-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Expanding universe?
- Thread starter valerytozer
- Start date
valerytozer
New Member
CplFerro don't for get to ask ( in what directions ) too.
australopithecus
Active Member
Simple answer: You wouldn't.
I'll let one of the more physics knowledgeable guys.....expand....on that.
loooool
I'll let one of the more physics knowledgeable guys.....expand....on that.
loooool
Master_Ghost_Knight
New Member
CplFerro said:
If you started traveling now at the fastest speed possible (speed of light), by the time you have traveled the current expansion of space the universe itself would have ghrown to the point where you would still have more to travel then what you did when you started your journey.
If by suspension of some laws of physics and the universe stoped expanding, you wouldn't run out of space to travel, you would most probably (and notice the word probably, if anyone claims I made this as a statment of fact I will deny it) come out the other end. Similaly to as if you started to run across the surface of the earth, there wouldn't be a point where you would have reached an edge and the earth stoped existing beyond that, you would have just continuosly loop again and again trough the same surface.
Thomas Doubting
New Member
I am not that knowledgable.. but i remember somebody said it is most likely something like in "Asteroids" where you go out on one side of the screen and come back into the other.. because of the curvage of spacetime or something like that.
I saw that on "Through The Wormhole" few months ago.
Basically (to my knowledge) you can only travel as far as the universe expanded at the time when you get there.
Lemme see if somebody extracted that on youtube (...)
Now that's the short answer that i could understand myself, maybe somebody can confuse me with a detailed one?
I saw that on "Through The Wormhole" few months ago.
Basically (to my knowledge) you can only travel as far as the universe expanded at the time when you get there.
Lemme see if somebody extracted that on youtube (...)
Now that's the short answer that i could understand myself, maybe somebody can confuse me with a detailed one?
valerytozer
New Member
I JUST KNOW i am going to git crap for this one but i have got to say it.. "e=mc2 question" on my channel, I dont know if the link i put here, works
Just saying IF "tackeon" Speed were possible what then ? would you still be looping in space? or would you enter into another "Multiverse"?
ps i made that video a few days ago, so if someone could let me know what they think that would be kool,
Just saying IF "tackeon" Speed were possible what then ? would you still be looping in space? or would you enter into another "Multiverse"?
ps i made that video a few days ago, so if someone could let me know what they think that would be kool,
Gunboat Diplomat
New Member
You would never run out of space to travel in...CplFerro said:
The reality is that the current universe is expanding enough for it to be impossible for you to traverse it, even if you could travel at the speed of light, so, in that sense, you would never "run out of galaxies and hit blank space." However, you would also never reach new galaxies and just see the same ones you could always see... until they fell out of reach when the universe expands them away so, in that sense, you will be stuck in blank space (if you didn't deliberately hang around a galaxy). However, it wasn't that you ran past all the stuff in space, it was that you sat around and let everything expand away from you...
However, even if the universe could stop expanding, you still couldn't run past all the stuff in the universe. Because we insist that space, whatever else it might be like, is continuous, it must either be infinite in spatial extent (open or flat) or it must be finite and loop onto itself (closed). Therefore, you would never run past all the stuff in it and "hit blank space..."
Does all this make any sense to you?
Master_Ghost_Knight
New Member
CplFerro said:
If you find it that it doesn't make to much sense then probably you are on the right path, that is the real world for you, your intuition is of much value to science as being able to play the violine, i.e. none at all.
australopithecus
Active Member
CplFerro said:
I wouldn't. Logic is merely what makes sense to our, frankly, limited mind. The universe doesn't need to make sense to us, it works regardless.
australopithecus said:
Dear australopithecus,
Aren't you contradicting yourself in saying that? You're denying that A=A has any validity. So the universe could exist and not exist simultaneously, or it could work and not work simultaneously. And, your statement about what Logic is could be true and false simultaneously.
We may have limited bases for our logic, but to presume that logic itself is invalid is in what way different from insanity?
Cpl Ferro
Master_Ghost_Knight
New Member
CplFerro said:
Well yes and no, it depends on what you mean, I will expand on that tomorow because today I don't have time, and there is allot to say about this alone.
valerytozer
New Member
Did anyone watch my video E=mc2 question" on my channel ? I posted it earlier.
1? Was Einstein taken out of context? "quote minded"
2? IF that speed was possible, Could you Leave this universe and enter another? (multiverse)
1? Was Einstein taken out of context? "quote minded"
2? IF that speed was possible, Could you Leave this universe and enter another? (multiverse)
Thomas Doubting
New Member
valerytozer said:
it's called quote mining.. and based on the current mainstream understanding of spacetime we can not leave this universe no matter how fast we travel.. to understand why, the short vid i posted could do the job if what the others wrote didn't.
