Universe is expanding into what?

[HepCat]

Hi guys. I'm getting into music making in Reason 6.5. Glad to have a subforum to chill and talk about anything but my music compositions. I need this.

A few decades ago, l heard that the universe is expanding. Today, there is some doubt being cast on the idea but all in all, the concept of

{Big Bang --> expanding universe}

holds near total sway. I have looked at the calculations for the age of the universe i.e. how long ago the Big Bang was, and they work out. I briefly brought this up in my Symbols of an Alien Sky thread (which, btw, is not dead, it's just that somebody was joking around, self-contradicting and raising cavills and l did not want to call them out for it - l may return to summarise the key points raised in the thread and hopefully we can take it from there).

There's a rival theory, that the universe has always been there, and is not overall expanding nor contracting. In fact it is infinite. This is the Steady State Theory.


Here are my questions then:
- Big Bang Theory: What is the universe expanding into? Nothingness? How can nothing be a thing? What does the border of something and nothing look like? Nothingness = absurd, and l'm being technical here, it is at the root of the absurd.

- Steady State Theory: So the universe = infinite? Therefore infinite possibilities? Therefore our lives have no context, we're just one of infinite possibilities? How did it begin? It never began? Right l see. So if the universe = infinite then does that mean there's a chance there will be a planet full of kittens, and it's shaped like a kitten's head, and they have acid for blood etc.? That's what happened in Prometheus right?

[mataya]

You were once nothing and now you're a thing(with all due respect). I guess the answer to your question is probably something you or anybody else alive right now can't even imagine. It could expand into something that we can't describe at the moment, or we might never understand.
I'm interested in what animates life. I think Sagan said, we are just the universe, trying to understand it self.(something like that)
There's energy and there's matter...same thing right? But what is this, that is happening right now? This moment feels like a pretty conscious moment and that's the weirdest shit to me. Am I the universe right now, speaking to him self?

Rival theory doesn't make sense to me if we believe that the observations from different scientist are true. Expansion is happening and you can test it by observing the "red shift" in distant objects in the universe. At least cosmologists, astronomers, astrophysicists are telling us this.

Mataya

[HepCat]

Although l'm going to more or less take a back seat in my threads from now, l'd like to reply to your excellent post:

You were once nothing and now you're a thing

I'm interested in what animates life.

That in itself is bewildering. How could my soul have ever come into existence? More to the point: How could my first thought ever have formed?
I believe this is a very similar question to "What caused the big bang?"

It could expand into something that we can't describe at the moment, or we might never understand.

Universe = every thing, so whatever is outside of it, is no thing, or am l mistaken?

I think Sagan said, we are just the universe, trying to understand it self.(something like that)

Yes that's from an ancient teaching.

There's energy and there's matter...same thing right?

Interchangeable, yeah. Matter can be destroyed and thus turned into energy. Energy can be [what's the word? Agglutinated? Coagulated?] and thus turned into Matter.

But what is this, that is happening right now? This moment feels like a pretty conscious moment and that's the weirdest shit to me. Am I the universe right now, speaking to him self?

That is probably near to the answer to all of my questions in the OP and this post. What started my first thought? What is in the present? What triggered the big bang? What is the First Cause?

The answer perhaps: a thought before thought, a simple will, pure existence.

Rival theory doesn't make sense to me if we believe that the observations from different scientist are true. Expansion is happening and you can test it by observing the "red shift" in distant objects in the universe. At least cosmologists, astronomers, astrophysicists are telling us this.

Yep. A minority of astro-scientists would also consider the Steady State Theory. It has some merits, and l'm guessing it's at least being kept on as a pilot light, l mean, scientists are open-minded. I mean, go 1cm, no bear, go 2cm, no bear, doesn't account for the bears on Mount Denali 10,000km away. I'm hinting at the ever-increasing size estimate of the universe - which may one day confound the Big Bang Theory despite how very legit the Big Bang Theory's calculations are. Also, we're observing very distant galaxies formed about 100 million years [EDIT: about 4 billion years, not 100 million] after the big bang ... and they're fully formed, with spiral, and even grand design spiral, architecture. Simply not enough time for them to be so well formed.

Anyway, l shall take a back seat from now, l think. I'll avidly read yours and other ppl's replies though.

