Does The Singularity Exist?

[seeds]

"The Universe is something Conscious."
/Hermeticism/

‘’In general, the universe seems to me to be nearer to a great thought than to a great machine.’’
/ James Jeans /

''[T]he laws of quantum mechanics itself cannot be formulated ...
without recourse to the concept of consciousness.''
/Eugene Wigner, the Nobel Prize in 1963/

"Quantum physics makes a strong argument for universal consciousness.”
--------------.

Yes to all of the above.

Let me add a couple more from the founding fathers of quantum theory...

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force...We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter. ― Max Planck

The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you. ― Werner Heisenberg

And my own addition to that mix of crazy sounding assertions is that quantum physics strongly implies that the phenomenal features of the universe seem to be created from an infinitely malleable (holographic-like) substance that is capable of becoming absolutely anything "imaginable" (just like the substance from which our thoughts and dreams are created).
_______

[seeds]

Consider that the universe is finite. This means that the universe is bounded by something, let's call it A. A is either finite or infinite. The sum of the universe and A is infinite if A is infinite. We have a regress if A is finite. Regress is infinite. Therefore either the universe is infinite or the universe and what bounds it is infinite.

The universe is indeed bounded by something.

It is bounded (or delineated) by the limited amount of substance that makes up the sum-total of its construction - as is implied in the following type of (Big Bang inspired) illustration...



In which case, the only thing that is "infinite" in this situation is not the universe itself, but the infinite "nothingness" that extends in all directions away from the "finite" somethingness of what we commonly think of as being the universe...

...The bottom line is that, NO, the universe - in and of itself - is not "infinite."
_______

What is the black area in the figure?

it is a representation of "absolute nothingness."

Did you understand my argument?

I'm pretty sure I understand it better than you do. However, let's break it down...

Consider that the universe is finite.

Okay.

This means that the universe is bounded by something, let's call it A.

By "bounded," I assume you mean "surrounded" by something that is not a part of the universe itself. And that would be represented by the "black area" in the illustration.

A is either finite or infinite.

In the case of "A" as it pertains to the illustration (with "A" being the "black area"), then it is infinite.

The sum of the universe and A is infinite if A is infinite.

And this is where the problem arises, because in your initial statement to socrat44, you said the following...

The universe itself is infinite.

...and made no mention of needing to sum it together with that which you have named "A".

Well, the fact of the matter is that "A" (again, the infinite nothingness represented by the "black area" in the illustration) is not a part of the universe (as was pointed out earlier), thus you have no business using it in your argument.

We have a regress if A is finite.

"A" is not finite; "A" is infinite. Therefore, no regress.

Regress is infinite.

An irrelevant point because, again, "A" is infinite.

Therefore either the universe is infinite or the universe and what bounds it is infinite.

Again, based on your initial assertion to socrat44,...

The universe itself is infinite.

...you have no business including "A" in your argument, for "A" is not a part of what we normally think of as being the universe.

Indeed, what we normally think of as being "the universe" is the bubble-like phenomenon that is clearly depicted in the illustration as being a "finite" structure suspended in an infinite void of absolute nothingness...


_______

[socrat44]

And my own addition to that mix of crazy sounding assertions is that quantum physics
strongly implies that the phenomenal features of the universe seem to be created from
an infinitely malleable (holographic-like) substance that is capable of becoming absolutely
anything "imaginable" (just like the substance from which our thoughts and dreams are created).
_______

according to Einstein's SRT quantum particles cannot be firm/static,
they have ability to be . . . (holographic-like)

[bahman]

Consider that the universe is finite. This means that the universe is bounded by something, let's call it A. A is either finite or infinite. The sum of the universe and A is infinite if A is infinite. We have a regress if A is finite. Regress is infinite. Therefore either the universe is infinite or the universe and what bounds it is infinite.

The universe is indeed bounded by something.

It is bounded (or delineated) by the limited amount of substance that makes up the sum-total of its construction - as is implied in the following type of (Big Bang inspired) illustration...



In which case, the only thing that is "infinite" in this situation is not the universe itself, but the infinite "nothingness" that extends in all directions away from the "finite" somethingness of what we commonly think of as being the universe...

...The bottom line is that, NO, the universe - in and of itself - is not "infinite."
_______

What is the black area in the figure?

it is a representation of "absolute nothingness."

Did you understand my argument?

I'm pretty sure I understand it better than you do. However, let's break it down...

Consider that the universe is finite.

Okay.

This means that the universe is bounded by something, let's call it A.

By "bounded," I assume you mean "surrounded" by something that is not a part of the universe itself. And that would be represented by the "black area" in the illustration.

A is either finite or infinite.

In the case of "A" as it pertains to the illustration (with "A" being the "black area"), then it is infinite.

The sum of the universe and A is infinite if A is infinite.

And this is where the problem arises, because in your initial statement to socrat44, you said the following...

The universe itself is infinite.

