In the "baby" universe that is the original one spawned, when it reaches "now" relative to our universe could they attempt to enter our universe and somehow interfere with our "past"?
"Time Travel" via the Hyperinflationary Bubble Universe Method
- Thread starter Zachary Smith
- Start date
They could never reach OUR past because it has already happened and our universe, being the "prime" universe is OLDER than theirs. It seems unlikely that "they" would be able to enter our universe at all unless they knew exactly where the singularity was that was the bridge between universes and the crossing point.
Now, if WE, continued to artificially age their universe (again, by rotating it at near light speed along the long axis of a near infinite dimension), we COULD age their universe PAST the time of OUR universe and, if we traveled into that universe, we would be enter what would be the parallel of OUR future. Once THEY reached or surpassed the chronological instant where the bridge between our universe and theirs connected, they WOULD be aware of us and, I suppose the COULD enter OUR universe. But the only way they could travel to OUR past is if we "aged" them pastus by "projecting them into "our" future . . .
Who first came up with this theory, and what was it based on...
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Zachary Smith
Your ideea is based on so many fantasy/improbable assumptions, that you could just as well say that you're using magic to create the appearance of time travel into the past.
Your ideea is based on so many fantasy/improbable assumptions, that you could just as well say that you're using magic to create the appearance of time travel into the past.
Indeed, and yet ideas such as the "Big Bang", which purports that EVERYTHING popped into existence from NOTHING (or from primordial elements the existence of which is unaccountable) or the Bubble Universe concept that suggests our reality is an off-shoot from another, which is an off-shoot from an other and so on and so until one forgets completely to ask where the ORIGINAL might have come from, contain no "magical" elements at all, do they?
Clearly, I am a VERY naughty theorist.
I will send you the time travel T-shirt tomorrow you will get it yesterday and where(wear) it today, again right?
remember theirs is outside: ours is inside: we are everywhere: yet.., I am nowhere, usually; but the nowhere I explain is Now-Here not No-Where
remember theirs is outside: ours is inside: we are everywhere: yet.., I am nowhere, usually; but the nowhere I explain is Now-Here not No-Where
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Zachary Smith
The big bang is backed up by serious observational evidence.
String theory and M theory are not supported by experimental evidence, but at least they have mathematical coherence.
Your speculations have neither.
The big bang is backed up by serious observational evidence.
String theory and M theory are not supported by experimental evidence, but at least they have mathematical coherence.
Your speculations have neither.
Last edited:
Did you just accuse the big bang theory of being "magical"?
I haven't seen any theories in this thread. Your speculations are certainly an interesting topic of discussion... but they ain't science.
TeknoNurd said:
Quantum effects are observable in the real world all the time. The great thing about random events is that if there are enough of them they behave in a predictable fashion.
None the less, they all (INCLUDING the Big Bang) reach a point where the limits of observational and testable "evidence" end and one can only enter into the realm of SPECULATION and/or philosophical considerations to continue the exercise of examination, right? Where DID the elements from which the Big Bang arose COME FROM? Now, many "scientists" will say, "Ah, the average plebeian mind can't wrap itself around the concept of "something" appearing from "nothing" or how "events" can unfold when "time" doesn't yet exist". But the fact is, when you reach that stage, you MIGHT as well be talking about "magic" because we do not KNOW what happened, how it happened or how it COULD have happened beyond a certain point. It is beyond our range of experience and, literally beyond the limits of this universe and reality.
Clearly, there were OBJECTIVE CAUSAL factors which led to the origins of the universe. We are here. That is PROOF that SOMETHING happened resulting in our existence. Yes, "serious observational evidence" supports the Big Bang but, hey, guess what? The IDEAS behind the Big Bang were CONCEIVED as SPECULATION BEFORE the "evidence" was organized that supported it. Cosmic background radiation was initially a puzzlement to the guys who discovered it--though it had been SPECULATED to exist for years by someone (Gamow) as a consequence and relic of the big bang. The IDEA come first and the "evidence" was discovered later.