[plaamook]

But what is this, that is happening right now? This moment feels like a pretty conscious moment and that's the weirdest shit to me. Am I the universe right now, speaking to him self?

I think humans experience time much like they experience light. A frequency band.

Consider this. If there is a moment in time, a unit, it can be divided. What's left can be divided. And so on. We may be able to acertain what happens in an imperceptible unit of time but it's not direct. We'd need some type of tech to extyend out senses similarlly to x-rays for example.

So at any given moment time receeds into an imperceptiblely small 'now' and we have no idea what's going on really. Not directly. We need all sorts of conceptual constructs to try to interpret what's there.

[plaamook]

Also the other end of expansion is what's called heat death. It's not nothing as such, it's just that all the energy in the universe (whatever that means) gets so spread out that there isn't much happening. It's spent basically. But it isn't nothing.

That's the theory anyway. As I understand it.

[plaamook]

As for where your first thought came from, that's tricky. I figure it's more of a case of when you realise you are thinking. But beforethat it's still a mystery. In a way you'd need to define what a thought is in the first place. Or even thinking. As a direct experience it's a creepy one indeed. I mean of you drop the definition of 'thought' and really look at what's going on there.

[Creativemind]

Are you talking about 'the big bounce'? how the universe is constantly expanding and shrinking. They seem to think (or some scientists do) that there have been many universes before as it has been expanding and shrinking for billions of years and once it shrinks small enough you get the inevitable big bang.

[siln]

As for where your first thought came from, that's tricky. I figure it's more of a case of when you realise you are thinking. But beforethat it's still a mystery. In a way you'd need to define what a thought is in the first place. Or even thinking. As a direct experience it's a creepy one indeed. I mean of you drop the definition of 'thought' and really look at what's going on there.

We think because we use words , we use words because our throat and mouth muscles are able to express them and our brain and memory can process and store them, i guess when you are young you are only "feeling" things until you learn your first words and understand this is a weird code for the human and you need to master this shits : babys first thought : oh shit i will need to learn all this weird coded stuff for these dumbs can understand me ;
that s why babys and animals have something like a 6th sense, because langage is cool but it s also something that cut us off pure reality

[EnochLight]

I hate to be pedantic (sorry not sorry), but there is no other alternative scientific theory. There are currently working hypothesis being developed, but so far - none have been accepted as a scientific theory.

Sorry folks - right now - the Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. That's not to say there aren't other possibilities - and believe me - I'm open to them! But we're not there, yet.

I briefly brought this up in my Symbols of an Alien Sky thread (which, btw, is not dead, it's just that somebody was joking around, self-contradicting and raising cavills and l did not want to call them out for it

I'll bite... if you're referring to me, I disagree that I was self-contradicting or raising cavils (though I certainly did joke). I'll say it again: Symbols of an Alien Sky is pseudoscience, produced by pseudoscientists with a clear agenda. You're welcome to disagree, though.

[normen]

The universe IS time and space, so theres no point asking about where (into what) or when (what was before?) outside of the universe. Thats a bit hard to wrap your mind around As for it being infinite, it is for all practical purposes. Even if we were at the "edge" of the universe it would still expand so fast around us that we couldn't reach that edge, it would still be the same size all around us even if we were at the "edge" - infinite

I find it interesting that theres several esoteric explanations for whats around us that kind of work the same way, like so: Imagine everything is a point. Theres obviously no space - its a point. There can be no time - no change in state can happen because it would be from that point to that point. The only thing that arguably could happen in that point is that its aware of itself. That awareness could initiate a kind of "copy" of that point, the point itself and its own reflection of itself - and that into infinity - a copy of a copy of a copy, all starting to slightly shift and change, eventually creating the universe.

Not saying that is my belief on what this existence is about but I find it kind of interesting to think about since these ideas have been around way before anyone could dream up a space-time continuum or black holes.

Edit: And about "thoughts" - we simply don't know what consciousness is or where it comes from. Memories and all that - sure thats the brain but consciousness - we do not know, as much as some scientists like to believe they do. But even the great minds of science all came back full circle and had to admit theres still some mystery about that. Some people argue consciousness must be a property of matter, some argue its what information feels like when its transferred. Truth remains - we don't know.

[HepCat]

I hate to be pedantic (sorry not sorry), but there is no other alternative scientific theory. There are currently working hypothesis being developed, but so far - none have been accepted as a scientific theory.

