Quote:
Originally Posted by The Universal Call  Actually, whilst I have a great desire to try and understand and deduce what was before the Big Bang I'd like to argue that we'll never be able to do more than speculate what was before... Sad as it is  |
I'm confident that if there is a way, we'll find it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Universal Call How can a universe "expand", I mean, in relation to WHAT is it expanding?? People claim "nothingness", that which is between atoms as well, a "nothing". Well, if a "nothing" exist, and it arguably isn't the opposite of space, then shouldn't nothingness be able to be infinite, otherwise, what is beyond? And then we have the expanding universe in relation to the "other nothingness" outside? I guess that would make sense, otherwise we have the infamous "wall" that is the "stop" of the universe, and quite frankly that makes even less sense.
If there is one thing that I believe that a human can't do, then it surely must be to imagine infinity, please try it yourself, it IS impossible - because our minds are limited to our world; we will never be able to think infinity because we have NEVER observed it. From what I've been able to collect from other people, the thought of "infinity" is impossible, and maybe they are right. I wouldn't know, since I've never been able to grasp the concept and apply it... |
I think the main problem we have in grasping the concept of an infinite, expanding universe, is that everything we observe is finite. The only infinite concepts are abstract ones, and since the universe is apparently a concrete entity, we expect to be able to think about it in the same way we think of everything else we observe, concrete.
We imagine that when astronomers look as far into the universe as possible, they see all that there is to see, at least as long as their telescopes are good enough. But many observations combine to show that space itself is stretching, as opposed to the universe expanding, and as it does the light that comes to us from far away also stretches. From our point of view it seems as if that light comes from something that's moving away from us, even though it's not moving relative to the space it occupies (and neither are we). But the further away something is, the more stretched the light becomes, and the faster the distant object appears to be moving away. But there is a limit which is reached when the object appears to be moving away at the speed of light. We can't see anything beyond that limit. It could be that there is a 'wall' of some kind just beyond that limit. Or it could be that the universe extends infinitely. (and the only way I can get close to comprehending infinity is by thinking of an unending train of thought. The galaxies go on and on, and beyond them are more, and more, and this keeps going. If it were possible for me to never stop thinking, then I would have had a thought which accurately reflected reality. (note that i don't actually believe that. not enough information))
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Universal Call To finish, mind if we get a little philosophical? Have you ever played with the idea that the universe HAD to exist? Hm, have you? I mean, if you're denying that then you shouldn't exist, should you? Obviously it DID happen, so what if it just had to? No cause, no begininng - no "then it was there", but rather "there it is". The Big Bang wasn't in relation to anything, no "before" and no "cause", not even randomness! Imagine that there are two alternatives, let us make this real simple for us:
1. The universe exists
2. The universe doesn't exist
No inbetween, no cause in either, no randomness in either, one of them just HAD to be - there are NO more alternatives. And I am 100% confident on this. Don't you agree? "The universe exists" isn't in relation to anything resembling time, no cause, remember - it just IS. |
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The universe exists, so it had to exist? Rather circular argument isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Universal Call Or, the universe doesn't exist. Let me quote this webpage:
Please read the rest of the webpage for at least an interesting thought on the subject. A non-existence, by its very definition; cannot exist! "Nothing prior to existence" just cannot be. Dare I draw another one of my scary conclusions? The universe HAD to exist. That's it, search is over, if it had to exist there doesn't have to be a cause, it just is there. This cannot be explained by science, sadly, but logically, doesn't it make sense? |
Ironically that page's word play makes use of flaw which it points out in the issue with the standard definition of nothing. It says that any attempt to apply a label to true nothingness means that we have applied the label to something, and something cannot be nothing. But that logic is only possible if you don't consider the purpose of abstract concepts. Our use of language allows us to apply any word to any thing (or lack of thing) without affecting the thing itself. In other words (heh), words
do not affect reality. I can call this keyboard a spanner, and if any time I want to refer to this thing I type on, I use the word 'spanner', that doesn't change the thing I'm typing on. I won't be able to suddenly start using it to undo bolts on my car.
In short, a definition is irrelevant to something's existence or non-existence, so it doesn't follow from an unclear definition, or an inability to come up with a satisfactory definition, that there is no alternative to existence.