Now, I apologize if my little mental exercise and playful speculation has ruffled your formal-minded feathers but I believe speculation to be a healthy thing. Ya see, it's where IDEAS come from and it doesn't matter whether the observation comes first leading to a concept (ex. you see an apple falls from a tree--Oh! GRAVITY!!) or the concept comes first (The universe boomed in one "day" out of NUTHIN'!!) and the observation comes later (Looky at dat der cosmic background radiation!!! I TOL ya alls!), without the IDEAS born from SPECULATION--NONE of it can be coordinated or correlated to add up to ANYTHING.
You may "harrumph" indignantly at the lack of "mathematical coherence" of my speculations in your best curmudgeon-scholar manner but I would INVITE you to play along and see if you can have some FUN and perhaps ADD something to scenario. You seen, I had no intention of preparing a paper or submitting a dissertation to the American Physics Institute concerning my Time Travel "ideas" so you can unsaddle your noble steed and sheathe your sword. You will NOT be required to ride to the defense of "real" science today. But it IS often fun to play and, well, you just never know what you might uncover by turning over the stones in your mind--it might ACTUALLY lead to something. It has in the past.
Now I leave you with two quotes to consider, from men smarter than both of us put together.
Einstein: "IMAGINATION is more important than KNOWLEDGE".
Willy Wonka" "A little nonsense now and again is relished by the WISEST of men".
"Watch me pull a rabbit out of a hat!" vs "Watch me create an entire universe out of a primordial singularity, the origin and existence of which I cannot account for but is the KEY component in actually explaining why I'm not creating EVERYTHING from NOTHING.
"Something from NOTHING" = "magic". Until and UNLESS cosmology can account for the ORIGINAL source material, the ESSENCE from which the universe was born, it MIGHT AS WELL claim "magic".
So all the matter and energy in the universe was condensed into a single point prior to the Big Bang and we were all borne of that. Nice.
Where did that original POINT come from? Well, we expanded out from another universe? Where did THAT universe come from?
The point was the remnant of an "earlier" version of OUR universe! Really, where did THAT universe come from?
YES. ABSOLUTELY! Past a certain point, believe it or not, the SCIENCE FAILS. There is NO "observational" data to consider. There is merely SPECULATION and in the end, you can only resort to admitting "we don't KNOW" how it ORIGINALLY came to be and "magic" is as good an explanation as any.
The truth, I believe is that the fundamental origins, not just THIS universe, but where the game actually began (NOT the "Big Bang" but whatever precipitated the big bang and so forth) is BEYOND our experience and the objective truth may well be so fundamentally alien to our understanding of how things do, should and CAN work that perhaps even the claim of "magic" would seem reasonable next to it.
So, yeah, magic.
Unless you can tell me where the stuff the Big Bang was born from started out. Otherwise, you're just pulling a universe out of a hat. "Magic"
Man, it got quiet in here all the sudden . . .
"Watch me pull a rabbit out of a hat!" vs "Watch me create an entire universe out of a primordial singularity, the origin and existence of which I cannot account for but is the KEY component in actually explaining why I'm not creating EVERYTHING from NOTHING.
"Something from NOTHING" = "magic". Until and UNLESS cosmology can account for the ORIGINAL source material, the ESSENCE from which the universe was born, it MIGHT AS WELL claim "magic".
So all the matter and energy in the universe was condensed into a single point prior to the Big Bang and we were all borne of that. Nice.
Where did that original POINT come from? Well, we expanded out from another universe? Where did THAT universe come from?
The point was the remnant of an "earlier" version of OUR universe! Really, where did THAT universe come from?
YES. ABSOLUTELY! Past a certain point, believe it or not, the SCIENCE FAILS. There is NO "observational" data to consider. There is merely SPECULATION and in the end, you can only resort to admitting "we don't KNOW" how it ORIGINALLY came to be and "magic" is as good an explanation as any.
The truth, I believe is that the fundamental origins, not just THIS universe, but where the game actually began (NOT the "Big Bang" but whatever precipitated the big bang and so forth) is BEYOND our experience and the objective truth may well be so fundamentally alien to our understanding of how things do, should and CAN work that perhaps even the claim of "magic" would seem reasonable next to it.
So, yeah, magic.
Unless you can tell me where the stuff the Big Bang was born from started out. Otherwise, you're just pulling a universe out of a hat. "Magic"
Er, it's clear that you both don't understand the big bang theory and you're missing some fundamentals about the nature of science as well.