Sorry folks - right now - the Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. That's not to say there aren't other possibilities - and believe me - I'm open to them! But we're not there, yet.

I briefly brought this up in my Symbols of an Alien Sky thread (which, btw, is not dead, it's just that somebody was joking around, self-contradicting and raising cavills and l did not want to call them out for it

I'll bite... if you're referring to me, I disagree that I was self-contradicting or raising cavils (though I certainly did joke). I'll say it again: Symbols of an Alien Sky is pseudoscience, produced by pseudoscientists with a clear agenda. You're welcome to disagree, though.

EnochLight: I don't want to get involved in my own threads anymore as it feels like l'm monologuing but just to answer you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory
Note where they say "theory" and nope i meant someone else not you although tbh you were just reading off Rational Wiki which is a load of ad hominems, l mean you didn't actually formulate an argument tsk tsk, no offence but facts r facts, i presented clear argumnts for and against. Feel free to disagree.

Reading normen's reply now. But i dont want to queen on my own thread so i'll just watch.

[mataya]

Of course we can share our thoughts about it here as much as we wont, but I like what Mr. Tyson likes to do when a question like this turns up, just simply say "we don't know". And I think how every long this thread becomes, the end of it will be, we don't know. So I'm stopping here.

tx
M

[normen]

So at any given moment time receeds into an imperceptiblely small 'now' and we have no idea what's going on really. Not directly. We need all sorts of conceptual constructs to try to interpret what's there.

Interesting thought when you assume that time is quantized (i.e. small units and not a continuum) - it wouldn't matter in what order these quanta would be processed. In each of them you'd have the perception that the ones before happened so you'd still feel like they happened as a flow of time up until that quantum.

Another thought - if the universe was run on some kind of computer creating these "frames" or quanta then that computer could be as slow as an Atari ST and still process the whole universe - the time inside of that "simulation" would still feel as "fast" as is normal.

[Marco Raaphorst]

We cannot see and THINK what's beyond us because we're part of it. It reminded me of something David Foster Wallace wrote:
There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, “Morning, boys, how’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, “What the hell is water?”

So I don't know. Nobody knows. But the cool thing is, there is so much more to learn and experience. Stuff we simply don't know yet or haven't experienced yet.

[normen]

We cannot see and THINK what's beyond us because we're part of it. It reminded me of something David Foster Wallace wrote:
There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, “Morning, boys, how’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, “What the hell is water?”

So I don't know. Nobody knows. But the cool thing is, there is so much more to learn and experience. Stuff we simply don't know yet or haven't experienced yet.

Yeah, this is a central thing about all of this. We're basically like a NPC in a computer game, even if we understand the world that doesn't mean we understand the world that the computer is in. And from what Gödel showed us theres no way we can understand it. As soon as we start an effort at understanding at all the explanation we create includes its own resolution - and that is not universal, its just the conclusion of that effort.

[slightlyprog]

Rival theory doesn't make sense to me if we believe that the observations from different scientist are true. Expansion is happening and you can test it by observing the "red shift" in distant objects in the universe. At least cosmologists, astronomers, astrophysicists are telling us this.

Mataya

Plus, the idea of infinity defies the 1st law of thermodynamics (unless you assume that energy or matter are being exchanged with another universe and thus going to or coming from outside the 'system' )

[EnochLight]

EnochLight: I don't want to get involved in my own threads anymore as it feels like l'm monologuing but just to answer you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory

Note where they say "theory" and nope i meant someone else not you although tbh you were just reading off Rational Wiki which is a load of ad hominems, l mean you didn't actually formulate an argument tsk tsk, no offence but facts r facts, i presented clear argumnts for and against. Feel free to disagree.

Well, you should take note of the second paragraph of the very Wiki you pointed me to:

While the steady state model enjoyed some popularity in the mid-20th century, it is now rejected by the vast majority of cosmologists, astrophysicists and astronomers, as the observational evidence points to a hot Big Bang cosmology with a finite age of the universe, which the Steady State model does not predict.

So, I stand by my statement: the Big Bang theory is the prevailing theory. There's plenty of new ones being developed though (steady state is not one of them).

