Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

[Skip]

then we immediately define reality as unknowable


That doesn't necessarily follow.

Yes it does. If the universe is not everything that exists then we assume the existence of a causal agent external to it

Why? Defining the universe as something less than "all of everything there ever was or can be" does not force you to place a causative agent outside of it. The cause could be inside the known part of the universe - have you looked under every rock?
And you don't even have to nominate a cause at all, inside or out, or anywhere else. Defining an apple as the fruit of a species of Rosacea domestica does not force you to give a cause for all fruit. You can make guesses, but you can quite happily grow and eat apples without that.

and even in principle nothing is knowable about such an external causal agent.

Exactly! Making your definition bigger won't give you the answer; making it smaller won't give you the answer. The cause is not in the definition at all. Probably, we'll never know.

"There is no reason you can't study parts of reality that are available, rather than the whole universe."

This is quite true and this is exactly what the science of physics does.

Well, yeah. And, because physicists are just as human as shamans, they make guesses about causes. The little ones, they can test and prove; the big ones, they invent math for.

[Cerveny]

In the oldest place of Universe...

[Obvious Leo]

The cause could be inside the known part of the universe -

This is more or less what I'm saying. The universe is self-causal in the same way that our terrestrial biosphere is self-causal. It needs no external causal agent to account for the existence of complex order within it. However this is not the assumption of physics because physics assumes that the order in the universe is generated by a suite of "laws of physics", whose origins lie external to it. In other words physics is a creationist paradigm.

Well, yeah. And, because physicists are just as human as shamans, they make guesses about causes. The little ones, they can test and prove; the big ones, they invent math for.

However mathematics cannot define the universe for us because mathematics is only a language tool. It can only be used to codify a particular narrative of the universe which must be specified in advance by the observer of it. Therefore physics is intrinsically tautologous, a shortcoming which was well understood by the early pioneers of 20th century physics but one which is less well understood nowadays. Niels Bohr would turn in his grave and moan in despair if he had to listen to the media sluts of modern physics banging on about hidden dimensions and an unknowable number of surplus universes. They are expecting their theory to define reality instead of the other way around.

[UniversalAlien]

However mathematics cannot define the universe for us because mathematics is only a language tool. It can only be used to codify a particular narrative of the universe which must be specified in advance by the observer of it. Therefore physics is intrinsically tautologous, a shortcoming which was well understood by the early pioneers of 20th century physics but one which is less well understood nowadays. Niels Bohr would turn in his grave and moan in despair if he had to listen to the media sluts of modern physics banging on about hidden dimensions and an unknowable number of surplus universes. They are expecting their theory to define reality instead of the other way around.

"They are expecting their theory to define reality instead of the other way around." 'The other way around? - What is the
other way around? Reality giving theories - What reality? Cominng form whose or whats mind? Show me a reality indepeindent of the mind - prove it has an independent existence requiting no mind to percieve or define it - Bet you can't do it. So we are back to 'observer effect' and why these 'media sluts' as you call them are so popular - and some might say realists such as yourself are not as credible as they would like to believe.

The Observer Creates Reality simply by Observing

The most astounding experiment of quantum physics in recent scientific discovery is probably the double-slit experiment.

It is the experiment that shows the entire universe exists by being experienced...........................

The truth is, everything in the universe is ultimately Energy, and Energy is influenced by Mind. Something only appears as matter when it is being observed.

Quantum physicists talk about electrons, or events being potential, rather than actual physical entities. So that there are various potentials, basically until somebody looks, and then it sort of forces the universe to make a determination about which potential is going to be actualized.
All of existence is fundamentally an unlimited quantum field of energy, a sea of infinite possibilities waiting to happen.

Consciousness collapses the wave function into actual particles that exist in space and time. Consciousness experiences energy as matter.

Consciousness is the energy that influences energy. All energy is actually consciousness, therefore it is consciousness influencing itself.
The observer is not apart from the observation. The experimenter is not apart from the experiment.

The observer simultaneously plays a part in creating the reality he is observing. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of consciousness states that no pure measurement is possible without creation. Physicists who deal in quantum mechanics state: “You cannot (objectively) observe something without changing it in the process.”

See whole article here:
http://www.mindreality.com/observer-cre ... -observing

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
-- Albert Einstein

[Obvious Leo]

"They are expecting their theory to define reality instead of the other way around." 'The other way around? - What is the
other way around?

I agree with you. I could have expressed my point a lot better because of course our theories define our realities. What I meant was that evidence is always interpreted in the context of whichever theory happens to be in vogue, a point made very elegantly by Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg, Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein and many of the other early 20th century physicists. The theory in vogue at that time was the Minkowski 4D manifold, even though this SR interpretation was subsequently falsified by GR.