The big bang theory says nothing about what happened before it because to do so would be an impossibility. Currently accepted theory on the subject... and you can go read about this for yourself if you chose to do some actual research on the subject... can set us back as 10^-43 seconds after the big bang. Which sounds like an insignificant amount of time, but there's a huge amount of speculation and hypothesis as to what happened in the Plank time immediately after the big bang. According to some models, we'll never be able to know what happened then to do the predominance of quantum effects. But going any further back then the big bang is meaningless and impossible for science. The reason? We will never be able to make any sorts of observations for what happened "before" the creation of the universe... how could we? We're only capable of measuring and understanding things in our universe! It'd be like asking someone who lived in a house with no windows his entire life what was outside the house... he has no way of making observations so there's no way he could ever know. The big bang is the same way. At the exact instant of the big bang, the entire universe was in a singularity which means that physical laws simply didn't apply as they normally do. And that's as far back as science is ever going to get... unless some new type of observation is discovered.
So for you to dismiss the big bang theory as "magical" is totally incorrect. The theory is not "the universe magically appeared out of nothing." Instead it's "the universe exploded out of a singularity and due to this we can never make any observations or measurements from before that." Hopefully you can see the difference, because this is fundamentally not what you said the theory was. And for you to dismiss scientific theory and scientists themselves in the fashion that you are doing is totally incorrect. You putting the word scientists in quotes is also pretty disheartening as I'm assuming your doing that to show a dim opinion of them as well. There's actually quite a few hypotheses on what happened "before" the big bang, occasionally from some very prominent scientists... but all of them know that none of them are falsifiable and therefore not actual science and thusly will never be promoted to actual theory.
So if you'd like to do some actual reading on the subject to understand the scientific theory behind it, I'm sure that people here can provide you with links to appropriate literature. But your downright hostile attitude towards science and your elevation of your own speculation to the same level as scientific theory is really undermining any sort of discussion. Simply put, they're not nearly on the same level. Talking about whatever speculation anyone has on what happened "before" the big bang is certainly fun and entertaining... but it isn't science. To paraphrase a favorite comedian of mine... science knows it doesn't know everything; if it did it would stop. But that doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever wild speculation you can come up with and act as if it's on the same level as real scientific theory. Cause it ain't.
In many ways, what you are saying is completely correct... but your beliefs on what scientists (no quotes!) say doesn't really line up with what they actually do. For instance, this:
...(emphasis mine) is downright upsetting. No one says that. Why do you think they do?
^^
Fine equivocation on your part, but equivocation none the less. You can specify all of the details about what IS known that you want but it doesn't alter the fact that there are basics--FUNDAMENTAL basics--which remain UNKNOWN.
i.e. WHERE did the singularity come from? You attempt to dismiss it as an unreasonable question and respond with, ""the universe exploded out of a singularity and due to this we can never make any observations or measurements from before that."
Yeah? So? And your point is--?
WHERE DID THE SINGULARITY COME FROM? From your perspective apparently the sole choice of action is just "Oh! Well . . . okay . . . We all just . . stop thinking about it. Not fair to go there. Nope, we'll NEVER know the answer to that one . . . No observations or measurements so, we'll file it under "F" for "forget about".
NONSENSE! It is absolutely a fair and VITAL question. And this, like so many questions before it, can lead to musings and speculations and THEORIES that MAY WELL be testable. Might be testable TODAY if we had some idea where/how to look.
This is not a philosophical meandering. There is an objective causal set of events that created the universe and there was an objective causal set of events which led TO the events that created the universe. The only alternative is that there really WAS no "essential" beginning and there has been this eternal shifting of matter and energy and form throughout various guises and constructs forever. And, that is as VALID a consideration as any, despite the fact that something existing without having ANY origin is a violation of basic common sense and unprecedented by ANY other example we've ever observed.
The objective truth of how the universe, or the source of fundamental elements of the universe or the origin of singularity from which the big bang arose may well be forever unknowable to us. But we SURE are never going to find those answers if we don't consider the questions. You said "We will never be able to make any sorts of observations for what happened "before" the creation of the universe..."
