Science Fiction & Philosophy discussion
Philosophy
>
Multi-dimensional modelling and reality
That's fascinating. I wonder how this kind of modelling might relate to the ideas of intuition or collective consciousness.
Mod
This is an interesting theory: an autodidactic universe that can bend the laws of physics (the original article hasn't been peer-reviewed as yet)https://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...
Mod
We know the universe was very different and may be in the future so it's not inconceivable that the 'laws' were and may again be very different.
Another angle is the possibility that laws we experience as humans in our world are different to laws that apply at the quantum level and cosmological level, as is sometimes suggested. Perhaps scale as well as time are a factor?
Scale was certainly a factor in transitioning from Newton's physics (which still work fine at planetary scale) to Einstein's theory of relativity. So I would think that scale is definitely important.
Here's another interesting discussion - what if the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of the universe? https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-ba...
(I love seeing these theories pop up in the S&T forums, it reminds me just how much more there is still to be learned about our universe.)
Mod
Mod
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORUU...
Edit: One slight criticism of the video - it discusses alternative 'somethings' but skips over absolute nothing and the implications of this contrast.
That is the hugest question of all!!!!
Peter wrote: "It always seemed illogical that the Big Bang was really the beginning because however we minimise the material or energy of the singularity (Hawkings) at time 0, the question of how that got there ..."As I understood it, there could have being something before the Big Bang, but we cannot get any info about it because of the Big Bang. It is our bifurcation point
Mod
"In fact, our entire observable Universe contains no signatures at all from almost all of its pre-hot-Big-Bang history; only the final 10-32 seconds (or so) of inflation even leave observably imprinted signatures on our Universe. We do not know where the inflationary state came from, however. It might arise from a pre-existing state that does have a singularity, it might have existed in its inflationary form forever, or the Universe itself might even be cyclical in nature.
There are a lot of people who mean "the initial singularity" when they say "the Big Bang," and to those people, I say it's long past due for you to get with the times. The hot Big Bang cannot be extrapolated back to a singularity, but only to the end of an inflationary state that preceded it. We cannot state with any confidence, because there are no signatures of it even in principle, what preceded the very end-stages of inflation. Was there a singularity? Maybe, but even if so, it doesn't have anything to do with the Big Bang.
Inflation came first, and its end heralded the arrival of the Big Bang. There are still those who disagree, but they're now nearly a full 40 years out of date. When they assert that "the Big Bang was the beginning," you'll know why cosmic inflation actually came first. As far as what came before the final fraction-of-a-second of inflation? Your hypothesis is just as good as anyone's."
Ethan Siegel Senior Contributor, Starts With A Bang Contributor Group
Same article as Khira's link above.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswi...
There are studies being undertaken to see if CMB polarization might indicate something before the Big Bang. Similarly, gravitational-wave studies are being done for the same reason.
Mod
Gravitational collapse of pre-Big-Bang era might result in concentric polarization anomalies in CMB. Here is a website.
https://futurism.com/4-anomalies-in-t...
https://futurism.com/4-anomalies-in-t...
CMB polarization was first detected by DASI from the South Pole in 2002 and has since been observed by many other experiments. A key motivation for polarization measurements is the theory of inflation, which posits that the size of the universe expanded by an unimaginably large factor during a tiny fraction of a second at the time of the Big Bang.
Polarization anomalies potentially indicate pre-Big-Bang gravitational effects.
Polarization anomalies potentially indicate pre-Big-Bang gravitational effects.
Mod
Is the theory that gravitational waves were caused by the Big Bang (or earlier) and that they travelled through spacetime so that the subsequent CMB was polarised by them? Not only that but the nature of polarisation can actually be calculated to show the gravitational waves must have originated prior to the Big Bang?
Apologies if I'm simply putting into my own words what you've already said but it's so fascinating I want to be sure I understand it properly!
A non-uniform CMB (on a large scale) may indicate a pre-Big Bang gravitational collapse. In other words, matter/space-time was not purely uniform at the singularity, which it supposedly should have been.
Mod
Yes, I think Penrose was on to something with his cyclic universes.
I don't know of any support for things popping into and out of existence, whereas continuous reconfiguration of the universe seems well supported.
I don't know of any support for things popping into and out of existence, whereas continuous reconfiguration of the universe seems well supported.
Mod
I would say the concept of 'starting it all' or 'beginning' is unrealistic in an absolute sense.
We can arbitrarily say things like "I began eating dinner," but in an absolute sense, all the preconditions are always there leading up to every event. So the question becomes, is there a start to the universe itself without anything beforehand? I would say no, unless there is evidence that undermines the abundant mundane evidence that no absolute beginnings ever occur.
We can arbitrarily say things like "I began eating dinner," but in an absolute sense, all the preconditions are always there leading up to every event. So the question becomes, is there a start to the universe itself without anything beforehand? I would say no, unless there is evidence that undermines the abundant mundane evidence that no absolute beginnings ever occur.
