Is there such thing as "Creation"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-11-2014, 11:46 AM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(11-11-2014 11:40 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Because the universe does not obey your intuitions.

Modern physics does not tailor itself to meet your expectations. The universe does not behave the way our evolution conditioned us to expect; we exist only in a tiny subset of conditions and are godawful at extrapolating outside those conditions.

And this somehow answers the question? How?

It simply doesn't.

Hint:
(11-11-2014 11:21 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(11-11-2014 11:04 AM)Free Wrote:  You, nor anyone else here, is actually answering that question.

You're not going to get an answer.

Incidentally, I still have the same questions for you:
What premises does your question rely on?
How did you come to those premises?
Why do you think they apply in the context of your question?

And here's another question, which you have not answered:
Do you agree that the universe is expanding?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
11-11-2014, 11:55 AM (This post was last modified: 11-11-2014 11:58 AM by Free.)
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
Quote:Incidentally, I still have the same questions for you:

Quote:What premises does your question rely on?

The observable universe.

Quote:How did you come to those premises?

The observable universe.

Quote:Why do you think they apply in the context of your question?

Because the theory suggests it.

Quote:And here's another question, which you have not answeredBig Grino you agree that the universe is expanding?

I agree that it is a possibility, but since we cannot observe space itself expanding, then that is my entire problem. The expansion of space is the "Holy Grail" that would confirm the expansion theory, but it still would not answer the one question that seemingly cannot be answered.

"What is it expanding into?"

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2014, 12:09 PM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(11-11-2014 11:42 AM)Free Wrote:  
(11-11-2014 11:24 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  So "intellectually honest' is what you interpenetrate as agreeing with you? That's pretty pathetic.

And read it again, turn up your comprehensions skills.. I didn't say it's unknown that if is the case. Your question was HOW can it? The reason HOW is unknown. That doesn't mean it isn't the case... so no I'm actually not confirming anything you are thinking. So I guess that makes me back to "intellectually dishonest" in all these answers.

Again, what logic and reasoning in application to spacetime is being being defyed? It just comes off like you're refusing to acknowledge anything about the subject of how our so called simple understanding isn't universal in all situations.

Here's your quote:

Quote:The answer is unknown as far as I know

So what part of that am I failing to comprehend?

Whether you agree with me or not is not relevant. I asked a question, and YOU gave an answer.

Yes.. that's an answer to you bolded question. The question that asked HOW does this happen... that's unknown, that doesn't mean it isn't the case. Your response was thinking I was saying it's unknown whether or not spacetime is expanding into something.

Not having the answers of HOW or WHY doesn't invalidate a noticeable situation. These are known unknowns, these are the questions that are being seeked out by many people.

Again.. what understanding of "observable universe" are you going off of. Why do you continually ignore all answers related to how the quantum and grand universal scale psychics and behavior don't line up with what you're familiar with in the term "observable universe"

The problem is you can't answer an invalid question sometimes... you can't answer WHAT is it expanding into if there is no WHAT that exists. You were on the right track of question asking before.. go back to that please; please understand how to sensibly learn and not assert things into questions so you can eventually get to the correct type of responses.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
11-11-2014, 12:19 PM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(11-11-2014 11:55 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Incidentally, I still have the same questions for you:

Quote:What premises does your question rely on?

The observable universe.

Quote:How did you come to those premises?

The observable universe.

And yet: how?

"The universe" is not a satisfactory answer, any more than "because" is a satisfactory answer. Oh, well.

On what grounds to you generalise limited, highly contingent personal experience to the level of the universe as a whole?

Is quantum mechanics intuitive? No. Is relativity intuitive? No. So what? Do you deny those too? Do you have an alternate explanation for theories and devices relying on them?

Your answer amounts to no more than "in my experience". Given how tremendously limited that experience is, why should anyone else heed it? Why should we generalise it? To what extent should we generalise it? If it contradicts someone else's experience and subsequent generalisation, whose do we privilege?

