NationStates Jolt Archive

If space is always expanding, what is it expanding into?

I thought the Universe was infinite.

I thought the Universe was infinite.

actually, no. if you look at it technically speaking the universe was literally the size of a pea tens of billions of years ago. so compressed neither matter nor energy could exist in the states we know them as today. that small ball of matter exploded and expanded, and to this day is is still expanding, so the universe is not infinite it has a definate end we just have utterly no means of ever reaching the end of it.

I don't think we know if space itself is expanding or not, since we're embedded in space-time. What you're referring to is the expansion of the galaxies, which seem to all be moving away. They are expanding into space which we have not yet detected, as we are always up against our ability to "see" distances in space: since light only travels at c, we can only see as far as the universe is old. This is why scientists hold that the universe is billions of years old; we can see objects billions of light-years away.

If you were a two-dimensional creature living on the surface of a balloon, and that balloon were expanding, it would look the same as what you're describing -- everything on the surface is growing further apart, but it doesn't seem like it's actually expanding "to" anywhere. It actually is expanding -- just not in a dimension you can perceive.

That's how I always thought of it.

Nothing. It's expanding into nothing.

Well, there are two possible answers:

1. The universe has always been infinite, and its expansion is not really expanding but rather stretching spatial dimensions within the same infinite space.

2. The universe is expanding in to something and is finite. However, because it is impossible to test or investigate this case, it would no longer be a scientific theory and would be most likely more of a metaphysical rather than scientific inquiry.

If space is always expanding, what is it expanding into?
Marshmelow fluff. It's what Space/Time is made of.

Well, there are two possible answers:

1. The universe has always been infinite, and its expansion is not really expanding but rather stretching spatial dimensions within the same infinite space.

2. The universe is expanding in to something and is finite. However, because it is impossible to test or investigate this case, it would no longer be a scientific theory and would be most likely more of a metaphysical rather than scientific inquiry.

but if the universe is indeed finite, then what is outside of that finite sphere...nothing? nothing is nothing, everything is something and nothing can just...be..something created everything and everything is something.

i prefer the threory that though the universe itslef is infinite, the amount of time it has existed is finite and so continues to grow, and thus as a measure the known universe is growing since what we say is a formation of the fabric of space-time. thus the universe is not expanding, but the galaxies are moving further into it because of an increase in time.

but if the universe is indeed finite, then what is outside of that finite sphere...nothing? nothing is nothing, everything is something and nothing can just...be..something created everything and everything is something.

With current technology and physical limitations, we simply don't know and can't know. It is literally beyond our ability to know and comprehend. In this case, any idea is speculation or philosophy rather than a scientific theory.

Now, in the distant future we may be able to develop the kind of power necessary to attack and shape the laws of the universe itself and thereby find out, but that's currently an impossible goal. Obviously, such technology would be intended to help us escape this universe rather than simply investigate it for scientific purposes.

If space is always expanding, what is it expanding into?

Think of an expanding balloon.

Now imagine that you're inside the balloon, and pretend that nothing outside the balloon exists.

Does that help?

Think of an expanding balloon.

Now imagine that you're inside the balloon, and pretend that nothing outside the balloon exists.

Does that help?

helps explain what the universe is, but it makes the situation worse on deciding just what exactly it is that the universe is expanding into. if it truly is nothing...as in it just doesnt physically exist, then that means everything is insignificant.

helps explain what the universe is, but it makes the situation worse on deciding just what exactly it is that the universe is expanding into.

The point of the example is to stop thinking about the universe as if it were expanding into something. It's not. It's just expanding.

if it truly is nothing...as in it just doesnt physically exist, then that means everything is insignificant.

Why not?

To the maggots and the cheese. The cheese is the universe. To the worms and the corpse, the corpse is the cosmos. Science is but an organized system of ignorance.

Don't you know who I am?!

I'm Koolaid.

