The Infinite! In Search of The Ultimate Truth.

[tazanastazio]

Singularity or relativity; or both? - that is the question.

Eruption, balloon/manifold or funnel shape?

A simple concept would be that particles form objects in space (within the Infinite). Objects in turn by occupying space cause the particles that form the space-fabric to move, causing currents/ripple effects, like pebbles in a pond. Such an outcome has the effect to cause space to move somewhere else. The bigger the rock the bigger the ripple. But when a rock falls in a pond, it causes a funnel shaped disturbance in the water under the surface, and bubbles. So is the Universe of a ripple, a bubble, a funnel; or is it a burst?

If we accept the Big Bang -- Big Crunch circle of events, and therefore that the singularity brought about a burst/eruption, then we could have the singularity theory stand, but not General Relativity. If we reject the Big Bang - Big Crunch hypothesis, and we assume that no burst/eruption was caused then we could have General Relativity but we should not be talking of a 'Big Bang" but of a "Big Balloon/Manifold." We simply cannot have a bursting balloon which has also regained its surface after the burst ("have the cake and eat it too").

The only way we could have the Singularity and General Relativity and even a Manifold outer surface (on a funnel shaped Universe due to perhaps other further interconnected disturbances, such as incremental/varying resistance from outer space), is if matter/energy (pebble example), was driven through space (in order to cause movement - generate energy and therefore existence); and as it was driven, it reached a point of becoming a singularity in a seemingly infinite long funnel (lost mass due to friction in the case of matter - considering the size, energy/particle matter more likely). The outer surface of the funnel, pressing the planets, stars and other parts of the Universe against the resulting surface of the outer space, would account for the enhancement (as in not the sole source) of gravity on the whole surface of the stars, planets etc.; enhancing the effect of gravity on both poles, and rendering both Hawking's theory of the Singularity and Einstein's theory of General Relativity, valid.

Of Course at some point the expanding energy that forms the Universal Funnel, will be exhausted. Then the gravitational/opposing forces between the two surfaces; along with the gravitational forces among the planets, stars and other parts of the Universe will prevail. In turn space will return to its pre-singularity phase; till a new cause (if ever) for a new singularity will occur; and as a result a new Universal Funnel may come to be. We could call this the "Big Splash" theory.


Infinitism considers all possibilities; all concepts are possible within the Infinite.

 

[tazanastazio]

We could call this the "Big Splash" theory.

Or rather the "Big Plunge" theory

 

[Kid Eager]

Singularity or relativity; or both? - that is the question.

<SNIP>

Infinitism considers all possibilities; all concepts are possible within the Infinite.

That's a characteristic of any religion, else the proponents would be saying things like "our religion doesn't have all the answers, soz folks..."

 

[p0lka]

Matthew, if you want to believe that the Earth is sitting like a round egg and curves a flat space with everything sliding down the curve by all means suit yourself (towards the North or the South pole?).

I think down tends to be toward the centre of mass and not towards any of the poles.

But hey, maybe you're correct and that explains why penguins have flippy flappy wing like things and polar bears don't?
Gravity's a bitch when it's going sideways.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Brother, you loose no time! Perhaps one day over coffee or tea, after 20 hours of in person conversation, I may get to convince you.

Convince me about what?

I already know what the scientific method is. You don't have a clue what it is. All you are doing is stringing together incoherent sentences and spamming them onto our science forum.

 

[tazanastazio]

Convince me about what?

I already know what the scientific method is. You don't have a clue what it is. All you are doing is stringing together incoherent sentences and spamming them onto our science forum.

Convince you in recognizing that since we don't have clear answers, we should not discard the possibilities.

I do not denounce science, I accept the validity of science, but I also recognize its shortcomings (taken conventions would be one of them), as any rational person should.

Science has failed so far, to provide the answers to what and why, caused the cause of the Universe (and a good bet is, it will never provide one; or an answer to what caused that cause).

I cannot think of any-thing in life that was caused arbitrarily, without its cause also have been caused by something else that came to be due to a reason/for a purpose, can you? Why would the Universe be the exception?

Till science can answer the aforementioned, and provide the prologue to the main theme, philosophy (Infinitism is a philosophy not a religion) will suffice.

We will disagree to agree I guess; the truth lies in the mind of the thinker.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Convince you in recognizing that since we don't have clear answers, we should not discard the possibilities.

A common sentiment, but nevertheless nonsense: The fact that we don't know everything does not mean everything is possible

I do not denounce science, I accept the validity of science, but I also recognize its shortcomings (taken conventions would be one of them), as any rational person should.