More to the point, what should we do if that intuitive experience is directly contradicted by reliable, empirical evidence? Schrodinger's cat is nonsense! you might say; that was the whole point of it as a thought experiment. And yet superposition follows inevitably from the precepts of quantum mechanics, and without quantum mechanics the sun wouldn't burn. Either non-intuitive physical theories hold some validity, or else literally everything we "know" is completely wrong. Which, yes, to satisfy your pedantry, is possible... But remind me again why that's worth entertaining?

(11-11-2014 11:55 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Why do you think they apply in the context of your question?

Because the theory suggests it.

How? Why?
(what theory? cosmic inflation?)

You're going to have to explain that in a little more detail.

Continually re-asserting the same inadequate statements doesn't lend them any more credence.

(11-11-2014 11:55 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:And here's another question, which you have not answeredBig Grino you agree that the universe is expanding?

I agree that it is a possibility, but since we cannot observe space itself expanding, then that is my entire problem. The expansion of space is the "Holy Grail" that would confirm the expansion theory, but it still would not answer the one question that seemingly cannot be answered.

"What is it expanding into?"

And that's still ass-backwards.

The universe is expanding*. Period. That is the single best, most coherent, most well-attested explanation for all of our cosmological observations**. We can observe this through any number of means***.
(*: I don't actually know this, and I may be wrong)
(**: I don't actually know this, and I may be wrong)
(***: I don't actually know this, and I may be wrong)

Have you read any literature on the subject? Or even general primers? Do you disagree with those analyses? Do you dispute their conclusions?

Recall too that these ideas are accepted by the relevant scientific communities for a reason. That reason is not "lol conspiracy". What do you think that reason is?

...

We can conclude that yes, the universe is expanding without making absolute claims as to why and how. It is an empirical conclusion. You may challenge it on its own standing. To say it can't be true because you disagree with the consequences is fallacious. Not that your views as to the consequences - expansion means expansion "into" something - are themselves valid; this is your positive claim, and you have not justified it. It is mere presupposition based on deeply inadequate generalisation of subjective personal experience.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
11-11-2014, 12:38 PM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(11-11-2014 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  Nothingness is a non existence, therefore the universe cannot logically expand into a non existence. Hence, if it is expanding, then it is definitely logically sound to conclude that it is expanding into something, based upon everything we currently know about existence.
Don't think of existence as being a box to be filled.
Space isn't a substance, it does not require a box in order to expand into.

For some reason the distance between distant objects is increasing and the rate of separation is increasing even though gravity would have us think either the distance should be decreasing or the rate of separation should be decreasing.

Space isn't just expanding at the edges of the universe (if you assume there are edges. Remember Space looks pretty much the same from everywhere, and from everywhere it looks as if you are at the centre of the universe because everywhere else is expanding away from you), space is expanding everywhere.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
11-11-2014, 01:02 PM (This post was last modified: 11-11-2014 01:10 PM by Free.)
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(11-11-2014 12:09 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(11-11-2014 11:42 AM)Free Wrote:  Here's your quote:


So what part of that am I failing to comprehend?

Whether you agree with me or not is not relevant. I asked a question, and YOU gave an answer.

Yes.. that's an answer to you bolded question. The question that asked HOW does this happen... that's unknown, that doesn't mean it isn't the case. Your response was thinking I was saying it's unknown whether or not spacetime is expanding into something.

Not having the answers of HOW or WHY doesn't invalidate a noticeable situation. These are known unknowns, these are the questions that are being seeked out by many people.

Again.. what understanding of "observable universe" are you going off of. Why do you continually ignore all answers related to how the quantum and grand universal scale psychics and behavior don't line up with what you're familiar with in the term "observable universe"

The problem is you can't answer an invalid question sometimes... you can't answer WHAT is it expanding into if there is no WHAT that exists. You were on the right track of question asking before.. go back to that please; please understand how to sensibly learn and not assert things into questions so you can eventually get to the correct type of responses.

