|
Others ~ Selected Correspondence The universe
In your
‘And as a friend of mine once suggested, while we where on our backs looking up at the night sky somewhere in California, perhaps we humans are just the universe’s way of looking at itself.’ We are the universe coming into self-awareness. It is nothing less than miraculous that matter has become conscious and reflective. Who knows why it has happened or what it means? At first I was intrigued by the statement of Richard that the meaning of life lies open all around us, right under our very noses. I held the thought prior to actualism that the meaning of life is some sort of goal or objective, a realization (what you make of it). This was implied due to my social conditioning of the word ‘meaning’, primarily understood as purpose. It happened also because of ‘my’ sense of time, this feeling giving a sense of linear continuity and duration with a definite end-product at the end of the assembly line. But what if there’s no end-product? It is a strange and foreign notion that complex processes can occur over aeons for no purpose whatsoever. I too have thought of meaning in terms of purpose, or purposeful progression from one state to another. Teleology comes naturally to humans but there is no reason to project it upon the universe. I had a brief and unexpected insight on this subject recently. I was walking in the bush when I happened to glance down and see a small lizard perfectly camouflaged amidst the stones, branches and leaves strewn across the trail. It seemed so well adapted to the colours and textures of its habitat. Then the silliness of my reasoning took me by surprise. It has not adapted. Nothing has adapted. Nature has blindly and prodigiously spewed out myriad permutations of possibilities over billions of years, and virtually all of them have failed. Only a tiny fraction of those possibilities have been actualised because, by sheer chance, they were well-suited to the existing conditions. Natural selection is nothing new to me but this was the first time I was directly struck by the possibility of universe that is limitless, wonderful and – quite possibly – utterly without purpose! I thought of Richard saying ‘we come from nowhere, and we are going nowhere.’ If so there is no progress, only ceaseless change. Teleology belongs only to the real world. It is projected upon the actual world by a mind rooted in blind instinct. * What if life’s just an aimless and blind movement and the assembly line is just a recycle line, the end of it as seen by me not being The End, as the line has no end, instead the line going backwards underneath unseen by me and by all the others due to our limited perspective? What if the mass phase of matter goes back to the energy phase at death and then back and forth, in a never-ending cycle of transformation? Nothing is wasted and nothing really matters... If the matter of this universe has an in-built property for the best to emerge, why is this quality applicable only to the mass phase and not to the energy phase? If energy is matter, is there a best version/form of energy? The best form of matter might simply be called adaptation. I remember that a measure of intelligence is the capacity of an individual to adapt to a new environment. That is reasonable as long as it doesn’t reintroduce the pathetic fallacy by the back door. Matter and its myriad forms do not have to be endowed with consciousness or intent in order for the best to emerge spontaneously. It is a mind-blowing fact. The words are so bland, the reality so amazing. No 82 to No 32, 31.3.2005
Is there a logical fallacy involved in saying that the universe is finite? Why is the notion of a finite universe ‘ridiculous’? Though I am not a logician, I think there is a logical fallacy involved. Let’s assume that the universe is finite, which means there is an edge of the universe. What is beyond that edge? If there is nothing – that ‘nothing’ should also be part of the universe by definition (universe is everything including nothing). And you would not know how long that ‘nothing’ lasts – ‘nothing’ would also have an edge! And after that what if ‘something’ starts again? Do you see the fallacy? No 4 to No 71, Infinitude, 8.11.2004
Okay my attempts at trying to explain what is happening (unedited):
I just bought the new Discover magazine, Vol. 25 No. 2 ‘What existed before the Big Bang?’, and read what I think is a relevant article to one of the most popular topics being discussed now a days on this list, which I am currently trying to make sense out of how to make sense out of. So if you are interested it will probably be available at your nearest magazine stand/store. It’s mostly about another theory about the other theory (BB), which basically says that our universe and other universes will forever bang into/with each other creating a ‘baby universe’ with each bang, and afterwards these will do same; kind of like an extremely prolific bumping car frenzy, as I understand it. Supposedly the ‘Big Bang’ was just one bang out of infinite bangs. What I found curious is that it also suggests that time and space are both infinite, yet I don’t recall them including matter in there. Anyways, I will let other more experienced minds keep publicly inquiring into the subject, and I greatly appreciate the effort, meanwhile the prospect of experientially being able to grasp all this is much more enticing to me – and maybe even probable. The quote below might help at least as another reference:
No 47, 9.2.2004
I thought it useful to go and read that bit (I assume it was ‘Infinitude Is The Boundlessness Of Space And Time ‘) myself. We’ve had plenty o’ intellectual wanking on this subject lately and the bit that caught my attention is:
That would appear to be an accurate assessment. So, while it can be useful to dialog on the subject, we’re just poking at a frog with a stick, trying to understand how it feels from observing its reactions. In my recent reflection, I can see how it’s impossible for someone to ‘grasp all this’ as a concept – yet it seems to me that one can grasp it as a concept to some degree hypothetically. For example, you’re spatial orientation is normally dominated by concepts like up/down, left/right and so on. But these are completely relative – everyone can reflect on the fact that people on the other side of the globe have a different orientation – so that you can grasp that your orientation is arbitrary. It follows that since there is no absolute point of reference defining up/down, left/right, etc – that you are both in no orientation in particular and every possible orientation all at the same time. Well, the same goes for an infinite universe. Once you grant that it’s possible the universe is infinite – and see that when you imagine the universe – you put boundaries on it like the boundaries of a room (if inside) or the boundaries of the earth and sky (if outside) – and you realize with no boundaries or edges that you are in no particular place thus everywhere all at the same time. And the same goes for time – no beginning and no end gives no absolute orientation – so you are at no particular place in time and every place in time at once. It amounts to saying that all of space and time is here now. What I can say while not in a PCE is a hypothetical statement: If the universe is infinite/eternal – then it follows that everything is everywhere all at once – and there is nowhere but here and now. It all comes from realizing that there is no absolute reference point in space or time – thus no measure or duration. I don’t know about you, but it seems to me that reflection of this sort can take you a long way towards at least understanding what Richard is saying – then one can make the allowance that maybe the universe is actually infinite/eternal and my normal experience of it must be an illusion of some sort – sort of like you realize that in relation to objects around you and the earth, you are not moving, but you are moving in space quite rapidly in relation to other planets and the sun – so it is an illusion that you are not in motion relative to the sun, for example. In my mind this raises another, larger question. History is littered with examples of religious/spiritual epiphanies, wherein the experiencer is completely convinced of the nature of the universe, end of discussion. Some of these are obviously loopy, some less so. They would appear to have rewired their brains to experience the universe in a certain fashion, intentionally or not. We know that the brain can operate in some very funny ways when its biomechanical operation is altered through physical trauma, chemical assault, etc. Richard appears to have rewired his brain internally (and on the evidence I think that is true), so how do we know that it wasn’t simply rewired to experience the universe as timeless and infinite? First, it wasn’t rewired to experience the universe as ‘timeless.’ Infinite yes – timeless no. If you haven’t noticed the vast differentiation that Richard makes between ‘timeless’ and ‘eternal’ then you may want to do some more reading on the subject. In short, ‘timeless’ refers to an outside of the universe – something outside of time. Eternal means there is no outside of the universe. The ‘timeless’ is metaphysical – eternal is actual. It seems to me that these concepts are critical to grasp – as timeless is an illusion of the identity and eternal is a fact. The whole of actual freedom lies in the experience of what these concepts express, No 38. If the universe isn’t infinite/eternal – actual freedom falls flat on its face – it isn’t some arbitrary consequence of Richard’s state of consciousness – but the very possibility for it. It is the fact (I’m of course speaking hypothetically here since I’m not having a PCE :o) that actual freedom depends on it being a fact that there is NO OUTSIDE to the universe. And doubt can begin to set in if you attempt to answer the question of what is outside the universe. You have to see that the ‘I’ sees itself as outside the universe peering in on it – thus it creates imaginary boundaries and its own ‘reality.’ Once you allow the universe to have no outside, then the whole imaginary edifice of ‘reality’ begins to crumble. Peter, Vineeto and others are attempting the same physical rewiring (not achieved yet... virtual freedom vs. actual freedom) by emulation of that programming... whether they or anyone else can ever accomplish the hard-wiring remains to be seen. If this preposition should turn out to be true, then the issue reduces to selecting a program you like (and AF is the best of the bunch), and applying all your efforts to rewiring your brain to run it. I see where you are coming from, No 38 – but you are making actualism relative – a truth among ‘truths.’ As if you can pick which one you like best – a sort of pragmatist or relativist version of truth. You can put it that way, but it’s certainly not what the actualists mean. Put it this way, if the universe actually is infinite/eternal – there is only one ‘truth’ or fact of the matter – and that’s actual freedom. So the task of hard-wiring the brain is not an arbitrary thing – it’s not a whole lot different from when my brain understands a new fact it has never known before – it’s the fact and the understanding that does the hard-wiring – not the hard-wiring that creates the fact. It may take years to hard-wire my brain to know that evolution is true – as indeed it has taken years for that to occur for me – yet the process wasn’t somehow arbitrary or done by choosing the ‘best’ way of seeing things – it was a controlled process – controlled by the fact of evolution. The whole difficulty is that we are used to thinking on a relative plane ie, today is Friday, my computer is sitting ‘in front’ of me, I am occupying this particular place in my room, etc. If the universe is non-relative (ie, infinite) – then we can only be mistaken when trying to orient ourselves to the universe somehow – in other words we are not a part of the universe – but the universe itself. One has to throw off relative, self-centred (not ‘selfish’ – I mean self-oriented here) thinking that proceeds from the bottom-up and attempt to think from the top-down, from the infinite to the finite and not extrapolate from the finite to the infinite. Once you try it – you’ll see how the relative can be the absolute – as in there is no space but here, and no time but now. Thus, there is no measure and no duration ‘relative’ to the universe. Of course, nothing changes on a local scale. And it’s not a question of a ‘way of seeing things’ – it’s a question of fact. No 37 to No 38
Being that I know personally what it is like to be somewhat baffled by responses given by Richard and other actualists. I’d like to input a clarification at this point that could save some confusion. Richard: Just as a matter of interest: as I did not say that the ‘Big Bang’ theory ‘implies that consciousness gives rise to matter’ what makes you say that I think that? In the context of discussing the Big Bang theory, you said that it is the ASC which informs that consciousness gives rise to matter. By contrast, the PCE informs that matter gives rise to consciousness. The fact that you juxtaposed the Big Bang theory with both the ASC and the idea that consciousness gives rise to matter suggests that you think they are, in fact, linked. If that isn’t what you meant, what did you mean? What Richard actually said was ‘It is the PCE which informs that matter gives rise to consciousness. ‘ The only substantial difference between how you reported what Richard said and what he actually said was the word ‘implies’ versus ‘informs.’ There is a marked difference between the two. What is important to see here is that Richard is saying that the PCE ‘informs,’ not ‘implies’ – as an implication means than an additional inference must be made. * After rereading this paragraph, I see that I made an error. It isn’t the case that ‘The only substantial difference between how you reported what Richard said and what he actually said was the word ‘implies’ versus ‘informs.’ Actually, it was the ASC that Richard said ‘informs that consciousness gives rise to matter.’ So the misunderstanding doesn’t hinge on the words ‘implies’ versus ‘informs’ after all as I thought, but apparently your replacing ‘ASC’ with ‘the big-bang theory’ in Richard’s statement that ‘It is the ASC which informs that consciousness gives rise to matter.’ No 37 to No 60
There were some interesting and lengthy discussions on this list last year regarding big-bang cosmology, infinitude, etc. – which were (to some extent) repeated just recently with No 60 and No 59. At that time I picked up a book by Eric Lerner called ‘The Big Bang Never Happened.’ Since then I’ve often wondered how his views have changed/evolved since he published the book in the early 1990’s – guessing he must have a presence on the internet somewhere. This afternoon, I located Mr Lerner’s website at (of all places) www.nobigbang.com – go figure :) Interesting reading for anyone wanting to look at the evidence he presents. Apparently, Fred Hoyle has some company :) * Yes, Fred does have company – marginalised, sidelined and lonely. Marginalized – yes. Sidelined – yes. I’ve read those comments on the internet about the book – and I’ve only read portions of the book myself – and I am no expert in big-bang cosmology, but I am willing to learn more than what I already know about it. I’m not sure why you add the polemical word ‘lonely’ – as such seems to indicate an ad hominem argument. Why do you add the word ‘lonely’? – merely because the ‘no big bangers’ are fewer than the ‘big bangers?’ Simply being fewer in number hardly would merit the description ‘lonely’ – unless you are proposing that those who are ‘less lonely’ or ‘not lonely’ are somehow more likely to be correct? They work hard to contort their theories to the data. Keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of astronomers consider Mr. Lerner’s book ‘The Big Bang Never Happened’ to be a crank work. I’m sure that it will appeal to Richard. If the overwhelming majority of astronomers consider Mr. Lerner’s book to be a ‘crank’ work, why is that the case? Would you say the same is true of Hannes Alfven and Halton Arp? Let’s take something basic about Mr. Lerner’s claims – and it’s one
that has been echoed by Richard regarding observations made in 1986 here – Here’s what Mr. Lerner says on his website under ‘Recent Discoveries.’