That's ALL you need to know and get annoyed at.

helps explain what the universe is, but it makes the situation worse on deciding just what exactly it is that the universe is expanding into. if it truly is nothing...as in it just doesnt physically exist, then that means everything is insignificant.

I have a feeling that we might not want to know what exists outside of the universe...there could be things that we really don't want to see or know. Who knows what lies outside of the safety of our physical universe?

"When you look in to an abyss, the abyss also looks in to you"

If space is always expanding, what is it expanding into?

That which we cannot fathom.

This 12 min video will send you into the 10th dimension and will seriously blow your mind. Ive watched it like 10x and still dont get 100% of it.

http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php


Hit the nav bar on the left side second line down on the menu and start it

Im serious this really changed some fundemental thinking on my part.

You've become confused by relaxed terminology. The universe, by definition, encompasses EVERYTHING, meaning that there is no "edge" of the universe, because that would imply that there was something that is not part of the set named "everything." Rather, we see expansion of the visible universe into another part of the universe. That's your mistake. The universe isn't expanding - the visible portion of it is - into more of the universe.

To clarify: there is no such thing as being "outside the universe", because then the definition of "universe" as "everything, everywhere" becomes impossible.

I have a feeling that we might not want to know what exists outside of the universe...there could be things that we really don't want to see or know. Who knows what lies outside of the safety of our physical universe?

"When you look in to an abyss, the abyss also looks in to you"

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of disasociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful postition therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from deadly light into the peace and safty of a new dark age.
-H.P. Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"

To clarify: there is no such thing as being "outside the universe", because then the definition of "universe" as "everything, everywhere" becomes impossible.

According to 10th dimensional therory this is not true. There are an infinite number of universes each with fundemental laws different from our own.

According to 10th dimensional therory this is not true. There are an infinite number of universes each with fundemental laws different from our own.

Yes, according to the pseudoscentific, unaccepted by the majority of the scientific community, 10th dimensional theory. Throw me another one. You cannot logically say that there is something outside of "everything, everywhere."

Yes, according to the pseudoscentific, unaccepted by the majority of the scientific community, 10th dimensional theory. Throw me another one. You cannot logically say that there is something outside of "everything, everywhere."

I think i just did. Everything everywhere despite its seemly all encompassing nature is suprisingly a limited definition in theorectical physics.

I think i just did. Everything everywhere despite its seemly all encompassing nature is suprisingly a limited definition in theorectical physics.

Quite simply, their definition of the universe is flawed. You are confusing the terms universe and dimension.

Quite simply, their definition of the universe is flawed.

Some brilliant people at the top of thier scientific fields disagree.

Some brilliant people at the top of thier scientific fields disagree.

Cite one. I think it's more likely you're misunderstanding their work.

You are confusing the terms "universe" and "dimension." There may be many dimensions. There is only one universe, because the universe is defined as "everything, everywhere, in all dimensions over all time." The universe may be expanding into another dimension, but if it is, it is likely we will never be able to perceive it. On the other hand, the visible universe is definitely expanding in this dimension, into more of the universe. That was the OP's question.

Cite one.

You are confusing the terms "universe" and "dimension." There may be many dimensions. There is only one universe, because the universe is defined as "everything, everywhere, in all dimensions over all time."

In fact that definition is not nessesarily correct. String theory postulates an infinite # of univereses, each with its own set of new and unique laws( IE gravity may not exist etc) So in fact your definition of universe is far more limited then you would like to make it to be.

In fact that definition is not nessesarily correct. String theory postulates an infinite # of univereses, each with its own set of new and unique laws( IE gravity may not exist etc) So in fact your definition of universe is far more limited then you would like to make it to be.

Argh. You are confusing your terms. String theory postulates a number of DIMENSIONS.

Argh. You are confusing your terms. String theory postulates a number of DIMENSIONS.

