Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Culture
»
Just How Big the Universe is
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,634
|
tycho wrote:Don't forget that the subject too is also an illusion, when taken as absolute. All these illusions cease to be illusions when they are put into proper relations to 'nothingness'. That is, they are faces of nothingness.
Much ado about nothing is an illusion. Embrace of nothingness; stillness, absolute reality. You can create anything and call it absolute. That is definitely a valid way of generating your own reality, just like people who believe in a God, Devil, Unicorns, Flat Earth etc - their reality is valid too, at least to them. But when you try to measure your creation against an independent gauge - eg Science (Quantum Physics for one) or even rational philosophy, then the illusion becomes quite apparent. "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,634
|
tycho wrote:There's neither mbele nor nyuma.
Hiyo ni kweli kabisa "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
@Wakanyugi, the other day I drew a conclusion that may seem 'fantastic' or even offensive to some: Knowledge is and has been constant through the ages and across the universe, but the metaphors and the rates at which human experience has been reconciled to metaphor has varied.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 6/4/2015 Posts: 604
|
Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Man didn't create God. Man, is God in terms of 'final cause'. Remember for example, Einstein's 'absolute space-time' as a basis of general theory of relativity. Absolute space-time implies a singularity of causes that can be personified... Brother Tycho: 1. I was talking of the popular God of the Bible, Koran, Gita et al. Surely we created that one? Who else could come up with such a hilarious mess? 2. Please don't misrepresent old man Einstein.He clearly said 'all is relative' (no absolutes), a position he struggled with through out his life, if you recall his debacle of the cosmological constant 3. I repeat, again, there are no absolutes in reality. I know it is scary, like suddenly realizing that the ground you stand on is nothing but empty space. It is. 'Absolute space/time is an illusion. An important illusion yes, but that is all it is. 4. Even your capacity to create reality, in all its detail (including filling up that empty space) is not absolute. You can change it and you often do. Indeed. The Universe is expanding faster than the laws of physics can explain, new measurements reveal
Time for some new physics?Quote:"I think that there is something in the standard cosmological model that we don't understand," lead researcher Adam Riess from Johns Hopkins University, who also co-discovered dark energy back in 1998, told Davide Castelvecchi at Nature. Quote:"If this new measurement is accurate - and our maps of the CMB are also accurate - then something about our fundamental understanding of the Universe is wrong," says Dickerson.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
No. I haven't misrepresented Einstein. There's absolute space-time in general relativity. Let me try to explain how before I refer you to a book that I'm sure will give you a more succint explanation.
Take any three observers moving at different velocities and acceleration, they'd have different registers of space-time yet the speed of light is constant regardless of the relative differences... Kindly check on this in 'Fabric of the cosmos'.
About absolutes again: think about string theory for example. The mathematical models used in reconciling quantum physics with theories of relativity would seem to rely on the foundation of strings that have certain characteristics that in my estimation, border or are even absolute...
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
¿ wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Man didn't create God. Man, is God in terms of 'final cause'. Remember for example, Einstein's 'absolute space-time' as a basis of general theory of relativity. Absolute space-time implies a singularity of causes that can be personified... Brother Tycho: 1. I was talking of the popular God of the Bible, Koran, Gita et al. Surely we created that one? Who else could come up with such a hilarious mess? 2. Please don't misrepresent old man Einstein.He clearly said 'all is relative' (no absolutes), a position he struggled with through out his life, if you recall his debacle of the cosmological constant 3. I repeat, again, there are no absolutes in reality. I know it is scary, like suddenly realizing that the ground you stand on is nothing but empty space. It is. 'Absolute space/time is an illusion. An important illusion yes, but that is all it is. 4. Even your capacity to create reality, in all its detail (including filling up that empty space) is not absolute. You can change it and you often do. Indeed. The Universe is expanding faster than the laws of physics can explain, new measurements reveal
Time for some new physics?Quote:"I think that there is something in the standard cosmological model that we don't understand," lead researcher Adam Riess from Johns Hopkins University, who also co-discovered dark energy back in 1998, told Davide Castelvecchi at Nature. Quote:"If this new measurement is accurate - and our maps of the CMB are also accurate - then something about our fundamental understanding of the Universe is wrong," says Dickerson. You'll be surprised by how accurate the religious accounts of God are accurate. What seems to obsecure this accuracy is the difference in metaphor that different cultures hold. That's why they may seem hillarious to some. Man, the micro-cosmos is a reflexion of the macro-cosmos. The laws of the universe as we'd agree are homogenous. Now think about this, if knowledge is energic and given the quaintness of a quantum universe, would we be restricted to the method of knowing dictated by science? Man can know via revelation. Man through other sciences like yoga can know even what we call the future. BTW, for those wondering how the Bible is right, or even the Gita or Koran, they only need to check on the nuances of anthropology and the emphasis on the psycho-spiritual realm of existence...