Well, no wonder, with that attitude. Later, you said, "At the exact instant of the big bang, the entire universe was in a singularity which means that physical laws simply didn't apply as they normally do. And that's as far back as science is ever going to get... unless some new type of observation is discovered."
"AH!" I think. "He's starting to get it!" Do you think, should it ever arise, that this "new type of observation" will simply happen by accident? Or do you suppose someone might JUST, oh, I dunno . . . speculate about something and form the germ of an idea and go LOOKING?
My point to you is that "science" reaches a level where it CAN go no further. Yes, I understand and appreciate that. But that is OUR limitation and that is TODAY'S limitations ON us. You can't call "King's X" and say there ARE no answers because "science" doesn't know them. The reasons for the events that created the stuff that created the stuff of the universe happened. Those events OCCURRED whether we can account for them or not. Unless, of course they DIDN'T occur at all in which case, as I said, we are in the unprecedented realm of things EXISTING which have had no CREATION. (Which, by the way, if true, might as well be MAGIC).
As to my "attitude" about "science" and "scientists", well, RE-READ the missive you posted above and please NOTE the inherent hubris on your part. Never mind, I shall detail it FOR you.
First, you state:"Er, it's clear that you both don't understand the big bang theory and you're missing some fundamentals about the nature of science as well."
A rather arrogant (and erroneous) assumption on your part--especially if you consider you followed with--
The big bang theory says nothing about what happened before it because to do so would be an impossibility. Currently accepted theory on the subject... and you can go read about this for yourself if you chose to do some actual research on the subject... (btw, a little venomous sarcasm here on your part) can set us back as 10^-43 seconds after the big bang. Which sounds like an insignificant amount of time, but there's a huge amount of speculation and hypothesis as to what happened in the Plank time immediately after the big bang. According to some models, we'll never be able to know what happened then to do (incidentally, wrong word choice here; you meant "due")
the predominance of quantum effects. But going any further back then the big bang is meaningless and impossible for science. The reason? We will never be able to make any sorts of observations for what happened "before" the creation of the universe... how could we? We're only capable of measuring and understanding things in our universe! It'd be like asking someone who lived in a house with no windows his entire life what was outside the house... he has no way of making observations so there's no way he could ever know. The big bang is the same way. At the exact instant of the big bang, the entire universe was in a singularity which means that physical laws simply didn't apply as they normally do. And that's as far back as science is ever going to get... unless some new type of observation is discovered.
Well, for all my "lack of understanding" and "missing fundamentals" you offered NOTHING there that I was not ALREADY familiar with, including the inherent difficulty in speculating what might be happening "outside the house with no windows we've always lived in". What you FAIL to appreciate is that I REJECT the limitations on your considerations and your moratorium on speculation and, in the vernacular, I "go there" anyhow.
I never claimed the ideas I was suggesting for "time travel" were "real science". Did you REALLY think I was unaware that I had generated a mountain of HOO-HAA nonsense there? It was a speculative exercise--a GAME--built on half-assed notions and concepts with one foot on the ground and other in total fantasy, with the actual scientific concepts so bent out of shape to make them fit the premise they hardly resembled themselves. So WHAT? A lot of people seemed to have some fun playing with it all. How come that escaped you?
Nah, instead you got your panties in a bunch wanting to "harumph" around and try to show how SMART you are (or at the very least, denigrate ME) with the suggestion in several variations that my "understanding" is somehow insufficient and I'm missing "fundamentals". What inherent arrogance on your part!
"So if you'd like to do some actual reading on the subject to understand the scientific theory behind it, I'm sure that people here can provide you with links to appropriate literature."
And that is TYPICAL of what rankles me about so many "scientific" minded people. Golly Gee WILLIKERS! Will the SMART kids learn lil'ol me to unnerstan? I'd be EVER so gratified!"
PLEASE! The IMMEDIATE assumption that if someone does not recount specific current theory accurately and with textbook perfection and without a single alteration or improvisation, then that person FAILS to "understand" is purely self-aggrandizing and repugnant. Get OVER yourselves . . .
If there was ANY failure to understand, it was on your part, failing to understand I was/am playing a SPECULATIVE GAME based on certain aspects of scientific theory (the clunky parts of which that do NOT suit my ideas I gleefully dismiss) to assemble a kind of "What-if".