Let me break down this entire conversation as simply as possible.

I accept two possibilities:

1. The universe it finite.

2. The universe is infinite.

I am currently leaning towards an infinite universe for several reasons:

A: The question of the origin of the Big Bang is currently unknown. I find myself at a logical impasse to accept that nothing existed before the Big Bang for the simple reason that I cannot logically accept that all the elements that comprised the Big Bang before expansion/explosion came from no where.

It makes no logical sense to me that an existence such as the Big Bang came from a non existence.

It makes perfect sense to me that the Big Bang had a previous existence.

B: The current model of the Big Bang suggests that all of space was contained in a single point. To me, even a single point suggests an occupation of a place. Therefore, I logically determine that if all of space was contained in a specific place, then space itself existed before the expansion, since it was contained in a single point. What I am saying is that the single point demonstrates an existence (the Big Bang) before expansion.

Again, I have the questions of "where" the point of the Big Bang existed before expansion? How did it exist without a place to exist in?

It had to exist somewhere, in some place, at some point. It occupied an area of some sort. It had to have a place to exist before expansion.

Therefore, the very place it existed in pre-existed the Big Bang, and this indicates a prior existence.

C: We can see the observable universe and the objects therein. The current model suggests that expansion moved outward from a fixed point and created space/time. To me, it is only reasonable to ask the question of; if the Big Bang created space time, then space and time needed a place to exist. To me, it is only reasonable and logical that if the Big Bang expanded both space and time, then both space and time would need a place to exist, let alone the observable objects in the universe.

So how do objects go from a fixed point to a distance of 13.5 billion light years without moving? The current model definitely implies at least some degree of motion, and it is this very model that compels me to ask the reasonable question of; if space is expanding, then what is it expanding into?

It's another logical impasse for me to accept that it is expanding into a non existence. How does something occupy a place that does not exist?

Regardless of how much I know or do not know about cosmology, the questions I am asking and seeking answers to are valid considering the current state of the human condition.

Sure, there are definitely mystery's that elude us all in regards to the origin of existence, but that should not ever impede anyone from asking reasonable questions as a means of finding answers.

And these are the very questions that I require answers to in order to accept a finite universe over an infinite universe.

But I don't expect them to be answered with the current state of our knowledge.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2014, 01:14 PM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
It's much simpler than you want to make it. Your question is invalid because it presupposes something. The problem is you seem to want to think the way you see the world around you, is the way the Universe should act in all areas. Why? Why do you believe that?

Asking What is it expanding into? Is comparable to the question, "Are you still beating your wife?" (I use this since it's a specific reference to a jerk behavior once used to a journalist) If I asked you that, it would be an invalid and stupid question to ask because it's presupposing you had a wife and previously were beating her. So asking WHAT is it expanding into, presumes there is a what. There's no evidence there is a what, so it's an invalid question.

It comes off as willingly ignorant to keep asking it. An open wiser question you should ask... Is there something spacetime is expanding into? And the answer is the evidence points to no. There is no demonstrable space/dimensional area outside of what we know as space.

When you make statements like, IT HAD TOO.. not based on testing and experimentation, and observing the exact thing you're talking about, it is coming off from a foolish position. It's not an open scientifically accurate way of questioning.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
11-11-2014, 01:39 PM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(11-11-2014 01:02 PM)Free Wrote:  It makes no logical sense to me...

It makes perfect sense to me...

To me...

To me...

It's another logical impasse for me...

Well; there's your problem.

(11-11-2014 01:02 PM)Free Wrote:  Regardless of how much I know or do not know about cosmology, the questions I am asking and seeking answers to are valid considering the current state of the human condition.

No. Your knowledge of cosmology is what determines the validity of your questions thereof.

Let us consider evolution by way of an analogy. If I were to ask you, "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?", what would your reaction be?

