Lian Hornet..:-)
[13:59] Paula Dix: im still trying to get the idea that we cant think about before big bang because time itself started there...
[14:00] Lian Hornet: aloha
[14:00] hope63 Shepherd: hello lian
[14:00] herman Bergson: Yes Paula....that is the fascinating moment
[14:00] Paula Dix: Marya, but there are other definitions of dialectic, i guess most modern isn Hegel
[14:00] oola Neruda: because of how we define time...
[14:00] oola Neruda: measured by change
[14:01] Ze Novikov: bb everyone 'til next time in the same dimension
[14:01] herman Bergson: Not a discussion on time plz..^_^
[14:01] oola Neruda: baieee Ze
[14:01] Paula Dix: bye Ze :)
[14:01] herman Bergson: Would really take too much time
[14:01] herman Bergson: Bye Ze
[14:01] Marya Blaisdale: Well, I'm not sure what Clear means there, Paula - maybe you could ask her to explain what context she is using it in?
[14:01] Paula Dix: lol she already gave me tons of explainings, i was trying to get another one from you that maybe would make things clearer :)))
[14:02] herman Bergson: Ok Paula....while you Clear out this issue, I'll dismiss class first ^_^
[14:02] Marya Blaisdale: lol
[14:02] Paula Dix: lol
[14:02] Paula Dix: And then there is gravity!!!
[14:02] herman Bergson: Thank you all for participating
|
|
