Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?

[UniversalAlien]

Assuming you believe in the 'Big Bang' as the starting point of the Universe - the question might be asked as to where this
happened? Since supposedly the Universe begins with the Big Bang and all time and space also would so begin, Where is the
place where it happened? - But if there was no time or space there also was no place - no place where such an event could
occur. The conclusion one might reach is that the Big Bang could not have occurred unless there was a place for it to occur.
Hence, the Big Bang could not represent the beginning of the Universe. Therefor the next conclusion to be drawn is the
Universe could not have had a beginning since there was no place for the beginning to occur - Existence and the Universe
always existed for if there was ever a point of non-existence existence could never have occurred.

[Obvious Leo]

Assuming you believe in the 'Big Bang' as the starting point of the Universe -

You start with the most bizarre of unverifiable assumptions but it seems logical to conclude that the Big Bang occurred at a moment in time prior to which we can derive no knowledge statements about the universe. Assigning a spatial location to this event makes no sense whatsoever, a conclusion you seem to have satisfactorily arrived at for yourself. Space is an entirely meaningless construct in the absence of an observer to observe it and since nobody was around to observe the Big Bang the notion of a spatial location for it to occur in is nothing more than a confusing embellishment. Space is a mathematical object and not a physical one, as any philosopher of mathematics will confirm.

Existence and the Universe
always existed for if there was ever a point of non-existence existence could never have occurred.

It's pretty hard to find a flaw in the logic of this statement, which is probably why no philosopher in history has ever made the attempt.

[UniversalAlien]

Assuming you believe in the 'Big Bang' as the starting point of the Universe -

You start with the most bizarre of unverifiable assumptions but it seems logical to conclude that the Big Bang occurred at a moment in time prior to which we can derive no knowledge statements about the universe. Assigning a spatial location to this event makes no sense whatsoever, a conclusion you seem to have satisfactorily arrived at for yourself. Space is an entirely meaningless construct in the absence of an observer to observe it and since nobody was around to observe the Big Bang the notion of a spatial location for it to occur in is nothing more than a confusing embellishment. Space is a mathematical object and not a physical one, as any philosopher of mathematics will confirm.

Existence and the Universe
always existed for if there was ever a point of non-existence existence could never have occurred.

It's pretty hard to find a flaw in the logic of this statement, which is probably why no philosopher in history has ever made the attempt.

Yes Obvious Leo we were discussing a similar issue in the past where the issue of the 'observer effect' came into play. Excuse my ignorance but I am neither a physicist nor a mathematician, simply a bewildered alien {hyperbole} attempting to understand Human intelligence. When you start to talk about 'origins' of such concepts as a universe, though space, time and place may be relative, they still must exist - Otherwise we are talking about pure fantasy - the same fantasies that these modern day esteemed men of physics, science, and mathematics keep trying to concoct to convince us that it was possible for the Universe to come from nothing because certain particles {I'm not sure of the exact terminology} can come from nowhere into existence. {On another post on this forum there is a link to this topic; See "How did the universe arise
out of nothing?"]. I maintain that anyone, scientist, mathematician. or philosopher that is attempting to prove that something can come from nothing is delusional. Matter can come from energy we know - but from nothing only nothing
could occur: 0 x 0 x 0 x 0 x 0 still equals 0. Einstein may have convinced the world that their observation of the universe was wrong, and he was right, but the profits of something from nothing sound worse than the most misguided theists.
An existent state is a priori to all existence.

[Skip]

In the middle.

[UniversalAlien]

In the middle.

If the Big Bang is in fact the beginning of this the local universe of which Man is part then it is likely that it is at the center of
this universe. But as stated a 'pre-existent state' must have been present - And that pre-existent state, possibly a multi-verse,
has no detectable point of either place, time or dimension - The center of the multi-verse remains unknown and may not exist. The geometry, physics and math you use to calculate your local universe is not yet capable of calculating dimensions outside of its local location. When Man is capable of calculating the larger existent state than his own local universe -
Then Man will be ready to travel through the cosmos - the limitations of the speed of light will be overcome.

