GENIUS FORUMS

Ramayana wrote:ow you are getting infinite galaxies into a finite volume

which verson of the infinte mass finite space argument dont you understand?

The infinite mass goes like this:

1. Expansion causes speed.

2. Speed causes contraction.

3. Contraction allows you to fit more stuff in a given space.

At the d. horizon the speed is so great that the objects there contract to 0 volume .
Relative to them we occupy no volume.

This makes it possible to fit an infinite amount of these galaxies.

That was my initial position but i see now that i was wrong.
Contraction only occurs in the direction of motion so they still have width .
I'm not sure whether fitting an infinite number of galaxies in the next 5 meters in the direction of motion would work.

I might need to devote some quiet time to this.:)

My second "infinite mass ,finite space" one should be true though.

eugenius wrote:as long as there has been blackness, there has been time, wich is why i beleive time is infinite

Blackness has properties so it exists.
Having no universe is not the same as everything just being black.
That is still space and has other properties such as tension( you can stretch it).

True nothingness would refer to a situation of no space whatsoever and no time.
Very hard to imagine.

eugenius wrote: i say who knows if there is a billion other universes another trillion light years outside of where our best lenses can see.

If the universe means everything that exists then whatever we see with new lenses is part of our universe by definition.

What has come about, though as colloquialism has entered science
That the word universe refers to a continuum be it space - time or other .
Our continuum being made of space - time.
Even with this definition what you see in those lenses will be a part of our universe since it is in our continuum.

The question is now whether other continuum's exist apart from ours.

If other continuum's exist ,then they cannot exist *now* because that word refers to a relationship on *our* time part of our continuum.
Similarly they never existed any time in the past and will never exist anytime in the future .
They could still exist however because :

Say you had an X-Y continuum apart from ours .
Then they could exist "x in X" and "y in Y" just as we exist "here in SPACE" and "now in TIME"

Incidentally thats how i think existence functions.
Anything that exists is defined in terms of its relationship with its continuum.
In our continuum to say something exists is to define it in terms of space (here or over there) and time (then or now).

To put it strictly ; there must be a translation of points on each dimension in its continuum.
This means it must have height , length and breadth as well as duration.
Without one of these it does not exist.

For how the continuum itself exists, it would have to be recursive over itself.

How other things such as thoughts or "songs" exist gets somewhat tricky though i admit that this theory is in its infancy so maybe you guys could help out.

I think the way out is to be rigid and define different classes of existence and finding what they require to exist in their own class.

Cycling back, it seems I'm here again.

Existence requires an observer to designate it as existing. I mean, otherwise it is just a nebulous concept in the mind of someone existing elsewhere. If it has no experience of itself, then how can it be said to exist in any meaningful way? All kinds of things could "exist" in observerless realities, there would be no need for coherence of things, I mean that's really an issue for having an observer. But then if no things are cohering or appearing to any observer then its not really existing as such. In either case I think the anthropic principle is applicable to cosmology. If nothing else the suggestion that we should be interested in explaining our reality and not multiple other ideas of realities. So it may be useful to look at what the observers are like in this reality to get an idea of what the reality is like. Or at the very least, know the observer in order to be an efficient observer. For one thing we can never fully disconnect ourselves from our experimental perception of reality. When we do experiments we are doing them from a shared vantage point which reflects a certain outcome. We can't do any experiments from anywhere else in the universe. So we really only know what the universe is like looking at it from here as us. We might take for granted that we can spiral out of our location anyway, but we also encounter stuff like light bending around bodies and creating an illusion undetectable by our more primitive measuring devices. We only find out later that this is occurring. So we can't take much for granted in terms of absolute theories of experimental evidence, especially concerning ultimate reality. Twice as fruitful I think to concern ourselves with how we perceive reality. The key to unlocking the secret to this reality can only lie within the observer. Sure the observer might appear inconsequential in a naive realist way and may in fact only be a part of a vast system. But surely being the conscious observer of the reality is something factually important. This has to have a basis in the reality as well. As many have said Time is an idea, and in the universe it is relative to the observer. What if there is no observer then? There is no time. Therefor the universe is not billions of years old, its only 50,000 years old give or take. Space-time is created and stretched out relative to our perception of it. You see, its all in the process of awareness. Maybe there are other extra-terrestrial life forms. This doesn't exclude them either, it just makes the point that an observerless universe is of no interest and its important to think of the observer in all these questions. We cannot see past a certain horizon, that doesn't mean the universe only extends so far. We see a big bang, but maybe there was no big bang. Maybe the big bang is just the logical conclusion of the perception of conscious being existing within the reality. That is, there was no time prior to the perception of time, nor was their any space prior to perception of space, and these were all created simultaneously. The process of creation of conscious beings means it is necessary that they perceive something and this leads to a highly structured reality based on deterministic laws. Such beings would be constantly searching for underlying causes, first causes for their origins and would have to have something to find. Ultimately, the end result is nothing more than the current ideas wrapped differently. It instead of materialist descriptions describes things according to coherence and universal-self-awareness. That is that the big bang had to happen in order for us to exist and we had to exist in order for the big bang to have happen.