"We must never allow ourselves to forget that spacetime is not physically real".....Albert Einstein

However it was nevertheless adopted as a canonical doctrine by physics even though it was known to be false. The point I was attempting to make is that the hidden spatial dimensions of string theory, Guth's inflation hypothesis, as well as all the various multiverse conjectures are ALL interpretations of this theory which is known to be false. They are based on a theory which the inventor of it insists is not describing the real universe.

[UniversalAlien]

"We must never allow ourselves to forget that spacetime is not physically real".....Albert Einstein

However it was nevertheless adopted as a canonical doctrine by physics even though it was known to be false. The point I was attempting to make is that the hidden spatial dimensions of string theory, Guth's inflation hypothesis, as well as all the various multiverse conjectures are ALL interpretations of this theory which is known to be false. They are based on a theory which the inventor of it insists is not describing the real universe.

That considered, where are we now? What is 'the real universe'? If you can't dismiss 'the observer effect' from any equation,
how valid are the equations, the theories. Are the mystics right believing they could influence reaiity and change it? I would
seriously wonder on the net effect theories have on reality? I suppose at some point you have to draw a line in the sand and say this is real with acceptable proof - And this is imagination yet to be proven. But until proven false imanginative theories,
like good sci-fi will remain in vogue - Humans like theories that inspire the imagination

A cosmologist says he's found possible signs of a parallel universe
Are we bumping into another universe?
by DAVID NIELD 18 NOV 2015

The idea of a multitude of parallel universes existing alongside our own is not new, but trying to find evidence of this phenomenon is proving about as tricky as you might expect. But one cosmologist thinks he might have found evidence of a parallel universe brushing against our own as far back at the beginning of time.............

See whole article here:
http://www.sciencealert.com/a-cosmologi ... l-universe

[Skip]

Define, describe, explain and prove are differe4nt words, with different meanings.

[Obvious Leo]

That considered, where are we now? What is 'the real universe'? If you can't dismiss 'the observer effect' from any equation,
how valid are the equations, the theories.

At least we can agree on the nature of the question, UA. I am harshly critical of the way physicists are so quick to ontologise their toolkit but I've never once suggested that physics can be done in any other way. The problem was neatly summed by Niels Bohr in this arresting statement.

"It is NOT the role of the physicist to explain what the universe is but merely to determine what he can meaningfully say about the behaviour of matter and energy within it."...Niels Bohr.

That's it from the horse's mouth. Explaining the nature of physical reality is not the physicist's business and they'd progress their science a hell of lot further if they stuck to playing with their own toys in their own playpen. They ridicule metaphysics and yet they then make utterly absurd metaphysical claims which are an affront to human reason. Leibniz warned of this centuries ago and even Newton had the sense to know that no metaphysical claims could be derived from observations. Metaphysical claims can only be deduced from metaphysical first principles and the simpler those first principles are then the greater the likelihood that the claims will be valid ones. Naturally this is exactly what one would expect a philosopher of applied metaphysics to say but this has been the position of mainstream philosophy for millennia so I'm not exactly going out on a limb. Furthermore, since the current models of physics are mutually exclusive and collectively describe a universe which makes no sense it's by no means unreasonable to suggest that the philosophers might be right.

The universe is NOT a continuum of space and time....Period. The utility of modelling it in this way is beyond dispute but the 4D continuum is riddled with metaphysical flaws and is therefore not modelling reality.

Are the mystics right believing they could influence reaiity and change it?

I presume you're probably not referring to the starry-eyed geeks who believe in the retro-causality of QM. What a pack of plonkers. You can't cause an event to occur just by observing it for the simple reason that you can only observe something after it's fucking happened. If you've got a model which says otherwise then your model is WRONG, simple as that.

[Dubious]

My philosophy doubles as a legitimate scientific hypothesis, since it yields a testable prediction which would unambiguously falsify current theory.

This again is very vague. What current theory? There are many. Are you saying that your testable prediction would unambiguously falsify Relativity, Quantum Theory, Thermodynamics? I don't think you're saying this but, as written, it sounds like it.

These ancient cosmologists understood that reality is a PROCESS and this puts them at least one step ahead of the modern illuminati.

Process is a word. Event is a word. Nothing is described or understood by using only these words. Obviously, the Ancients would have known that nature is dynamic with myriad processes going on. But how to understand what's going on is not described by any word. Again you use words like 'process' and 'event' in a philosophical context which defines nothing and adds nothing to a verifiable description of the actual events which creates the process.

The second law of thermodynamics is a conclusion derived from the theory and not one deduced from the evidence. There can be no question that it applies to all subsystems within the universe but there can be equally no question that it does NOT apply to the universe as a whole...
...if you wish to put the counter-argument I'd be delighted to see it.

This seems a contradiction. If as you state The second law of thermodynamics is a conclusion derived from the theory and not one deduced from the evidence then how does it follow that There can be no question that it applies to all subsystems within the universe...?