[Obvious Leo]

the limitations of the speed of light will be overcome.

No. The limitations of the speed of light cannot be overcome. However we can twist our minds into pretzels if we try to think like a physicist because to a physicist the universe is a mathematical object rather than a physical phenomenon. The physicist's universe is like a cadaver on a slab laid out for his dissection, but to a process philosopher like me the dynamic universe is a sublimely simple entity to understand because I simply don't see the world in terms of objects moving in space, as the physicists do. I don't question the utility of this methodology as a convenient heuristic model but my world is one of events occurring in time which I then construct within my consciousness into one of objects moving in space. If we translate this in terms of the Kantian metaphysic it means that the events occurring in time are the Noumena and the objects moving in space are the Phenomena. The "expanding" space then becomes just a mathematical metaphor for a universe which is merely aging, just like everything within it, including me.

[UniversalAlien]

the limitations of the speed of light will be overcome.

No. The limitations of the speed of light cannot be overcome. However we can twist our minds into pretzels if we try to think like a physicist because to a physicist the universe is a mathematical object rather than a physical phenomenon. The physicist's universe is like a cadaver on a slab laid out for his dissection, but to a process philosopher like me the dynamic universe is a sublimely simple entity to understand because I simply don't see the world in terms of objects moving in space, as the physicists do. I don't question the utility of this methodology as a convenient heuristic model but my world is one of events occurring in time which I then construct within my consciousness into one of objects moving in space. If we translate this in terms of the Kantian metaphysic it means that the events occurring in time are the Noumena and the objects moving in space are the Phenomena. The "expanding" space then becomes just a mathematical metaphor for a universe which is merely aging, just like everything within it, including me.

"
No. The limitations of the speed of light cannot be overcome."

Yes, in your universe - but you make the assumption that there is only one universe - the one you analyze and understand.
I make the assumption that the multiverse is real - that there are many universes - and that laws of time and space may
not be the same in all universes. The pre-existent state i refer to where this universe, the one of the Big Bang, occurred
and is still occurring may indeed be as you see it - Not so in other universes. The current thinking of some who believe in the multiverse is that even if other universes {or dimensions] exist we could not interact with them - to us this may be true for now - but the current manifestation of UFO phenomena that seems to appear out of nowhere, move at lighting like speed in the sky and change directions that defy the laws of Human physics is significant - It is possible that there are other manifestations of intelligence {existent beings} that can not be seen in this universe and are likely coming from elsewhere - An elsewhere and universe where the laws of physics binding on this universe may not be so binding on theirs - the space time continuum may be different and where as the speed of light here might be consistent and invariable it may not be so throughout existence. And to get back to what we were debating in the past - Until you can prove that there is an absolute and invariable reality ruling all of existence I say to you never say never.

[UniversalAlien]

“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

See my blog:
"SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Religion of the FUTURE

http://universalspacealienpeoplesassoci ... gspot.com/

[Obvious Leo]

Yes, in your universe

In all modesty I must admit that at this stage I'm only a tenant with little prospect of securing the freehold title.

but you make the assumption that there is only one universe

I make no such assumption. As a philosopher of applied metaphysics I merely acknowledge that the universe we happen to be in is the only one we can make meaningful statements about. Speculation about something which may or may not exist external to it is not a legitimate pursuit for either scientist or philosopher because no information is available for scrutiny, even in principle.

I have no comment to offer on your beliefs because beliefs lie outwith my sphere of interest.

[UniversalAlien]

Yes, in your universe

In all modesty I must admit that at this stage I'm only a tenant with little prospect of securing the freehold title.

but you make the assumption that there is only one universe

I make no such assumption. As a philosopher of applied metaphysics I merely acknowledge that the universe we happen to be in is the only one we can make meaningful statements about. Speculation about something which may or may not exist external to it is not a legitimate pursuit for either scientist or philosopher because no information is available for scrutiny, even in principle.

I have no comment to offer on your beliefs because beliefs lie outwith my sphere of interest.