Mod
When we had the Big Bang as an absolute beginning, every precondition could ultimately be traced back to that event. Without it the goal posts moved back but if we lose the goal posts altogether we create a more profound question.
To believe in no beginning is tantamount to believing in effect without cause. And that denies the bedrock of all our known science.
How does the concept of time come into the discussion of 'beginning'?
Mod
I recently opened another topic on the subject of time itself and our perception of it because this is, to me, fundamental in understanding the history of the universe and our existence in it.
https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/l...
So what is the difference between 'real' time and 'not real' time? And how can we talk about something that existed before real time without using the notion of time as we know it?
Mod
In common usage, for me, time is not conditional upon the existence of 'things', it is independent of them.
For me, time is not independent of anything, nor dependent on anything, because there is no such physical entity as 'time'.
Physicality is the primary criterion in my world view - everything else is just imaginary...souls, ghosts, magic, etc...
Peter wrote: "To believe in no beginning is tantamount to believing in effect without cause. And that denies the bedrock of all our known science."
You have it backwards, Peter. Actually, positing a beginning is tantamount to believing in effect without a cause. With no beginning, every effect has a cause.
reply | flag *
Physicality is the primary criterion in my world view - everything else is just imaginary...souls, ghosts, magic, etc...
Peter wrote: "To believe in no beginning is tantamount to believing in effect without cause. And that denies the bedrock of all our known science."
You have it backwards, Peter. Actually, positing a beginning is tantamount to believing in effect without a cause. With no beginning, every effect has a cause.
reply | flag *
Mod
With no beginning, (by definition) nothing began and nothing would now exist. The effect of nothing is nothing.
We know the effect from whatever beginning there might have been because we experience it all around us - the universe is evidence of the effect. Therefore, as science tells us that effects are the result of causes we can assume a cause, ie a beginning.
We have a choice; believe that science is wrong about cause and effect and there was no initial cause/beginning to the universe. Or believe that cause and effect holds true but we do not yet understand how that beginning manifested itself. In this latter explanation I would add the possibility that the laws of physics at the time of a singularity or Big Bang have been considered to be potentially quite different by some eminent scientists.
I'm drawn to the view that time may not exist, as well. But less so to the notion that that releases us from the cause and effect problem. If we disregard time, we still have 'stuff' - or as David calls it, 'physicality', in our universe. That stuff had to come from somewhere, so the conclusion I find most logical and compelling is that we just don't know how the beginning could be a cause without being an effect.... yet... nor do we know if/how the laws of physics could be different in the early universe.
"With no beginning, (by definition) nothing began and nothing would now exist" is the one that's wrong Peter. A "beginning" is going from nothing to something; "no beginning", on the other hand, implies a continuous process (neither "beginnings" nor "endings") which has been going on forever.
If the universe has been going on forever, is this 'forever' then defined along the 'real' time axis, or the imaginary time axis? Or did it switch at the moment of the Big Bang?
Mod
A "beginning" is going from nothing to something; "no beginning", on the other hand, ..."
Your distinction between the two is correct, Richard, but your conclusion is debatable. There is no evidence of a continuous process that has been going on forever (until very recently we believed the Big Bang was the 'beginning'). Hawking suggested time began at the Big Bang and prior to that there was no time for a 'cause' (he was attacking the idea of a creator) but his was still a linear universe with a beginning. Imaginary time removes a beginning but using this concept everything happens at once, not in a continuous process of real time.
I accept there's no evidence of a beginning either (having toppled the Big Bang), which is why I conclude that in the absence of evidence we just don't know.
Khira, imaginary time began as a useful mathematical construct to enable shortcuts in complex equations. However, some real events have been predicted using this imaginary construct - which has led to the idea that what we call imaginary might be real. One benefit of using imaginary time is that the concept of a beginning becomes redundant (hence the above discussion) as everything happens at once. But if we're thinking about the universe going on forever, then we're using the language of real time and on that horizontal axis, forever means infinity to the left and right in real time.
If we believe that real time doesn't exist at all, then nothing separates what we perceive as events and, as with imaginary time, everything happens simultaneously. If that's so, I must withdraw my earlier comment about cause and effect because the effect would not follow the cause but in doing so, most of what we understand about the universe must also be opened up for debate, chemical processes, evolution, cosmological orbits... We used science to get to this position of collective knowledge but (if true) that science would be deeply undermined. It's a fascinating can of worms to open!
Mod
A "beginning" is going from nothing to something; "no beginning", on the other hand, ..."
Reading this again, Richard, 'no beginning' doesn't necessarily imply a continuous process, anymore than it implies no process.
Either could equally be true.
Quite right. Probably what I should have said is: a "beginning" is going from nothing to something; "no beginning", on the other hand, implies a continuous state or process: either the universe never existed, or the universe has always existed.That gives us three possibilities (all ancient ideas too, I think). Is that it, does every "new" theory (like Penrose's cyclical universes) just reduce, one way or another, to one of these three?
