Where does reality exist in physics?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Let's start with a basic idea. The universe. Has it always been around? Or did it start off with the Big Bang? So far it's the consensus of scientists that it started off with the Big Bang which then leads to other problems (e.g. what happened before the Big Bang? How do we get all the mass/matter into such a tiny space from which the universe started?, etc.)

Then does empty space exist? (the answer is supposed to be no even though I can conceive of nothingness). Does quantum entanglement exist? (the experiments say yes, but we don't have a good theory behind it). And so on. Leo rightfully supports leading scientists as he does in global warming, but he often goes against the consensus of leading physics scientists which is Leo's philosophy. For me, I'm like Diogenes. I search out truth with a lamp.

So where does reality exist in physics? Is there any?

PhilX

[petm1]

Space is the present moment that we all share as receivers while in our minds we see the illusion of emission out there. Centered in time by my mass or the dilating momentum of matter anchored in the past. The acceleration we feel in our gravity well is all our matter dilating from our common past into the future.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Space is the present moment that we all share as receivers while in our minds we see the illusion of emission out there. Centered in time by my mass or the dilating momentum of matter anchored in the past. The acceleration we feel in our gravity well is all our matter dilating from our common past into the future.

Does the past exist for you?

PhilX

[petm1]

I think that mass is the past we trace back to a big bang, space is the common present we all share, and the accelerated frame we call Earth is all of us dilating into the future.

[Obvious Leo]

The universe. Has it always been around? Or did it start off with the Big Bang? So far it's the consensus of scientists that it started off with the Big Bang

This statement is false because there exists no such consensus. Physics is a pragmatic science and can meaningfully deal only with the knowable, so the consensus of which you speak is this: Physics can only make meaningful statements about events in the universe which occurred subsequent to the Big Bang. This is an entirely different proposition from suggesting that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe, which is in fact an unscientific statement.

Then does empty space exist?

Does quantum entanglement exist?

Which one would you like to discuss and from which angle would you like to discuss it? Entire rainforests have been laid waste producing literature on these questions so I suggest you narrow down the substance of your enquiry or this conversation will go nowhere.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Leo said:

"This statement is false because there exists no such consensus. Physics is a pragmatic science and can meaningfully deal only with the knowable, so the consensus of which you speak is this: Physics can only make meaningful statements about events in the universe which occurred subsequent to the Big Bang. This is an entirely different proposition from suggesting that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe, which is in fact an unscientific statement."

Are you suggesting the universe could have existed before the Big Bang?

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

Are you suggesting the universe could have existed before the Big Bang?

I'm suggesting that to claim otherwise is neither a scientific nor a philosophical statement because such an assumption would mandate the existence of an external causal agent which brought the universe into existence. The existence or non-existence of such an external causal agent lies beyond the reach of scientific or philosophical enquiry by definition. Ex nihilo, nihil fit is one of the most ancient and uncontroversial metaphysical principles in philosophy and the first law of thermodynamics is universally acclaimed as the most fundamental law of physics. A universe with a beginning is a logical absurdity.

[NielsBohr]

So far it's the consensus of scientists that it started off with the Big Bang which then leads to other problems (e.g. what happened before the Big Bang? How do we get all the mass/matter into such a tiny space from which the universe started?, etc.)

I begin with the second example of question:
I think we cannot know the "tiny dimension" of origin. Some say it was as an apple. According to the fabulous expansion, relativity - I think - is about spacial lengthes which shortened. But the space cannot be its own measure in a time (even more in such an instant after a Big-Bang), so we cannot know anything about the dimensions of origin (if there was a Big-Bang).
Several suggest subnuclear particles, to suggest that matter were more decomposed, so come concentrated. But we have not really seen a lonely particle under the proton or neutron - for my part, I dont believe that a subnuclear particle cannot have a neutral charge, but that is what is said. I don't believe it.
What happened before the Big-Bang don't make much sense, even if we take "the same axis". In the "best way", if there was a precession, universe would have done a Big Crunch, but if we try to theorize it, what happen? The conception reverse to another Big-Bang, or really a Big Crunch? If there was an axis with the origin in our Big-Bang, when you try to go in the past, the time reverse its sense, so a Big Crunch conception would be another Big Bang, and vice versa.
But we can also imagine the inimaginable: In the origin itself (if any) 0 second = 0 : there is no dimension anymore, not even a reason to believe that "there was a time before" - why would there be a "-1 second" who would lead to 0 ??

Then does empty space exist? (the answer is supposed to be no even though I can conceive of nothingness).

The question of conceiving nothing is void, since when you conceive this, you already have a notion or conscious of matter. Were it really possible to imagine free space if we were spirits in presence of no matter?

For me, I'm like Diogenes. I search out truth with a lamp.

And if you have a lamp (which would not be helpful in whole brightness), but... if your lamp was the truth ?