How do those who consider this a ‘crank’ claim account for the observation/ theory/ or fact that there are large scale structures ‘some 12 billion light years across’ that would take ‘at least several hundred billion years to form?’ Obviously, to maintain the big bang theory, they or you will need to show why there is no need to conclude that such structures would take longer to form than some 12-15 billion years (since that is the currently accepted range) for the occurrence of the big bang. * It can be very, very daunting trying to make sense of what is going on when experts argue! Let’s wait 300 years and see what happens :-) I understand that you are stating just how difficult it can be for a layperson to make an informed judgement on controversial matters, but then I’m not quite sure why you are opting to argue that the majority of scientists are correct about the big-bang – you are apparently not content to wait at all. Rather, you have taken an proactive stance – attempting to prove Richard either wrong or gullible. The best I can tell is that you are making an educated guess or estimation on who is correct based upon what is normally well-placed confidence in the ‘majority’ of scientists. Ok – to boil it down ... I can only guess that for Richard – the immediate experience of the infinitude of the universe is so convincing that counter-proposals like Prof Wright’s for the early formation of super clusters (when space was supposedly more condensed) don’t even merit a second look – since he starts with the evidence of the PCE. So, that extra datum of experience gives the confidence to endorse the statement that ‘the existence of super clusters make the big-bang look silly.’ [my paraphrase] From where you and I sit (not in a PCE) his confidence in going against the ‘majority of scientists’ can look silly – but it is entirely possible that we merely lack the data the PCE gives for the infinity / eternity of the universe. Anyway, my point is basically this – there is no point in trying to argue one way or the other (on this list) based upon evidence that doesn’t take the PCE into account – since what is actually in question is what the PCE supposedly reveals. So, I suppose it boils down to whether one wants to experience whatever the evidence of the PCE is for oneself. As I see it, your only viable moves at this point are:
For now anyway, I’ll take #2. Have an excellent day :) No 37 to No 59
As a matter of interest, do you now regard actualists’ claim that the universe is infinite and eternal to be a belief or a fact, or ... something else?I don’t believe the universe is infinite and eternal. I don’t know one way or the other. I admit that it is rather inconvenient that there seems to exist strong evidence to the contrary. It would be nice if Richard and the majority of theoretical physicists agreed – then there would be no cognitive dissonance. For me, the matter is simply a claim to be investigated – but it must be investigated in the manner in which the person making the claim specifies. If I am told that the only way to know it is the PCE, then that is what I have to investigate if I want to speak on equal footing. Have an excellent day :o) No 37 to No 60
An example of where ‘arbitration’ would have been handy was with the issue between you and Peter about ‘agnosticism’ and how one knows the universe to be infinite – it seems to me that this could have been cleared up readily by a more perceptive reading by Peter – but he appeared to be more interested in keeping with his own usage of the word ‘agnosticism’ and his own methods of investigating the infinity of the universe, rather than to tease out sources of the differences between you. Had you or he been more perceptive or interested in the sources of your divergences, those could have been clarified earlier in the conversation, and much of the butting heads that happened could have possibly been avoided. Now, of course I’m making these comments in light of your recent comments that lead me to think you now admit that it’s possible that one could know (in a PCE) that the universe is infinite. If you really don’t admit the possibility that one could know the universe is infinite, then just scratch everything I just said about the conversation you and Peter had on that topic – because that would make your agnosticism precisely what Peter was attacking. You certainly did make comments (as I recall) that made you an easy target, but it seemed to me that you were sometimes switching back and forth between two agnosticisms...
