Wednesday, October 7, 2020

Earlier Universe Existed and Is Still Observable, Nobel Prize Winner Sir Roger Penrose Says — Lilia Dergacheva


Interestingly, the ancient Vedic concept of the structure of time anticipated something comparable to this cyclical modern theory rather than a beginning of creation as in most creation myths. There is also an ontological and epistemological account of this that is based on the cognition of seers. In fact, anyone with knowledge of the Vedic view would have seen the modern view of the Big Bang as the beginning as incomplete. 

Similarly, in the ancient view characteristic of most wisdom tradition, reality is structure vertically as well as horizontally. The gross world is a horizontal plane available to the five senses and intellect. But this is the outer layer of as nested system in which the subtle world of refined energy and the causal world of intelligence are available only to those with refined consciousness. This comprises the manifest "three worlds" of the relative. The relative is the manifestation in time of the eternal, unchanging absolute.

The correspondence between modern knowledge and ancient knowledge is now a subject of research. "Inner space" is potentially the next frontier along with outer space.

Sputnik International
Earlier Universe Existed and Is Still Observable, Nobel Prize Winner Sir Roger Penrose Says
Lilia Dergacheva

47 comments:

Marian Ruccius said...

link not workin for me -- you can delete this post

Marian Ruccius said...

delete this comment I mean

Andrew Anderson said...

The idea of those “points” has been deemed as controversial, although many scientists do believe that the universe unfolds in a perennial cycle in which it expands, before contracting and then seeing a new cosmic super-explosion. from https://sputniknews.com/science/202010071080697658-earlier-universe-existed-and-is-still-observable-nobel-prize-winner-sir-roger-penrose-says/

The current evidence is that the Universe is accelerating its expansion and shall NEVER contract.

And that's per the Bible, e.g. "...Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in." Isaiah 40:22.

Matt Franko said...

“ Big Bang” = figurative language

Peter Pan said...

The fear of death is the source of much folly.

Tom Hickey said...

Any talk about science that goes beyond mathematical models is "figurative language." The term "science" is a high-level abstraction (superset) denoting sets of models, physics, chemistry, etc., along with testing of models using experimental protocols that enable replication. Applied science is use of the models in practical application. This implies that no popular writing about "science" is itself science. It's "figurative language" for those who don't have the math, or infotainment. And if any math is included in popular accounts, no one will bother reading it.

Peter Pan said...

Depending on how many magic mushrooms you ingest, the figurative becomes real.

Tom Hickey said...

Sorry for the bad link. Fixed now.

Peter Pan said...

The BBT superseded the SST... it did not preclude the possibility of a cycle.
If there is a cycle, that in itself would be another, grander 'steady state'.

Matt Franko said...

Science uses abstractions Tom... not figurative language... that’s what you Art degree people use..,

Matt Franko said...

“reality is structure vertically as well as horizontally. “

Reification...,

Peter Pan said...

Is cosmology a science?
If they had better instruments, would they jump at the chance to become a science?

Is String Theory, science?

S400 said...

Matt is definitely no scientist. He’s just a person with a diagnosis.

Calgacus said...

Tom: This implies that no popular writing about "science" is itself science. It's "figurative language" for those who don't have the math, or infotainment.

Think you're just explaining Matt here.
But, personally, I stopped being ashamed to read popularizations when I read what Einstein wrote. That he liked to read popularizations of physics - to help him understand physics.

The stuff about "figurative language" or different degrees is nonsense. It is the opposite of the real problem, which is obsessive narrowness and division. It's all figurative, it's all abstract. The only question is whether it helps one understand.

Matt Franko said...

“ the real problem, which is obsessive narrowness and division.”

LOL That’s they way everything is properly understood....

How do you guys even find your ways back home at end of day.... do you ever even leave the house?

“It's all figurative, it's all abstract.“. Yo those words are not synonymous....

You guys are SEVERELY underdeveloped in abstraction....

But otoh You have the figurative coming out the ass though that is for sure...,

You never trained adequately or at all in abstraction... if you did you would understand the difference... between abstract and figurative...

Matt Franko said...

“reality is structure vertically as well as horizontally. “

Vertical and horizontal are abstractions in Euclidean geometry.... they are not real or part of anything real....

Tom Hickey said...

@ Calgacus

Right. I am just pushing Matt's POV to its logical conclusion.

Actually, I have discussed this at some length with friends and colleagues who are profs of theoretical physics and that is their position. As soon as one leaves the math model and begins to interpret it, fellow physicists disagree over the conceptualization and expression, although they all agree about the model's math, its testing protocols and its application.

Some have said that truth be told, we don't really know what the theory "means" beyond the model, since we are not observing reality directly but only through effects. That is, they reject or question reification of theoretical terms. They says we just know that it works in terms of outcomes and how it works in terms of the equations, and that's what doing science is about for scientists.