I'm not a cosmologist, just throwing ideas out there.

xerosaburu wrote:Cycling back, it seems I'm here again.

"Behold," I continued, "this moment! From this gateway, Moment, along, eternal lane leads backward: behind us lies an eternity. Must not whatever can walk have walked on this lane before? Must not whatever can happen have happened, have been done, have passed by before? And if everything has been there before – what do you think, dwarf, of this moment? Must not this gateway too have been there before? And are not all things knotted together so firmly that this moment draws after it all that is to come? Therefore – itself too? For whatever can walk – in this long lane out there too, it must walk once more.

Ramayana wrote: Time, try looking at it like this. Time is only relevant when there is something to measure... Time without change is meaningless...

I suppose you could look at it as an eternal song. As the song is played, there are pauses in it, or points where the music stops. The song does not stop, only the music.

I prefer that the Universe is bound in an infinite membrane. The pressure of all matter expands it like a balloon. The pressure becomes increased, and breaks, and a new universe fills the hole. This works better with Galaxies really. Each Galaxy has broken the membrane, and started a new Galaxy, and each Galaxy is a micro-Universe. I feel that Galaxies do not need a Universe to exist, they are self organised, so a single Galaxy is the same as 1 billion Galaxies.

Existence is meaningless without boundary conditions. Boundary conditions are bound up with existence. Anything lacking boundary conditions cannot properly be said to exist.

Pincho Paxton wrote:I prefer that the Universe is bound in an infinite membrane. The pressure of all matter expands it like a balloon. The pressure becomes increased, and breaks, and a new universe fills the hole. This works better with Galaxies really. Each Galaxy has broken the membrane, and started a new Galaxy, and each Galaxy is a micro-Universe. I feel that Galaxies do not need a Universe to exist, they are self organised, so a single Galaxy is the same as 1 billion Galaxies.

Hmm, well, galaxies would need a space to occupy, the question is more, what does space occupy. Space exists in the sense that we are able to identify empty space. It seems as though you would induce that space occupies itself. Is that accurate?

I'm not making fun of your notion, I'm just trying to wrap my mind around it. I think it has merit, and I think I've heard it before.

bruhaha2 wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:I prefer that the Universe is bound in an infinite membrane. The pressure of all matter expands it like a balloon. The pressure becomes increased, and breaks, and a new universe fills the hole. This works better with Galaxies really. Each Galaxy has broken the membrane, and started a new Galaxy, and each Galaxy is a micro-Universe. I feel that Galaxies do not need a Universe to exist, they are self organised, so a single Galaxy is the same as 1 billion Galaxies.

Hmm, well, galaxies would need a space to occupy, the question is more, what does space occupy. Space exists in the sense that we are able to identify empty space. It seems as though you would induce that space occupies itself. Is that accurate?

I'm not making fun of your notion, I'm just trying to wrap my mind around it. I think it has merit, and I think I've heard it before.

I have a model where you have inner space, which would be the Aether, and that would be the Galaxy, and the outer membrane, which doesn't really matter what it is, because we will never use it for anything. But the outer membrane is probably made from huge cells. Here is a diagram of how a galaxy would be formed in this material....