...and made no mention of needing to sum it together with that which you have named "A".

Well, the fact of the matter is that "A" (again, the infinite nothingness represented by the "black area" in the illustration) is not a part of the universe (as was pointed out earlier), thus you have no business using it in your argument.

We have a regress if A is finite.

"A" is not finite; "A" is infinite. Therefore, no regress.

Regress is infinite.

An irrelevant point because, again, "A" is infinite.

Therefore either the universe is infinite or the universe and what bounds it is infinite.

Again, based on your initial assertion to socrat44,...

The universe itself is infinite.

...you have no business including "A" in your argument, for "A" is not a part of what we normally think of as being the universe.

Indeed, what we normally think of as being "the universe" is the bubble-like phenomenon that is clearly depicted in the illustration as being a "finite" structure suspended in an infinite void of absolute nothingness...


_______

Absolute nothingness is the absence of anything including space and time, therefore it cannot surround anything and have a geometry.

[Cerveny]

Absolute nothingness is the absence of anything including space and time, therefore it cannot surround anything and have a geometry.

…glad to hear the voice of reason…

[seeds]

Absolute nothingness is the absence of anything including space and time, therefore it cannot surround anything and have a geometry.

The universe allegedly began when it was smaller than the dot between these two brackets [ . ], but is presently estimated to be approximately 93 billion light-years in diameter. So if whatever it is that is giving-way (making room) for the expansion of the universe is not "infinite nothingness," then what is it?

And no, it is not a part of our finite universe

However, if what we earlier called "A" (the black area of the illustration) has obviously made room for the universe as the universe grew from an infinitesimal speck [ . ] and into the 93 billion light-year in diameter bubble of reality depicted below,...



...then I don't understand why you would think that "A" doesn't "surround" the universe.
_______

[bahman]

Absolute nothingness is the absence of anything including space and time, therefore it cannot surround anything and have a geometry.

…glad to hear the voice of reason…

Glad to hear that you agree.

[bahman]

Absolute nothingness is the absence of anything including space and time, therefore it cannot surround anything and have a geometry.

The universe allegedly began when it was smaller than the dot between these two brackets [ . ], but is presently estimated to be approximately 93 billion light-years in diameter. So if whatever it is that is giving-way (making room) for the expansion of the universe is not "infinite nothingness," then what is it?

And no, it is not a part of our finite universe

However, if what we earlier called "A" (the black area of the illustration) has obviously made room for the universe as the universe grew from an infinitesimal speck [ . ] and into the 93 billion light-year in diameter bubble of reality depicted below,...



...then I don't understand why you would think that "A" doesn't "surround" the universe.
_______

What do you mean by absolute nothingness?

[seeds]

What do you mean by absolute nothingness?

I've been describing what I mean by absolute nothingness in my last several posts.

Absolute nothingness is whatever it is that, again, is "giving way"/"making room" for the ever-expanding reality of our finite universe.

Indeed, in the case of multiverse theory, you could add 10^500 more 93 billion light-year-in-diameter universes into the mix, and the absolute (infinite) nothingness will never run out of room to accommodate them.

What I am suggesting is a kind of reification of infinity itself in that the absolute nothingness that will never-ever run out of room for more and more universes...

(or more minds, or more heavens, or more of anything else that makes up the "All-That-Is")

...is not just an abstract concept, but is "real" in a certain sense, and actually resides just on the other side of what we think of as being "normal (observable/experienceable) reality."
_______

[bahman]

What do you mean by absolute nothingness?

I've been describing what I mean by absolute nothingness in my last several posts.

Absolute nothingness is whatever it is that, again, is "giving way"/"making room" for the ever-expanding reality of our finite universe.

Indeed, in the case of multiverse theory, you could add 10^500 more 93 billion light-year-in-diameter universes into the mix, and the absolute (infinite) nothingness will never run out of room to accommodate them.

What I am suggesting is a kind of reification of infinity itself in that the absolute nothingness that will never-ever run out of room for more and more universes...

(or more minds, or more heavens, or more of anything else that makes up the "All-That-Is")

...is not just an abstract concept, but is "real" in a certain sense, and actually resides just on the other side of what we think of as being "normal (observable/experienceable) reality."
_______

Something as you described that makes room for an ever-expanding universe is not nothingness, instead is empty space.

[seeds]

Something as you described that makes room for an ever-expanding universe is not nothingness, instead is empty space.

In a way, yes, but it's not the same sort of empty space that we and the cosmologists see between the stars and planets (as viewed from "inside the bubble" depicted in the illustration)...



No, the space that exists between the galaxies, stars, and planets on the inside of the bubble is allegedly not empty. but is made up of a field of interpenetrating information that underpins the "fabric" of what we call "spacetime" and binds the entire universe together into a seamless and unified whole.

While, on the other hand, the absolute nothingness that we've been discussing (i.e., the "black area" in the illustration) is totally empty of anything whatsoever, and is not a part of the spacetime fabric that binds the phenomenal features of our universe together.

