The Big Bang

[iguana_tonante]

Sure, I agree that many questions can be answered by philosophy or science. Some other are not, tho. You can't answer "Could the universe be an illusion?" scientifically, because the premise of science is that, well, reality is real. But I agree that's not important.

So, how do you think about the scientific answers? Are they satisfying to you? Do you agree? If you don't, why?

 

[All Seeing Eye]

You can't answer "Could the universe be an illusion?" scientifically, because the premise of science is that, well, reality is real. But I agree that's not important.

Well really you can, for example we're not really seeing the universe it is in fact our brains interpreting signals sent from our senses. So in my opinion the universe could indeed be an illusion due to our physical limitedness (note I said could, I never said it was). How we interpret the universe around us could be wrong....... scientifically speaking, so our brains create an illusion.

So, how do you think about the scientific answers? Are they satisfying to you? Do you agree? If you don't, why?

I'm still reading through it all.

 

[Australis]

Why is anything even here at all?

Could the universe just be an illusion?

Both questions from the OP. Both questions the old Greek philosophers used to ask.

If you're so clever, please give us the scientific answers.

Aaaand here we are back at the 'Y/N' thing again.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Why is anything even here at all?

Could the universe just be an illusion?

Both questions from the OP. Both questions the old Greek philosophers used to ask.

If you're so clever, please give us the scientific answers.

Aaaand here we are back at the 'Y/N' thing again.

I answered the illusion one in the post before yours. As to the other one I can't answer it, that does not mean it's philosophical, it just means I can't answer that particular science question.

How many more times must I explain to you that it's only philosophical if that's how you choose to ask it or answer it?
I asked it scientifically and want scientific answers, if it can't be answered then it can't be answered but does not alter to fact it's a science question.

Have we finished now or do you want to go over all this again and again and again?

 

[Deckerd]

You didn't answer them Tacky, you posited quite a few 'coulds' to add to your first 'could'.

I think this is a fascinating discussion but it is a debate, not a series of fiats which can then be dismissed as solved.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

You didn't answer them Tacky, you posited quite a few 'coulds' to add to your first 'could'.

If that particular question was a could question and I answered it as such then I don't understand your problem.

 

[iguana_tonante]

You didn't answer them Tacky, you posited quite a few 'coulds' to add to your first 'could'.

Exactly.

Well really you can, for example we're not really seeing the universe it is in fact our brains interpreting signals sent from our senses. So in my opinion the universe could indeed be an illusion due to our physical limitedness (note I said could, I never said it was). How we interpret the universe around us could be wrong....... scientifically speaking, so our brains create an illusion.

You explained the question, but you didn't answer it.

Science as nothing to do with brain and neurons and whatnot. The question is: "Is this falsifiable?" i.e. "can it be proved wrong?" If the answer is yes, then it's a scientific question. If the answer is not, then it's not science (at least, as we define it).

If the universe is an illusion, created by our brains or whatever, then we can't be sure of anything, so it can't be proved wrong. As such, it is not a scientific question.

Hurry with the cosmology part, I'm curious!

 

[All Seeing Eye]

If the question was not a could question then an answer with could in it would be a problem but since the actual question was a could question it required a could answer.


Somebody ready me a cyanide capsule.

 

[Balthier the Great]

I tend to think that BB was more or less a reverse black hole event. I wouldn't really know the best way to put that in science terms, but the basic idea is that it could be the exit point of matter taken in by a black hole in another universe. Matter can't be created or destroyed, nor can energy, so all the "stuff" a black hole absorbs has to go somewhere. And the center of a Black Hole is supposed to be of almost infinite density, which I would think means that at that point, Space-Time is so concentrated as to virtually not exist. That sounds quite a bit like the initial conditions of the BB, so if the Space Time were to expand for whatever reason, I think the event would look like a Big Bang -- Space-Time, matter and energy all coming into existance from a point of infinate density and expanding into a universe. The odd thing about this idea is that logically it seems to imply that all black holes would have at least the potential to make another universe. Don't know how to test it, but it seems to follow.

As to string theory, I haven't a clue.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

^ Blackholes convert matter and energy it sucks in into Hawking radiation which get's shot out of the centre of blackholes.

 

[Deckerd]

Which is just a theory since it has never been observed.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Which is just a theory since it has never been observed.

Most everything is theory. What's your point?

 

[Deckerd]

You were presenting it as fact, is my point.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Well until someone can provide a different theory backed up by calculations or whatever else Mr Hawking used to come to his conclusions then it's the closest theory to fact we have.

The way Balthier the Great spoke in his post:

Matter can't be created or destroyed, nor can energy, so all the "stuff" a black hole absorbs has to go somewhere.

it was as if they'd never heard of Hawking Radiation, so I provided links to a theory backed up by calculations.

