Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:50 am
Age wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:43 am
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 5:52 amI challenge YOU to explain what evidence I or anyone would NEED to prove to you that any 'origin' can or cannot exist in the Universe?
Challenge accepted. Absolutely ANY evidence would suffice.
Then how about, "because I said so."
BUT that is, obviously, NOT evidence.
'Evidence' usually indicates whether some thing is true or valid.
The saying "because I said so" does NOT indicate whether some thing is true or valid, obviously.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:50 amAge wrote:
But the Truth is I do NOT want nor need proof either way.
So you do not want nor need any "evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement?"
What was 'IT' that I asked for again?
If you have forgotten, 'it' was; IF any person thinks/believes that the Universe has a beginning, then just explain HOW there could even be a beginning, to the Universe, Itself.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:50 amAge wrote:
What I just want is; IF any person thinks/believes that the Universe has a beginning, then just explain HOW there could even be a beginning, to the Universe, Itself.
Root of the term, "definition" is "de-finite-ion" (of finite concept). As such, if you speak of a "universe", you are BOUND to
defining it as "one-spoken" reality;
Okay, so far so good.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:50 amIf it is finitely referencing an actual infinite idea, then it is BOUND in the similar way one might define the infinite count of real numbers that exist as 'bound' between any two other real numbers.
NOT at all necessarily so.
What do you mean by 'actual infinite "idea" '?
I have been speaking about thee Universe, Itself, and NOT about an idea (of any thing).
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:50 amSo "how" does the Universe 'begin' also means "how is the Universe bound?"
If that is how it means to you, then so be it.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:50 am regardless of whether it is finite or infinite.
BUT HOW can an infinite Universe be 'bound' at all?
What do you propose would and/or could 'bound' an infinite Universe?
The very "idea" of a 'bounded' infinite Universe appears to be very contradictory in nature, to me anyway. Can you explain this apparent contradiction here?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:50 am You are implying it infinite and would require existing eternally to 'know' this factually.
I do NOT recall implying any such thing. I did, however, express a VIEW I have.
If you SEE my VIEW as implying that the Universe is infinite and eternal, then that is another thing.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:50 am The 'appearance' of it being 'finite' is not the same as asserting it IS finite.
But to who does the Universe appear finite?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:50 am And while I already agree this gets 'Freudian slipped' into expressed meaning by many in science, it doesn't mean it is NOT possible.
Okay, then that is great.
As long as when human beings, under whatever name they choose to use, "scientist" or not, understand that when they are using terms like "In the beginning of the Universe", "The Universe started out ...", "The early Universe", or any other phrase, which implies an origin of the Universe, that they have, as you say, "freudian slipped", then that is okay and great.
As long as human beings are OPEN to the fact that the Universe may be infinite or finite, eternal or begun, and admit when they "slip up" when make these type of ASSUMPTIONS, and/or express their BELIEFS, then all is good.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:50 amThe problem is more about how we are limited to using words like "create" for things nature does as though it were an artist free to paint reality according to some whim.
I do NOT see any problem here whatsoever.
After all explaining just how One thing 'creates' ALL things, naturally, is very simple and easy to explain.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:50 am The fact that we don't 'know' is something that everyone here already agrees to though.
But NOT every one here already does agree.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:50 am So whatever complaint you have is moot.
Are you suggesting here that after this far into this thread you still do NOT know what complaint I actually have?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:50 amAs to the sincere question 'how' do or could we have any 'origin' finite or infinite is just a good question of which no one here is asserting absolute wisdom on.
Well it would be IMPOSSIBLE to have an 'origin' to that which is infinite. This goes without saying because the word 'infinite', by definition, means without beginning nor end.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:50 amIf you are confused at how science has inferred the 14 Billion years to a 'singularity' (ignoring differences of opinion to whether this literally implies an actual beginning) you want the historical step by step processes that lead scientists to this conclusion.
But I am NOT confused about this at all.
