So how do things which are clearly and obviously not possible, given a material universe, happen anyway? — Joe0082

Awakening from the scientific trance for a second, one has to say the universe could not expand then coalesce into the vast reality it has become from an infinitely small point Just not possible. In fact ridiculous. Nor could energy expand faster than the speed of light. Not possible. Nor could gravity shape matter and anti-matter into a universe capable of creating and supporting life, even if on just one little planet. No way. — Joe0082

I believe it probably really did happen this way, however, am amazed most scientists fail to see the mystery of it. — Joe0082

So how do things which are clearly and obviously not possible, given a material universe, happen anyway? — Joe0082

So how do things which are clearly and obviously not possible, given a material universe, happen anyway? — Joe0082

Can it be the universe is not really [be] material?

If not material, then what?

So how do things which are clearly and obviously not possible, given a material universe, happen anyway? — Joe0082

Thus, the Alcubierre Warp Drive is not a laughed-out-of-the-building FTL propulsion conjecture. :nerd: — 180 Proof

the faster than light expansion of the early universe is only impossible by the internal physical laws of the universe. — counterpunch

We only know the direction from the "point of the big bang" and the approximate time of its beginning. But we do not know (are not sure) that this happened from the "point". — SimpleUser

Kant's antinomy still holds, "That the universe has a beginning in time is impossible; that it has no beginning in time is also impossible." — Joe0082

Proof that Kant's transcendental notion of Newtonian "time" & "space" are empty speculations — 180 Proof

The Euclidean nature of our imagination led Kant to say that although the denial of the axioms of Euclid could be conceived without contradiction, our intuition is limited by the form of space imposed by our own minds on the world. While it is not uncommon to find claims that the very existence of non-Euclidean geometry refutes Kant's theory, such a view fails to take into account the meaning of the term "synthetic," which is that a synthetic proposition can be denied without contradiction.

Leonard Nelson realized that Kant's theory implies a prediction of non-Euclidean geometry, not a denial of it, and that the existence of non-Euclidean geometry vindicates Kant's claim that the axioms of geometry are synthetic [Leonard Nelson, "Philosophy and Axiomatics," Socratic Method and Critical Philosophy, Dover, 1965; p.164], as quoted above. The intelligibility of non-Euclidean geometry for Kantian theory is neither a psychological nor an ontological question, but simply a logical one -- using Hume's criterion of possibility as logically consistent conceivability. Something of the sort is admitted with hesitation by Jeremy Gray:

As I read Kant, he does not say non-Euclidean geometry is logically impossible, but that is only because he does not claim that any geometry is logically true; geometry in his view is synthetic, not analytic. And Kant's belief that Euclidean geometry was true, because our intuitions tell us so, seems to me to be either unintelligible or wrong. [Gray, Ibid. p. 85]

If we are unable to visualize non-Euclidean geometries without using extrinsically curved lines, however, the intelligibility of Kant's theory is not hard to find. The sense of the truth of Euclidean geometry for Kant is no more or less than the confidence that centuries of geometers had in the parallel postulate, a confidence based on our very real spatial imagination. If Kant's claim is "unintelligible," then Gray has not reflected on why everyone in history until the 19th century believed that the parallel postulate was true. That is the psychological question, not the logical or ontological one. The sense of ancient confidence can be recovered at any time today simply by trying to explain non-Euclidean geometry to undergraduate students who have never heard of it before. We might say that attempts to prove the postulate show that people were uneasy about it; but the universal expectation was that the postulate was really a theorem, and no one cashed in their unease by trying to construct geometry with a denial of it. Saccheri denied it, but only because he was constructing reductio ad absurdum proofs. Non-Euclidean geometry did not change our spatial imagination, it only proved what Kant had already implicitly claimed: the synthetic and axiomatically independent character of the first principles of geometry.

The explanation of the apparent expansion of the universe at speeds greater than that of light I have heard is that the expansion of the fabric of space-time itself is not subject to the speed limit. Seems like a cheat to me, but people who know more than I do accept it. — T Clark

But anyway, I linked to the wrong page, my bad. :yikes: — Wayfarer

Not necessarily. Imagine two dots drawn on a balloon, that is then inflated. The dots move apart exponentially as the angle from the radius increases. — counterpunch

it only proved what Kant had already implicitly claimed: the synthetic and axiomatically independent character of the first principles of geometry.

Not necessarily. Imagine two dots drawn on a balloon, that is then inflated. The dots move apart exponentially as the angle from the radius increases — counterpunch