[Qfwfq]

david50, on 11 February 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

I just ran across this site that might help you... www.thesomervillehypothesis.com

You call that a consensus?

In any case you could at least point to exactly where it discusses cosmogony, it would be more in line with our guidelines which are mentioned in our rules too.

[maddog]

Qfwfq, on 09 November 2011 - 03:13 AM, said:

It gets to the point where one may as well say the Big Bang happened after God had eaten too many beans...

I like this...

Of course this would explain Alan Guth's Inflation theory, I suppose...

maddog

[sigurdV]

The Big Bang IS the universe at point zero in time,we tend to think of it as something separated from the universe.

Any "reason" for the universe being there (in moment zero) also being in moment zero is circular...
But introducing "God" in the picture is religion bashing and is of no scientific value.

Using the concepts of "Inside" and "Outside" i see four possibilities:

1 Objects having both inside and outside (Most objects)
2 Objects having only inside (The Universe?)
3 Objects having only outside (Points?)
4 Objects having neither (Not existing things?)

Im inclined to believe only objects of the first kind to be real.

[Qfwfq]

sigurdV, on 15 February 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

The Big Bang IS the universe at point zero in time,we tend to think of it as something separated from the universe.

Actually we tend to think of it as a boundary of spacetime. A singular boundary, for that.

sigurdV, on 15 February 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

Using the concepts of "Inside" and "Outside" i see four possibilities:

1 Objects having both inside and outside (Most objects)
2 Objects having only inside (The Universe?)
3 Objects having only outside (Points?)
4 Objects having neither (Not existing things?)

Im inclined to believe only objects of the first kind to be real.

Therefore you're inclined to believe the universe isn't real. Except that it doesn't have an inside any more than it has an outside. By which you ought to believe it doesn't exist, according to the above.

How about the Euclidean plane? Do you say it has an inside? Do you say it has an outside?

[sigurdV]

Qfwfq, on 16 February 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

Actually we tend to think of it as a boundary of spacetime. A singular boundary, for that.

Therefore you're inclined to believe the universe isn't real. Except that it doesn't have an inside any more than it has an outside. By which you ought to believe it doesn't exist, according to the above.

How about the Euclidean plane? Do you say it has an inside? Do you say it has an outside?

Im not sure what you mean if you say that the universe "doesn't have an inside". There is the Earth and its outside (= Everything outside of the Earth = The Inside of our Universe minus the Earth).Perhaps a more precise definition of the terms "Outside" and "Inside" should be attempted? Perhaps also making sense of the concept of "boundary"?

But at the moment I will not try: I think it makes sense to say we havent found the insides of electrons and quarks, nor an outside to our universe. And neither an inside nor an outside of god.

Real Models of Mathemathical objects should have both. And an Euclidian Plane as a thought in the mind has the enclosing environments of the mind and a function of the brain.
Which of them is the outside is perhaps not obvious.

This post has been edited by sigurdV: 17 February 2012 - 06:42 AM

[Qfwfq]

sigurdV, on 17 February 2012 - 06:42 AM, said:

Perhaps a more precise definition of the terms "Outside" and "Inside" should be attempted?

Exactly, it seems you have been applying them without having given this adequate consideration.

Note that brain and mind are not good candidates for the outside of the Euclidean plane.

[Mike Litorus]

Hi all!

By way of my first post..

As it hasn't been mentioned so far I'll jump in by saying I do like Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology model [http://en.wikipedia....yclic_Cosmology].

As I see it, with GR and QM currently failing around singularities, we'll probably have some time to wait before the OP's question can be settled.

[URAIN]

Mike Litorus, on 18 February 2012 - 06:49 AM, said:

Hi all!

By way of my first post..

As it hasn't been mentioned so far I'll jump in by saying I do like Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology model [http://en.wikipedia....yclic_Cosmology].

As I see it, with GR and QM currently failing around singularities, we'll probably have some time to wait before the OP's question can be settled.

I have also given one hypothesis in my paper, about what was exist during origin of universe. May world will come to the consesus about it.

My paper will post on the blog http://spaceandconse....wordpress.com/

(It is not in particular but it will give one idea. We will discuss about it.)

[sigurdV]

Mike Litorus, on 18 February 2012 - 06:49 AM, said:

Hi all!

By way of my first post..

As it hasn't been mentioned so far I'll jump in by saying I do like Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology model [http://en.wikipedia....yclic_Cosmology].

As I see it, with GR and QM currently failing around singularities, we'll probably have some time to wait before the OP's question can be settled.

A Grand Theory!

But most grand theories omit Life in the calculation: "Life" is too insignificant to matter in the Cosmic Perspective they seem to think.

It reminds me of an Emperor of China who wanted to reward some inventor for some fruitful invention... The Inventor looked at a Chess Board beside the emperor and said: Why not give me a grain of rice for the first square of the board and two for the second, four for the third, eight for the fourth and so on until all 64 squares are filled.
"No problem!" thought the emperor, but in fact he could not give the inventor his payment! (Or so the story goes...)

If Life can continue, through effort and ingenuity, to grow at an exponential rate then in time its mass will outweigh the rest of the Universe!

With what consequences?

This post has been edited by sigurdV: 18 February 2012 - 09:21 AM