Gunboat Diplomat
New Member
Even though this question was posed to Master_Ghost_Knight, I will answer it, in his place, right now...CplFerro said:
The way you've phrased this question implies that our current understanding of the universe defies logic. I assure you that it doesn't. If you think it does, it's surely because you are misapplying the term "logic." In what manner do you think our current understanding of the universe is illogical?
Master_Ghost_Knight
New Member
Still, wouldn't you agree the universe has to conform to the laws of logic, regardless of how weird it may appear to us?
For a short answer, the "Gunboat Diplomat" is on the money.
For a longer answer:
Still, wouldn't you agree the universe has to conform to the laws of logic, regardless of how weird it may appear to us?
Well if you are running with a softer notion of logic to mean something like sensible or intellectually pleasing then the answer is No, the universe is neither sensible nor intellectually pleasing. Through a harder notion of logic, there is nothing wrong about a universe that is neither sensible nor intellectually pleasing, there is nothing in the universe that is not consistent with itself (it couldn't do such a thing) and in that sense the universe conforms to the laws of logic. But perhaps one thing that is not immediately obvious to anyone (even though it should) is that the reason why the Universe conforms with the laws of logic is not because there is an intrinsic property that prevents the universe from being illogical, but because you cannot apply logic directly to the universe altogether, and we can use a bit of philosophy to explain why.
I think it was on the early 17th century there were a couple of schools of philosophy worried about the foundations of philosophy and how could it be used to determine truths about the world. One famous philosopher René Descartes approached this problem by simply throwing every assumption out the window and asking himself whit this what can I be sure about the real world? Thus professing that famous statement "I think therefore I am", because at least he needed to exist to be able to think that argument. Even though I could contest that the "I think" part is still an assumption that we couldn't afford to make, granting that there was 1 thing that you could say for certain about the world. As it happens that 1 thing is also the only thing, there is nothing else you can say about the nature of reality using logic alone.
You could contest "How about mathematical truths? Aren't they considered absolutely true as well?" Well yes! One problem tough, math is only conceptual, it is not a real thing, they are not real things, there is no such thing as perfect circles or infinite lines that stretch away to infinity and there is no such thing as a number 3 floating around in free space. You can have ideas of things and associate to it some sort of mathematical representation, but the ideas of things are not the things themselves.
This very simple proposition that "it is impossible to determine the nature of reality by logic alone" has enormous implications. Just to give you an example, if you want to debunk every single religious apologetic philosophical argument for the existence of God (or anything at all) ever made or that will ever be made, then just mention this problem because in essence they are claiming to have made the impossible (i.e. to prove the reality of something on philosophical grounds). Just imagine that, the entire life's work of William Lane Craig amounts to nothing more than an exercise in futility that could have just been avoided if he hadn't sleept in the philosophy class (that he claims to be versed on).
(on a side note: William Lane Craig is not the only one making this mistake, there are many philosophers with delusions of grandure that think their major in philosophy has a pratical value and has not been put to waste, the fact that they got a degree should have disqualified them from getting a degree because that means that they haven't really learned much about philosophy. I call it the major in philosophy paradox.)
Our relation with what we know about reality is best comparable to a game that is being played and you are only allowed to see little fraction of what is going on, and by watching that little fraction of the game being played you are expected to figure out how to play it (an know what are the rules of the game). You do not study directly the game,but after you have observed a fraction of the plays you can sort of make a guess on what is happening and paint a mental picture of game (i.e. form an idea, a model) and study that instead. Maybe after you have thought long enough and you have seen more of the game being played, you may reach the conclusion that the idea you had was wrong (then you discard it and make a new one). If you haven't yet reached to the conclusion that an idea is wrong that doesn't mean that later you can't realize that it was wrong, you can still have the wrong idea of things despite the fact that it appears logically consistent (but at least logically consistent is a better candidate to be the right idea than one that it is logically inconsistent).
If you don't look at the game, you can't have an idea of what is being played or the rules involved, maybe it is chess, maybe it is checkers and it might as well be completely different game altogether like poker or baseball. Sometimes we might be convinced that the game is a dice roll and then we later find out that there are playing cards involved, or that sometimes there is a color matching mini-game involved as well.
Summarizing, you don't apply logic to the world, you make a model of the world and apply logic to it, in the end your model might not correspond to what the world exactly is. In general models that respect certain laws of logic like consistency are deemed as good and we tend to discard those who do not respect them, but ultimately hard logic does not define reality there isn't really any fundamental law of logic being broken when you make a false statement about reality (what it can happen however is that it can conflict with something else that we do indeed see about reality).
For a short answer, the "Gunboat Diplomat" is on the money.
For a longer answer:
Still, wouldn't you agree the universe has to conform to the laws of logic, regardless of how weird it may appear to us?