Putting a math model into words makes it either mythology (figurative modeling) or philosophy (conceptual modeling) Science uses math models that can be tested against data to avoid "philosophy."

Ancient Greek thought was chiefly a reaction to mythological explanation, which was dominant previously. This began in the attempt to replace mythological explanation with causal explanation. This culminated in Aristotle's proto-scientific works that focused on categories and causes, for instance, as well as observation. This was the transition from mythological to conceptual explanation. Plato was still heavily mythological, as were the Presocratics.

Science was a reaction not so much to Platonism, since Platonism was never really in competition with science, but rather Aristotelianism, since Aristotelianism was adopted by the medieval Scholastics, Aquinas in particular, and this was integrated into dogma by the institutional Church, creating an obstacle to scientific inquiry — think Bruno and Galileo.

Dogmatism resulted in a dialectical reaction in the form of "naturalism," which became the basis for scientific explanation, which is causal on one sense and not another. The chief meaning of causality for the ancients was answering the question, why? Modern science rejects the why question as teleological and focuses instead on the how question in terms of a general description expressed precisely in a math model. This is ideally expressed axiomatically in a way that can also be tested against data using hypotheses generated by the theory, together with experimental protocols.

continued


Tom Hickey said...

continuation

The why (cause) is often taken to be independent variables that determine dependent variables according to an invariant rule (function). That dependent variable so behave is taken as proof of causality. Here, causes are determined by effects, and then taken to determine effects — which is circular.

The concept of causality is undecided and there is still considerable controversy over it. Instrumentalism rejects the importance of causality, for instance, which Milton Friedman made famous in economics.

Once a formal model is exported into concepts and their verbal expression the precision and accuracy of the model are largely lost, and the how and why tend to get conflated. Conceptual models of science are largely imaginative, e.g., the "billiard ball" model of atoms. They may be useful for thinking about such issues and problems, but they are not science.

Einstein's thought experiments were not science and did not become science until he wrote down the equations and published them into the scientific community. Agree that his popular works are a great contribution, but they are about science and not science, technically speaking.

In my view, Matt sometimes (or often) pushes this way beyond what is reasonable, since most of the matters under discussion are not about scientific publications but rather popular writing about science or involving science in some way.

While I agree with some of his points, others seem to me be unreasonable requirements on popular communication, which, after all, is not only descriptive but also performative, and that involves persuasion. This type of expression is not meant to be "correct" scientifically. That's for articles in professional journals, conferences, etc., where the scientific debates actually takes place technically. Most of this debate is beyond the ability of non-professionals to understand in depth.

The challenge in popular writing lies in being able to dumb it down without misleading, which is always a temptation in persuasion to one's POV. It takes critical thinking skills to pick up on this and Matt makes some useful contributions. However, it often seems to me that he goes over the top and in effect loses the plot. Which is being uncritical.

Tom Hickey said...

"Vertical and horizontal are abstractions in Euclidean geometry.... they are not real or part of anything real...."

For those with inner "vision," they are very real — more real than the data of the five senses.

Your position, Matt, is like the blind denying the existence of light or color, of the deaf denying sound.

Matt Franko said...

fig·ur·a·tive
/ˈfiɡyərədiv/

adjective
adjective: figurative
1.departing from a literal use of words;


abstraction (mathematics)
Abstraction in mathematics is the process of extracting the underlying structures, patterns or properties of a mathematical concept or object,[19] removing any dependence on real world objects ...

You guys are primarily or exclusively trained in the former.... having Art Degrees...

Tom Hickey said...

"Science uses abstractions Tom... not figurative language... that’s what you Art degree people use..,"

Fun article

Helge Kragh
Big Bang: the etymology of a name
Astronomy & Geophysics, Volume 54, Issue 2, April 2013, Pages 2.28–2.30,

Tom Hickey said...

"abstraction (mathematics)
Abstraction in mathematics is the process of extracting the underlying structures, patterns or properties of a mathematical concept or object,[19] removing any dependence on real world objects ..."


The terms "abstract" and "abstraction" have different uses in different contexts. I won't go into the many different uses other than to point out that the mathematical and scientific uses are somewhat different.

The math use is purely formal, in keeping with math as a formal discipline. Mathematical objects are not real objects and must be connected to real objects using definitions. Seeobject at Wikipedia.

The scientific use of abstraction since Francis Bacon (Novum Organum) is categorization based on induction, which starts with observation of real objects and their properties rather than starting with categories as first principles and then assigning objects to them.

This is now formalized as set theory and it application. Math is derived from set theory.

