Religion and Ethics and Health BBS

Religion and Ethics and Health BBS
[ Religion and Ethics and Health BBS ]

For 7:77 ... A quick View of the Universe

Posted by Mondo Fuego™ on June 26, 2026, 11:46 am

Click Here

I am firmly of the opinion that space is infinite.

If there are multiple universes in space that are expanding like ours, they should eventually collide with ours. Perhaps they already have and we just don't know it because the visual confirmation of such phenomena could be billions of years away.

Perhaps there is just one infinitely large universe, and we can't see it all because we are sitting in what appears to be a 14-billion-light-year-radius spherical arena. Maybe more will appear over time. Maybe light just won't travel more than 14 billion light years before it totally dissipates or gets absorbed in dark matter or is negated by other forces that we have not yet discovered.

I think our collective knowledge of space, matter and time is still in its infancy.

I also think the "Big Bang" Theory is just that, for we have no way of proving it. Some think the universe has always been here, another theory with zero weight of confirmation.

The primary issues are "From whence cameth all that stuff?" and "When?". The larger issue is "How?". The largest issues are "Who dunn-it?" and "Why?".

In other words facts are practically non-existent.

Posted by GOG on June 30, 2026, 7:11 am, in reply to "For 7:77 ... A quick View of the Universe"

A mental exercise, tickling the furrows, but useless in the day to day reality of beings being, just water bags born out of the living earth, composed of congealed star dust, to which we return.

RE: universe change, such as the birth and death of stars

Posted by Mondo Fuego™ on June 30, 2026, 8:12 am, in reply to "In other words facts are practically non-existent. "

The state of matter changes over time, but the elementary matter and its quirks just get re-purposed.

Life from quirks?

Posted by GOG on July 1, 2026, 1:19 pm, in reply to "RE: universe change, such as the birth and death of stars"

The ultimate "who done it" (as you say)

Posted by trish on June 27, 2026, 12:05 pm, in reply to "For 7:77 ... A quick View of the Universe"

I am not certain there is a who, perhaps a what, but then we are still faced with the bigger question of HOW.

Something from nothing?

The "it's always been here" is not a hill I can wholly stand on. We have watched things in the universe change, such as the birth and death of stars. Does change happen without a cause beyond the science we currently know?

I minored in Astronomy and it left me with even more questions.

Re: For 7:77 ... A quick View of the Universe

Posted by 7:77 on June 27, 2026, 10:09 am, in reply to "For 7:77 ... A quick View of the Universe"

I've gone back and forth in my mind (fueled by a layperson's love for astrophysics) on the matter of the possibly "infinite" state of the universe, on the possibility of there being myriad "bubbles" in a multiverse format, and other permutations thereof. I've never come to any kind of satisfactory conclusion (see" that "layperson" part!).

I'm prepared to believe that a single "meta-universe" exists, but I don't conceive of it as some sort of single, vast "box" in which a bunch of universes exist "side-by-side" as it were. That is, not as one all-containing space in which at least some of the known laws of physics prevail throughout the volume and the differentiation between "universes" is made via different criteria. For one universe to be differentiated from another would, as I see it, require different fundamental properties. Otherwise, wouldn't they simply be separate parts of the same universe? You know...universal?

It may well be that our universe (regardless of whether others exist) is indeed only a little over 14 billion years old. Because time itself would seem to be something that emerges from the fundamental nature of matter and energy and the clearly demonstrable fact that matter and energy change state. State change implies, by logical necessity, a "before" and an "after," and those terms are meaningless without time. "Time" is how we experience (and measure one aspect of) change-of-state. If time indeed emerges from phenomena, and a "zero point" marking the instantiation of phenomena can be established (more on that below), then asking "what existed before?" might not be a valid query. They may have been no "before" because there were no phenomena to give rise to time.

But here's the problem with establishing that instantiation: when looking back in time, we can never be 100% certain about any physical state any further back towards the instantiation moment than a certain length of time (the Planck Time). It is literally physically impossible to achieve certainty about physical states during that inconceivably short time.

Other uncertainties are present in our physical observations, of course...the well-known problem with observing both the position and velocity of any object simultaneously with certain accuracy being the best example. As you say, "no way of proving it." And we are indeed just getting started.

Great thread!

LOL: long-ish reply that I couldn't manage to make a title for!

Posted by 7:77 on June 27, 2026, 10:10 am, in reply to "Re: For 7:77 ... A quick View of the Universe"

I don't believe in infinite sameness.

Posted by Ken C on June 27, 2026, 6:59 am, in reply to "For 7:77 ... A quick View of the Universe"
Edited by board administrator June 27, 2026, 9:14 am

Nope!

Posted by observer on June 26, 2026, 1:45 pm, in reply to "For 7:77 ... A quick View of the Universe"

That’s what makes it an interesting question. It is said that time is a limited concept needed by us earthlings to make sense of it all, but it’s not in space. No, I don’t really understand it, but I’m sure that infinity is to blame.