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
As for science declaring the need for a new model; that's no big deal in the order of things. Why? Because the newness is merely metaphorical. Everything has always been there, and given that knowledge is energic then somehow Man has always had access to it.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 6/4/2015 Posts: 604
|
tycho wrote:No. I haven't misrepresented Einstein. There's absolute space-time in general relativity. Let me try to explain how before I refer you to a book that I'm sure will give you a more succint explanation.
Take any three observers moving at different velocities and acceleration, they'd have different registers of space-time yet the speed of light is constant regardless of the relative differences... Kindly check on this in 'Fabric of the cosmos'.
About absolutes again: think about string theory for example. The mathematical models used in reconciling quantum physics with theories of relativity would seem to rely on the foundation of strings that have certain characteristics that in my estimation, border or are even absolute... Like?
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
¿ wrote:tycho wrote:No. I haven't misrepresented Einstein. There's absolute space-time in general relativity. Let me try to explain how before I refer you to a book that I'm sure will give you a more succint explanation.
Take any three observers moving at different velocities and acceleration, they'd have different registers of space-time yet the speed of light is constant regardless of the relative differences... Kindly check on this in 'Fabric of the cosmos'.
About absolutes again: think about string theory for example. The mathematical models used in reconciling quantum physics with theories of relativity would seem to rely on the foundation of strings that have certain characteristics that in my estimation, border or are even absolute... Like? The limit of a Planck's length...
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 6/4/2015 Posts: 604
|
tycho wrote:¿ wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:Man didn't create God. Man, is God in terms of 'final cause'. Remember for example, Einstein's 'absolute space-time' as a basis of general theory of relativity. Absolute space-time implies a singularity of causes that can be personified... Brother Tycho: 1. I was talking of the popular God of the Bible, Koran, Gita et al. Surely we created that one? Who else could come up with such a hilarious mess? 2. Please don't misrepresent old man Einstein.He clearly said 'all is relative' (no absolutes), a position he struggled with through out his life, if you recall his debacle of the cosmological constant 3. I repeat, again, there are no absolutes in reality. I know it is scary, like suddenly realizing that the ground you stand on is nothing but empty space. It is. 'Absolute space/time is an illusion. An important illusion yes, but that is all it is. 4. Even your capacity to create reality, in all its detail (including filling up that empty space) is not absolute. You can change it and you often do. Indeed. The Universe is expanding faster than the laws of physics can explain, new measurements reveal
Time for some new physics?Quote:"I think that there is something in the standard cosmological model that we don't understand," lead researcher Adam Riess from Johns Hopkins University, who also co-discovered dark energy back in 1998, told Davide Castelvecchi at Nature. Quote:"If this new measurement is accurate - and our maps of the CMB are also accurate - then something about our fundamental understanding of the Universe is wrong," says Dickerson. You'll be surprised by how accurate the religious accounts of God are accurate. What seems to obsecure this accuracy is the difference in metaphor that different cultures hold. That's why they may seem hillarious to some. Man, the micro-cosmos is a reflexion of the macro-cosmos. The laws of the universe as we'd agree are homogenous. Now think about this, if knowledge is energic and given the quaintness of a quantum universe, would we be restricted to the method of knowing dictated by science? Man can know via revelation. Man through other sciences like yoga can know even what we call the future. BTW, for those wondering how the Bible is right, or even the Gita or Koran, they only need to check on the nuances of anthropology and the emphasis on the psycho-spiritual realm of existence... What's there to be surprised about? Long before science there was technology and a pursuit for knowledge in both the physical and the metaphysical realms. I'm more interested in the evolution of science and scientism.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 6/4/2015 Posts: 604
|
tycho wrote:¿ wrote:tycho wrote:No. I haven't misrepresented Einstein. There's absolute space-time in general relativity. Let me try to explain how before I refer you to a book that I'm sure will give you a more succint explanation.
Take any three observers moving at different velocities and acceleration, they'd have different registers of space-time yet the speed of light is constant regardless of the relative differences... Kindly check on this in 'Fabric of the cosmos'.
About absolutes again: think about string theory for example. The mathematical models used in reconciling quantum physics with theories of relativity would seem to rely on the foundation of strings that have certain characteristics that in my estimation, border or are even absolute... Like? The limit of a Planck's length... Will newness affect that reconciliation?
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
'Evolution' of science? That's probably equal to the evolution of Man. Remember evolution is about heritable qualities. Science is as old as Man; probably as old as the universe itself.
To understand and put the issue of newness into context, I took a journey into history and looked into all thinkers and scientists I could find. Did they trace a pattern? In an infinitely ranging universe there's continuous need for adaptation and reconciliation. That's why the highest forms of mind trainning target an empty mind.
