Philosophy Now Forum

I would argue that what happens after the BB is indeed science and what happened before the BB is philosophy.

'Before the BB' doesn't make any sense. Time was created by the big bang so we can't sensibly use our conceps of time to talk about what happened before it.

Hi Diomedes71,
If I get these analogies then an expanding balloon of 'fluid'(spacetime) started from a central point(big bang). I say fluid because we are apparently 'embedded' within the balloon rather than being upon it.
I assume that 'matter' is what? 'Slowed down' spacetime? Whorls of fluid spacetime? And the problem is why it has these disturbances? Given its a 'fluid' could it be that the 'big bang' was rotating? As thats the only thing I can think of that would create 'imperfections' in this fluid?
a_uk
p.s
given the way you sound could you take a look at this as its been bugging me, as I'm not competent to know whether it has any basis in anything.
viewtopic.php?t=521&highlight=ray

Hi Arising_uk

You do have to be careful, the analogies are far from perfect, they give a glimpse of an idea of a maybe reality. If a fluid in a bag worked in anyway as an analogy then we would use that instead. Particularily if it was thought to be a closer resemblence to the truth.

With regards to the other thread, well, i have read the openers and a littel where you get involve. Also skim read the bit about explination of magnetism which he atributes to an interaction with GRAVITY.

If the guy has managed to unify the forces of electromagnitism and GRAVITY, I look forward to hearing about his NOBEL prize.

In the opener he says there is nowhere else to exist than the universe. He can not say this. Maybe there are many universes or branes, or there has been a very good statistical argument put for us existing in a computer program........ no seriously.

Top and bottom of it sounds like a crack pot who writes to much to me. If he wrote a little less then it might be worth disecting but so much partially correct technical jargon isn't worth my time.
Hope you have fun....

Regards

Futher

Generally, there are only thought to be 4 fundamental forces

Strong Nuclear Force
Weak Nuclear Force
Electro Magnetism

Gravity

I believe we can somewhat combine the first 3 into a unified theory.
To a lesser degree, but with some sucesses and some problems string theory can provide a unification including gravity.

But generally it is perceived that we cannot unify a 4 at current state of humanity. Which also means we have no equation to express gravity - Electromagnetism interactions.

There may be a 5th force the relatively recently observed force which is driving the universal expansion at an ever increasing faster RATE.

Regards

Diomedes71 wrote:...or there has been a very good statistical argument put for us existing in a computer program........ no seriously.

lol! I take you seriously as Zuse and Fredkin are my favourite digital meta-physicists.

You are probably thinking of Nick Bostrom's simulation argument:

www.simulation-argument.com

The statistics may be good, but I am not convinced that we should accept the assumptions which need to be made in order to reach the conclusion.

Hi Arising_uk

lol! I take you seriously as Zuse and Fredkin are my favourite digital meta-physicists.

I don't know how to take that, if your pulling my leg or not ...
I don't know them.

Regards

Hi Diomedes71,

Diomedes71 wrote:...I don't know how to take that, if your pulling my leg or not ...
I don't know them.

Not at all. Look up Fredkin and Digital Mechanics, or more suitable for us Digital Philosophy
Konrad Zuse wrote a paper about 'calculating space'(a hard read if you are not a mathematician or physicist) which introduced the idea that Computational Mathematics can provide the Physicist with a different modelling tool for physical processes from the ones that 'normal' Mathematics has previously supplied, at least I think thats part of what he said.
a_uk

Cheer Richard,

Read it in New Scientist - thanks for the link

Regards