Further, you seemingly fail to grasp that I never suggested the entire "Big Bang" theory to be "magic" AT ALL! I stated that the complete inability of "science" to address the single ASPECT of the theory --the question of origin of the SINGULARITY from which this universe was born (if it DID happen that way)--leaves "magic" as valid an explanation as any. And it DOES.
Now you may wish again to recite your litany of WHY it's an "unfair" question or cast aspersions upon my understanding of the basic ideas because I dare to suggest such a consideration. Add a thousand more details about what IS known--hell, make it ten thousand more details. You won't change the fact that you are EQUIVOCATING.
YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE THE SINGULARITY CAME FROM and unless you want to re-write the ENTIRE rule-book, it HAD to come from somewhere. If you DO re-write the rule-book and claim it "always was" (and YES, I KNOW the concept of "time" is a problematic application here), or that "it came from nowhere"--you may as well say it was "magic".
Here, BTW is one definition of "magic"
Dictionary: mag·ic
adj
2. Possessing distinctive qualities that produce unaccountable or baffling effects.
How about that, huh?
I'd term something existing without having EVER been created to be rather unaccountable and downright baffling.
Wouldn't you?
Fine equivocation on your part, but equivocation none the less. You can specify all of the details about what IS known that you want but it doesn't alter the fact that there are basics--FUNDAMENTAL basics--which remain UNKNOWN.
i.e. WHERE did the singularity come from? You attempt to dismiss it as an unreasonable question and respond with, ""the universe exploded out of a singularity and due to this we can never make any observations or measurements from before that."
Yeah? So? And your point is--?
WHERE DID THE SINGULARITY COME FROM? From your perspective apparently the sole choice of action is just "Oh! Well . . . okay . . . We all just . . stop thinking about it. Not fair to go there. Nope, we'll NEVER know the answer to that one . . . No observations or measurements so, we'll file it under "F" for "forget about".
NONSENSE! It is absolutely a fair and VITAL question. And this, like so many questions before it, can lead to musings and speculations and THEORIES that MAY WELL be testable. Might be testable TODAY if we had some idea where/how to look.
This is not a philosophical meandering. There is an objective causal set of events that created the universe and there was an objective causal set of events which led TO the events that created the universe. The only alternative is that there really WAS no "essential" beginning and there has been this eternal shifting of matter and energy and form throughout various guises and constructs forever. And, that is as VALID a consideration as any, despite the fact that something existing without having ANY origin is a violation of basic common sense and unprecedented by ANY other example we've ever observed.
The objective truth of how the universe, or the source of fundamental elements of the universe or the origin of singularity from which the big bang arose may well be forever unknowable to us. But we SURE are never going to find those answers if we don't consider the questions. You said "We will never be able to make any sorts of observations for what happened "before" the creation of the universe..."
Well, no wonder, with that attitude. Later, you said, "At the exact instant of the big bang, the entire universe was in a singularity which means that physical laws simply didn't apply as they normally do. And that's as far back as science is ever going to get... unless some new type of observation is discovered."
"AH!" I think. "He's starting to get it!" Do you think, should it ever arise, that this "new type of observation" will simply happen by accident? Or do you suppose someone might JUST, oh, I dunno . . . speculate about something and form the germ of an idea and go LOOKING?
My point to you is that "science" reaches a level where it CAN go no further. Yes, I understand and appreciate that. But that is OUR limitation and that is TODAY'S limitations ON us. You can't call "King's X" and say there ARE no answers because "science" doesn't know them. The reasons for the events that created the stuff that created the stuff of the universe happened. Those events OCCURRED whether we can account for them or not. Unless, of course they DIDN'T occur at all in which case, as I said, we are in the unprecedented realm of things EXISTING which have had no CREATION. (Which, by the way, if true, might as well be MAGIC).
As to my "attitude" about "science" and "scientists", well, RE-READ the missive you posted above and please NOTE the inherent hubris on your part. Never mind, I shall detail it FOR you.
First, you state:"Er, it's clear that you both don't understand the big bang theory and you're missing some fundamentals about the nature of science as well."