Any mathematical statement can be formalized into the language of set theory, and any mathematical theorem can be derived, using the calculus of first-order logic, from the axioms of ZFC, or from some extension of ZFC. It is in this sense that set theory provides a foundation for mathematics.Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Set Theory


On one hand, math objects are a type of object that can be ordered in sets. On the other hand, the data of science are observable objects categorized in terms sets on the basis of their observed properties and relations.

Figurative language is just a way of naming categories (sets). It is not a method of categorization. Figurative language can be used wrt to any system of categorization, and scientist often use figurative language in talking about science (although not doing science). See the link above on "the big bang."

Peter Pan said...

Popular descriptions of the BBT feature:

- events occurring within minuscule periods of time
- rapid expansion of the universe, as it goes from being minuscule, to enormous
- rapid cooling from very high temperatures
- transition to a state where very little occurs over the course of billions of years

Amazing that the term didn't catch on sooner.
When you describe an explosion, over and over, to a general audience, don't be offended when that is what it's called.

Is there another fun story about the "heat death" of the universe?

Greg said...


“The Big Flameout” ?

Andrew Anderson said...

Steady state/cyclic big bang theories are meant to discredit the idea of a Creator.

But the evidence is this Universe will suffer a heat death and there's no evidence that there's more than one Universe.

But, of course, one can have FAITH to the contrary - not that that particular faith has any reward but one's (hopeful) extinction at death.

Marian Ruccius said...

About mathiness: from the Lars Syll blog: "Without strong evidence, all kinds of absurd claims and nonsense may pretend to be science. Let us not forget what Romer said in his masterful attack on ‘post-real’ economics a couple of years ago:

Math cannot establish the truth value of a fact. Never has. Never will."

https://larspsyll.wordpress.com/2020/02/18/paul-romer-explains-what-went-wrong-with-economics/

Peter Pan said...

@Andrew,

As an agnostic, I could never accept the BBT as a substitute for God or a creation myth. It purports to explain the origin of the universe, but doesn't start at the beginning. It's conceptually incomplete, unless you believe the creation of the universe is a one-off event.

To be rid of God, a form of 'steady state' is required.

Peter Pan said...

Math can precisely describe many things. Those things don't have to be true, or even exist.

Andrew Anderson said...

To be rid of God, a form of 'steady state' is required. Peter Pan

Yes and the BBT is amazingly consistent with the Bible as in:

1) Time had a beginning.
2) Cosmic expansion.
3) the Universe wearing out.

But I was referring to CYCLIC BBT which is contrary to the current evidence.

Andrew Anderson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter Pan said...

Current evidence is limited to what our instruments and vantage point can observe.

Andrew Anderson said...

We have an exceptional viewpoint wrt to space* and time.

In other words, "The heavens are declaring the glory of God" Psalm 19:1

*E.g. the Solar System is currently out-of-plane of a dusty orbit we could be in - affording us excellent viewing conditions for the present.

Peter Pan said...

The Milky Way is in the way. An optimal vantage point would be as far away from a galaxy as possible.

If the Sun were more ancient, this planet might be billions of light years closer to the singularity; or where the action was.

If Earth were closer to a galactic core, we might know more about galaxies.

Look at the contributions made by the exploration of the Solar System. Peering through a telescope is no substitute for sending a probe to where its needed. The instrumentation problem is a major obstacle for astronomy.

Tom Hickey said...

A number of ancient systems did not posit either a beginning or end. For them, being and becoming co-exist with becoming as the manifestation in time of the eternally unmanifest eternal being, taking place in terms of a regular cyclic process of emanation.

Some of these systems also included a conception at least analogous to the Western concept of "God," while others are non-theistic.

For example, some ancient Greeks, Aristotle for instance, held a "steady-state" theory rather than a creation theory. Aquinas concluded that it was impossible to rationally prove creation and it was a matter of revelation.

So those concerned about TBB theory sneaking God in aren't aware of the long history. A steady state theory doesn't avoid the issue the way they seem to think it does.

Anyway, God is ruled out of the scientific model by assuming naturalism. This assumption says nothing–and can say nothing–about the existence of that which is non-natural. That is simply excluded from modeling by the assumptions, which implies nothing about what is exogenous to the model.

See Cosmology and Theology at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for the Western and modern views.

Peter Pan said...

The problem is that it doesn't kick God out. The 'steady state' is sufficient for agnostics.

It goes without saying that strong atheists want to avoid the issue.

Matt Franko said...

For those with inner "vision,"

Tom You’re making my point here... try saying what you are trying to say without the “quotes”...

You can’t do it...

Matt Franko said...

Tom we have been given pea brains in this era/epoch... we have to make the best of it...

Matt Franko said...

Although I would say for WE who don’t think “we’re out of money!”... we’re might have been given Lima bean sized brains...