The human domain, especially with respect to a culture and worldview is always finite and will always be challenged to open up by the apparent newness of experience.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 6/4/2015 Posts: 604
|
tycho wrote:'Evolution' of science? That's probably equal to the evolution of Man. Remember evolution is about heritable qualities. Science is as old as Man; probably as old as the universe itself.
To understand and put the issue of newness into context, I took a journey into history and looked into all thinkers and scientists I could find. Did they trace a pattern? In an infinitely ranging universe there's continuous need for adaptation and reconciliation. That's why the highest forms of mind trainning target an empty mind.
The human domain, especially with respect to a culture and worldview is always finite and will always be challenged to open up by the apparent newness of experience. Yes yes tycho. Everything changes but everything stays the same.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,634
|
tycho wrote:No. I haven't misrepresented Einstein. There's absolute space-time in general relativity. Let me try to explain how before I refer you to a book that I'm sure will give you a more succint explanation.
Take any three observers moving at different velocities and acceleration, they'd have different registers of space-time yet the speed of light is constant regardless of the relative differences... Kindly check on this in 'Fabric of the cosmos'.
About absolutes again: think about string theory for example. The mathematical models used in reconciling quantum physics with theories of relativity would seem to rely on the foundation of strings that have certain characteristics that in my estimation, border or are even absolute... I will certainly look for 'Fabric of the Cosmos' thanks for the reference. Meanwhile the colored text above seems to deny your insistence on absolutes. Speed of light may be constant but that does not make it absolute (unchangeable). You know it does change. The injunction against anything traveling faster than the speed of light C applies only to objects with mass. And then any 'thing' moving even close to C causes funny things to happen to space and time, meaning they are not absolute either. In fact Einstein used the term 'frame of reference' partly for this reason. The reality you perceive depends largely on your frame of reference. Your reality is not my reality. "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,634
|
tycho wrote:@Wakanyugi, the other day I drew a conclusion that may seem 'fantastic' or even offensive to some: Knowledge is and has been constant through the ages and across the universe, but the metaphors and the rates at which human experience has been reconciled to metaphor has varied.
Tycho, This is deep and I have to think about it. But I am already tempted to agree with you. After all I subscribe to the hierarchy of: data - information - knowledge. Knowledge therefore is data and information given meaning. We are surrounded by data so knowledge must be equally ubiquitous, meaning we don't create new knowledge as much as we interpret old data in new ways. "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 10/4/2006 Posts: 13,821 Location: Nairobi
|
Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:@Wakanyugi, the other day I drew a conclusion that may seem 'fantastic' or even offensive to some: Knowledge is and has been constant through the ages and across the universe, but the metaphors and the rates at which human experience has been reconciled to metaphor has varied.
Tycho, This is deep and I have to think about it. But I am already tempted to agree with you. After all I subscribe to the hierarchy of: data - information - knowledge. Knowledge therefore is data and information given meaning. We are surrounded by data so knowledge must be equally ubiquitous, meaning we don't create new knowledge as much as we interpret old data in new ways. What is 'Knowing'? since 'Knowledge' is a derivative of 'Knowing' What is capable of 'knowing'? A dog 'knows' it's way home. A cat knows it's dangerous to hang around dogs...does a stone know? is knowing an attribute of sentience? if so - did we come to this conclusion due to our limitation? i.e. it because it's all we 'know'? Who can 'know'? and so "Knowledge is and has been constant through the ages and across the universe" - who 'knew' it?  All Mushrooms are edible! Some Mushroom are only edible ONCE!
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,634
|
masukuma wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:@Wakanyugi, the other day I drew a conclusion that may seem 'fantastic' or even offensive to some: Knowledge is and has been constant through the ages and across the universe, but the metaphors and the rates at which human experience has been reconciled to metaphor has varied.
Tycho, This is deep and I have to think about it. But I am already tempted to agree with you. After all I subscribe to the hierarchy of: data - information - knowledge. Knowledge therefore is data and information given meaning. We are surrounded by data so knowledge must be equally ubiquitous, meaning we don't create new knowledge as much as we interpret old data in new ways. What is 'Knowing'? since 'Knowledge' is a derivative of 'Knowing' What is capable of 'knowing'? A dog 'knows' it's way home. A cat knows it's dangerous to hang around dogs...does a stone know? is knowing an attribute of sentience? if so - did we come to this conclusion due to our limitation? i.e. it because it's all we 'know'? Who can 'know'? and so "Knowledge is and has been constant through the ages and across the universe" - who 'knew' it? I have not thought about these questions since the day I left the late Mr Benaars philosophy class. But one thing I 'know' is that what we call knowing is largely the interpretation of patterns and drawing various conclusions from this process. That is how you, and the dog, find your way home, for example. The Universe around us is comprised of many such patterns (basically data) which we call information or knowledge once we have given them meaning. The big questions, for me, are: (i) Without a space/time frame of reference,the matrix on which most of these patterns are super imposed, would we know what we know? (ii) Quantum entanglement implies that particles are able to communicate (pass information) with each other outside of this matrix. Why can't we? "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 10/4/2006 Posts: 13,821 Location: Nairobi
|
Wakanyugi wrote:masukuma wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:@Wakanyugi, the other day I drew a conclusion that may seem 'fantastic' or even offensive to some: Knowledge is and has been constant through the ages and across the universe, but the metaphors and the rates at which human experience has been reconciled to metaphor has varied.