I have already stated: That A 'bang', of some size, said to have occurred some 14 or so billion years ago, from when this is written, was NEVER in dispute, by me. A 'singularity' was NEVER in dispute also, by me.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:50 amThen you might be better off asking HOW did the official reasoning within science as an institute come to interpret reality of our Universe as having an apparent origin from the evidence?
Okay, since you brought the 'origin' word back into play here, when referencing the Universe, then I will ask that exact question:
HOW did the official reasoning within science as an institute come to interpret reality of our Universe as having an apparent origin from the evidence?
As long as human beings KEEP bringing words that imply there was an origin/beginning/start to the Universe, then I will keep questioning them.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:50 amIf this is what you prefer to ask instead, we might have a constructive discussion we can TRY to figure out together.
Okay. If this is all it takes to have a 'constructive discussion, then let us begin. I have asked the question, so please explain HOW did any person come to interpret, so called, "reality" of 'THE' Universe. (The correct usage is 'the' Universe, and NOT 'our' Universe, that is; UNTIL you KNOW who/what We actually ARE) as having an apparent origin from the, so called, "evidence"?
1. WHAT 'evidence'? And, WHAT does this 'evidence' SHOW exactly?
2. If 'it' IS evidence SHOWING some thing, then this could NOT be disputed, correct?
Also, how about the "reality" word is taken out of the sentences being used here? As that word can so easily influence a perspective on things, which is NOT really a true perspective. And, how about removing the words "official reasoning" and "within science" as these two terms could so to easily imply that ALL people within the scientific community accept and agree with some "reasoning", which is being portrayed as being "officially" accepted and agreed with by all.
Furthermore, if we are going to use the "apparent" word in relation to an 'origin' for the Universe, then would I be wrong to say that OF COURSE because human beings, themselves, can NOT observe, nor see, past a bang, from which they came from, then that COULD BE interpreted as being an "apparent" origin to the Universe, Itself? Combine that with the fact that some human beings say that ALL of the Universe was at 'singularity', which is an infinite compression of matter, when the big bang occurred, which was the start of it all, and that this type of so called "evidence" helped human beings INTERPRET what they do now, when this is written, in relation to the Universe expanding AND the Universe also having a beginning?
Now, if this is sort of what you were thinking about, when suggesting figuring out together through and with constructive discussion, HOW some people came to interpret an 'origin' for the Universe, then great. If you would like to add any more to this, which you think or see that I have missed, then please add it.
But WHY would human beings just STOP there,when LOOKING? Especially considering what is observed and SEEN when LOOKING further afield.
I can LOOK AT the exact same 'set of facts', but SEE a whole completely different picture. WHY do you think this is so?
Also, as "uwot" so rightly points out, what is interpreted from facts is just a story, of what is seen, and thus viewed. Now, because human beings individually come from relatively different perspectives, different views are formed, and thus what is SEEN/UNDERSTOOD can be completely different. So, the exact same (set of) facts different things can be interpreted BUT saying that (a set of) facts IS EVIDENCE for what is, after all, just an interpretation of the facts IS a misuse of words.
Facts, themselves, can NOT be, logically, disputed. (But some human beings can, and will, TRY TO dispute facts. BUT, if they are facts, then they really can NOT be refuted.)
Now, interpretations can be made up about facts, which become "stories", but just because the "evidence" word is brought into discussions about, and involving, interpretations/stories, then that does NOT mean that the facts ARE evidence for the interpretation/story.
For example, using telescopes and NOT being able to visually see past the big bang, and assuming that because that bang created an expansion, just like absolutely EVERY thing that goes off with a bang does, then that all interprets to an expanding finite Universe is one thing.
The facts may well be:
There was a start.
There was a big bang.
There is an expansion.
But these facts do NOT extrapolate to: A finite expanding Universe at all. AND, those facts are also certainly NOT evidence for a finite expanding Universe at all. "A finite expanding Universe" is just a story, made up from those facts.
If, however, we add those facts to other facts, then a bigger truer picture can be, and is, formed.