Matt Franko said...

“ Matt makes some useful contributions. However, it often seems to me that he goes over the top ”

I haven’t been given the proper temperament to deal with you non discriminating Platonists... that is for sure...

Tom Hickey said...

For those with inner "vision," Tom You’re making my point here... try saying what you are trying to say without the “quotes”... You can’t do it...

Of course I can, Matt. Try seeing without your physical eyes, you know, the way geometrical and mathematical abstract objects are cognized abstractly. Have you known any pure mathematicians? They wig out on this stuff.

For the controversy over math objects see Platonism in Philosophy of Mathematics at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This is about talk about the subject, that is, how to express knowledge of math objects. It can't be about experience of these objects, since there is no way to know if different people experience what they give the same name to differently.

For seeing without physical eyes and without abstraction from the senses, see the world's wisdom literature. In Christian mysticism, the vertical even has a name–the ladder of ascent and inner visions are common. A vertical-horizontal model also found in the Allegory of the Cave in Plato's Republic and Socrates's soliloquy in Symposium on the ladder of love as a means of ascension taught to him by the priestess Diotima.

BTW, not talking ESP here, but other forms of cognition not mediated by sense date or reasoning sometimes called intuition, insight or illumination.

Then there is experience of consciousness without an object aka pure consciousness.

There is little in the way of technical vocabulary in the West, but there is a highly developed one in the East with nuanced conceptual models.

But the proof is in the pudding. But one has to train oneself to develop non-physical refined sense. This would be interesting but not of much use if one could not use it. And the experience of many today shows that it is possible at least to some degree for most anyone that takes the opportunity to do so. YMMV.

One can try to reinvent the wheel on one's own, but a wiser course is to ask for directions of someone that knows the way (paraphrase of Rig Veda).

JR Barch used to insert this here at MNE periodically, but since he is no longer participating, I guess it falls to me to reiterate that the vertical-horizontal is hugely significant and important. This needs saying in a world where most dwell mostly on the surface of life.

Lots of research on this going on in the West now that meditation has been around for awhile and there are many subjects available for studies. This is the cutting edge of cognitive science.

Tom Hickey said...

"Tom we have been given pea brains in this era/epoch... we have to make the best of it..."

I'm not sure it is nature. Seems to me that it likely mostly nurture.

But there are plenty of smart people. The problem is that they are generally selected out of positions of responsibility and those positions are filled by either people that are unqualified or corrupt.

But there are two issues here. The first is the horizontal, where science is the preferred methodology for problem solving in the material world. This is the quantitative.

The second is the vertical having to do with the qualitative. This is a matter of character, values and subtlety. While this can be developed through training, some have more natural abilities than others.

Both are required in leaders. And democracy requires an educated and enlightened electoral to functions as advertised. Otherwise, expect a mess.

Peter Pan said...

JR Barch used to insert this here at MNE periodically, but since he is no longer participating, I guess it falls to me to reiterate that the vertical-horizontal is hugely significant and important. This needs saying in a world where most dwell mostly on the surface of life.

I don't understand this attitude. Finding pure bliss may be important to you, and of no consequence to anyone else. Plenty of people are contented to dwell on the surface. They are in no need of spiritual guidance. They aren't searching for scientific explanations of supernatural phenomena. Science is not relevant to spiritual cultivation. That is what 'the vertical' boils down to.

These are legitimate topics for scientific inquiry. The findings may be hugely important for a few, and trivial for many. That divide is a measure of our evolutionary heritage. Food in mouth comes first.

For someone who has studied the vertical, you sure spend a lot of time posting links that dwell at surface level. I would despair if I were forced to wade through that garbage.

Tom Hickey said...

@ Peter Pan

That's one way of looking at it — by dismissing alternatives about which one has no knowledge.

Peter Pan said...

Those who are in need of alternatives will find them. Quit proselytizing.

If Andrew can do it, so can you.

Andrew Anderson said...

Aquinas concluded that it was impossible to rationally prove creation and it was a matter of revelation. Tom Hickey

Yet the Apostle Paul said mankind was without excuse due to the Creation:

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20 [bold added]

Tom Hickey said...

I should have said, "Aquinas concluded that it was impossible to rationally prove creation in time."

Aquinas held that it is possible to rationally prove creation but not in terms of a beginning in time.

For Aquinas, creation in time was a revealed truth rather than the outcome of rational argumentation and as such creation in time an article of faith rather than a philosophical truth.

Aquinas asserted that reason alone can show that the conditioned must depend on the unconditioned, and the contingent on the necessary, effect on cause, change on the unchanging, order on ordering principle — "which we call God."

Aquinas constructed five proofs for God's existence, known as the five ways. See Five Ways

Andrew Anderson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.