27 Sep 05
Originally posted by Thequ1ckAren't we measuring our own brain capacity rather? That the universe hasn't been measured by our tiny minds simply means that we can perceive only an infinitesimal portion of it--the rest is "probably there" but we have no way of measuring it. We can say "this is how much information our minds can hold" with the caveat "but the universe is bigger".
I have heard that the average brain only absorbs a few terabytes
of sensory information in its life time.
If we measured the universe by the total amount of sensory information, ever
processed by consciousness, it would only be in the order of 10^30 bits.
That would make the universe very small indeed.
27 Sep 05
2 edits
Originally posted by Pullhard100% wrong, Most cosmologists do NOT claim that the universe has any center. The galaxy certainly has a center, as does our little cluster of galaxies, but the universe as a whole has no center since it is infinite. You can not have a center to somethimng that goes on in any direction forever. Just think about it for a minute.
All theorists who support the big bang theory acknowledge there is a centre of the universe.
Who the hell told you anyone thinks there is or could be, or should be a center?
27 Sep 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWhen refering to the universe, most cosmologists do not just mean "really really big, so big you could never measure it". That is the conservative estimate, but most cosmologists believe that the universe is actually infinite. Like it goes on forever in any direction.
I can't tell you. "Miles & miles & miles of square kilometers" as my geographer teacher said. My guess would be "infinite" though in the sense that there is never a shortage of something to measure, both at the micro & macro levels. Another word for "infinite" is "immeasurable".
27 Sep 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageExactly. If the universe is defined by measurement and only
Aren't we measuring our own brain capacity rather? That the universe hasn't been measured by our tiny minds simply means that we can perceive only an infinitesimal portion of it--the rest is "probably there" but we have no way of measuring it. We can say "this is how much information our minds can hold" with the caveat "but the universe is bigger".
exists as probability outside of measurement.
Then the only true universe exists as an instance in our own
minds.
My hypothesis is that consciousness is the true giant and
the universe is it's tiny slave.
27 Sep 05
Originally posted by Thequ1ckIf we can't measure it, then the universe is still bigger than our minds. And what is all this philosophy BS. "Nothing is real unless we can measure it"? Why should we be so conceited to think that anything we don't know/can't percieve doesn't exist. It doesn't make sense to say reality is defined by consciousness. I mean it makes sense that an individual's personal reality obviously is, but not about an absolute truth kind of reality.
Exactly. If the universe is defined by measurement and only
exists as probability outside of measurement.
Then the only true universe exists as an instance in our own
minds.
My hypothesis is that consciousness is the true giant and
the universe is it's tiny slave.
27 Sep 05
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowThe problem is, if you go backwards in time you get a progressively
100% wrong, Most cosmologists do NOT claim that the universe has any center. The galaxy certainly has a center, as does our little cluster of galaxies, but the universe as a whole has no center since it is infinite. You can not have a center to somethimng that goes on in any direction forever. Just think about it for a minute.
Who the hell told you anyone thinks there is or could be, or should be a center?
smaller and smaller universe leading to a spot you could maybe
pinpoint as where it all started but what do you use as reference
marks? Besides, thats only the spot it all started, time and space
proceeded from that point.
The other speculation is that original bubble that begat our universe
is just another bubble in an infinitely larger universe where time
and space are more or less independent of one another,
connected but not connected, the connections would only be seen
by beings who perceive more dimensions than ours. Gods, from our
perspective?
27 Sep 05
Originally posted by sonhouseBut all matter in the universe would have been at this one point. So you could say that we are all at the center and the center is everywhere. Everything spread away from each other but not in a uniform patter like you seem to be imagining. Think of the various pastry analogies.
The problem is, if you go backwards in time you get a progressively
smaller and smaller universe leading to a spot you could maybe
pinpoint as where it all started but what do you use as reference
marks? Besides, thats only the spot it all started, time and space
proceeded from that point.
The other speculation is that original bubble that begat our ...[text shortened]... uld only be seen
by beings who perceive more dimensions than ours. Gods, from our
perspective?