A rather arrogant (and erroneous) assumption on your part--especially if you consider you followed with--
The big bang theory says nothing about what happened before it because to do so would be an impossibility. Currently accepted theory on the subject... and you can go read about this for yourself if you chose to do some actual research on the subject... (btw, a little venomous sarcasm here on your part) can set us back as 10^-43 seconds after the big bang. Which sounds like an insignificant amount of time, but there's a huge amount of speculation and hypothesis as to what happened in the Plank time immediately after the big bang. According to some models, we'll never be able to know what happened then to do (incidentally, wrong word choice here; you meant "due")
the predominance of quantum effects. But going any further back then the big bang is meaningless and impossible for science. The reason? We will never be able to make any sorts of observations for what happened "before" the creation of the universe... how could we? We're only capable of measuring and understanding things in our universe! It'd be like asking someone who lived in a house with no windows his entire life what was outside the house... he has no way of making observations so there's no way he could ever know. The big bang is the same way. At the exact instant of the big bang, the entire universe was in a singularity which means that physical laws simply didn't apply as they normally do. And that's as far back as science is ever going to get... unless some new type of observation is discovered.
Well, for all my "lack of understanding" and "missing fundamentals" you offered NOTHING there that I was not ALREADY familiar with, including the inherent difficulty in speculating what might be happening "outside the house with no windows we've always lived in". What you FAIL to appreciate is that I REJECT the limitations on your considerations and your moratorium on speculation and, in the vernacular, I "go there" anyhow.
I never claimed the ideas I was suggesting for "time travel" were "real science". Did you REALLY think I was unaware that I had generated a mountain of HOO-HAA nonsense there? It was a speculative exercise--a GAME--built on half-assed notions and concepts with one foot on the ground and other in total fantasy, with the actual scientific concepts so bent out of shape to make them fit the premise they hardly resembled themselves. So WHAT? A lot of people seemed to have some fun playing with it all. How come that escaped you?
Nah, instead you got your panties in a bunch wanting to "harumph" around and try to show how SMART you are (or at the very least, denigrate ME) with the suggestion in several variations that my "understanding" is somehow insufficient and I'm missing "fundamentals". What inherent arrogance on your part!
"So if you'd like to do some actual reading on the subject to understand the scientific theory behind it, I'm sure that people here can provide you with links to appropriate literature."
And that is TYPICAL of what rankles me about so many "scientific" minded people. Golly Gee WILLIKERS! Will the SMART kids learn lil'ol me to unnerstan? I'd be EVER so gratified!"
PLEASE! The IMMEDIATE assumption that if someone does not recount specific current theory accurately and with textbook perfection and without a single alteration or improvisation, then that person FAILS to "understand" is purely self-aggrandizing and repugnant. Get OVER yourselves . . .
If there was ANY failure to understand, it was on your part, failing to understand I was/am playing a SPECULATIVE GAME based on certain aspects of scientific theory (the clunky parts of which that do NOT suit my ideas I gleefully dismiss) to assemble a kind of "What-if".
Further, you seemingly fail to grasp that I never suggested the entire "Big Bang" theory to be "magic" AT ALL! I stated that the complete inability of "science" to address the single ASPECT of the theory --the question of origin of the SINGULARITY from which this universe was born (if it DID happen that way)--leaves "magic" as valid an explanation as any. And it DOES.
Now you may wish again to recite your litany of WHY it's an "unfair" question or cast aspersions upon my understanding of the basic ideas because I dare to suggest such a consideration. Add a thousand more details about what IS known--hell, make it ten thousand more details. You won't change the fact that you are EQUIVOCATING.
YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE THE SINGULARITY CAME FROM and unless you want to re-write the ENTIRE rule-book, it HAD to come from somewhere. If you DO re-write the rule-book and claim it "always was" (and YES, I KNOW the concept of "time" is a problematic application here), or that "it came from nowhere"--you may as well say it was "magic".
Here, BTW is one definition of "magic"
Dictionary: mag·ic
adj
2. Possessing distinctive qualities that produce unaccountable or baffling effects.
How about that, huh?
I'd term something existing without having EVER been created to be rather unaccountable and downright baffling.
Wouldn't you?
