Religious

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by hcap

Space and time are axiomatic assumptions, and our latest arrangement of them is the "spacetime continuum". We can not touch or see it directly but the concept stands up pretty well having been repeatedly tested empirically.

That we cannot see or touch these concepts is exactly what I was getting at.
Do I think they are valid concepts ? Yes.
But when you started talking about them curving over planes, that's a step too far for me even though Quantum mechanics probably predicts that they might. Because when we start applying mathematics to what know one has ever seen, we really are being speculative.
Nevertheless, while debating these things are interesting, I fear that we've taken the thread too far from the mainstream discussion here on religion and should be venturing back to it.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

But when you started talking about them curving over planes, that's a step too far for me....Because when we start applying mathematics to what know one has ever seen, we really are being speculative.

I find that statement hard to believe and contrary to the genuine use for mathematics. Have you not heard of non-euclidean geometry?

No one has ever seen a perfect circle. Perfect circles have not been observed in nature nor can we create one. Close but no cigar. Yet there is nothing wrong with Pi except if you consider irrational numbers impossible to see or observe. Should we not "speculate" on it's use to describe the relationship between the diameter and circumference of a perfect circle? After all we can not observe it perfectly, and PI WILL NEVER BE KNOWN COMPLETELY

Sometimes approximations are good enough.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by hcap

I find that statement hard to believe and contrary to the genuine use for mathematics. Have you not heard of non-euclidean geometry?

No one has ever seen a perfect circle. Perfect circles have not been observed in nature nor can we create one. Close but no cigar. Yet there is nothing wrong with Pi except if you consider irrational numbers impossible to see or observe. Should we not "speculate" on it's use to describe the relationship between the diameter and circumference of a perfect circle? After all we can not observe it perfectly, and PI WILL NEVER BE KNOWN COMPLETELY

Sometimes approximations are good enough.

Yes. I understand all of that.
In fact Plato presented all of what you've said above and more thousands of years ago and I'm quite familiar with his work.
But if you want to argue that the Universe is not flat "geometrically," take your case up with NASA.

[hcap]

NASA is not saying what you think it is. The "flatness" of the universe
is of the curvature of space time. The distribution of matter, or galaxies is not along a flat disc like plane.

I have already explained it the best way I can.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by hcap

NASA is not saying what you think it is. The "flatness" of the universe
is of the curvature of space time. The distribution of matter, or galaxies is not along a flat disc like plane.

I have already explained it the best way I can.

I realize the Universe is three dimensional and we are but tiny specks in it. Certainly it is not like a flat sheet of paper. It has trillions of miles of depth.
But viewed from outside, an observer would see tremendous linearity to it.
Unless you have a source citing that NASA is referring to flatness being along a curvature of space- time, then you may be projecting your own preconceptions on to what you think the Universe looks like.
NASA made no mention of space time when it said that the Universe geometrically is flat in the article I posted.
Remember, I didn't say the Universe is flat. I said that I'd read that somewhere, and as it turned out NASA agrees that it is geometrically flat.
Also, I know NASA observes objects in the Universe.
It cannot observe space time. It can theorize about space time, but cannot observe them.

[hcap]

I give up.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by hcap

I give up.

Let's move on then.

[Actor]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_%28physics%29

Quotes from the link.

In classical physics, a cause should always precede its effect.

Another requirement, at least valid at the level of human experience, is that cause and effect be mediated across space and time (requirement of contiguity).

The empiricists' aversion to metaphysical explanations ... lends heavy influence against the idea of the importance of causality.

[hcap]

Have not totally given up yet. The curvature of space may indeed be "flat", all the available evidence points to that, but the observable universe is spherical. Observable meaning galaxies and galactic clusters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

Shape of the universe

"The shape of the universe is the local and global geometry of the Universe, in terms of both curvature and topology (though, strictly speaking, the concept goes beyond both). The shape of the universe is related to general relativity which describes how spacetime is curved and bent by mass and energy.

There is a distinction between the observable universe and the global universe. The observable universe consists of the part of the universe that can, in principle, be observed due to the finite speed of light and the age of the universe. The observable universe is understood as a sphere around the Earth extending 93 billion light years (8.8 *1026 meters) and would be similar at any observing point (assuming the universe is indeed isotropic, as it appears to be from our vantage point)."