And you are right, the second bits are mere speculation with no evidence either supporting or discrediting them and no way to test them or gain evidence. But the definition of the universe is that it is everything. And I think the current leading hypothesis on number of dimensions is 11 but I'm not sure.
28 Sep 05
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowThat was my point - it's a neccessary paradox of the big bang theory. Of course there is no spatial center of the universe, any more than there is a time center of the universe. But is order to accept the theory, one must accept all spatial references are equally centered in the universe and hold the properties of such a position.
But all matter in the universe would have been at this one point. So you could say that we are all at the center and the center is everywhere.
To answer your question, I learnt this concept at university while studying physics.
28 Sep 05
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowThe 11 dimension thing is a feature of another unproven hypothosis,
But all matter in the universe would have been at this one point. So you could say that we are all at the center and the center is everywhere. Everything spread away from each other but not in a uniform patter like you seem to be imagining. Think of the various pastry analogies.
And you are right, the second bits are mere speculation with no evid ...[text shortened]... ng. And I think the current leading hypothesis on number of dimensions is 11 but I'm not sure.
string theory or membrane theory. These strings can be shown to
account for all the particles of the standard model but its like a theory
with too many answers. It is tweeked up the kazoo to make it match
what we want it to say. It can predict just about anything, so finding
a prediction that can be verified is going to take a long time.
Its not quite true there is no way to test for other dimensions.
There are a lot of theories floating around about the way gravity
interacts with other dimensions. A lot of these theories suggest
the reason gravity is so weak compared to magnetism, for instance,
Like a refrigerator magnet can hold back the gravitational field caused
by the entire planet. These theories say gravity is 'shared' and diluted
by these other dimensions or it would in fact be a lot stronger than
electric or magnetic fields. You can think of gravity in this light as
a link between dimensions. One test a lot of people are conducting
as we speak is to see if gravity follows the inverse square rule which
has held us in good stead for hundreds of years via Newton, but at
close distances. Every test like launching rockets into space has proved
the validity of the inverse square law (at 10 feet you get X amount
of gravitational force, at 20 feet you get not half but one fourth, the
change in distance, in this case 2 times and then squared, or 1/4th)
So they are examining the validity of that relationship but at closer
and closer separation distances. If there are no extra dimensions,
the inverse square law holds up even if you are one nanometer
away from the other mass and not touching. If there are extra
dimensions, these theories say as masses get closer and closer
together, the attractive force will at some critical distance, start to
disobeying the inverse square law. So the experiments get harder and
harder and calls for more and more sophisticated apparatus to
get accurate measurements at these closer separation distances.
Right now the experimenters are exploring in the region of 100
microns separation, one tenth of a millimeter, so far with no variation
from the Inverse law. That is only a constraint on how many
dimensions there are and which theories get laid by the wayside.
If they do get accurate results from say, 1 nanometer, and that shows
no variation, then extra dimensions would be pretty much ruled
out at least in light of the present set of theories. The gist of this
is there are ways of testing theories for the possiblity of space and
time existing outside the fishtank we call our universe.
29 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Thequ1ckSounds like the Sun revolving around the Earth.
Exactly. If the universe is defined by measurement and only
exists as probability outside of measurement.
Then the only true universe exists as an instance in our own
minds.
My hypothesis is that consciousness is the true giant and
the universe is it's tiny slave.
And we are certainly not the center of any thing but but our own understanding, which has little or no consequence on anything or any one.
29 Sep 05
Originally posted by Thequ1ckBut it is still happening.
'What is it like to be that rock over there?
Well, I don't know the whole answer, but, unlike the rock, I know a lot of it.
It is like being about a foot in diameter.
It's like weighing a few pounds.
It is like being made mostly of silicon (I think).
It is like resting on a muddy patch of earth with a slight slope.
It's sometimes ...[text shortened]... ut never like knowing any of this is happening.'
Aaron Sloman
The University of Birmingham