[siln]

Remind me this

MFW.png (158.96 KiB) Viewed 1621 times

[Gaja]

These are a bunch of thoughts. I have no scientific background or anything, just thoughts.
The universe is everything that exists. Logically nothing can exist outside it. I find the big bang theory to be a bit like a creation myth on its own. It was first formulated by george lemaitre, a priest and physicist, who tried to combine his religion and physics. First there is nothing. Now there's everything. But if energy can't be created or destroyed, then we have an issue (which I'm sure scientists are working on solving). It also poses a question about constants. How can someting (like a law) that suddenly begins existing be considered a constant at all?
The red shift on the basis of a doppler interpretation afaik can not be reproduced in a laboratory, because labs aren't big, machines not powerful enough to create the speeds and distances necessary, so we can't prove that in the lab. Then we have quasars, objects that are supposedly very very large, very energetic objects at the rim of the universe, because their measured redshift is so high. But there are many pictures of galaxies with quasars quite obviously right in front, even enclosed in the same cloud of gas, which should be impossible according to the doppler interpretation.
Also I find weird, that redshift is happening in every direction equally. Logically, if we were part of an expanding system that shifts light in the frequency spectrum shouldn't the light then be shifted red in one direction, but blue in the other? Unless we were in the center of it all?
There is an observable and reproducable redshift happening, when sending light through a plasma. If you were to build a theory of cosmolgy from a plasmaphysics perspective, you'd be able to explain many of the phenomena big bang science has been puzzling over for a long time without the use for bending space itself, or borrowing energy from the future to produce helium.
I'm not saying big bang is bogus per sé, but it does pose some weird questions that must be met with even weirder answers in order to fill the gaps an expanding universe leaves. The model is working for practical purposes, but will undoubtedly be replaced by a more accurate model in the future.


Gesendet von iPad mit Tapatalk

[Marco Raaphorst]

This is why music and art is so nice. We explore truly new things. We're expanding our world(s).

You can hear new things by simply listening. As well as seeing new things by simply looking. Or write new things by simply take a white piece of paper and write. Doesn't matter where you live. This is the heavy stuff. And in the end just a matter of doing

I believe that art and science have a lot in common. It's about exploring new things.

[normen]

Logically, if we were part of an expanding system that shifts light in the frequency spectrum shouldn't the light then be shifted red in one direction, but blue in the other? Unless we were in the center of it all?

No, the space itself is expanding, so at every point in space every other point is moving away from it. Raisins in a rising cake is often used as an analogy - while the cake is rising they all move away from each other. Or if we reduce the three dimensions to a line - imagine its a rubber band and you draw dots on it. When you expand the band the dots move away from each other, no matter at which point you look.

[Gaja]

Thanks Normen for pointing this out. I understand what they mean, however I still find the solution to be a rather cumbersome explanation. Occam's razor would suggest to take a closer look at theories that work according to standard physical models, without the need to fix holes with invisible (even undetectable) matter that makes up most of everything and energy from the future.
It's not like I have sufficient data to back up these claims, or the in depth understanding of details of the mainstream cosmological model. I'm arguing based on curiosity and the hope for a simpler solution to understanding the universe.
To pick up on your topic of consciousness, I think when being fixated on philosophical materialism, consciousness poses a lot of difficulties. From other perspectives one might consider consciousness to be an entity of its own, tapping our perception of the world to generate the feedback necessary to be conscious in the first place (as in consciousness is aware of itself, and aware of that fact too).


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

[jappe]

T
Edit: And about "thoughts" - we simply don't know what consciousness is or where it comes from. Memories and all that - sure thats the brain but consciousness - we do not know, as much as some scientists like to believe they do. But even the great minds of science all came back full circle and had to admit theres still some mystery about that. Some people argue consciousness must be a property of matter, some argue its what information feels like when its transferred. Truth remains - we don't know.

Thoughts about consciousness:

When I practice mindful meditation, I control one thought only, and observe the thoughts I don't consciously spawn. The moment I realize I'm observing another thought, I go back to my main thought.I feel more conscious.

When I'm about to fall asleep, I don't want to control or observe my thoughts. My consciousness decreases.

When I'm deep sleeping, my consciousness doesn't exist.

When I'm dreaming, I only observe my thoughts,can't control them or which of them I observe.