I am in NO way confusing my terms watch the flash i posted and please note in particular the 9th dimension and its description then perhaps you will understand how in that way i am applying universe and dimension properly.

They specifically cite a universe as an area with a set rule of physics and differentiate different universes as areas with fundamentally different laws. They dont call this one encompassing universe they specifically segragate and specifically differenciate them as seperate and individual universes.

I am in NO way confusing my terms watch the flash i posted and please note in particular the 9th dimension and its description then perhaps you will understand how in that way i am applying universe and dimension properly.

Look, I've watched the flash many times. It's created by someone with no qualifications in Physics, and frankly, it shows. It's a nice idea, but it is not correct. The universe is EVERYTHING, including any and all dimensions there are. You are confused and think that there are multiple universes when this is in fact logically impossible. You are using the term "universe" in place of "dimention" and then spouting pseudoscience as if it's fact. Please, do some research before arguing with me.

They specifically cite a universe as an area with a set rule of physics and differentiate different universes as areas with fundamentally different laws. They dont call this one encompassing universe they specifically segragate and specifically differenciate them as seperate and individual universes.


Then they, like you, are using the term wrongly. They mean "dimension", NOT universe.

helps explain what the universe is, but it makes the situation worse on deciding just what exactly it is that the universe is expanding into. if it truly is nothing...as in it just doesnt physically exist, then that means everything is insignificant.

I have found that humans have an inherit desire for meaning. Meaning for something greater, or a meaning for their own existance.

However, why is it so unfathomable that there is no greater meaning to our life, that we just are, or life just is, with no greater meaning to existance than simply existing.

I have written several papers on this very subject, dismantling the idea of a greater meaning, with the simple conclusion that there is no meaning, there just is, but it's rather long and convuluted for me to post right now.

helps explain what the universe is, but it makes the situation worse on deciding just what exactly it is that the universe is expanding into. if it truly is nothing...as in it just doesnt physically exist, then that means everything is insignificant.
Space is the surface of the balloon. The surface doesn't expand into something, it just expands.

My question is, if space is being stretched so, and matter is moving further apart, does that explain why we're all getting fatter?

I have found that humans have an inherit desire for meaning. Meaning for something greater, or a meaning for their own existance.

However, why is it so unfathomable that there is no greater meaning to our life, that we just are, or life just is, with no greater meaning to existance than simply existing.

I have written several papers on this very subject, dismantling the idea of a greater meaning, with the simple conclusion that there is no meaning, there just is, but it's rather long and convuluted for me to post right now.
Just so; in fact, existence itself is meaningful. I don't think "no meaning" is possible for us.

I dont think this is a question humans can truly answer

Why does the universe have to expand? It is big enough as it is..
Well, if it is expanding, it is expanding into itself.

but if the universe is indeed finite, then what is outside of that finite sphere...nothing? nothing is nothing, everything is something and nothing can just...be..something created everything and everything is something.
Since that finite sphere contains all of space-time, then nothing can exist beyond it. There is no there in which something can exist.

The phrase "outside space-time" is nonsensical. "Outside" requires direction or relative position, both of which are contingent upon space-time.

This 12 min video will send you into the 10th dimension and will seriously blow your mind. Ive watched it like 10x and still dont get 100% of it.

http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php


Hit the nav bar on the left side second line down on the menu and start it

Im serious this really changed some fundemental thinking on my part.

HOLY SHIT!
http://www.flatlandthemovie.com/

I'm going to go crawl into a corner and giggle happily until this movie comes out.

I dont think this is a question humans can truly answer

Some have tried, though...

http://www.exitmundi.nl/eternity.htm

It leads me to ask this - what if this Universe is a result of another Universe going dead? What if we all existed in that other Universe?

If space is always expanding, what is it expanding into?

Basically, all the stuff that occupies space is being pushed apart, but physicists reckon it's because space itself is expanding.

This does not mean that space is not infinite. It's kind of confusing, but even an infinite distance can get bigger.