The following is an extract of an article whose link follows:

Based on the ideas of Lord Kelvin, Joule, Boltzmann, Carnot, and Clausius, the first and second laws of thermodynamics can now be restated in two profound sentences:
The total energy of the universe is a constant.
The total entropy of the universe always increases.
And these two fundamental principles of nature describe how the universe works.

http://www.calpoly.edu/~rbrown/entropy.html


Here's another quote with link following:

The second law does not say that entropy can never decrease anywhere. It just says that the total entropy of the universe can never decrease. Entropy can decrease somewhere, provided it increases somewhere else by at least as much. The entropy of a system decreases only when it interacts with some other system whose entropy increases in the process. That is the law. (Kind of reminds one of E = mc2: my comment)

http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/101/CH8/entropy.htm

There are many more you can examine yourself but none that I read contravened the conclusions of the above.

I realize that my views or extra links won't change yours by an iota. We have very different views regarding this subject. But there is nothing strange or forbidden in having our own theories of reality which will unfold independent of what anyone thinks. We are not in charge except in our efforts to understand.

[Obvious Leo]

This again is very vague. What current theory? There are many. Are you saying that your testable prediction would unambiguously falsify Relativity, Quantum Theory, Thermodynamics? I don't think you're saying this but, as written, it sounds like it.

I refute the entire paradigmatic assumption that space and time are woven into a continuum because I claim that time is a fractal dimension and space is an observer effect. The latter claim has already been proven true by Michelson/Morley and also by Einstein/Podolsky/Rosen but there are other experimental scenarios which would also confirm these findings empirically. A theory is only as good as the questions which are asked of it but when the spacetime models are closely questioned they reveal themselves to be infested with contradictions which falsify them. There are more paradoxes in spacetime physics than there are fictitious mathematical constants to obscure them from view.

Process is a word. Event is a word. Nothing is described or understood by using only these words.

This statement is false. In every science except physics processes are modelled as non-linear and non-linear processes are non-Newtonian in their definition of determinism. Physics is exclusively Newtonian, both in its assumptions and in its mathematical representation.

Again you use words like 'process' and 'event' in a philosophical context which defines nothing and adds nothing to a verifiable description of the actual events which creates the process.

With all due respect you reveal a vast chasm in your understanding of non-linear dynamic systems theory. Processes are self-causal.

The second law does not say that entropy can never decrease anywhere. It just says that the total entropy of the universe can never decrease.

And yet it does. The first instant following the big bang was the highest possible entropy state in the current universe. In the first Planck instants it was just an unimaginably hot ball of pure energy and even matter had yet to form, whereas now we have all manner of complex structures within it, including you and me. If the second law of thermodynamics were applicable on the cosmological scale then this hot ball should have been getting hotter and you and I could never have come into existence. This is not a trivial flaw in the paradigm.

[Obvious Leo]

Dubious. You might be able to see where I'm coming from if I give you an example of a question which a process philosopher might ask of a physicist.

Q. How fast is the universe occurring?

A. Huh???

[Obvious Leo]

This illustrates my point that the problem of physics is actually a problem of the way in which physics thinks the world.

By the way the correct answer to the question is not Huh??? The correct answer is that the universe is occurring at the speed of light.

[hazlett]

If the universe is occurring at the speed of light then where that light came from? I'm curious to know.

[Obvious Leo]

If the universe is occurring at the speed of light then where that light came from? I'm curious to know.

It has always been. However it may not always have been in the form of light. For instance light did not exist for the first 380,000 years after the big bang. Light is simply composed of discrete quanta of energy and quanta of energy can also be organised in the form of matter.

[UniversalAlien]

I have a problem. It is basically one of philosophical inquiry.

You all take what we know, or think you know, of the universe, the Big Bang, etc. and reflect back upon an event, an
occurrence that happened before Man, and man's consciousness, existed - How can you establish the validity of what you
are saying and creating in your minds as paradigms of existence and the universe You were not there and are making
the assumption that an unconscious real physical reality existed according to what you see now - And yet you can't prove
it - We really have no idea in a provable sense exactly what happened during the beginning - if and when there was a
beginning. All of physics and science about the origin of this universe may be a delusion as you really have no idea exactly what happened.

Now I will agree that science must 'assume' a real universe governed by scientific principles that are consistent
but in 'reality'..........What is reality? The reality of today contradicts the reality of the past. They had concluded that
the atom was the smallest object of existence and could not be split - that was the reality of the past - proven wrong.
And when you try to time the development of the universe based upon time as we now conceive of it your feeding
the consciousness of now into the past when Man;s consciousness did not exist.

PLEASE TELL ME WHAT THE UNIVERSE LOOKED LIKE BEFORE CONSCIOUSNESS PERCEIVED AND DEFINED IT. - you can't.
And all your assumptions about existence are exactly that assumptions - You make assumptions based upon so called scientific principles which time and time again have been proven wrong.

The Quantum Universe recognizing the 'observer effect' is the best we have - And yet it tells us only that we
must accept some responsibility for the universe we live in, our inquiry is part of our existence