Mod
1. The universe began either with no cause or with a cause that is so far unknown and doesn't constitute pre-existence (in this universe).
2. The universe has always existed. All the materials & energy in the universe or their original components prior to any transformations, never emerged, were never created by a reaction or otherwise - they are eternal.
3. The universe has never existed. It is an illusion the source of which we do not understand.
Actually, I have now thought of a fourth. In the same way that the "it never existed" and the "it has always existed" scenarios are a pair of opposites, there's a counterpart to the "universe created out of nothing" idea too: i.e. formerly the universe did exist, and now it doesn't—instead of a moment of creation, or Creator, you'd have a moment of destruction and a Destroyer! The other three have all been explored for thousands of years (two principally in the East, the other here in the West), but are there any ancient philosophical systems based on a disappearing universe?
'Always existed' is the only way out of the problems you all seem to be struggling with.
Mod
None of these sits comfortably as an explanation. The first either requires a spontaneous beginning or a multiverse. The second relies upon eternal properties and perpetual motion. The last two on an illusion.
That's what went through my mind too when I thought of that fourth one: it's actually no stranger than any of the others.If pushed, I prefer the "always existed" version too, if only because to me it looks the simplest of the four—Occam's Razor and all that. But is that really the reason? Everybody seems to have a preference, so maybe it's as much a matter of taste—your particular cast of mind—as evidence.
Mod
"There has also been a revival of interest in the “tunneling proposal,” an alternative way that the universe might have arisen from nothing, conceived in the ’80s independently by the Russian-American cosmologists Alexander Vilenkin and Andrei Linde. The proposal, which differs from the no-boundary wave function primarily by way of a minus sign, casts the birth of the universe as a quantum mechanical “tunneling” event, similar to when a particle pops up beyond a barrier in a quantum mechanical experiment."
https://www.quantamagazine.org/physic...
Mod
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr6nN...
Here's another interesting one: the theory of a pixelated universe as a way of reconciling conventional laws of physics with quantum physics, on the quest to understand quantum gravity!https://scitechdaily.com/is-space-pix...
Mod
Peter wrote: "Whatever the initial state, the question arises - how did that get there and why something rather than nothing?"I’ve often puzzled over this Leibnitzean question too, Peter. The best I can come up with is:
• if by “nothing” we mean, not just the absence of any physical matter or energy, but the absence of everything, then wouldn’t we have to assume that anything like physical laws, or even laws of logic, would, by definition, necessarily have to be absent too?
• ... but in the absence of of laws of logic, what’s to prevent literally anything from happening — up to and including the something that Leibnitz saw, and that we now see, all around us?
'Jes sayin' ...
I wonder if different types of time can exist simultaneously (random thought)? Would that mean that 'something' and 'nothing' could co-exist? The question of time in relation to any other theory of the Universe is fascinating.
Mod
Yes, Bill, I don't know which is more believable! If we push back to time absolute zero, before the first iteration of any Penrose cycles of universes, is it more logical to believe that some rudimentary entity could emerge in the absence of any physical laws or rules that started the chain of events, or that that entity was and is eternal?
The arguments against both always come back to them breaking laws that didn't exist then. But if something was eternal, by definition it must still be, and that breaks thermodynamic laws of entropy that do exist now. Then again, maybe this is just a constraint of language - if we downgrade 'eternal' to 'eternal up until a point in time' such as the first (for example) Big Bang, we get over that obstacle.
Good point, Khira, it's interesting that we often discuss whether or not time even exists but then use it as a reference for discussions about the past! If there are different types of time (I always pondered that question when waiting for certain people!) that could help our dilemma.
As Penrose painstakingly pointed out in 'Road To Reality', entropy is a dubious proposition. The constituents of the egg have worldlines before and after the fall, as Penrose said and to which I agree.
I’ve been fascinated by the possibility of a multiverse since 1997. I has never felt credible that it might not exist! And recently, it looks like the theory is being taken seriouslyhttps://www.facebook.com/46126453526/...
If the different universes are sequential then there can still be an orderliness to the whole picture. I think it is better to say there is one universe that takes on different characteristics at different times - like different seasons are taken on here in Toronto.
Mod
Cosmic inflation preceded a hot Big Bang in this universe but this is just one 'bubble' universe spatially separated from others, according to Ethan Siegal. If, as we know, our universe is expanding, it must have the space to expand into - therefore the size of our universe at its starting condition was not the same as the size of space. Our entire universe could be like a droplet of oil in a bowl of water, with many other droplets beyond our powers of observation.
The use of additional mathematical dimensions helped Einstein to breakthrough to his general relativity theory. But should we consider that a multi-dimensional mathematical model of the brain could actually represent the physical reality?
Thank you to my sister, Maureen, (also a group member) for sharing this article.
https://nypost.com/2017/06/13/the-hum...