Number 2 is what Peter was (rightly) attacking – and you made statements at times that could only be interpreted that way – yet if you could have limited yourself to number 1 – which it seemed to me that you were groping for at times – then there needn’t have been any difficulty. No 37 to No 38
...it’s hard to get my head around it... why I am in no particular place if there are no boundaries. Whew. I do ‘grant that it’s possible the universe is infinite’, the bit I’ve been wrestling with is why should it be? I am of course applying logic and reason to that question, and I don’t know if that will ever work. Yes, I’m familiar with that feeling of ‘it’s hard to get my head around it.’ I suppose it’s because there is no getting one’s head ‘around’ infinity! Ha! Anyway, I thought I might suggest an easier way. You can either draw or (think about) a grid that covers the entire universe – 2 dimensions is fine – keep it simple. The trick is that both the x and y axes are infinite in each direction – so the grid is infinite. Say you are at the 0,0 point – the origin. The objects around you are located around the origin. Lets say you move over +3 on the x axis and up 4 on the y axis – you can move the origin with you if you wish to represent ‘you.’ Now, you have changed position relative to the objects around you, but have you changed position relative to the grid as a whole? Remember, it’s infinite. Did you get any closer or move further away from any imaginary boundary? The point is that you might as well be 10,000 whatevers to the right or 20,000 whatevers down and to the left – or wherever – it doesn’t matter. Just like you are in no particular orientation up/down, left/right and you are in every possible orientation – so also are you at no particular spot on the grid relative to the entire grid – since it’s infinite after all. This way of putting it is pretty neat because you can see that measure is arbitrary too. You moved 3 ‘to the right’ and 4 ‘up’ – but you could have just as easily moved 3,000 ‘to the right’ and 4,000 ‘up’ and you’d still be in the same place relative to the entire grid (infinity all around). Then, it’s easy to think about time in much the same way after nailing down space. Moving forward or backward in time doesn’t change your ‘orientation’ to eternity one whit – thus, no duration. Get it? You also mentioned (above) that you’ve been wrestling with the question of ‘why should the universe be infinite?’ I suppose the first question that comes to my mind is ‘why shouldn’t it be infinite?’ Granted, we tend to imagine the universe with boundaries, but when we ask the question of what a boundary would consist of – it seems the universe cannot be finite. Asking yourself what would happen if you threw something at the boundary if you could travel there is a good question which makes a finite universe seem absurd to many. As far as I’m aware – there is no good answer to ‘what’s on the other side of the universe?’ Well, if you ask me – if there’s an outside to the universe – then it’s possible that one has merely drawn arbitrary boundaries and left infinity out. There are two things that ‘I’ cannot know in this whole equation.
from which would follow,
The first 2 seem plausible based upon reflection, but apparently it takes a PCE for them to become knowledge, then 3 would apparently become obvious as well. Eminently sensible logic. It seems obvious that the ‘I’ is an arbitrarily defined point in relation to a bunch of other arbitrarily defined points, hence can never know 3). It’s easy to see how others have perhaps caught a glimpse of the infinite, and mistaken it for ‘I’ am one with the universe. Just because you own a scalpel doesn’t mean you can do open heart surgery. Yes, it must have something to do with the fact that ‘I’ can only imagine what infinity is – then ‘I’ can imagine expanding outwards to ‘be’ that infinity, but as long as the experience is happening for the ‘center’ or ‘self,’ then it can only be an imagined expansion which then ‘merges’ with an imaginary metaphysical being – since ‘I’ am metaphysical in the first place. And the result is the anthropomorphic projection of human attributes onto the divine. An illusion within an illusion. Whereas the real thing – so to speak – or the actual, comes from dissolving the root illusion of anything metaphysical whatsoever. No 37 to No 38
Last week, we saw a total eclipse of the sun. It is an awe inspiring sight – a definite Wow!! About an hour before totality, the moon takes the first tiny bite out of the sun’s disk. Over the next 45 minutes the size of the ‘bite’ gradually increases, but without protective glasses none of this would be observable and there is no other manifestation of the phenomenon. About fifteen minutes before totality there is an almost perceptible decrease in the light level – or is it just the increasing cloud cover, which is threatening to obscure our view of the main event. And does it seem to be getting cooler? I look to the south west, where the skies are darkening – is it the approaching shadow, or merely darker clouds? Five minutes to go and the sun looks like a new moon. The cloud cover is