You may not denounce it, but you obviously do not understand science.

Science has failed so far to provide the answers to what and why, caused the cause of the Universe.

So what?

I cannot think of any-thing in life that was caused arbitrarily, without it also have been caused by something else that came to be for a reason, can you?

I don't really think that makes sense. What do you mean with "for a reason"?

Why would the Universe be the exception?

Why not. And who says it is?

Till science can answer the aforementioned, and provide the prologue to the main theme, philosophy (Infinitism is a philosophy not a religion) will suffice.

That is false. Again, the fact that we don't know all does not mean anyting goes.

We will disagree to agree I guess; the truth lies in the mind of the thinker.

False. The truth lies in reality. Even if we don't know the answer, the truth still lies in reality. Whatever we know or don't know has no effect on the truth of the universe.

Hans

 

[Pixel42]

I cannot think of any-thing in life that was caused arbitrarily, without it also have been caused by something else that came to be for a reason, can you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay

Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms. According to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay,[1][2][3] regardless of how long the atom has existed.

 

[tazanastazio]

A common sentiment, but nevertheless nonsense: The fact that we don't know everything does not mean everything is possible

If "we don't know everything", how then do we know that something is impossible?

You may not denounce it, but you obviously do not understand science.

I understand enough to consider whether the more probable deduction is that you need something to get something, as opposed to getting it out of nothing.

So what?

Well, simply put, when you assume, and accept conventional stand points you may be wrong. And if you cannot give crystal clear, definitive answers you cannot nullify other possibilities, especially when reason and common sense tilt more towards those possibilities.

I don't really think that makes sense. What do you mean with "for a reason"?

As in "something else caused it, often times to provide a function."



Why not. And who says it is?

Because for all the good reasons a person would thing that to come to an outcome you have to have a start point to lead you to the venue; to get you to the destination.

If it is not, then something caused it due to some cause, or for some cause; and perhaps for a function.


That is false. Again, the fact that we don't know all does not mean anyting goes.

If we don't know it all, how then do we know that something doesn't "go?"



False. The truth lies in reality. Even if we don't know the answer, the truth still lies in reality. Whatever we know or don't know has no effect on the truth of the universe.

Universally unknown reality, is a probable reality. As such, it lies in the mind of the contemplator, who follows reasonable deductions and derives to logical, and plausible conclusions; till proven otherwise.


Hans

Taz

 

[Myriad]

If "we don't know everything", how then do we know that something is impossible?

If we know anything, then we know that some things are impossible. If we know the moon is about a quarter million miles away, we know it's impossible to walk there during your half-hour lunch break. If we know today is a day in September, we know it's impossible tomorrow will be Christmas.

To say nothing is impossible is actually to claim we know nothing.

 

[I Am The Scum]

If "we don't know everything", how then do we know that something is impossible?

First, I have no idea how the second part of the sentence follows from the first.

Second, this is just logic 101. Logical possibility (the absolute broadest definition of "possible") precludes certain propositions, such as "A is not identical to A." If you think "A is not identical to A" actually is possible, then you will need to define what you mean by "possiblity." Thanks.

 

[Kid Eager]

First, I have no idea how the second part of the sentence follows from the first.

Second, this is just logic 101. Logical possibility (the absolute broadest definition of "possible") precludes certain propositions, such as "A is not identical to A." If you think "A is not identical to A" actually is possible, then you will need to define what you mean by "possiblity." Thanks.

Because Infinitism is different to other religions. Oh, wait....

 

[tazanastazio]

If we know anything, then we know that some things are impossible. If we know the moon is about a quarter million miles away, we know it's impossible to walk there during your half-hour lunch break. If we know today is a day in September, we know it's impossible tomorrow will be Christmas.

To say nothing is impossible is actually to claim we know nothing.

How's it that you said something different here?

When you know something for certain, namely "the moon is far away and while you can walk on it, you cannot walk to it; but you could fly round trip in about 20-30 min during lunch break provided you have a very fast spacecraft parked outside" then you are clear about the possibility.

But when you have no clue what caused the cause of the cause of the Universe, a better bet is on something caused it as opposed to nothing caused it. But either way you cannot nullify the possibility that something caused it, since you have no knowledge to back up your opinion. On the other hand I could say, "We know of nothing that was not caused of/by something, therefore since the Universe is something and we now truly spending our time blogging about it; a safer bet is, something caused whatever caused, the cause of the Universe."

