Philosophy Now Forum

The idea that the expansion of the universe is actually speeding up is fairly new, it's from 1998 (won the 2011 physics Nobel). Imo we can never make confident claims about the "fate" of the universe, that's just beyond human ability, and yet many people already settled with the view that we are headed for the Big Rip.

Looking at it from a philosophical perspective, I kept saying that the eternal expansion is actually logically impossible (under the best understanding of logic, which is absolute symmetry). If there was some kind of Big Bang in the past, then logically there must be some kind of Big Crunch in the future. And that we already knew that the expansion rate already changed at least 3 times in the past, so it will probably change again in the future, the dark energy may not be a constant.

Well new data shows that dark energy may indeed not be a constant, and may already have started weakening. So maybe we aren't headed for the Big Rip:

https://www.reuters.com/science/evidenc ... 025-03-19/

My entire post was removed by the short timeout. Sigh...
Trying again.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 9:20 am and yet many people already settled with the view that we are headed for the Big Rip.

Who is 'many people''? The consensus view is the Hubble constant settling down to a fairly constant value of around 55 km/sec/mpc, which is exponential expansion compared to the relatively linear expansion of the last 12 billion years.

If there was some kind of Big Bang in the past, then logically there must be some kind of Big Crunch in the future.

Logic does not forbid time from being bounded on one or both ends. It certainly is bounded in a black hole, but black holes don't exist in a universe contained by time, one where it is a thing created.

And that we already knew that the expansion rate already changed at least 3 times in the past, so it will probably change again in the future, the dark energy may not be a constant.

It indeed changed abruptly in time (like the beginning and end of the inflation epoch), and due to new theories coming to light like the dark energy thing recently.

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 9:12 pm Logic does not forbid time from being bounded on one or both ends. It certainly is bounded in a black hole, but black holes don't exist in a universe contained by time, one where it is a thing created.

I specified which logic I meant.

Contrary to opinion, here, 'we' already do know, for sure, the Truth about the Universe, HERE.

When the word 'Universe' is being defined as, Totality; All-THERE-IS; Everything, then the Universe is not expanding, did not begin, and is not ending.

'This' can not be refuted, nor even disputed, by ANY one, which is proved absolutely True by NO one being able to refute, or even dispute my claim, here.

Some people talk about 'theories' as though they have an impact on my claim, here.

If the Universe is EVERY thing, then the Universe can not be ANY thing other than being infinite and eternal.

The so-called 'big bang' is nothing more than just 'a bang', which if it came from 'singularity', or the infinite compression of matter, then these are not the beginning of Everything at all.

And, if ANY one would like the actual proof of this, then just ask for it.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Mar 31, 2025 10:25 am The so-called 'big bang' is nothing more than just 'a bang', which if it came from 'singularity', or the infinite compression of matter, then these are not the beginning of Everything at all.

And, if ANY one would like the actual proof of this, then just ask for it.

Before BB was matter and after BB was matter.
Where did matter for BB (singularity) come from?
No answer.
#
The universe (as a whole) is infinite, eternal, flat, cold, homogeneous
cosmic vacuum + billions multiply billions of galaxies.
After each cosmic horizon there is another cosmic horizon
with billions of galaxies.
But the sum of the masses of all galaxies is very small (about 5%).
5% of ordinary matter cannot create BB for the whole universe.
All galaxies were created by dark matter and dark energy of the infinite cosmic vacuum.

socrattus wrote: ↑Tue Apr 01, 2025 2:29 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Mar 31, 2025 10:25 am The so-called 'big bang' is nothing more than just 'a bang', which if it came from 'singularity', or the infinite compression of matter, then these are not the beginning of Everything at all.

And, if ANY one would like the actual proof of this, then just ask for it.

Before BB was matter and after BB was matter.
Where did matter for BB (singularity) come from?
No answer.

Am I meant to understand what you are saying and asking, here?

you claim that before and after the event, which is called the big bang event, there was matter, but then you ask the question, 'where did matter for the big bang event, (which is also called 'singularity') come from?' which I was going to answer, for you, but you then wrote, 'No answer'.

So, I am not sure if you are TELLING 'us' that there is 'No answer', or, if you are TELLING 'me', do not answer.

If you would like me or someone to answer your question, here, for you, then just let us know. And, conversely, if you would like us to provide 'no answer', then also let us know. But, there is NO USE in you saying and writing, 'There is no answer', because there IS 'an answer'.

socrattus wrote: ↑Tue Apr 01, 2025 2:29 pm #
The universe (as a whole) is infinite, eternal, flat, cold, homogeneous
cosmic vacuum + billions multiply billions of galaxies.

Why do you claim that the Universe is 'flat', 'cold', and a 'vacuum', but then also claim the Universe contains 'galaxies', which themselves are obviously some 'thing' and which also obviously contain 'things', which themselves are hot, and round?

In other words, what is with the blatantly obvious contradiction, here?

socrattus wrote: ↑Tue Apr 01, 2025 2:29 pm After each cosmic horizon there is another cosmic horizon
with billions of galaxies.
But the sum of the masses of all galaxies is very small (about 5%).
5% of ordinary matter cannot create BB for the whole universe.

What do you mean by, 'BB for the whole universe, exactly?'