The way I think about it is that 1/0 and 2/0 both equal infinity (sort of), but one is two times the other.

Then they, like you, are using the term wrongly. They mean "dimension", NOT universe.

I think when you are only talking of string theory it is acceptable to use the term multiverse and to speak of "another universe." I think that there is more than one definition of the term Universe and it depends on exactly what you are talking about that makes certain definitions apply.

I think when you are only talking of string theory it is acceptable to use the term multiverse and to speak of "another universe." I think that there is more than one definition of the term Universe and it depends on exactly what you are talking about that makes certain definitions apply.

This is true, and I concede that point. However, it's lax usage of these words that gets us into these arguments over what is essentially semantics. We must be very precise when describing physical phenomenon.

I could tell you ,but if you knew your brain would implode.

This is true, and I concede that point. However, it's lax usage of these words that gets us into these arguments over what is essentially semantics. We must be very precise when describing physical phenomenon.

Wow. I must be learning...

While we are discussing time/space, do people see time as 'momentum' or as 'stasis'. That is if there were an absence of time would everything cease to happen or would everything happen instantaneously?

While we are discussing time/space, do people see time as 'momentum' or as 'stasis'. That is if there were an absence of time would everything cease to happen or would everything happen instantaneously?

I imagine everything would probably collapse in to a Big Bang-like singularity?

While we are discussing time/space, do people see time as 'momentum' or as 'stasis'. That is if there were an absence of time would everything cease to happen or would everything happen instantaneously?

Nothing would "happen."

Everything would be.

If space is always expanding, what is it expanding into?

yer ma

As I understand it, it isn't that the universe was this tiny ball, it's that matter was this tiny ball, surrounded by an infinite void.

Of course, neither side can actually prove itself until we can build a viable FTL drive and catch up to the edge of the universe (if such exists).

But anyway.

I imagine everything would probably collapse in to a Big Bang-like singularity?
I hope the question mark isnt for me, because I dont have an answer that I'm in the least bit sure of or confident about...;)

Nothing would "happen."

Everything would be.

So Vetalia would you hold that in a singularity there isnt any time? If so does everything happen instantaneously in a Big Bang-like singularity, or is there an absence of happening?

Soheran I take it from your answer that you view time as a kind of momentum and absence of time as statis (rather than the other way around)?

I hope the question mark isnt for me, because I dont have an answer that I'm in the least bit sure of or confident about...;)

Neither do I; I'm just guessing since the BB was the start of time itself, and there was no time prior to its explosion, that a similar event would occur if time were removed from the equation.

Unfortunately, I have at best a layman's understanding of the world of physics or astronomy.

Soheran I take it from your answer that you view time as a kind of momentum and absence of time as statis (rather than the other way around)?

What's the difference, exactly?

As you phrased them, both seem true - nothing happens (there is no time, nothing can happen) so everything is instantaneous.

So Vetalia would you hold that in a singularity there isnt any time? If so does everything happen instantaneously in a Big Bang-like singularity, or is there an absence of happening?

As far as I know, a singularity is a rip in spacetime; remember that time slows down as you approach a black hole due to time dilation caused by stronger and stronger gravitational pull, and since a singularity is comprised of infinitely dense matter with an infinitely-strong gravitational pull it would seem logical that time would slow to an effective stop.

The Universe is neither expanding nor contracting. It is wriggling. Much like the tail of a sperm wriggles as it swims up the fallopian tubes in search of an egg.

The Big Bang was the orgasm. :)

The Universe is neither expanding nor contracting. It is wriggling. Much like the tail of a sperm wriggles as it swims up the fallopian tubes in search of an egg.

The Big Bang was the orgasm. :)

What if the universe is really existing within a woman's fertilized egg? :eek:

What if the universe is really existing within a woman's fertilized egg? :eek:

Just remember to duck if you see a coat hanger. :P

The Universe is neither expanding nor contracting. It is wriggling. Much like the tail of a sperm wriggles as it swims up the fallopian tubes in search of an egg.

