The possibilities enumerated are:
(1) There is a REAL origin at that vanishing point to which space and time prevents you from possibly finding anything beyond. [finite]
(2) There is no REAL origin at that vanishing point as space and time still goes on beyond it. [infinite]
(3) There is a possible real origin as it appears but the reality of getting there is never possible because if space literally gets smaller towards zero as we approach it, time ALSO becomes smaller as we approach it. [infinitesimal == both finite (as 'bound') and infinite (as towards zero but never AT zero)
You are GIVEN this. It is a logical construct but it IS representative of the reality or you 'empirically' cannot perceive such a phenomena this model represents.
Maybe you can add more? The point: you CAN use reasoning to prove something about reality without anything more than your mind. If the construct were not real, a mind cannot exist to construct it.
You cannot demonstrate the appearance of a real singularity we interpret through empirical evidence to mean it IS a real singularity.
is a Big Bang type of interpretation if all space and time beginning there. "(3)"
is a Steady State type where the space and time is infinite but bound. A Big Bang type POPS a fixed amount of matter into that point whole, like as though the tree at the end would be a 'first' fully grown one but with no further trees nor space nor time beyond there. The "(2)"
is an infinite but linearly OPEN possibility that is still of a Steady State type as it doesn't POP material existence into being.
Neither theory can be determined with closure empirically. But you CAN deduce which ones are not the case. And you cannot do it outside of logic itself. The Big Bang version has presented its interpretation of the Cosmic Background Radiation as empirical proof OF a hot 'origin' and thus seems to suggest that this is sufficient to POP a fixed amount of energy and/or matter into existence there, something contradicting our local lack of 'empirical' observation that things explode into sudden existence all around us. You CAN conceive of this possibility IF we could KNOW there is an actual concept of existence beyond
that vanishing point of the singularity....(particularly the 'material' one, or the general without concern to matter).
But logically, if we are to trust the empirical hint at what might be the correct case, we cannot escape the logical fact that we cannot know what is outside of our range. The probable case is to default to one of either the infinite or infinitesimal interpretation of that singularity because it would otherwise make OUR SPECIFIC universe be treated as absurdly egocentric and specially 'designed' for us, just as we used to think our world was the center of the present known universe in times past.
This is 'practical' for all purposes if it suits you or doesn't limit you from other things in life. But what of other people's interpretation of what is 'practical' for them? Can I not be free to go beyond what others won't accept unless I can demonstrate something 'practical' for them too?
I'm digressing. The logic now is to ask, IF this world is to be defaulted to by only what we can speak
of, then is even the interpretation of evidence for theories that fix that singularity, such as the Big Bang theory, imposing us to then PRETEND our universe IS Totality unless we can prove otherwise? This would then mean treating that singularity AS an absolute origin, not merely one universe of many. If we ONLY accept the 'empirical' and pragmatic interpretation of our ONLY Universe as on of the Big Bang theory's interpretation, we have to assume it IS and then logically test its validity from the perspective of its dependence on our universe to BE THE ONLY one.
This means that we treat "Totality" as identical to our world. Now lets do so.
IF that singularity IS our absolute origin, then it has to be either an absolute nothing or it would require meaning it is greater than that. If it is greater than a mere absolute nothing, then this means that singularity has to be treated as being at least one. But one what?
This unit, "what", would still require something to 'create' more of itself. It would require having some 'parts' of itself that is at least 'one' and also 'infinite' to CAUSE anything. Thus this unit would not be a unit ...unless it was something both (a unit AND not a unit). Thus we have this contradiction.
So why not nothing itself? If 'nothing' is apparently paradoxical, it too may possibly not be creative because it is not restricted to some SPECIAL apriori laws that are themselves not 'empirical' without some ESSENCE to judge it to be 'observed' from BEYOND that singularity.
The only logical possibility is to accept nothing as what we assign to that point but an illusion itself. If not, we'd have to place an 'observer' there to witness this point, ....a magical being, that can't both be outside
of the universe to 'ex
each "I" stance) as well as inside. This being is what would be considered 'outside' and then requires extending Totality to include it in something greater.
We could repeat this question and we'd again end up requiring to treat the singularity we originally questioned as logically requiring to be infinite or infinitesimal. ...not an origin of totality itself. If our "Universe" is NOT Totality then, the point of a singularity that 'originates' it cannot be one of a SPECIAL origin. The concept of a ''bang" has to be abandoned, including any special quantified material count of matter and energy that pops into existence at any 'time' after that singularity.
If you see or interpret literal evidence of a wall, you have to logically interpret that observation as being misinterpreted itself. The observation doesn't speak for itself. Nor can we GAMBLE a guess at some prediction of an observation we could see when the concept of the guess is sufficient to assure we CAN conceive such as real. For instance, I can safely predict that a unicorn exists because I can conceive of some horse with a spiraled 'corn' on its head. But this CAN become true because we can make it true if we played around with genetics long enough. But should we create or discover a unicorn in the future for PREDICTING one, does that PROVE it existed all along?....that the one who 'predicted' it from some past was correct?
Also, is the prediction unique to one theory? I can rationally argue that given we accept nothing can actually exist at zero Kelvin (an absolute infinitesimal concept similar to Steady State theory), that this must mean if we look out and measure the mean temperature of the universe, that it should be a bit above absolute zero. I might be safe to 'predict' that measure to be greater than 0 K but less than 5 K.
Voila, the Steady State is confirmed if those proposing the theory were the first to make the prediction. And if the Big Bang theory just lacked a guess, this must be proof they were wrong.
The point of this thread is to show that a real singularity of apparent space and time cannot be interpreted to by anyone to 'fit' better to reality on mere logical grounds with only the simple exhaustion of our potential options available to us that we DO 'empirically' know at a minimum. I believe I've argued this fair but am doubting this is sufficient nor likely appealing to those not liking the repercussions this leads to in practical terms. I recognize that certain TRUTHS can truly harm us if not taken care to present it from doing so. It is that 'curse' of the Adam & Eve story that I believe was a secular one telling us how with knowledge, we cannot undo knowing what we know, and thus then must take the consequences of knowing our innocence is dead. If we learn the secrets of the gods, then we discover that the gods are themselves not real (dead) and so then recognize that our only 'salvation' is itself death for us too.
Is this 'model' merely an art piece that has no relevance to reality? Is that 'vanishing' point merely an artistic invention when understood as a map of how we perceive something? Could you even FIND a real 'proof' empirically that the point represents an 'origin' if you were not permitted to any other observation?