Well if you are running with a softer notion of logic to mean something like sensible or intellectually pleasing then the answer is No, the universe is neither sensible nor intellectually pleasing. Through a harder notion of logic, there is nothing wrong about a universe that is neither sensible nor intellectually pleasing, there is nothing in the universe that is not consistent with itself (it couldn't do such a thing) and in that sense the universe conforms to the laws of logic. But perhaps one thing that is not immediately obvious to anyone (even though it should) is that the reason why the Universe conforms with the laws of logic is not because there is an intrinsic property that prevents the universe from being illogical, but because you cannot apply logic directly to the universe altogether, and we can use a bit of philosophy to explain why.
I think it was on the early 17th century there were a couple of schools of philosophy worried about the foundations of philosophy and how could it be used to determine truths about the world. One famous philosopher René Descartes approached this problem by simply throwing every assumption out the window and asking himself whit this what can I be sure about the real world? Thus professing that famous statement "I think therefore I am", because at least he needed to exist to be able to think that argument. Even though I could contest that the "I think" part is still an assumption that we couldn't afford to make, granting that there was 1 thing that you could say for certain about the world. As it happens that 1 thing is also the only thing, there is nothing else you can say about the nature of reality using logic alone.
You could contest "How about mathematical truths? Aren't they considered absolutely true as well?" Well yes! One problem tough, math is only conceptual, it is not a real thing, they are not real things, there is no such thing as perfect circles or infinite lines that stretch away to infinity and there is no such thing as a number 3 floating around in free space. You can have ideas of things and associate to it some sort of mathematical representation, but the ideas of things are not the things themselves.
This very simple proposition that "it is impossible to determine the nature of reality by logic alone" has enormous implications. Just to give you an example, if you want to debunk every single religious apologetic philosophical argument for the existence of God (or anything at all) ever made or that will ever be made, then just mention this problem because in essence they are claiming to have made the impossible (i.e. to prove the reality of something on philosophical grounds). Just imagine that, the entire life's work of William Lane Craig amounts to nothing more than an exercise in futility that could have just been avoided if he hadn't sleept in the philosophy class (that he claims to be versed on).
(on a side note: William Lane Craig is not the only one making this mistake, there are many philosophers with delusions of grandure that think their major in philosophy has a pratical value and has not been put to waste, the fact that they got a degree should have disqualified them from getting a degree because that means that they haven't really learned much about philosophy. I call it the major in philosophy paradox.)
Our relation with what we know about reality is best comparable to a game that is being played and you are only allowed to see little fraction of what is going on, and by watching that little fraction of the game being played you are expected to figure out how to play it (an know what are the rules of the game). You do not study directly the game,but after you have observed a fraction of the plays you can sort of make a guess on what is happening and paint a mental picture of game (i.e. form an idea, a model) and study that instead. Maybe after you have thought long enough and you have seen more of the game being played, you may reach the conclusion that the idea you had was wrong (then you discard it and make a new one). If you haven't yet reached to the conclusion that an idea is wrong that doesn't mean that later you can't realize that it was wrong, you can still have the wrong idea of things despite the fact that it appears logically consistent (but at least logically consistent is a better candidate to be the right idea than one that it is logically inconsistent).
If you don't look at the game, you can't have an idea of what is being played or the rules involved, maybe it is chess, maybe it is checkers and it might as well be completely different game altogether like poker or baseball. Sometimes we might be convinced that the game is a dice roll and then we later find out that there are playing cards involved, or that sometimes there is a color matching mini-game involved as well.
Summarizing, you don't apply logic to the world, you make a model of the world and apply logic to it, in the end your model might not correspond to what the world exactly is. In general models that respect certain laws of logic like consistency are deemed as good and we tend to discard those who do not respect them, but ultimately hard logic does not define reality there isn't really any fundamental law of logic being broken when you make a false statement about reality (what it can happen however is that it can conflict with something else that we do indeed see about reality).
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
CplFerro said:
Could you possibly expand on this? In what manner do you feel that the universe doesn't conform to the laws of logic?
I've read a fair amount of the literature in cosmology, both classical and quantum, and I haven't come across anything that defies logic. I've come across a good many things that defied intuition, but nothing that actually constitutes a violation of any of the laws of logic.
Gunboat Diplomat said:
Dear Gunboat Diplomat,
I don't believe I said I think our current understanding of the universe is illogical. I am attempting to acquire agreement that regardless of what the universe's ultimate nature is, that nature must be logical. It cannot be both X and not-X simultaneously, for prime example. Do you not agree?
Cpl Ferro
hackenslash said:
Dear hackenslash,
As I wrote to Gunboat Diplomat, above, I didn't say I did think it doesn't. I think it does. I am trying to establish clearly here that it has to. The universe may be mysterious beyond our ability to view en toto, but the universe itself cannot violate logic. Do you have a clearer way of expressing this necessity?
Cpl Ferro