Time ...

Posted by Mondo Fuego™ on June 26, 2026, 10:23 pm, in reply to "Nope!"

... is the 4th dimension that documents the state of matter (relative location, temperature, molecular composition, etc.) at any given moment.

Humans made the analog, digital and atomic clocks as devices to emulate the passage of time so to be able to observe, understand, document and predict changes in matter.

Other sentient creatures also seem to be aware of time.

Space is the playground for all this.

I, too, think it’s infinite which ultimately leads to one of the most

Posted by observer on June 26, 2026, 11:57 am, in reply to "For 7:77 ... A quick View of the Universe"

interesting philosophical questions : Why is there something rather than nothing?

If there were nothing (i.e. no matter), would there still be space and time?

Posted by Mondo Fuego™ on June 26, 2026, 12:47 pm, in reply to "I, too, think it’s infinite which ultimately leads to one of the most"

Boggle!

Yes. Both are measurable. But the instrument that measures either,

Posted by GOG on July 1, 2026, 1:27 pm, in reply to "If there were nothing (i.e. no matter), would there still be space and time?"

as an example the human brain, would not be able to perceive either. It’s the old falling tree in the forest riddle. The sound exists. But only so far as an ear picks up the sound waves. On the other hand nothing only “exists” without an observer. Thus its full circle back to that conundrum…..is anything, including us, for real.

I don't think so.

Posted by 7:77 on June 27, 2026, 10:24 am, in reply to "If there were nothing (i.e. no matter), would there still be space and time?"

Time? No...I'm reasonably certain. Time arises as an intrinsic component of change-of-state of phenomena. Phenomena are readily observed to change state (even if uncertainty in those observations is inevitable), and state change implies "time" by logical necessity. Without time, "before" and "after" are incoherent concepts. Nothingness has, by definition, no capacity for state change...and thus no time.

Space is trickier...a lot trickier. Simple vacuum is not "nothingness," and that's pretty much a matter of experimentally-determined fact. We don't experience or observe genuine nothingness; for us it's purely conceptual, given that our entire existence is based on "somethingness" (if you'll excuse that linguistic atrocity). In genuine, complete nothingness, are concepts like spatial dimensions have any coherent meaning or applicability? Would it be possible to validly "hold a yardstick up to" (as it were) any form of nothingness? Measurement itself implies something to measure, not nothing. When we mentally apply volume to a mental concept of nothing, is that application even remotely justified?

Matters like this are why I studied (and continue to study) philosophy of science.

Ah, Philosophy of Science!

Posted by Mondo Fuego™ on June 27, 2026, 1:43 pm, in reply to "I don't think so."

One of my favorite courses at Vandy, along with Business Law and History of Art.

The Bus Admin Degree (Finance, Accounting, Economics, Marketing, etc.) was to prepare for my day job so I could afford the more important things in life!

I also hold the equivalence of a major in Chemistry, the knowledge of which I seldom employ, although it helps somewhat to understand sub-atomic particle personalities, and it instilled in me the appreciation of the intrinsic value of gold, platinum and silver, especially when accompanied by the proper hallmarks and mint/privy marks, and the "appreciation" they offer in return.

The MBA at CWRU was mostly icing on the cake ... a "no-brainer" ... my employer picked up the entire tab ... why not? Probably helped make the difference between Senior Director and VP/CIO while I was in the corporate world.

I exited the corporate scene in '93 after seeing how Human Resources was ruining the landscape for everyone. A very low-self-opinion occupation which derives schadenfreude from pissing in everyone else's Chateau Haute Brion.

Total freedom in my own business ever since, ironically serving as a consultant and software provider to Fortune 500/1000 corporations. The Business Law really helped.

I still think ol' René had it backwards. He should'a said: "Sum, ergo cogito.". The foregoing notwithstanding, he was a giant among noble minds.

And James was a bit off course in his treatise on the man, squirrel and tree. An astronomer would have cut it short and said the man and squirrel were going around a common center.

Here's a nice compendium to add to your collection:

Handbook of the Philosophy of Science (16 book series)

Available in hardcover, paperback and Kindle versions.

It's the latter in which I'm a layperson.

Posted by 7:77 on June 27, 2026, 2:24 pm, in reply to "Ah, Philosophy of Science!"

The former? Furthest from it. But Philosophy of Science wasn't my academic focus...it's something I jumped into post-doc, and what I usually do on the sadly rare occasions when I actually work in my field. lol Prior to that exploration, some of my favorite philosophers were people who worked in that field (Popper, of course, plus Hempel, Kuhn, and (expanding the envelope a bit), Russell. A modern figure I admire (and know...) is Ursula Klein.

Thanks for the link!

« Back to index

[ Religion and Ethics and Health BBS ]