So, yes, it can be loosely thought of as being similar to "empty space," but not the kind of (not so) empty space that the cosmologists speak of.
_______

[Scott Mayers]

Does The Singularity Exist?

Singularity is a point in spacetime where incredible amount of matter is compressed into a tiny space of zero size and infinite density.
But, the question is, ” Does it exist?”

Singularity is not a physical object, it is a mathematical entity. It arises when the denominator is zero. We all know we cannot divide by zero, so that’s a problem and mathematicians call that value singularity. If a singularity popes up in an equation, it means that the equation has been to make predictions in areas where it doesn’t cover like using Newton’s Gravitational Equation to describe a black hole.

General Relativity fails at the quantum scale and needs to be replaced by Quantum Theory of Gravity which we don’t have.

https://knowledgeglutton.home.blog/2021 ... comment-21

What gets missed is that the logic of the singularity is literal with respect to the Big Bang theory and virtual with respect to a Steady State interpretation and the former cannot be established IN PRINCIPLE while the latter is ALL that we can assert given the evidence.

The Big Bang's literal singularity has been reduced to a 'virtual' one today in disrespect of the fact that this should suffice to reinstate a Steady State interpretation. The excused difference now accepted of the Big Bang's interpretation over a Steady State one is ONLY about whether the universe was 'hot'. Obviously IF all matter could be compressed magically to a point, the energy would increase infinitely and why they hold on to the Big Bang interpretation.

The reality is more likely political though because a Steady State interpretation CAN leave out even a Diestic interpretation of origins.

The logical fallacies involved (beyond politics and religion) begin with the fact that if you cannot KNOW whether time or space exists on the other side of the apparent singularity. We have to interpret the singularity as a Calculus limit ONLY. That is, you cannot ever have an endpoint without space and time because it becomes a real Zeno's paradox that is NOT resolvable.

Another fallacy is that it is arrogantly ignored that if General Relativity is true, then time is just a dimension of space. As such, the rate of space (via 'expansion') has to include time. When this is respected, the further back you go in time, each INTERVAL of time is 'compressed' in sync with each interval of space. The apparent rate of change in greater distances is also 'faster'. The relative rate of the speed of light in some space only the size of even the smallest of points would be greater. Obviously if the whole universe is as it appears to be compressed to some small space would mean that light would travel across the whole universe instantaneously AT A POINT. So the greater the distances, the intervals of space that appear to be concentrated in energy is an illusion.

Another fallacy: that the very definition of "matter" is "that which occupies space and.....' That matter IS energy and energy is defined using both matter AND time, you cannot have a fixed quantity of energy without ANY space or time. The insult by Hoyle against this theory by calling it a 'Big Bang' was literally due to these facts. If energy and matter require space and time, they cannot exist PRIOR to them.

Another fallacy: that conservation of energy is true WHERE space (and time) exist means that the conservation should be based upon the density, not a fixed special quantity of it from some magical time that was popped into existence at an infinity of speed. [Going from literally nothing to some fixed universal quanity of energy is not even scientific but a leap of faith given instantaneous necessity of an infinite speed of creation.]

The singularity is a rational illusion in the way a vantage horizon point of parallel lines meeting.

[socrat44]

If energy and matter require space and time, they cannot exist PRIOR to them.

!?!?
-----

[Scott Mayers]

If energy and matter require space and time, they cannot exist PRIOR to them.

!?!?
-----

I try to carefully write and why I included the explanation that you either missed or need to review with more care.

But for clarity, Energy is a measure of a quantity of change in position of some mass. It is a 'derived' concept that uses MASS and SPACE as its dependant concepts. E = mc^2 has 'm' as the mass' and 'c', a velocity constant that is itself derived of distance (== space) and time (==space in a different dimension). This establishes energy as necessarily requiring SPACE and TIME to define it.

Since Mass is just 'matter', and matter both occupies SPACE as well as convertible by E = mc^2 to energy, then, all our physical descriptors are absolutely dependent upon the existence of SPACE and TIME apriori. You cannot thus HAVE a fixed quantity of energy and matter PRIOR to the existence of both space and time.

Is this clearer on this question for you?

[Scott Mayers]

Absolute nothingness is the absence of anything including space and time, therefore it cannot surround anything and have a geometry.

…glad to hear the voice of reason…

Glad to hear that you agree.

I know that you already know my take on this from prior discussions. An "Absolute Nothingness" is essential for "Totality" (a metaphysical term of the absolute all); It is NOT directly true of a particular Universe other than with respect to Totality as a whole. Note that also an 'absolute' nothing happens to 'equal' a Relative Nothing that a particular Universe can possibly have but that no "ORIGIN" could occur without the 'absolute'.

Then our Universe has to be treated as "infinite" (or "infinitesimal") as it approaches a singularity (even if it may not) because we cannot 'scientifically' measure existence beyond the time and space we are trapped into intepreting reality.