To give a general answer to you question:
Physics invoke a spin which is not a spin, and explain interaction with a photon which is virtual... there is no knowledge in it anymore. Rather a Babel tour.

The best way to follow Diogenes is to search the truth - not "out" - but in you. You'll find better answers in yourself than in normative answers. Your "heart" will know what is true (as if you believe in what I write) - the answers of a teacher are of no help, they lead to other questions.

[Obvious Leo]

The best way to follow Diogenes is to search the truth - not "out" - but in you. You'll find better answers in yourself than in normative answers.

This is a very wise statement, Niels, because the truth of existence is something which is hard-wired into all of us. We all know perfectly well that our own existence can only be defined in terms of a journey through time. We come into this world from a state of non-existence, live out whatever span of time we get, and then vanish from existence again forever. The universe existed eternally before we turned up and it will exist eternally after we've gone. All we did was jump aboard for a short section of the ride and the stuff of which we were made will live on to make something else. There are those who may try and delude themselves otherwise but even they know deep within their innermost selves that this is indeed the truth.

However there's nothing special about you or me. We are just ordinary bits of matter and energy configured in a particular way so if this is true for us it must likewise be true for every physical entity in the universe. The matter and energy of the universe can self-organise into an infinite number of different structures but the existence of each of these emergent structures is finite while the existence of the universe itself is eternal. Leibniz and Spinoza knew this from the great Persian philosopher/mathematicians. Buddha knew this,as did Lao Tze. Heraclitus knew this from the pre-Socratics of Miletus.

"All things originate from one another and vanish into one another according to necessity in conformity with the order of time"....Anaximander. "On Nature".

Eventually physics will have to pull its head out of its arse and face the facts. The supercilious pissants are mistaking the map for the territory.

[NielsBohr]

Thank you, and wow...

I don't really know where to begin an answer.

Oh, yes: First of all, I answered PhilX as I felt he needed.

When I write that he will find answers, I am not really thinking about stated answers. Questioning is the beginning of answering, and very generally the answer is in the question - what make self-questioning relevant, at least for PhilX.

PhilX, it appears to me that you spend a lot of energy in browsing in all (or any) direction(s). This is not a reproach, but this is a sign - I think - that you are in a time where you can find better answers in yourself. Once you have a self background, or minimal certitude(s) (knowing that absolute certitude most probably don't exist), you'll be able to concentrate yourself on preferred topics.

Obvious Leo, that was this way I wrote to him as a person, knowing him from several posts, as the first of this topic.

But I'll answer you, now.

You made me a little surprised, because I could not define surely in reading you to this time, what is your metaphysic or philosophy. Oh, I like a lot your replies - this is no problem. But when I read you, it seems to me you make either a confusion or a simple reduction.

Many christian people are about to consider God as being its creation - what does not really make sense in a christian view.

I do not pretend you are of them, as far as I did not ask it to you. I see a christian view in believing we were not existent from the beginning, but an atheist one in believing that individuals have no future.

I will anyway show to you what I consider. I am very doubtful that, even in a mechanical view of physics (as Miles Mathis propose), that physics can ever be all. I think that (our) time and distances are not the only dimension. I do not accredit for so any mathematical theory (as of strings or other).
But in my case, as far as physics can somewhat understand but not totally predict, I believe in the action.

This way, I don't think there were a cosmology constant - I am sure there is a cosmology variable.

And a possible original action transforming an original atom into the known universe, and also our self action (as in decisions - I don't think we are "determinated").

We have a common way of thinking in the idea that universe could exist from always.

But, personally, I think that even if physics are not all (whatever they may be reduced to mechanics or not) - so in other words that spirit exist - an analogy can be made for spirit.

If matter-energy were conserved, I think that spirit (in which I believe - not only Holly one in the sense of believing its good intention), indiviuals' spirits, at least, may be conserved.
I am somewhat near to Calvin considering the Grace. I think it can come - not completely independent from a person - but in a way this person quit his bubble to open his mind, and realize some possibilities that were not envisaged before.

And I remember a physicist who told (even without to really know, of course) that after death, there would remain the knowledge. I am not sure of this, but I think if we had not hope of this, philosophical, scientific, and theologic sections in universities would be deserted. Because, what would remain were in this case the more epicurean ways, in other word, professions which pay better.

I think - depending on my opinion about spirit - that we can't infer from memory formatting or in incarnation of spirit in preexistent matter, that our spirit was not existent at all. This way, I think different from christianism.

Okay, I see I wrote quite long, and that was not my will to derivate about spirit in this topic, but this let me tell you the way I wrote to PhilX overall, and bounce on you post next, to let you what I thought.

PhilX, sorry for this quite long message. I don't think there are truths definitely acquired - the way I wrote you was rather a possibility to evolute, and I wrote this way to you one these times, when I find you search a lot in several directions.