It sounds like you have some sort of belief that the big bang was the start and beginning of the whole Universe. Which obviously it was NOT.

socrattus wrote: ↑Tue Apr 01, 2025 2:29 pm All galaxies were created by dark matter and dark energy of the infinite cosmic vacuum.

Here you SAY and CLAIM, 'There are galaxies, but which exist in 'the' infinite cosmic vacuum'.

Can you REALLY NOT SEE THE CONTRADICTION, here?

And now they're wondering if the whole known universe is spinning. Well that sounds plausible, most of the stuff in it is spinning.

you human beings can wonder, assume, guess, ponder, or conjecture all you like. But, what is actually True will always remain the same.

The Universe, when defined as, All-there-is; Everything; Totality, can not expand, speed up, slow down, nor spin. Just for the very simple Fact that it would be a logical and physical impossibility.

The Universe, when defined as above, here, is infinite, and eternal. End of story.

The known universe isn't the entire universe. Just as a spinning planet isn't the entire universe. Don't you know anything?

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 7:23 am The known universe isn't the entire universe. Just as a spinning planet isn't the entire universe. Don't you know anything?

What another Truly stupid thing to presume.

What you know in regards to the Universe is obviously not the entire Universe.

But, what is irrefutably known about the entire Universe is that it is a theoretical, and an empirical, impossibility, for the entire Universe to be spinning and expanding, and to have begun, and/or end. Once more, full stop.

Some of these people, back when this was being written, really had the most narrowest and closed visions and perspectives.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 8:19 am

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 7:23 am The known universe isn't the entire universe. Just as a spinning planet isn't the entire universe. Don't you know anything?

What another Truly stupid thing to presume.

What you know in regards to the Universe is obviously not the entire Universe.

But, what is irrefutably known about the entire Universe is that it is a theoretical, and an empirical, impossibility, for the entire Universe to be spinning and expanding, and to have begun, and/or end. Once more, full stop.

Some of these people, back when this was being written, really had the most narrowest and closed visions and perspectives.

That's not what the known universe refers to. You also aren't omniscient about the nature of the entire universe, or about anything else. Instead you know little to nothing as usual.

Lately I'm starting to see why a British forum is the only one that wouldn't ban the likes of you.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 8:33 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 8:19 am

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 7:23 am The known universe isn't the entire universe. Just as a spinning planet isn't the entire universe. Don't you know anything?

What another Truly stupid thing to presume.

What you know in regards to the Universe is obviously not the entire Universe.

But, what is irrefutably known about the entire Universe is that it is a theoretical, and an empirical, impossibility, for the entire Universe to be spinning and expanding, and to have begun, and/or end. Once more, full stop.

Some of these people, back when this was being written, really had the most narrowest and closed visions and perspectives.

That's not what the known universe refers to.

Once again another Truly stupid assumption being made by 'this one'.

I have never talked about what the 'known universe' refers to.

It would be Truly insightful if 'we' could see what you 'see' when you read my words in this forum.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 8:33 am You also aren't omniscient about the nature of the entire universe, or about anything else.

Again, another Truly stupid assumption made by 'this one'.

No one ever thought that i am 'omniscient'.

Also, it is an irrefutable Fact that the 'entire Universe' is infinite and eternal. Full stop.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 8:33 am Instead you know little to nothing as usual.

If 'this' is what you want to keep believing is absolutely true, then there is no wonder that 'this' is all you actually 'see', here.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 8:33 am Lately I'm starting to see why a British forum is the only one that wouldn't ban the likes of you.

Okay.

So, I, partly, explain how and why the 'entire Universe' is infinite, and eternal, and 'this one' starts assuming, and believing, that a forum from a particular place is the only one, in the 'entire Universe', that, supposedly, would not ban the likes of 'me'. Whatever 'the likes' of 'me' actually means and refers to, exactly.

sugar free space food is no solution...

-Imp

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 9:20 am The idea that the expansion of the universe is actually speeding up is fairly new, it's from 1998 (won the 2011 physics Nobel). Imo we can never make confident claims about the "fate" of the universe, that's just beyond human ability, and yet many people already settled with the view that we are headed for the Big Rip.

Looking at it from a philosophical perspective, I kept saying that the eternal expansion is actually logically impossible (under the best understanding of logic, which is absolute symmetry). If there was some kind of Big Bang in the past, then logically there must be some kind of Big Crunch in the future. And that we already knew that the expansion rate already changed at least 3 times in the past, so it will probably change again in the future, the dark energy may not be a constant.

Well new data shows that dark energy may indeed not be a constant, and may already have started weakening. So maybe we aren't headed for the Big Rip:

https://www.reuters.com/science/evidenc ... 025-03-19/

Om just a bloke on the bus me. I have a post to make on the fallacy of fine tuning. But for now, yes eternal expansion of single diluting observable universes and their unobservable shells (apart from to observers in them) is absurd. But no, logically there is no requirement for a Big Crunch. It's not a two-stroke universe. The accelerating expansion of space means that absent a Big Rip, all matter will degenerate to isolated quanta that aren't in any other's light cone. Space will become meaningless. In ten to the googolplex years. Unless one defines that meaninglessly remote fate as the Big Rip, which sounds more dramatic. More Doctor Who. Or God. New heavens and a new earth. Nah. That's the way the world goes out. Not with a bang but a WIMP, er? Sooner fates are available apparently. The Big Slurp. Dah.