Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

My theory is the big bang was not the start but the restart. At some point all matter should be sucked into black holes until all matter gets smaller and smaller. At some point it all gets so compressed it just explodes, which I think is a big bang. It makes sense that the big bang would just be part of an endless cycle, like everything else in nature.

Yours is not a theory.

The Big Bang is a theory.

The Big Bang is a model that comports with the available evidence and is testable. Yours is merely a conjecture, which apparently is partly based on your fondness for an 'endless cycle'.

We should not conflate the scientific concept of theory, which is rigorous and demanding, with the colloquial use of the term, which is used to describe any whimsy a person pulls out of their ass.

Note to all:
The Big Bang theory does not go back to the beginning, or the singularity of the universe. It goes back extremely close to that point, to the end of what is known as the Planck Epoch, which ended about one quattuordecillionth (ie, about 1 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000th) of a second after the beginning. Which is to say, the Big Bang model explains things back to that point. However, our current physics does not allow us to explain that first 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000th of a second. This is not trivial. However, "we don't know" is a reasonable admission at this point, just as is once was - before gravity and fusion were understood - to explain that bright orb which crossed the sky each day, or regarding diseases before technology allowed the field of microbiology to develop.

Color and texture are qualia, not a priori knowledge like the mathematical and logical axioms, so that analogy doesn't really work.

A better comparison would be to talk about some of the unusual qualities of aesthetics.

Color is not just "qualia" lol. Electromagnetic wavelength differences (outside of qualia) exist whether you can experience them or not, the same with texture.

Math is qualia only when it's in your mind, outside of your mind mathematical differences exist whether you can experience them or not. Falling is qualia only when you observe or experience it, otherwise, it is a change which would happen objectively whether you were there or not.

Mathematical and logical axioms were never "a priori" knowledge to me, they were taught to me, and the experienced world didn't seem to contradict them, but instead agreed. The analogy, therefore, works perfectly.

Color and texture ARE unusual/weird qualities of aesthetics.

MIT Cognitive Science professor (Marvin Minsky) makes an excellent point.

Quote:

Summary of the video: Basic researchers working in pure mathematics often develop fundamental laws, even entire branches of math, without any specific application in mind. Yet, as Mario Livio points out here, many of these posited laws turn out—sometimes centuries later—to perfectly describe the behavior of the real world with remarkable precision. This phenomenon was best articulated in the early 1900s by the Hungarian physicist Eugene Wigner as the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics." And it begs the question: What gives mathematics this power? Cognitive scientist Marvin Minsky provides an interesting, if wry, answer: if it were not the case, there would be no one to notice.

Color is not just "qualia" lol. Electromagnetic wavelength differences (outside of qualia) exist whether you can experience them or not, the same with texture.

The sensation of the color 'blue', as agreed upon by convention, is qualia. The electromagnetic radiation that gives rise to our experience of the color blue is a 'property of objects'. These are fundamentally different categories, ontologically speaking.

There is some depth and nuance to this topic that is already covered in other threads such as:

Math is qualia only when it's in your mind, outside of your mind mathematical differences exist whether you can experience them or not. Falling is qualia only when you observe or experience it, otherwise, it is a change which would happen objectively whether you were there or not.

Mathematical and logical axioms were never "a priori" knowledge to me, they were taught to me, and the experienced world didn't seem to contradict them, but instead agreed. The analogy, therefore, works perfectly.

Color and texture ARE unusual/weird qualities of aesthetics.

Logic and mathematics aren't classified as qualia. They are what we refer to as rationally intuitive knowledge.

This is a fundamentally different 'way of knowing' to physical perception. It may appear that we learn mathematics when we study the topic at school, but what school is actually teaching us is to apply that knowledge to practical situations. The Stanford:

Quote:

"Experiences may trigger a process by which we bring this knowledge to consciousness, but the experiences do not provide us with the knowledge itself. It has in some way been with us all along."

This does seem counter-intuitive to those who haven't had the opportunity to think about the subject at depth. However, scholars have tried for decades to try to define logic and mathematics the way you do, as human inventions or conventions.

All the time they run into the same problem. The theories and mathematical calculations ultimately turn out to be self-refuting.

I uprated this video for the first part of the talk. Minsky's rebuttal is what is referred to as the "observer selection effect". It doesn't work in this case because logic and mathematics are necessary truths that don't vary across a world ensemble.

I uprated this video for the first part of the talk. Minsky's rebuttal is what is referred to as the "observer selection effect". It doesn't work in this case because logic and mathematics are necessary truths that don't vary across a world ensemble.

Call it what ever you want but the fact remains that what he said works.

Does math work? Sure it does and that's good enough for most of us.

Perhaps you can start your own thread in the Philosophy forum and have at it with your attempts to undermine math and science.

Some physicists, such as Max Tegmark, believe that the Universe itself is a mathematical structure, and that there is something fundamentally mathematical about nature.

He explains in this very brief 2 1/2 minute video.

Is the Universe Entirely Mathematical? Feat. Max Tegmark

Call it what ever you want but the fact remains that what he said works.

Does math work? Sure it does and that's good enough for most of us.

Perhaps you can start your own thread in the Philosophy forum and have at it with your attempts to undermine math and science.

Saying that mathematics holds true in all possible worlds isn't undermining mathematics. It's the exact opposite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike555

Some physicists, such as Max Tegmark, believe that the Universe itself is a mathematical structure, and that there is something fundamentally mathematical about nature.

He explains in this very brief 2 1/2 minute video.

Is the Universe Entirely Mathematical? Feat. Max Tegmark

And much more thoroughly in lectures such as the one in the following 1 1/2 hour video.

Max Tegmark: The Mathematical Universe

He has written about it in his book, 'Our Mathematical Universe' which I've read.

Roger Penrose's views on mathematics relating to the universe, to bring this thread on topic.

Looks like he's a Platonist with regard to mathematical objects (believes they have a literal existence in some type 'higher realm').

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.