increasing and the tension increases – will there be sufficient break in the clouds to let us witness the greatest
astronomical event observable from earth. There is now a definite reduction in light, though one still cannot look
directly at the sun with the naked eye, even though it is behind light clouds. The sun has gone and is replaced by a black disc, with a ring of bluish white surrounding it. Two tongues of dark pink/red are visible and I realise these are solar protuberances and quickly have a look through the binoculars. It is difficult to hold them steady, I am shaking so much – whether from the cold or the magnificence of the view, I am not sure. I look around, in wonder, at the colours of the clouds and sky, the indescribable hues and shades of light and dark. It is as though it is sunset – but over the whole of the sky. A woman and her young son are standing near us, with their backs resolutely turned to the sun, she clutching his shoulders. They have been standing close-by for some time and have obviously been persuaded by the voluminous, incorrect, advice which has been put forth by the media (and the UK government) for some time. The boy has been using the pinhole method of observing the sun and has been repeatedly saying ‘I am frightened I am going to look’. I reassure them that it is perfectly safe to look at the Sun during totality and that they are missing out on the greatest spectacle of their lives. I obviously sound sincere, for they immediately turn and look. Another look round at the skies and a glimpse of a star (or planet) through the broken cloud – it is getting perceptibly lighter in the west and for the first time in my life, I witness what appears to be sunrise from the ‘wrong’ direction. All too soon it is over and the diamond ring reappears – this time on the other side of the sun. Quickly back on with the protective glasses and a glimpse, almost imagined, of Bailey’s Beads – the sun shining between the mountains of the moon. Then the ‘fingernail’ is back and light, once again, shines over the world. It is easy to understand how our ancestors thought the eclipse of the sun was a ‘sign from the gods’. With no foreknowledge and no warning, the first they would notice would be the air getting slightly cooler and shadows and the light looking somehow different. And suddenly (for until totality it is not possible to look at the sun with the naked eye) the sun ‘goes out’ and is replaced by a black ‘hole’ with a glowing surround – fear and terror and a few more sacrifices to the gods when the sun reappears. Even nowadays, the great majority of peoples consider an eclipse to have religious or spiritual significance, as a sign that the universe is, indeed, miraculous and god has set up the conjunctions of the earth and moon to remind us of his existence. Personally, I regarded it as an awesome event. Discussing it with my wife afterwards, I suggested it was an opportunity to look in wonder at how marvellous this universe is. It is too magnificent a spectacle for ‘me’ to comprehend, but if one can observe without ‘me’ interfering and interpreting, all one can do is say ‘Wow!!!’ Alan
Just to let you know that your efforts on listening-l do have an effect. I had fallen a bit behind with the discussions and was spending a few hours ‘catching up’. I got to post No 1328:
Of course it is! I had read the same, or similar, many times and had never quite ‘got it’. Suddenly, it ‘clicked’ – and, as I was about to start writing this mail, my wife asked me what I was doing, so I had the opportunity to really explore what it meant, by explaining it to her. And it is so obvious – as any fact is, of course. What a delight to be this material universe experiencing itself as a flesh and blood body, which can not only appreciate itself through the magnificent sense organs with which it is equipped, but to then be able to ponder and reflect upon its magnificence and convey it to another is quite something else! It might be of use to others if I went through the explanation I gave to my wife (not verbatim):
Along with the realisation that I am (almost) this universe experiencing itself – and only that – came a tinge of fear, with the knowing that when I am actually this universe experiencing itself, ‘I’ will no longer exist. Am ‘I’ really willing to sacrifice ‘my’self to allow this to happen? And yet, ‘I’ know it is inevitable, if I am to fulfil my destiny. As you said in one of your posts (approx), it is an irresistible pull, a momentum and impetus which is not of ‘my’ doing. It is like being on the outer edge of a massive whirlpool, being dragged closer and closer, and faster and faster, to the inevitable moment of entering the vortex – and ‘popping’ out the other side – I see I have not yet quite lost the imaginative faculty! So, as I sit here watching another sun rise, with the crescent moon and Venus still visible, and the clouds turning a delightful shade of pink, I glory in the opportunity of being able to be the universe experiencing itself. What a gas! Alan to Richard