[normen]

T
Edit: And about "thoughts" - we simply don't know what consciousness is or where it comes from. Memories and all that - sure thats the brain but consciousness - we do not know, as much as some scientists like to believe they do. But even the great minds of science all came back full circle and had to admit theres still some mystery about that. Some people argue consciousness must be a property of matter, some argue its what information feels like when its transferred. Truth remains - we don't know.

Thoughts about consciousness:

When I practice mindful meditation, I control one thought only, and observe the thoughts I don't consciously spawn. The moment I realize I'm observing another thought, I go back to my main thought.I feel more conscious.

When I'm about to fall asleep, I don't want to control or observe my thoughts. My consciousness decreases.

When I'm deep sleeping, my consciousness doesn't exist.

When I'm dreaming, I only observe my thoughts,can't control them or which of them I observe.

Well question remains if your consciousness actually doesn't "exist" in these "moments". Maybe you just don't remember. Like when sometimes you wake up and you remember your dreams. They seem as if you experienced them conscoiusly - but many times you don't remember them - they seem like you didn't experience them consciously. Same for "just watching" your dreams. Sometimes you can control them, sometimes you just watch them - and sometimes you do things fully awake and you basically just observe yourself doing them.

Thats what I think as well when bone-dry materialists say "well I don't think theres an afterlife, it will be just like in the billions of years you weren't born". Well maybe your consciousness (or whatever its part of) was there but you can't remember, just like you can't remember your first two years but your mom can tell you that you were definitely conscious

Theres a weird disconnect in this world between being and becoming - how can you become when you are? How can you be when you become? Its prevalent in arts and such as well. And its prevalent in physics - some physics looks at things in time, some at things without time, combining both is an issue - shown in Heisenbergs uncertainty principle. If you get the location of a particle 100% exact you don't know its velocity, same if you know its velocity 100% you don't know its position. To me it seems thats exactly the border at which consciousness seems to operate.

[jappe]

T
Edit: And about "thoughts" - we simply don't know what consciousness is or where it comes from. Memories and all that - sure thats the brain but consciousness - we do not know, as much as some scientists like to believe they do. But even the great minds of science all came back full circle and had to admit theres still some mystery about that. Some people argue consciousness must be a property of matter, some argue its what information feels like when its transferred. Truth remains - we don't know.

Thoughts about consciousness:

When I practice mindful meditation, I control one thought only, and observe the thoughts I don't consciously spawn. The moment I realize I'm observing another thought, I go back to my main thought.I feel more conscious.

When I'm about to fall asleep, I don't want to control or observe my thoughts. My consciousness decreases.

When I'm deep sleeping, my consciousness doesn't exist.

When I'm dreaming, I only observe my thoughts,can't control them or which of them I observe.

Well question remains if your consciousness actually doesn't "exist" in these "moments". Maybe you just don't remember. Like when sometimes you wake up and you remember your dreams. They seem as if you experienced them conscoiusly - but many times you don't remember them - they seem like you didn't experience them consciously. Same for "just watching" your dreams. Sometimes you can control them, sometimes you just watch them - and sometimes you do things fully awake and you basically just observe yourself doing them.

Thats what I think as well when bone-dry materialists say "well I don't think theres an afterlife, it will be just like in the billions of years you weren't born". Well maybe your consciousness (or whatever its part of) was there but you can't remember, just like you can't remember your first two years but your mom can tell you that you were definitely conscious

Theres a weird disconnect in this world between being and becoming - how can you become when you are? How can you be when you become? Its prevalent in arts and such as well. And its prevalent in physics - some physics looks at things in time, some at things without time, combining both is an issue - shown in Heisenbergs uncertainty principle. If you get the location of a particle 100% exact you don't know its velocity, same if you know its velocity 100% you don't know its position. To me it seems thats exactly the border at which consciousness seems to operate.

Good thoughts, so time is a factor whether I have a memory of my consciousness or not.
I don't know much about the brain, but one model I think about is when we're awake we explore and when we sleep we backup our daily findings.

Lack of sleep, then temporary memory fills up and we get functionality problems.
Sleep is perhaps like DMA: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_memory_access

Then again, us trying to fully understand consciousness, and universe, is perhaps unreachable like the detailed characteristics and function of that bright spot outside the water medium which the jellyfish cannot leave.
Unreachable in the current form, that is.