Well, when you say that it "always existed as such" you compare it with time, and how we see time, and how we count time;And this begs the question, if it never changes, then did it always exist as such?/quote] Nothing right?[/b] — Benj96
Mostly you, persay how one views it; You could change the idea of it.. Orr if you meant for it to be unchangable neighter in the idea (that's a bit harsh) Then no;What can change or influence or act upon the unchanged? — Benj96
I don't have any right to comment onto this, but from what I know:A curiosity here is that the speed of light is fixed. And yet it is tha fastest rate at which something can "change" location (velocity). Could this mean there's some strange union between that which remains constant and that which changes the most rapidly? — Benj96
If we take this to extremes than one would imagine two phenomena or things: on one side is that which is in constant flux, changing so fast that it barely even could be said to assume any state for any given amount of time, it changes at the fastest/maximum rate possible.
A curiosity here is that the speed of light is fixed. And yet it is tha fastest rate at which something can "change" location (velocity). Could this mean there's some strange union between that which remains constant and that which changes the most rapidly? — Benj96
Wrong! :joke:And this begs the question, if it never changes, then did it always exist as such? What can change or influence or act upon the unchanged? Nothing right? — Benj96
A curiosity here is that the speed of light is fixed. And yet it is tha fastest rate at which something can "change" location (velocity). Could this mean there's some strange union between that which remains constant and that which changes the most rapidly? — Benj96
I don't know what you mean, Benj. Cite an unchangeable – impossible to change, or necessary (i.e. unconditional) – extant state of affairs (i.e. fact). :chin: — 180 Proof
Eventually after a few billion years, the universe had grown so large and cold that the right kind of reference frames could exist — apokrisis
You could sit as lumps of matter in a vast frigid void with mostly bugger all happening to disturb your peace.
And yet still, as lumps of matter, we have those aspects of our being - such as a gravitational field and a little bit of warm radiation - that do spread out from our sense of unchanging location at c. So the falling out of the general c flow is relative. — apokrisis
Energy is such an unchanging Cause of change. According to the second law of thermodynamics, the total Energy (causal force) content of the universe is fixed, but as it causes physical changes, it can transform into Entropy (negative energy) and back again into Potential : the thermodynamic cycle — Gnomon
So I imagine the big bang as not being located "ago". But rather being a "speed" or rate. One we are seoarated from by virtue of the fact that we are precipitant energy - ie matter. The tape slowed down, energy buled out into substance and spacetime stretched out into "billions of years and billions of astronomical units of distance". — Benj96
And I'm currently playing with the equally unorthodox notion that Time is simply a measure of physical change due to the actions of Energy*2. One consequence of that way of thinking is to conclude that the expansion of the universe is not due to some mysterious Dark Energy, but merely to the increasing dimension of Time : — Gnomon
Horizons "exist" as properties of facts (not things). They are both ever approachable and unreachable; encompassing, yet never encompassed. It doesnt makes sense to me to leap to the groundless supposition that 'more (faster) than everything else' and/or 'less (slower) than everything else' might not "exist".... because physical things cannot reach these limits, does that mean these limits don't exist? What is the nature of their existence? — Benj96
So the first second did feel like it moved at light speed. The rest after that has become the longest and slowest crawl. — apokrisis
Horizons "exist" as properties of facts (not things). They are both ever approachable and unreachable; encompassing, yet never encompassed. — 180 Proof
Onto heat death. If energy cannot be destroyed, could we say that "cooling" of the universe is the sublimation of energy back into potential of some form? — Benj96
I'm surprised that unconventional statement made sense to you. From the mundane perspective of Materialism, Energy is imagined to be merely a transient property of elemental matter, and envisioned as a flowing substance of some kind. But from a cosmic viewpoint, Energy seems to be almost magical. Which may be why its role is down-played in the belief system of secular Naturalism.Yes! This makes sense thank you :)
It's quite amazing that energy has this ability to de-potentialise/become "substantial/substantiated" as matter going at a sub maximal speed. And be converted back to the speed of light again. But in essence it's quantity never changes. Just it's quality - what it's doing. The work of action or being acted upon in relative respect. — Benj96
Precisely! Scientists may be on a wild-goose chase as they look for some heretofore unknown particles (equivalent to photons) in order to explain the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Looking at cosmic change in terms of Energy/Time/Causation might avoid such inane questions as "what is the universe expanding into?", with no need to postulate mythical multiverses. :smile:I think the sharp edge of occams razor can be put to this and as you said reduce it to simply a product of a simpler form of interaction without adding new components or variables (like dark energy) to explain away the misunderstanding. — Benj96
Yes. Space-Time is not an objective thing, but a subjective interpretation of perception of measurable Matter & causal Energy. It's how we think of Being & Change. :nerd:For me time and space are linked in that at lightspeed neither "exist" in any substantial way. — Benj96
Which still leaves the question, is unscientific infinitesimal probability a sufficient ultimate scientific answer to how everything appears from nothing? — magritte
Everything is self-cancelling itself towards nothing. The probability of that was so high that it the Big Bang was a story of exponential decay. Almost everything self-cancelled almost immediately. Very little was left in terms of energy density even after the first second. We are now into the asymptotic last flattening of that curve as the average density of the vacuum is a few hydrogen atoms per cubic metre and the temperature is a frigid 2.7 degrees above absolute zero. — apokrisis
we have that which never changed in its entire existence. Completely unperturbed/stable. The most objective phenomenon possible. The most consistent, the most repeatably measured as the exact same [?]regardless of time[?] — Benj96
I just noticed this brilliant post in your archives Thank you! If we could only understand what any of those four words ever mean!change vs stasis is a unity of opposites — apokrisis
Plato referred to that as 'suddenly'. Something in time but outside of time, as a quantum shift. He didn't see how change (for us, as at the smallest scale) can happen any other way.To be the swiftest change is to have the least notion that there was anything other that could have been done except that abrupt something. — apokrisis
From nothing came everything, and from everything will come nothing, given sufficient time. Matter is mortal. I'm concerned with the logical impossibility past either end of the sentence. — magritte
if we want to do metaphysics and make a logical argument, Peirce's logic of vagueness takes us a step past the usual "something out of nothing" ontology. — apokrisis
CS Peirce extended with his sketch for a logic of vagueness.
So the "before" of both something and nothing is the third category that is simply a "vagueness" as logically defined. Peirce flipped the principle of noncontradiction to show this.
The PNC says it cannot be true both that "p is the case" and "p is not the case". Peirce says vagueness is the indeterminate state out of which such counterfactual definiteness can arise. Vagueness is that to which the PNC fails to apply in any definite fashion. — apokrisis
Light changes with respect to position — NotAristotle
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.