Would you perhaps try to tell me that my question was born of an inappropriate understanding? Would you perhaps try to correct the evident misapprehensions I was beginning from?

What if I then insisted to you that my question was valid? Because it represented, to me, a logical problem? To me, it made perfect sense? Would that make it a valid question?

(11-11-2014 01:02 PM)Free Wrote:  Sure, there are definitely mystery's that elude us all in regards to the origin of existence, but that should not ever impede anyone from asking reasonable questions as a means of finding answers.

And these are the very questions that I require answers to in order to accept a finite universe over an infinite universe.

But I don't expect them to be answered with the current state of our knowledge.

Your questions make unjustifiable presuppositions. They are framed in light of invalid premises.

For example - what is "place"? What does it mean to occupy a place? You are - for no reason beyond naivete - assuming that the same sense of place that we observe within the universe "must" (!) apply without.

If you are framing a statement or question which can be boiled down to "if X, then Y", you must first establish X at least to a sufficient degree for discussion before any consideration of Y will be worthwhile.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
11-11-2014, 02:48 PM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(11-11-2014 01:39 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(11-11-2014 01:02 PM)Free Wrote:  It makes no logical sense to me...

It makes perfect sense to me...

To me...

To me...

It's another logical impasse for me...

Well; there's your problem.

(11-11-2014 01:02 PM)Free Wrote:  Regardless of how much I know or do not know about cosmology, the questions I am asking and seeking answers to are valid considering the current state of the human condition.

No. Your knowledge of cosmology is what determines the validity of your questions thereof.

Let us consider evolution by way of an analogy. If I were to ask you, "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?", what would your reaction be?

Would you perhaps try to tell me that my question was born of an inappropriate understanding? Would you perhaps try to correct the evident misapprehensions I was beginning from?

What if I then insisted to you that my question was valid? Because it represented, to me, a logical problem? To me, it made perfect sense? Would that make it a valid question?

(11-11-2014 01:02 PM)Free Wrote:  Sure, there are definitely mystery's that elude us all in regards to the origin of existence, but that should not ever impede anyone from asking reasonable questions as a means of finding answers.

And these are the very questions that I require answers to in order to accept a finite universe over an infinite universe.

But I don't expect them to be answered with the current state of our knowledge.

Your questions make unjustifiable presuppositions. They are framed in light of invalid premises.

For example - what is "place"? What does it mean to occupy a place? You are - for no reason beyond naivete - assuming that the same sense of place that we observe within the universe "must" (!) apply without.

If you are framing a statement or question which can be boiled down to "if X, then Y", you must first establish X at least to a sufficient degree for discussion before any consideration of Y will be worthwhile.

Again, none of this even approaches a miserable attempt to answer the questions.

Just because I don't have a PHd in cosmology in no way whatsoever invalidates my questions.

You made a positive statement that the universe is not expanding into anything.

Prove it.

Since we can demonstrate physically that when anything moves that it then has occupied two points- origin and destination- then you must demonstrate how this cannot be true with the expansion of space.

Am I assuming that space is expanding into something else? Yes I am, and based upon observations of the observable universe, the assumption is valid.

You are suggesting that this is not true based upon your presumption of my lack of education, but providing no evidence to support your positive claim.

I made my claim based upon everything we can observe in the universe.

You made your claim based upon what?

Some evidence trumps no evidence 100% of the time. It doesn't mean I am correct, but only that I am not showing up at the table with empty hands.

Big Grin

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2014, 03:01 PM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(11-11-2014 02:48 PM)Free Wrote:  Am I assuming that space is expanding into something else? Yes I am, and based upon observations of the observable universe, the assumption is valid.

Wouldn't you need to be able to observe outside the universe to decide if that is valid or not? I don't see that there is justification to extrapolate the way things work inside the universe to the universe itself or to whatever may be outside it, if "outside it" even has meaning.

Your claim makes intuitive sense based on common experience but from what little I know about the subject, what seems intuitive often isn't what is true.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: