Philosophy Now Forum

socrattus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 2:44 am

Cerveny wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 5:35 pm Once again and for the last time (I promise), please allow me to try to clarify my point. Two fundamental errors of relativity: First, physical space is not infinitely fine but granular. So both BB and BH are completely off. Second, the structure and essence of Past, Present and Future are completely different. The future has neither structure nor time nor matter in our sense. One could say that it is precisely Plato's world of ideas. The Presence is the quantum "fire" burning the Future, allowing Life to live. The past is a frozen crystal of causality, a sediment, a quantum “ash”…

Esoteric language is not the language of formulas, laws, equations
of mathematical physics that explain Nature.
---

… at the beginning and at the end of physics is metaphysics - the Future …

Cerveny wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 5:35 pm

Cerveny wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:04 am You can't believe everything, you can't measure something like that in the laboratory. Physicists have lost their sanity. Physics has been poisoned and paralyzed for a hundred years by Albert Einstein's misunderstanding of space and time, physics has become a faith ... Physical space is grainy and the future has a different structure and content than the past. Quantum mechanics "works" on their thin Planck boundary…

Once again and for the last time (I promise), please allow me to try to clarify my point. Two fundamental errors of relativity: First, physical space is not infinitely fine but granular (crystal of aether). So both BB and BH are completely off. Second, the structure and essence of Past, Present and Future are completely different. The future has neither structure nor time nor matter in our sense. One could say that it is precisely Plato's world of ideas. The Presence is the quantum "fire" burning the Future, allowing Life to live. The past is a frozen crystal of causality, a sediment, a quantum “ash”…

I can't forgive myself (as a woody plans lover) to freshen up this thread with one more comparison. Cambium is the living layer in the trunk of a growing tree / shrub. It is such interface (Presence) between the growing wood (Past) and its resources (Future). For the appropriate analogy, of course, we have to imagine a 4D sphere instead of a 3D cylinder. Cambium creates, definitively forms and leaves behind a more or less regular structure of cells (e. particles) of mature wood (Past) based on DNA (Idea,Word), chemical elements and energy (Primordial matter).
Warning! Metaphysics:
If this analogy pushes me further, I must stop at the protective pre-cambium, at the bark. And here I have an impression that the brain (soul) has some ability to reach into the unstructured Future, where a common mixture of wishes, thoughts, wills, subconsciousness is catalyzed by (divine) “enzymes” into some kind of protection and correction of Life:)

Aether is an aspect of physics and is fully quantifiable. Aether, just like everything else in this Universe, is quantized. Aether is the space quantum equal precisely to 16π^2 times Coulomb's constant (k_C). Think of Aether like the ocean made of "quantum" water molecules. The water molecule, although made up of atoms, which are made up of subatomic particles, which are made up of quantum Aether units, acts as the ocean quantum.

Albert Michelson incorrectly assumed the Aether was a solid, like a frozen solid ocean. This solid Aether concept is what was proved wrong in the Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX). However, the MMX showed a smaller-than-expected Aether drift rather than a zero Aether drift. Henri Poincare and Hendrik Lorentz then proposed a fluid Aether (implying a quantum Aether) and quantified the fluidity using the Lorentz transformations.

Albert Einstein added his postulates and skewed reasoning to tease the fluid Aether interpretation to a time-dilation interpretation instead. Albert Einstein did nothing to disprove the Aether except that when he talked about it, he ignored the fluid Aether and kept saying that the rigid Aether of Michelson showed a null result, a half-truth. The Lorentz transformations were not developed for the rigid Aether; they were developed for the fluid Aether, and the physical measurements were explained successfully.

Special Relativity has always been a fluid Aether theory, but physicists were confused by Einstein's skewed reasoning into believing in time dilation. Time dilation, as quantified in Minkowski coordinates, requires physical matter to leave the present moment and travel to different time frames. The Block Universe is conceived as a series of static physical Universes through which consciousness flows. It is not stated this way, but that is its physical description. If stated this way, it would be obvious that time dilation is unsupported by physical evidence.

Nobody has ever measured physical matter in a past or future time frame coincident with the present moment. Nobody has ever observed physical matter leave the present moment or arrive suddenly from a different moment. Most importantly, physicists have never quantified consciousness such that they could explain how all the consciousnesses of the Universe move in perfect unison through all the single-use, static physical Universes. When you realize what time dilation implies, it becomes absurd that anybody would believe in it for a moment, let alone the scientific community for 120 years.

General Relativity is also an Aether theory. Electrons and protons each occupy a single Aether unit. When they bind, they pinch the fabric of space and cause the surrounding Aether to stretch toward the newly formed neutron. This creates a space density gradient around massive objects, which is what Einstein's circular deflection angle and orbital perigee precession angle equations quantify.

GTR has reliably reduced to insignificance all attempts (Dirac, Einstein, Penrose...) to improve theoretical physics. These attempts end in spasms of singularities or other indigestible mathematical constructions.
Is it so difficult to understand that reality simply cannot be infinitely subtle or even "nothing"? Or is the "cone of the future" not nonsense? Time awakened by causality certainly did not arise as a dull plane wave playing already prescribed notes, but as a creative, curious constructor of the order of the Universe (Past). Or why, for example, should gravity propagate at the same speed as light, even equally in all (inertial) frames? …

Cerveny wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 9:27 am GTR has reliably reduced to insignificance all attempts (Dirac, Einstein, Penrose...) to improve theoretical physics. These attempts end in spasms of singularities or other indigestible mathematical constructions.
…

The problem is not the unrelated (macroscopic) GTR itself, but the interpretation of the microworld through the (disputed) Lorentz “metric”. In the (quantum) microworld, a discrete metric derived from Planck time and/or the lattice constant of the aether is probably valid. Time jumps forward along the structures of causality with force and direction that depend to density and deformation (by elementary particles) of structure of aether…

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 5:55 am The wikipedia page on Aether Theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories cites Nobel Prize winning physicist Robert B. Laughlin:
"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."
Pretty much any realist theory about matter that doesn't invoke Ancient Greek atomos - uncuttable - atoms, is some version of an aether theory. Much better to call any such idea a quantum field theory for the reasons given above.

I know this OP is 4.4 years old and that uwot hasn't been seen in half that time, but Laughlin seems to be deliberately misleading.
Like the 'piece of window glass' that Laughlin references, the aether has always carried an implcation of there being a preferred local frame in which it is stationary, which is not the case at all with general relativity. Yes, the theory endows space with physical qualities, but very specifically, velocity is not one of them, which is why the term is utterly avoided. Laughlin, given his credentials, should know this. So he seems to be putting out a statement to make waves rather than to actually make sense, and it worked, since I see this quote quite a bit.

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 8:43 pm And regardless of it being called "nothingness," it nevertheless exists as a visualizable "something" that is forever "making room" for the ever-expanding phenomenal features of what we call "reality"

This statement (and accompanying image) seems to imply that the universe is expanding into emptiness, that it is motion of stuff to where it wasn't before, rather than a metric expansion of space itself.

Noax wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 12:39 am

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 5:55 am The wikipedia page on Aether Theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories cites Nobel Prize winning physicist Robert B. Laughlin:
"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."
Pretty much any realist theory about matter that doesn't invoke Ancient Greek atomos - uncuttable - atoms, is some version of an aether theory. Much better to call any such idea a quantum field theory for the reasons given above.

I know this OP is 4.4 years old and that uwot hasn't been seen in half that time, but Laughlin seems to be deliberately misleading.
Like the 'piece of window glass' that Laughlin references, the aether has always carried an implcation of there being a preferred local frame in which it is stationary, which is not the case at all with general relativity. Yes, the theory endows space with physical qualities, but very specifically, velocity is not one of them, which is why the term is utterly avoided. Laughlin, given his credentials, should know this. So he seems to be putting out a statement to make waves rather than to actually make sense, and it worked, since I see this quote quite a bit.

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 8:43 pm And regardless of it being called "nothingness," it nevertheless exists as a visualizable "something" that is forever "making room" for the ever-expanding phenomenal features of what we call "reality"

This statement (and accompanying image) seems to imply that the universe is expanding into emptiness, that it is motion of stuff to where it wasn't before, rather than a metric expansion of space itself.

The statement isn't implying that the underlying fabric (what we call "spacetime") that binds the universe together into one singular and seamless entity, isn't, itself, expanding.

No, it just suggests that if you were to add, say, 10^5,000,000 more universes to the mix of reality, whatever is "making room," so to speak, for those additional universes...

(I call it "absolute nothingness")

...will never run out of room for more.

As I stated in the post that you quoted above, the blackened area surrounding the fanciful depiction of the universe I uploaded, is not only a visual representation of "absolute nothingness," but of "infinity" itself.

Oh, and btw, fortunately, "uwot" is still with us. He's just going by his real name - "Will Bouwman."
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 4:54 am

Noax wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 12:39 am

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 5:55 am The wikipedia page on Aether Theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories cites Nobel Prize winning physicist Robert B. Laughlin:
"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."
Pretty much any realist theory about matter that doesn't invoke Ancient Greek atomos - uncuttable - atoms, is some version of an aether theory. Much better to call any such idea a quantum field theory for the reasons given above.

I know this OP is 4.4 years old and that uwot hasn't been seen in half that time, but Laughlin seems to be deliberately misleading.
Like the 'piece of window glass' that Laughlin references, the aether has always carried an implcation of there being a preferred local frame in which it is stationary, which is not the case at all with general relativity. Yes, the theory endows space with physical qualities, but very specifically, velocity is not one of them, which is why the term is utterly avoided. Laughlin, given his credentials, should know this. So he seems to be putting out a statement to make waves rather than to actually make sense, and it worked, since I see this quote quite a bit.

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 8:43 pm And regardless of it being called "nothingness," it nevertheless exists as a visualizable "something" that is forever "making room" for the ever-expanding phenomenal features of what we call "reality"

This statement (and accompanying image) seems to imply that the universe is expanding into emptiness, that it is motion of stuff to where it wasn't before, rather than a metric expansion of space itself.

The statement isn't implying that the underlying fabric (what we call "spacetime") that binds the universe together into one singular and seamless entity, isn't, itself, expanding.

No, it just suggests that if you were to add, say, 10^5,000,000 more universes to the mix of reality, whatever is "making room," so to speak, for those additional universes...

(I call it "absolute nothingness")

...will never run out of room for more.

As I stated in the post that you quoted above, the blackened area surrounding the fanciful depiction of the universe I uploaded, is not only a visual representation of "absolute nothingness," but of "infinity" itself.

Oh, and btw, fortunately, "uwot" is still with us. He's just going by his real name - "Will Bouwman."
_______

These people, REALLY STILL, can NOT YET SEE things CLEARLY, here.

There is NO 'outer edge' of the Universe, Itself, which is growing, expanding, NOR extending, just like there is 'metric expansion of 'space', itself. And, for ABSOLUTELY ANY one to think or BELIEVE SO is ABSOLUTELY IRRATIONAL and ILLOGICAL, and ESPECIALLY SO that there is NOT an ACTUAL SHRED of EVIDENCE NOR PROOF for such a BELIEF or CLAIM.

It is an ABSOLUTE ILLOGICAL and EMPIRICAL IMPOSSIBILITY for the Universe, Itself, to begin OR to expand.

And, ONCE AGAIN, if ABSOLUTELY ANY one would like the ACTUAL PROOF for this, then, by all means, let 'us' HAVE A DISCUSSION.

LOL How much MORE SIMPLER could this get, here?

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 4:54 am No, it just suggests that if you were to add, say, 10^5,000,000 more universes to the mix of reality, whatever is "making room," so to speak, for those additional universes...

How do you define 'universe' as distinct from 'reality' that this statement makes any sense at all?
You still make it sound like 'the universe' is some finite thing, and you're just making into a bigger finite thing, still bounded, beyond which is 'nothingness'.

(I call it "absolute nothingness")

Exactly, so my assessment of your quote stands. There is no nothingness into which somethingness meaningfully expands into.

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:24 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 4:54 am No, it just suggests that if you were to add, say, 10^5,000,000 more universes to the mix of reality, whatever is "making room," so to speak, for those additional universes...

How do you define 'universe' as distinct from 'reality' that this statement makes any sense at all?
You still make it sound like 'the universe' is some finite thing, and you're just making into a bigger finite thing, still bounded, beyond which is 'nothingness'.

(I call it "absolute nothingness")

Exactly, so my assessment of your quote stands. There is no nothingness into which somethingness meaningfully expands into.

There is ALSO NO so-called 'somethingness' that is expanding.

ALL of the 'evidence' POINTS TO an INFINITE Universe.

And, considering that the 'proof' ACTUALLY EXISTS SHOWING that the Universe IS INFINITE, and therefore could NOT expand, it is A WONDER WHY some human beings, in the days when this is being written, STILL, SAY and CLAIM that the Universe, Itself, EXPANDS.

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:24 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 4:54 am No, it just suggests that if you were to add, say, 10^5,000,000 more universes to the mix of reality, whatever is "making room," so to speak, for those additional universes...

How do you define 'universe' as distinct from 'reality' that this statement makes any sense at all?

When I think of the word "universe," I generally go by the standard definition of the universe that the astrophysicists use.

You know, the one derived from the "Big Bang" theory which (right or wrong) suggests that approximately 13.8 billion years ago, all of the phenomenal features of this dimension of reality we find ourselves held within, was once smaller than the dot between these two brackets [ . ],...
...but now exists as a bubble-like phenomenon o that is approximately 93 billion light years in diameter, and whose "outer film," so to speak is a light barrier of which nothing that we call "matter" can move beyond.

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:24 pm You still make it sound like 'the universe' is some finite thing, and you're just making into a bigger finite thing, still bounded, beyond which is 'nothingness'.

Right, and that's because according to the above mentioned "Big Bang Theory," the material universe is a finite bubble of reality that is delineated by a finite boundary of light that, again, is only approximately 93 billion light years in diameter.

I mean, either it (the material universe) began 13.8 billion years ago as a point particle [ . ] (or a singularity, or whatever) and then allegedly "expanded" to its present - (and limited) - diameter of 93 billion light years,...

...or the Big Bang theory is wrong (which is possible).

Now, of course, there could be other universes (other bubbles of reality) besides our finite little universe. In which case, we would no longer be speaking of a "uni-verse," and instead need to use the term "multi-verse."

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:24 pm

(I call it "absolute nothingness")

Exactly, so my assessment of your quote stands. There is no nothingness into which somethingness meaningfully expands into.

If not absolute and infinite "nothingness," or, perhaps, infinite "void,"...

...then what do you wish to call whatever "it" is that is forever "making room" for the ever-expanding - (yet finite) - bubble of light that represents the outer boundary of everything we understand "reality" to be?
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 6:50 pm When I think of the word "universe," I generally go by the standard definition of the universe that the astrophysicists use.

You know, the one derived from the "Big Bang" theory which (right or wrong) suggests that approximately 13.8 billion years ago, all of the phenomenal features of this dimension of reality we find ourselves held within, was once smaller than the dot between these two brackets [ . ],...
...but now exists as a bubble-like phenomenon o that is approximately 93 billion light years in diameter, and whose "outer film," so to speak is a light barrier of which nothing that we call "matter" can move beyond.

You seem to be referring to what said astrophysicists call the visible universe, not what they call the universe. The latter was never a small dot. The former indeed cannot have matter exit it, but matter (and light) does cross in from the outside. This is opposed to our event horizon which no matter can cross in, but stuff moves out all the time. Given that definition, we can attempt to parse this:

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 4:54 am No, it just suggests that if you were to add, say, 10^5,000,000 more universes to the mix of reality, whatever is "making room," so to speak, for those additional universes...

You propose adding a lot of visible universe spheres to 'reality', which is needless since they're already there. The visible universe would be no bigger due to this since none of the new stuff would be visible, being too far away, as it already is. I don't see how any of this description involves requiring 'room' or occupation of what otherwise would be this 'nothingness'. Expansion isn't an increase in the size of the universe, even if the current size of the visible universe is a function of the expansion rate.

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:24 pm
Right, and that's because according to the above mentioned "Big Bang Theory," the material universe is a finite bubble of reality that is delineated by a finite boundary of light that, again, is only approximately 93 billion light years in diameter.

Umm, no. Citation needed. There is no bound to the universe, and there is stuff at any arbitrary distance you specify, say 36.7 teraparsecs away.

I mean, either it (the material universe) began 13.8 billion years ago as a point particle [ . ] (or a singularity, or whatever) and then allegedly "expanded" to its present - (and limited) - diameter of 93 billion light years,...

...or the Big Bang theory is wrong (which is possible).

Given that you are using 'material universe' to mean 'visible universe' (carrying some weird implication that there is no material beyond that diameter which we happen by fantastic coincidence to be at the exact center of), that's sort of a reasonable statement.

Now, of course, there could be other universes (other bubbles of reality) besides our finite little universe. In which case, we would no longer be speaking of a "uni-verse," and instead need to use the term "multi-verse."

That's not the term that astrophysicists use for it, but sure. Tegmark labeled exact that as a Level-I multiverse. Levels II, III, and IV are different kinds. Each location in spacetime (event) defines a visible universe, and the collection of all these, with all the overlaps, constitutes the Level-I multiverse.

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:24 pm

(I call it "absolute nothingness")

Exactly, so my assessment of your quote stands. There is no nothingness into which somethingness meaningfully expands into.

If not absolute and infinite "nothingness," or, perhaps, infinite "void,"...

No valid theory suggests anything like that, no matter what you call it. There is no 'whatever' that needs to make room for expanding space. Space is not contained by some deeper space by some other name. Really, you need to pony up citations for these outlandish claims.

Noax wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 9:34 pm No valid theory suggests anything like that, no matter what you call it. There is no 'whatever' that needs to make room for expanding space. Space is not contained by some deeper space by some other name.

You are mistakenly conflating the "somethingness" of the space that comprises the "fabric of spacetime," which underpins and binds the bubble of our universe together into one seamless whole, with that of what I am calling "absolute nothingness."

They are not the same.

And, yes, one can indeed (and does) contain the other.

Noax wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 9:34 pm Really, you need to pony up citations for these outlandish claims.

You asked me for my definition of the word "universe," to which I simply referred to the definition implicit in the Big Bang Theory.

Do you need a "citation" for the "Big Bang Theory"?

If so, then it should come as no surprise that when asked...

"...What is the most widely accepted scientific theory as to how the universe began?..."

...Google's AI Overview stated the following:

The most widely accepted scientific theory for the origin of the universe is the "Big Bang Theory," which proposes that the universe began as a tiny, extremely dense point that rapidly expanded and cooled, creating the space, time, and matter we observe today; this event is estimated to have occurred around 13.8 billion years ago.

Now, simple common sense would suggest that something that began from an "extremely dense point"...

(of which I was trying to represent with my little dot [ . ] analogy)

...that then expands into a bubble of reality that is estimated to be 93 billion light years in diameter, has a definitive and "leading edge" to it,...

(again, a metaphorical "outer film" that delineates the overall shape of the bubble)

...that, by logical deduction, can only be as big as its 13.8 billion years of existence has allowed it to grow.

Now, if it is possible that the bubble has grown to a point to which our most advanced technology is simply not capable of viewing the leading edge of the expanding bubble, and, thus, we can only see what lies on this side of what we call an "event horizon,"...

...it doesn't change the fact that by reason of what the BBT implies, a leading edge to the bubble of our particular universe must indeed exist, and "something" on the other side of that leading edge is forever "making room" for this growing bubble of reality.

Do you deny the veracity of the Big Bang Theory?

If you do, then tell me your preferred alternative.
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 12:18 am You are mistakenly conflating the "somethingness" of the space that comprises the "fabric of spacetime," which underpins and binds the bubble of our universe together into one seamless whole, with that of what I am calling "absolute nothingness."

The latter is something you are making up. I deny it, meaning I cannot be conflating it with what you call the fabric of spacetime.

You asked me for my definition of the word "universe," to which I simply referred to the definition implicit in the Big Bang Theory.

And then you used a different definition, for which I gave the actual name used.

Do you need a "citation" for the "Big Bang Theory"?[/quote]I want a citation for this strange claim of some sort of nothingness that the 'fabric of spacetime' apparently moves into as it grows. None of that is consistent with consensus theory. It puts a bound to where the matter is, and that much mass cannot expand in a finite area. The curvature of gravity wouldn't allow it. The universe (your definition) would be smaller than its own Schwarzschild radius which is a recipe for the end of time, not the beginning of it.

If so, then it should come as no surprise that when asked...

"...What is the most widely accepted scientific theory as to how the universe began?..."

I have news. The Big Bang theory isn't it. It's only a theory of how it subsequently evolved from the earliest states, but it says nothing about 'how it began'.

I notice google AI got that wrong too. No surprise there.

...Google's AI Overview stated the following:

The most widely accepted scientific theory for the origin of the universe is the "Big Bang Theory," which proposes that the universe began as a tiny, extremely dense point that rapidly expanded and cooled, creating the space, time, and matter we observe today; this event is estimated to have occurred around 13.8 billion years ago.

Now, simple common sense would suggest that something that began from an "extremely dense point"...

I bolded the blatantly wrong bits. A small initial universe would only make sense if the universe was finite in size, but only the visible universe is finite in size.

(again, a metaphorical "outer film" that delineates the overall shape of the bubble)

There's no film, no place anything can be with matter on one side and not on the other. That would be a boundary. There's is no solution to the field equations that involve such a boundary.

...that, by logical deduction, can only be as big as its 13.8 billion years of existence has allowed it to grow.

And yet you said 93 diameter, which is BTW the diameter of the visible universe, but the universe (and not just the part thus designated) has no diameter.

Now, if it is possible that the bubble has grown to a point to which our most advanced technology is simply not capable of viewing the leading edge of the expanding bubble, and, thus, we can only see what lies on this side of what we call an "event horizon,"...

We can see objects that are now well beyond our event horizon. What limits what we see is our past light cone, which is considerably inside that event horizon. The event horizon is a completely different thing than what you describe. Light from outside that horizon will never reach us given unlimited time. It has nothing to do with what we see now. The horizon is an artifact of accelerating expansion. Without that acceleration, light from any distance would eventually get here.

Do you deny the veracity of the Big Bang Theory?

I deny your naive understanding of it. I prefer the actual theory. Wiki has a reasonable description, far better than the nonsense you're getting from AI, probably the worst possible source for stuff like that.

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 6:50 pm

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:24 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 4:54 am No, it just suggests that if you were to add, say, 10^5,000,000 more universes to the mix of reality, whatever is "making room," so to speak, for those additional universes...

How do you define 'universe' as distinct from 'reality' that this statement makes any sense at all?

When I think of the word "universe," I generally go by the standard definition of the universe that the astrophysicists use.

You know, the one derived from the "Big Bang" theory which (right or wrong) suggests that approximately 13.8 billion years ago, all of the phenomenal features of this dimension of reality we find ourselves held within, was once smaller than the dot between these two brackets [ . ],...
...but now exists as a bubble-like phenomenon o that is approximately 93 billion light years in diameter, and whose "outer film," so to speak is a light barrier of which nothing that we call "matter" can move beyond.

LOL 'this' is being CLAIMED as the so-called 'standard definition'.

The ONLY ones 'these ones' were KIDDING are "themselves".

WILL 'this one' PROVIDE 'us' WITH A 'link' to WHERE 'this' so-called 'STANDARD DEFINITION' of the 'universe' word, ACTUALLY EXISTS?

And, DOES 'this one' BELIEVE that ABSOLUTELY each AND EVERY "astrophysicist" USES 'this definition'?

By the way, WHY WOULD ANY one, including "astrophysicist", USE definitions, which may well have been Wrong, FROM THE OUTSET?

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 6:50 pm

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:24 pm You still make it sound like 'the universe' is some finite thing, and you're just making into a bigger finite thing, still bounded, beyond which is 'nothingness'.

Right, and that's because according to the above mentioned "Big Bang Theory,"

LOL So, 'this one' MAKES its JUDGMENTS, CONCLUSIONS, PRESUMPTIONS, CONCLUSIONS, and even its VERY OWN BELIEFS, ON, LOL, 'theories' OF ALL THINGS.

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 6:50 pm the material universe is a finite bubble of reality

Is the 'reality' word even USED in the 'big bang THEORY'?

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 6:50 pm that is delineated by a finite boundary of light that, again, is only approximately 93 billion light years in diameter.

So, someone HAS, more or less, just GUESSED that there is some so-called 'boundary of light', from which 'light, itself, can NOT pass NOR escape', and that it ONLY TAKES some one to COME UP WITH this GUESS, FOR "seeds" to THEN 'look at' AND 'see' OTHER things FROM that ASSUMPTION, ONLY.

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 6:50 pm I mean, either it (the material universe) began 13.8 billion years ago as a point particle [ . ] (or a singularity, or whatever) and then allegedly "expanded" to its present - (and limited) - diameter of 93 billion light years,...

...or the Big Bang theory is wrong (which is possible).

The 'big bang THEORY' IS Wrong. FULL STOP, and, END OF STORY.

And, THE PROOF OF WHY the 'big bang THEORY' IS Wrong I HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT and PARTLY EXPLAINED.

HOWEVER, BECAUSE there are people like "seeds" WHO BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that the Universe, Itself, BEGAN, and IS EXPANDING, then WHILE they ARE HOLDING ONTO and MAINTAINING 'this BELIEF' of theirs, they were NOT ABLE TO SEE and HEAR the ACTUAL PROOF, which HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED, here.

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 6:50 pm Now, of course, there could be other universes (other bubbles of reality) besides our finite little universe.

LOL There could NOT be OTHER 'Universes' BECAUSE, BY DEFINITION, the word 'Universe', literally MEANS, ALL OF EVERY thing as the One Everything.

Now, if you are USING the word 'universe', (with a little 's'), FOR A SPECIFIC REASON like you are NOT REFERRING TO the One and ONLY ALL-THERE-IS Universe, then that IS ALL WELL and GOOD. But, you WERE NEVER USING the 'universe' word like 'this' now, were you?

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 6:50 pm In which case, we would no longer be speaking of a "uni-verse," and instead need to use the term "multi-verse."

Which REALLY DOES GO TO SHOW HOW USING the word 'Universe' as though there is ANY thing MORE THAN the Universe, Itself, is just BEYOND ILLOGICAL and ABSURDITY.

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 6:50 pm

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:24 pm

(I call it "absolute nothingness")

Exactly, so my assessment of your quote stands. There is no nothingness into which somethingness meaningfully expands into.

If not absolute and infinite "nothingness," or, perhaps, infinite "void,"...

...then what do you wish to call whatever "it" is that is forever "making room" for the ever-expanding - (yet finite) - bubble of light that represents the outer boundary of everything we understand "reality" to be?
_______

LOL ONCE AGAIN, HOW 'these human beings' were BLINDED and DEAFENED BY their OWN 'current' BELIEFS, can be VERY CLEARLY SEEN and SPOTTED, here, in this one's CLAIMS and WRITINGS, here.

ONCE MORE, FOR the VERY SLOW OF LEARNING and OF COMPREHENDING.

There is NO 'ever-expanding' 'Universe', AS the Universe, Itself, IS ALREADY, spatially, INFINITE.

AGAIN as ALL things make up the Universe the Universe THEREFORE could NOT expand. BECAUSE 'Every thing' together IS, literally, 'Everything', which as One IS, AGAIN, infinite AND eternal.