Normatives answers are not totally irrelevant - there are some imperatives in life as society. Depending on my very personal point of view, you are not mature enough to face some of the normative answers, as you seems want to find truths in sciences. As I experimented, science studies do not sound at all like philosophy - there is almost no place for even epistemology into it.

But I have not a certitude about this state of affairs. On one hand you seem to be young, so to have energy - this is good for science studies. But on the other hand, your way of scattering yourself about what I called "external truths" show to me you are still not mature enough, or that you are too clever for some teaching of "facts" - what in a way could be the same.

When I was 18 years old, I was told that a sabbatic year was not a good investment. So I avoided it, but I became almost ill - and I could see later old comrades who took a year for themselves, and they succeed (especially one, in economics).

Maybe a year before engaging yourself for a way or another could be a good investment. But better to talk about it with your own parents.

[surreptitious57]

Some thoughts on the questions raised by Philosophy Explorer

What is commonly referred to as the Universe is not the totality of all that exists but just local
cosmic expansion. There may be other Universes that are undetectable but not all of this one is
totally observable either. Dark energy is causing it to expand in all directions beyond light speed

The singularity hypothesis is seriously flawed because it is impossible for some thing of infinite density to be contained in a
space of infinitesimal volume so small as to be non physical. When gravity and pressure are repelling each other after a star
dies and is transforming into a neutron star there comes a point when it can no longer collapse. Because the force of gravity
pushing out is stronger than the force of pressure pushing in. What does not happen is that the force of pressure then carries
on pushing in till there is nothing left to push against. But this is what the singularity hypothesis implies. It is therefore wrong

Empty space is universal as solidity is an illusion. Ninety nine per cent of an atom is composed of nothing. Protons and neutrons in
the nucleus and some electrons orbiting it. Although protons and neutrons are themselves made of quarks and quarks may be made
of strings. Though it is still essentially composed of nothing. The only other thing inside an atom are the three forces that act up on
the particles. And so empty space is not just something out there but equally something in here as well. As it is literally everywhere

And one other thing. Physics does not investigate reality. It investigates observable phenomena. It has absolutely nothing to say on
reality as that is more of an ontological question than a scientific one. However having said that reality is often the standard term
used to describe observable phenomena as there is no superior definition. But strictly speaking this is a fallacious application of it

[Philosophy Explorer]

Surreptitious said:

"The singularity hypothesis is seriously flawed because it is impossible for some thing of infinite density to be contained in a space of infinitesimal volume so small as to be non physical."

This may not be as flawed as you may think. Look up the Banach -Tarski paradox to see what I mean.

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

What is commonly referred to as the Universe is not the totality of all that exists

This is neither a scientific nor a philosophical statement.

There may be other Universes that are undetectable

There may be a china teapot orbiting the sun between the earth and Mars
The universe might be precariously balanced on top of an infinite tower of turtles
An infinite number of angels may be able to dance on the head of a pin mounted on unicorns

. Dark energy is causing it to expand in all directions beyond light speed

There is not the slightest scrap of evidence for this nonsensical hypothesis. Please enlighten us all and explain what dark energy actually is before advancing such rubbish in a philosophy forum.

The singularity hypothesis is seriously flawed because it is impossible for some thing of infinite density to be contained in a
space of infinitesimal volume so small as to be non physical. When gravity and pressure are repelling each other after a star
dies and is transforming into a neutron star there comes a point when it can no longer collapse. Because the force of gravity
pushing out is stronger than the force of pressure pushing in. What does not happen is that the force of pressure then carries
on pushing in till there is nothing left to push against. But this is what the singularity hypothesis implies. It is therefore wrong

The singularity hypothesis is indeed wrong and nowadays it is widely accepted as being wrong. However it is not wrong for the reasons you give here which quite frankly make no sense.

Physics does not investigate reality. It investigates observable phenomena. It has absolutely nothing to say on
reality as that is more of an ontological question than a scientific one.

I knew you'd get to the good bit eventually, mate. This statement is 100% TRUE.

[surreptitious57]

Please enlighten us all and explain what dark energy actually is

The term dark energy is merely a placeholder for a mysterious phenomena as it is not known at this point in time what
it actually is. However it has the property of repulsive gravity. And it is responsible for the expansion of space between
galaxies which is causing the Universe to travel beyond light speed. This can be determined by the red shift of galaxies
relative to each other. In simple terms it means that everything in space is moving away from everything else. So there
shall come a time when from the vantage point of Earth no stars shall be visible at all because of this cosmic expansion
But why are you so sceptical with regard to its existence ? Do you not accept the Universe is expanding and if not why ?

[Obvious Leo]

Do you not accept the Universe is expanding and if not why ?

No I don't. it is merely aging.