Tycho, This is deep and I have to think about it. But I am already tempted to agree with you. After all I subscribe to the hierarchy of: data - information - knowledge. Knowledge therefore is data and information given meaning. We are surrounded by data so knowledge must be equally ubiquitous, meaning we don't create new knowledge as much as we interpret old data in new ways. What is 'Knowing'? since 'Knowledge' is a derivative of 'Knowing' What is capable of 'knowing'? A dog 'knows' it's way home. A cat knows it's dangerous to hang around dogs...does a stone know? is knowing an attribute of sentience? if so - did we come to this conclusion due to our limitation? i.e. it because it's all we 'know'? Who can 'know'? and so "Knowledge is and has been constant through the ages and across the universe" - who 'knew' it? I have not thought about these questions since the day I left the late Mr Benaars philosophy class. But one thing I 'know' is that what we call knowing is largely the interpretation of patterns and drawing various conclusions from this process. That is how you, and the dog, find your way home, for example. The Universe around us is comprised of many such patterns (basically data) which we call information or knowledge once we have given them meaning. The big questions, for me, are: (i) Without a space/time frame of reference,the matrix on which most of these patterns are super imposed, would we know what we know? (ii) Quantum entanglement implies that particles are able to communicate (pass information) with each other outside of this matrix. Why can't we? question 1: no... we 'observe'. without a frame of reference called 'space/time' there would be no 'observation'. at least as far as we 'know'. question 2: We don't 'know' if this happens at a macro scale since Quantum field theory (the theory of really small things) and general relativity (the theory of really big things) seem not to be coherently unified. But i think we would have this answer since if we could do it (exchange this info outside the frame of reference we call space-time).... we would have observed it! We could have not understood it but we would have 'known'. we would have known we could... long before we could have known that this happens at the quantum level. if we were able to do this - it would mean everything else would be able to... dogs for example would make this 'communication' so would flies and earthworms and even bacteria and even stones and pebbles - it would be global info exchange of everything between the quanta and us... and perhaps even planets and the systems would do the same to each other.... gets mucky right? maybe it does happen but since it happens to everything it gets cancelled out from observation. All Mushrooms are edible! Some Mushroom are only edible ONCE!
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Wakanyugi wrote:tycho wrote:No. I haven't misrepresented Einstein. There's absolute space-time in general relativity. Let me try to explain how before I refer you to a book that I'm sure will give you a more succint explanation.
Take any three observers moving at different velocities and acceleration, they'd have different registers of space-time yet the speed of light is constant regardless of the relative differences... Kindly check on this in 'Fabric of the cosmos'.
About absolutes again: think about string theory for example. The mathematical models used in reconciling quantum physics with theories of relativity would seem to rely on the foundation of strings that have certain characteristics that in my estimation, border or are even absolute... I will certainly look for 'Fabric of the Cosmos' thanks for the reference. Meanwhile the colored text above seems to deny your insistence on absolutes. Speed of light may be constant but that does not make it absolute (unchangeable). You know it does change. The injunction against anything traveling faster than the speed of light C applies only to objects with mass. And then any 'thing' moving even close to C causes funny things to happen to space and time, meaning they are not absolute either. In fact Einstein used the term 'frame of reference' partly for this reason. The reality you perceive depends largely on your frame of reference. Your reality is not my reality. Let's start by asking ourselves, what relates any two or more bodies accelerating towards each other at different rates? The answer is gravity... Now take each different frame of reference and relate it to gravity. That would mean that even if each frame of reference would have a different experience set, the sets wouldn't have a null intersection. This automatically implies a universal and binding set for all these frames of reference...
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
What is knowledge? Does knowledge depend on observation?
I say knowledge begins with sensation being organized to meet certain ends. It's a function of systems.
Now sensation is a matter of resonance of energic frequencies. Hence knowledge is the organization of resonated frequencies for certain objectives as dictated by a system. In this case a stone can know. Because a stone is a system dictated by structure, both chemically and physically.
Knowledge is probably independent of space-time...
|
|
|
Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Culture
»
Just How Big the Universe is
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|