Was watching a programme last night – the last in a series entitled ‘The Universe’. There are estimated to be between 100 to 400 billion stars in our galaxy – and there are billions of galaxies throughout the universe. What other proof is there needed that the universe is infinite! It is staring us in the face (or the skies!). I was reminded of an astronomy lecture I was at, which impressed me then and continues to do so: This was in a very big lecture hall, larger than the average theatre. Imagine this lecture hall represents the universe. It is filled with billions of specks of dust, each one of which represents a super-galaxy. Take one of these specks of dust and expand it to the size of this lecture hall. Again the hall is filled with billions of specks of dust – each one of which represents a galaxy. Take one of these specks of dust and expand it to the size of this lecture hall. Again the hall is filled with billions of specks of dust – each one of which represents a star. Take one of these specks of dust and expand it to the size of this lecture hall. The Earth is the size of a ping-pong ball. Although this lecture set a limit to the extent of the universe, it does give one a sense of the immenseness of it all. Likewise, in the programme last night, it was stated that if each of the stars in our galaxy were represented by a grain of salt – they would fill a swimming pool! And that is just one galaxy! It is comparing the sizes to everyday things which makes it imaginable. It is impossible for one to imagine the infinite. And to imagine that we are the centre and the only purpose of all this, is shown for the folly it is. Alan to Vineeto
Hi Peter & No 37 I am following Some points I observed/request for comment/clarification: Peter as I understand says*): Relativity and Quantum Physics are mathematical models of this universe whose conclusions (like Big Bang proviso Expanding Universe, No matter Only Energy) are in contradiction to our normal experiencing of this Universe (and using our common sense, the sense we use to deal with everyday matters). Moreover, everybody in these circles have tried to fit common sense with these models and seem to have failed and only ask us to abandon the common sense and use principles of logic and experimental evidence(?), not imagination based on common sense (that which we use to conduct our everyday life). As a layman (outsider to the understanding of intrinsic nuts and bolts of how these works), one is concerned here how it translates to this everyday world.... I am not particularly interested in how well the foundations are supported using logic and mathematics.**) Back to me: If I have understood the line of thought somewhat correctly, I am also in favour of that currently as it relates to my quest for direct experience. I had realized long ago when I corresponded to Richard that I was defending science based on my strong belief in scientists (no other discipline relies on objectivity and explicitly stated goals and experiment as the final arbiter) and decided to step out of my defence till I understand them myself to a great detail (I have good mathematical and scientific training and I have the toolkit to expand my knowledge if I find it necessary). My intrigue though (loosely stated objections and not strongly felt):
And then comes a stage where one says: Logic and Mathematics have succeeded where a common sense approach have not (in explaining subatomic stuff and fast moving stuff). Therefore I will buy the consequences of Logic and Mathematics even if it means that I have to lay down my common sense. I will use the same principles that helped me to get beyond in the subatomic and fast-moving universe and extrapolate and apply to this everyday world (and probably justify my spiritual fantasies). This is where Richard says (I think): Direct experience of the everyday world if you are willing to lay down in favour of your success in micro-worlds, you land up in imaginary world justified by mathematics and logic. The current models may be great in predictions but they are useful models... that’s all... do not justify one to jump to imagination sacrificing the common sense. Moreover these models that are based on logic and mathematics themselves use common sense at some level and nothing is just a standalone ‘logic and mathematics’ (as in there is no God that is running the world according to ‘logic and mathematics’). I have just written my thoughts and let me see how all this goes... will refine these stuff based on what you think. I know I am talking a lot out of my hat :) but after some great successes in actualism, I have become much more cheerful and talkative :). *)Let me refrain from spiritualist origins in this post (for sometime) and come back to it later **) A model gains confidence if some of its difficult predictions are empirically verified. That is, a model such as a finite universe even if cannot be verified, gains confidence (albeit unimaginable) in the scientific community because: Logical consequences (based on logic and extrapolation using current models) of the infinite universe results in some kind of absurdity or something that is empirically false. or Logical consequences of finite universe (and its predictions) are consistently getting verified. No 33 to Peter & No 37 Web page designed by The Actual Freedom Trust |