If EVERY action causes a reaction is a fact, which is supported by the cause-effect principle, then there may well be a start to some things, but that fact by itself supports, with evidence, that there is in fact NOT a start to Everything, or the Universe, Its Self. There could in fact be a start to EVERY thing but NOT to Everything as One, Itself. ALL-THERE-IS is Everything as One, which is some times referred to as the Universe, Itself.
Within this One Universe, bangs happen, just in different sizes. Some are bigger than others are. Now, to any species that is created from the bang of any thing, then that species could NOT past nor before the actual occurrence of that explosive or expansive bang. But just because they literally could NOT visually see past that bang, this does NOT mean that there was NOT nothing BEFORE that bang. It just means they can NOT visually see BEFORE that bang. They can, however, SEE/UNDERSTAND what was BEFORE that bang. The facts are there are bangs occurring frequently within the Universe or ALL-THERE-IS. What is BEFORE and AFTER ALL bangs is still in and a part of ALL-THERE-IS.
Because EVERY bang of physical matter explodes or expands out, then whatever intelligent enough species that was created and evolves from that bang would, literally, be looking at an expansion when they can look back far enough to see the bang, from which they came from. But just because the matter from an explosion/expansion is expanding away from that center point of the bang, this does NOT mean that ALL-THERE-IS is expanding also. Just because the matter in an observable local area or region could be expanding away from the center point this could just be happening in a relatively local area or region of ALL-THERE-IS or just within the Universe, Itself.
The very fact that at the end of a black hole, which "sucks" in all the matter close enough to it, and turns that matter into singularity, which is just an infinite compression of matter, which could then explode/expand with a bang, of some size, which in turn closes off the entrance, or event horizon, and so another expansion is occurring, still in an area or region of the Universe, Itself. Now, it may take 14 billion years or so, or maybe just a few thousand years or so, before an intelligent enough species to evolve, which thinks about where it came from, and who/what created all of this, and which can create tools to see far enough back to a bang, which to them would be a relatively big one, and one they might call a BIG bang, (from lack of creative thinking).
To that species the size of, for lack of a better term, "their" observable Universe might be way smaller than the ones human being can observe now, when this is written, but as long as they have NO way of seeing the outer limits of "their" Universe, they may infer/assume that because "that" Universe is expanding then it must also have a beginning and thus a limit also, which further leads to the conclusion that It is limited in size as well as in "time". Even though 'that' bang would be relatively tiny to human beings and the bang they observe, BOTH could be so minuscule small relative to an infinite sized Universe, that what the human beings are observing it ALL could be within the confines of a child's soccer ball some other species, which has been laying around in that child's backyard for billions of years without the human species ever seeing the edge/limit/wall of that ball.
Just because the size of A Universe can NOT be seen visually, the size can be SEEN and UNDERSTOOD relatively and mentally.
The facts are:
There is a start to EVERY thing, but there may be NO start at all to Everything/thee Universe/ALL-THERE-IS.
There was a, relatively, big bang, but there are many bangs occurring.
There is an expansion being seen, but only in a, relatively, local area or region of the Universe, Itself.
Further to this supposed expansion it was written in that book, which this post is about, if I recall correctly, that the red shift occurs in a vast majority of further out galaxies and to some closer galaxies, while a blue shift occurs to the others, so this would infer that parts of the observable to human beings Universe are moving away from earth while other parts are moving towards earth, which this would suggest to some that actually the Universe is NOT expanding at all, but rather just moving or changing. And, if this is always happening, then that would suggest that the Universe is just in constant-change, which would imply that the Universe is ALWAYS changing in shape and form. (This, some might say, means that the Universe is ALWAYS-NEVER changing. In that the Universe is ALWAYS changing in shape and form, but NEVER actually changing from this constantly-changing form. The Universe, some might agree with, IS NEVER-CHANGING from Its ALWAYS-CHANGING form. Some like "dontaskme" might understand this, but some "others" might be totally perplexed by this).