Imagine if we were to accelerate the daughter universe to a point where its time would be in the "future" relative to our time. Somebody in the daughter universe, for simplicity let's say I, make Choice A and that causes something significant to happen. Now in our universe, by accident or design our universe's incarnation of me were to make Choice B instead and cause something entirely different to happen. Would our universe be different from theirs then?
^^
Well, ANYTIME there was an alteration that created a difference between the two (or more universes) clearly they'd no longer be parallel but ALTERNATE universes.
One could theoretically alter the age of the "daughter" universe PAST the time frame of the "prime" universe to see how events in the "future" unfolded. And, not likely the outcome, one could then change the course of events in the "prime" universe to a different path, in effect, making a the "daughter" universe an "alternate" reality retro-actively.
Well, ANYTIME there was an alteration that created a difference between the two (or more universes) clearly they'd no longer be parallel but ALTERNATE universes.
One could theoretically alter the age of the "daughter" universe PAST the time frame of the "prime" universe to see how events in the "future" unfolded. And, not likely the outcome, one could then change the course of events in the "prime" universe to a different path, in effect, making a the "daughter" universe an "alternate" reality retro-actively.
Would you mind not CAPITALIZING so many random WORDS? It's seriously ANNOYING.
You seem to be contradicting yourself here. Either there was an absolute beginning, before which there was absolutely nothing, in which case the question of where the "big bang" came from is meaningless because it didn't come from anywhere, it just was; or else reality is nothing but this "eternal shifting of matter and energy and form" through various states, one of which we call the big bang.
You seem to deride one possibility while calling the other a violation of common sense. Well, it's one or the other; I can't really see a third option anywhere.
You seem to be contradicting yourself here. Either there was an absolute beginning, before which there was absolutely nothing, in which case the question of where the "big bang" came from is meaningless because it didn't come from anywhere, it just was; or else reality is nothing but this "eternal shifting of matter and energy and form" through various states, one of which we call the big bang.
You seem to deride one possibility while calling the other a violation of common sense. Well, it's one or the other; I can't really see a third option anywhere.
My capitalization of words is NOT random but, rather, an effort to try to impart a sense of emphasis on certain words to impart a RHYTHM of language to the written word. I apologize if it annoys you.
My perspective is that if one argues EITHER way, it ends up violating common sense. Doesn't make it any less valid though.
In either case, the big bang having an absolute beginning out of nothing or an eternal flux of materials which was never created and yet exists resulting in the big bang--it's incomprehensible.
How can that which has no origin, "be"? How can something that was never created exist?
Either or some as yet unconceived possibility may be the absolute objective truth and whatever it is could be so wildly outside our experience that we can not appreciate or understand it. Just because the truth is beyond out ability to make sense of it, that does NOT mean it didn't happen.
My perspective is that if one argues EITHER way, it ends up violating common sense. Doesn't make it any less valid though.
In either case, the big bang having an absolute beginning out of nothing or an eternal flux of materials which was never created and yet exists resulting in the big bang--it's incomprehensible.
How can that which has no origin, "be"? How can something that was never created exist?
Either or some as yet unconceived possibility may be the absolute objective truth and whatever it is could be so wildly outside our experience that we can not appreciate or understand it. Just because the truth is beyond out ability to make sense of it, that does NOT mean it didn't happen.
Not that it makes any difference what-so-ever, and I know this is a waste of time to even point it out, but these questions...
Neither of which really matter as both points will ultimately be ignored anyways.
...are basically analogous to a Matryoshka Doll version of the universe. Further, it seems like your definition of time suffers from Russell's Paradox.
Neither of which really matter as both points will ultimately be ignored anyways.
This sounds exactly like the fictional science of psychohistory created by Isaac Asimov for Foundation. If you have enough variables you should be able to predict general patterns over a large population and long period of time. Cause and effect, when you get right down to it, which gets into discussions about free will we should probably save for another thread.
While two parallel universes might be extremely similar on a galactic or intergalactic scale, I would imagine chaos would prevent an identical "you" from existing parallel to yourself, in a universe that diverged from your own billions of years ago. At least, the chance that it would have such a person that would live in such an identical universe would be infinitesimally small. If it was a recent divergence, like last Tuesday, then there might be trillions of yous and universes just next door.