Just finished watching for the second time the Nova program: "The Other World's Perceptions : The Multiverse Or Meta-Universe [ Quantum Physics Documentary ]" with Brian Geene - Apparently the Multiverse theory given new traction because of 'String Theory' has its adherents - I took notice of the theoretical view that a multiverse might have many, many universes and that properties of matter, etc. may be different in different universes - These are men of science postulating theories as wild as any my new found 'Sciencefictionalism' might dream up - Reality might indeed be stranger than fiction.

And that is the big difference between me and you Obvious Leo; You mainly want to deal with what is obviously based upon fact but I maintain that factual reality may not always be factual depending upon perspective and in other worlds of other intelligences realities may differ - I'm more concerned with what is possible not based upon known reality but upon possible realities.

“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]

Well I'm just a simple country with the simple philosophy that Simplicity is Truth.

"It should be possible to explain the universe to a barmaid"....Albert Einstein

"The universe will ultimately reveal itself to be an entity of the most sublime austerity".....John Archibald Wheeler

"If it sounds like bullshit it probably is".....Obvious Leo

[Hobbes' Choice]

You start with the most bizarre of unverifiable assumptions but it seems logical to conclude that the Big Bang occurred at a moment in time prior to which we can derive no knowledge statements about the universe. Assigning a spatial location to this event makes no sense whatsoever, a conclusion you seem to have satisfactorily arrived at for yourself. Space is an entirely meaningless construct in the absence of an observer to observe it and since nobody was around to observe the Big Bang the notion of a spatial location for it to occur in is nothing more than a confusing embellishment. Space is a mathematical object and not a physical one, as any philosopher of mathematics will confirm.

I think this tree in the forest thing is a failed philosophical experiment. Nonetheless even if it were a valid one there is little doubt of the fact of the BB.
Fact is we are all experiencing the big bang right now.

[Obvious Leo]

I'm not disputing the fact of the Big Bang but only the proposition that it was the beginning of the universe. I also challenge the ontological status of the so-called spacetime continuum which physicists use to model the behaviour of matter and energy because I claim that a pseudo-Riemannian hypersphere is not a physical entity but merely a mathematical co-ordinate system. The physicality of this mathematical object has never been satisfactorily demonstrated and it leads to different models of reality at the subatomic and cosmological scales which are mutually contradictory. Therefore these models are defining a universe which makes no sense and to a simple country lad this means they're bullshit.

[Skip]

In the middle.

If the Big Bang is in fact the beginning of this the local universe of which Man is part then it is likely that it is at the center of
this universe. But as stated a 'pre-existent state' must have been present - And that pre-existent state, possibly a multi-verse,
has no detectable point of either place, time or dimension

On what basis?

- The center of the multi-verse remains unknown and may not exist.

There, see? You don't know.

The geometry, physics and math you use to calculate your local universe is not yet capable of calculating dimensions outside of its local location. When Man is capable of calculating the larger existent state than his own local universe -

You don`t need to calculate anything. The type or shape or multiplicity or any potential future states of a non-existent universe are irrelevant. When there is nothing and something starts, the nowhere it starts becomes the only where in existence, and thus the middle of all the wheres that will ever be.

Then Man will be ready to travel through the cosmos - the limitations of the speed of light will be overcome.

What man? He's irrelevant, too.

[surreptitious57]

Assuming you believe in the Big Bang as the starting point of the Universe

I do not do belief so do not believe the Big Bang was the starting point of the Universe. But it is at this point in
time as far back as physics can go but that does not mean it was the absolute beginning. Even if it was it would
be far more accurate to describe it as the beginning of local cosmic expansion. Not the beginning of everything
per se. For absolute nothing which would have had to exist for an infinity before it cannot in fact actually exist
indefinitely because of quantum instability. And there is the First Law Of Thermodynamics too to contend with
although it applies more to what happens within the Universe than without it. But where the energy came from
would still have to be properly addressed if it did not have a temporally infinite [ though physically finite ] past