And if you want to know about the 93 billion light years since the age of the universe is estimated at ~ 14 billion years

https://www.quora.com/How-can-it-be-...lion-years-old

How can it be understood that the universe is 93 billion light years across and yet only 13.8 billion years old?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Actor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_%28physics%29The empiricists' aversion to metaphysical explanations ... lends heavy influence against the idea of the importance of causality.

How is the importance of causality diminished? And although I understand why the metaphysical is not science per se, this entire thread is about the metaphysical. Metaphysical inferences abound here. Shouldn't we be cognizant of the metaphysical implications of science? After all science is not what everyone has on their minds, until it strikes a chord on metaphysics .

[Greyfox]

Big Bang is not accepted by some scientists.
Here's one alternative view by two string theorists.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...niverses-.html

"In their view of the universe the complexities of an inflating universe after a Big Bang are replaced by a universe that was already large, flat, and uniform with dark energy as the effect of the other universe constantly leaking gravity into our own and driving its acceleration. According to this theory, the Big Bang was not the beginning of time but the bridge to a past filled with endlessly repeating cycles of evolution, each accompanied by the creation of new matter and the formation of new galaxies, stars, and planets."

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Big Bang is not accepted by some scientists.
Here's one alternative view by two string theorists.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...niverses-.html

"In their view of the universe the complexities of an inflating universe after a Big Bang are replaced by a universe that was already large, flat, and uniform with dark energy as the effect of the other universe constantly leaking gravity into our own and driving its acceleration. According to this theory, the Big Bang was not the beginning of time but the bridge to a past filled with endlessly repeating cycles of evolution, each accompanied by the creation of new matter and the formation of new galaxies, stars, and planets."

String theory is new as appled to the cosmos. Why shouldn't we expect challenges to existing popular cosmological theory? So what? If evidence is presented that supports it, that is how science moves along.

I never said the big bang was settled. Just that most of the data points to it, as do most physicists and cosmologists accept it as the most convincing argument we have.

Besides you seem perplexed at the complexity of the big bang and specifically about the curvature of space. How do you feel NOW about the complexity of this new string theory of cosmology which claims

"... that the cosmos we see as the Big Bang was actually created by the cyclical trillion-year collision of two universes (which they define as three-dimensional branes plus time) that were attracted toward each other by the leaking of gravity out of one of the universes." ??

Do you understand "branes" in string theory? And if you flinch at the concept of the spacetime continuum requiring 4 dimensions, be papered for the 9 or 11 of string theory.

But I was addressing your earlier mistaken insistence that galaxies are distributed in a "flat disc like plane." As I said in my last post, the observable universe is not as you think, but a spherical volume around each observer in space. I don't think this new string theory will change this. Unless the theory invokes the 9 or 11 dimensions to put a LARGER framework around the 4 of relativity.

In any case the curvature of space itself, whether positive, negative or flat is still a major issue under contention. Non-Euclidean geometry is part and parcel of this debate

[Greyfox]

The bottom line is astronomers can only observe the physical objects , (stars, planets, asteroids, galaxies and so on) that move in space.
They cannot observe the space itself.
Speculations about the shape of space are simply speculations. Theoretical inferences if you wish.
NASA has stated that the geometry of the universe is flat.
They would have concluded that by observing objects in space, not space itself.

How do I feel now about the complexity of this new string theory's claims?

Answer: Open minded and fascinated and it supports my belief that the universe is much older than the Big Bang. The theory of course does not deny the Big Bang's occurrence.

Theologically minded individuals should be happy with this new formulation, in the sense that there's no need to put an age on God of only 13.7 billion years.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by hcap

But I was addressing your earlier mistaken insistence that galaxies are distributed in a "flat disc like plane."

That plane is trillions of miles thick.
I don't mean that the galaxies are all in a row.
An observer outside of the universe would see the distinct linearity.
An observer inside the universe looking through trillions of miles would see it more spherical.
Anyone who doubts the flatness of the universe on a plane trillions of miles thick should take up the quarrel with NASA who has stated that "the geometry of the universe is flat."

[Actor]

Originally Posted by hcap

How is the importance of causality diminished?

It is possible to describe all of physics without using the words "cause" and "effect." If that is true then perhaps the concept of cause and effect is a human construct.

Originally Posted by hcap

And although I understand why the metaphysical is not science per se, this entire thread is about the metaphysical.

Yes, in a way. But that does not preclude one from questioning the metaphysical, or proposing that metaphysical concepts are invalid.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are not the metaphysical and the empirical polar opposites?