 

[Australis]

The universe isn't an illusion, but how we perceive it, through our senses which feed info into our brains which then constructs a Point Of View, if you like. This POV is, in a way, an illusion. We don't see all the radiation spectrum, like beyond infra red or ultra violet, or hear sounds beyond 20,000 Hz. We use our intelligence and machines to show that these things exist, but can't see perceive them in 'the real world'.

I''ve often thought it would be interesting to se the world as it 'really' is.

But the reverse is true as well - the POV is as true a representation of the real world as it is possible to have wtith our senses.

You may also be able to understand why we think these questions veer into philosophy, because the moment you begin to question the standard of consensus (what our senses tell all of us), then you have to acknowledge that it's starting to become a question like "what is beauty?", which is also a result of our senses and how we put it all together.

And hey, don't talk down - make yourself clearer instead.

 

[iguana_tonante]

I tend to think that BB was more or less a reverse black hole event. I wouldn't really know the best way to put that in science terms, but the basic idea is that it could be the exit point of matter taken in by a black hole in another universe. Matter can't be created or destroyed, nor can energy, so all the "stuff" a black hole absorbs has to go somewhere. And the center of a Black Hole is supposed to be of almost infinite density, which I would think means that at that point, Space-Time is so concentrated as to virtually not exist. That sounds quite a bit like the initial conditions of the BB, so if the Space Time were to expand for whatever reason, I think the event would look like a Big Bang -- Space-Time, matter and energy all coming into existance from a point of infinate density and expanding into a universe. The odd thing about this idea is that logically it seems to imply that all black holes would have at least the potential to make another universe. Don't know how to test it, but it seems to follow.

It doesn't seems to be correct, give the current understanding of black holes. It was quite fashionable about twenty years ago, when we found extremely energetic jets of matter and energy in the distant universe and some people thought them to be the "positive" counterparts of black holes, i.e. "white holes". The idea that they were exit points for the matter fallen in a black hole didn't seem so far fetched. But then we understood better the physics of BH and explained them as quasars and active galactic nuclei, supermassive BHs. Matter and energy falling into them became so hot and condensed that they emit very hight energy X rays and jets of relativistic particles. No "white holes" for us.

Beside, while the density of a black hole is infinite, it has a definite mass. When it absorbs matter and energy, its mass increase. It can't go anywhere, because we still feel its gravity in this universe.

The fact that both the conditions at the start of the BB and a BH are similar is expected since both are singularities, which is a shorthand to say, we can't describe them with out current theoretical frame. They can be actually similar, or profoundly different. We just don't know.

As to string theory, I haven't a clue.

Don't worry, almost nobody does.

 

[Deckerd]

I don't want to get into a tit for tat with you but it's one theory on black holes, which is no more or less closer to the truth than any other black hole theory, since they are hard enough to find and almost impossible to observe directly.

You guys all got in the way there.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

The universe isn't an illusion, but how we perceive it, through our senses which feed info into our brains which then constructs a Point Of View, if you like. This POV is, in a way, an illusion. We don't see all the radiation spectrum, like beyond infra red or ultra violet, or hear sounds beyond 20,000 Hz. We use our intelligence and machines to show that these things exist, but can't see perceive them in 'the real world'.

I''ve often thought it would be interesting to se the world as it 'really' is.

But the reverse is true as well - the POV is as true a representation of the real world as it is possible to have wtith our senses.

You may also be able to understand why we think these questions veer into philosophy, because the moment you begin to question the standard of consensus (what our senses tell all of us), then you have to acknowledge that it's starting to become a question like "what is beauty?", which is also a result of our senses and how we put it all together.

And hey, don't talk down - make yourself clearer instead.

Look it's pretty simple. Our brain is what tells us what we see, hear, touch, smell etc. Therefore there's no reason to believe any of this is even real. I could send a signal to your brain telling you you're on the toilet and as far as you would be concerned you're sat on the toilet when in reality you might be skydiving from 40,000 feet. You could be hypnotised to not see someone and you'd see right through them.

You look at your computer screen just how do you know it's there?
Scientifically speaking it's quite possible none of this is even real.

There's a reason why in that particular question I used the word 'could'. I used it because I know there's no definitive answer. It's one question out of many, why you are concentrating so much on that one question is mind boggling.

I don't want to get into a tit for tat with you

Then join the conversation and stop sitting on the side lines popping off irrelevant remarks.

 

[Deckerd]

You're just doing what you always do. You're not listening to anyone and repeating what you said pages ago.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

You're just doing what you always do. You're not listening to anyone and repeating what you said pages ago.

What pray tell am I supposed to be listening to? I've read what everyone has said and i've replied to them.
I'm debating the matters at hand, that's not the same as 'not listening to people'.

What you are trying to say is that I should accept what everyone else has to say as fact. Sorry but that's not how it works.