 

[tazanastazio]

Because Infinitism is different to other religions. Oh, wait....

If you had ever claimed that Newton, Einstein and Hawking had divine intervention, and you have faith in that notion, and if you have decorated the walls in a corner of a room with their pictures, and worshipped them by singing hymns and burning essence to them, then you would have made a religion out of science.

For more info on the difference between religion and philosophy, Google it. Food for thought, if you wash your hands prior to googling to not jinx the quick finding of desired results, you would be one step closer to making religion out of Google or developing OCD.

If you had ever claimed that Newton, Einstein and Hawking had divine intervention, and you have faith in that notion, and if you have decorated the walls in a corner of a room with their pictures, and worshipped them by singing hymns and burning essence to them, then you would have made a religion out of science.

For more info on the difference between religion and philosophy, Google it. Food for thought, if you wash your hands prior to googling to not jinx the quick finding of desired results, you would be one step closer to making religion out of Google or developing OCD.

I don't believe in the cause that caused the cause of the Universe because someone said if I didn't it would be a sin! I conclude that it must be so because the alternative appears nonsensical to me. It would be like saying that the Mona Lisa painted itself, and its paint found itself on the pallete and mixed on its own; or that Leonardo appeared out of thin air and got into the whim all of a sudden to start painting; or that the bacteria that evolved to the humanity that lead to Leornardo decided to do so out of sheer boredom or chance; ... That the whatever-shaped universe appeared like a genie out of Hawking's oil lamp. That time instead of simply being a concept so that organized society could function during the course of a day, and history could be segmented; it is instead a physical object; a street you can ride on back and forth, a book which if you flip the pages forward you can read and tell us what happened; or you can flip the pages back re-write them and change the outcome of Tolstoy's "War and Peace" all - together! BULLFLAKES!

 

[arthwollipot]

Google is already a religion.

 

[Pixel42]

But when you have no clue what caused the cause of the cause of the Universe, a better bet is on something caused it as opposed to nothing caused it.

Why, when that leads to an infinite regression, and when we know uncaused events are possible? I gave you an example above, which I notice you ignored.

 

[tazanastazio]

Why, when that leads to an infinite regression, and when we know uncaused events are possible? I gave you an example above, which I notice you ignored.

The response of the example you gave, was self-evident. I don't doubt the manner of the deterioration of the atoms; predictable, calculable, programmed to happen so or not, or due to gravitational exposure or what have you. It doesn't answer how the subatomical particles that formed the atoms came to be and why?

Similarly, I don't doubt Evolution; I simply question "What caused the Universe and Why?" I provide a perspective through reasoning and logical conjectures, NOT faith; if not an answer, a philosophical concept (not a religion, can't help it if others ritualize it, not my intention). Namely; it was formed from within the Infinite, which was caused by nothing (being Infinite by definition everything forms from within It and deforms to It instead - it may sound strange/bizarre, but if you have a better way to describe It than "Infinite", by all means). Now at least we have a starting point.

 

[Pixel42]

The response of the example you gave, was self-evident. I don't doubt the manner of the deterioration of the atoms; predictable, calculable, programmed to happen so or not, or due to gravitational exposure or what have you. It doesn't answer how the subatomical particles that formed the atoms came to be and why?

Your argument was that the absence of known cases of uncaused events was a reason to think the universe was caused. I pointed you to a whole class of uncaused events, which negates that argument.

Subatomic particles come (eventually) from the Big Bang, which could easily be another example of an uncaused event. We know quantum fluctuations happen. We know nothing whatsoever about your ideas, as they appear to be pure word salad.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Similarly, I don't doubt Evolution; I simply question "What caused the Universe and Why?" I provide a perspective through reasoning and logical conjectures, NOT faith; if not an answer, a philosophical concept (not a religion, can't help it if others ritualize it, not my intention). Namely; it was formed from within the Infinite, which was caused by nothing (being Infinite by definition everything forms from within It and deforms to It instead - it may sound strange/bizarre, but if you have a better way to describe It than "Infinite", by all means). Now at least we have a starting point.

No, we don't. All you have done is to say that something must have caused the universe. You then posit this cause to be something you term 'The Infinite', which apparently doesn't need a cause.
If 'The Infinite' doesn't need a cause, then why does the universe need one?

On what basis do you assert that 'The Infinite' is caused by nothing?

 

[8enotto]

Why do we, as humanity , need to know of or understand this Infinite?

What benefits do we now derive of this great knowledge you impart upon us that was not possible before?
I really am curious as to what it is we need of it.