The Big Bang was the orgasm. :)

Whose? God's?

Just remember to duck if you see a coat hanger. :P

I don't think I want to imagine an aborted universe...:eek:

What's the difference, exactly?

As you phrased them, both seem true - nothing happens (there is no time, nothing can happen) so everything is instantaneous.
The difference could be quite significant.

Instaneousity would have to cause things to happen because if everything happens all at once then one aspect of happening could be the Big Bang effect, but if nothing happens at all (statsis) then Big Bangs, universes, and all we observe are excluded.

I observe that 'time' (whatever it is) is comprised of two observable factors or elements, sequentiality and pace. My question about the nature of time is about 'pace'. If there were no time would the universe be in a state of instaneousity (all possible events and states [barring the state of statsis] all happening simultaneously) or would there be an absence of happnening - (complete statsis, where everything exists in one single unchanging state without momentum or anything that could be referred to as 'happening'?

Whose? God's?

Who else? He invented the Kama Sutra, didn't He? :)

Who else? He invented the Kama Sutra, didn't He? :)

Ah, so that's what Heaven is about....

Who else? He invented the Kama Sutra, didn't He? :)

Apparently, the unlucky bastard who wrote it was celibate...

Apparently, the unlucky bastard who wrote it was celibate...

I bet he masturbated a lot, though. :p

The difference could be quite significant.

Instaneousity would have to cause things to happen because if everything happens all at once then one aspect of happening could be the Big Bang effect, but if nothing happens at all (statsis) then Big Bangs, universes, and all we observe are excluded.

The question is meaningless, if you are referring to the Big Bang, since time and space, and the laws that define them, arose after the Big Bang.

We cannot talk meaningfully about conditions preceding it.

I observe that 'time' (whatever it is) is comprised of two observable factors or elements, sequentiality and pace. My question about the nature of time is about 'pace'. If there were no time would the universe be in a state of instaneousity (all possible events and states [barring the state of statsis] all happening simultaneously) or would there be an absence of happnening - (complete statsis, where everything exists in one single unchanging state without momentum or anything that could be referred to as 'happening'?

There is no difference, except perhaps a semantic one involving "happening."

"Everything exist[ing] in one single unchanging state" is the same thing as "all possible events and states happening simultaneously."

Ah, so that's what Heaven is about....

Would it be Heaven otherwise? :p

As far as I know, a singularity is a rip in spacetime; remember that time slows down as you approach a black hole due to time dilation caused by stronger and stronger gravitational pull, and since a singularity is comprised of infinitely dense matter with an infinitely-strong gravitational pull it would seem logical that time would slow to an effective stop.

I certainly agree with the logic of your analysis, except how then can we account for the continuing accumulation of mass inside a singularity? If the state inside a singularity is statsis, then additional matter couldnt enter (because that would be a 'happening' and happenings dont happen when they dont happen.....:confused: ).

I bet he masturbated a lot, though. :p

Especially considering how long the entire text was...and all of the painstakingly hand-drawn images accompanying it.

Would it be Heaven otherwise? :p

I suppose not.

Damn, now I have to be pious and virtuous... life is so much more fun when all you think you're missing out on is angels playing harps.

Just so; in fact, existence itself is meaningful. I don't think "no meaning" is possible for us.

When I refer to meaning, I mean purpose, or we were designed to fulfill a purpose, of sorts. It has been my experience through life that life has no purpose, but in a sense has a meaning in that our life is our meaning, or the mere existance is the justification for our existance. A bit hard to explain, really.

I certainly agree with the logic of your analysis, except how then can we account for the continuing accumulation of mass inside a singularity? If the state inside a singularity is statsis, then additional matter couldnt enter (because that would be a 'happening' and happenings dont happen when they dont happen.....:confused: ).

A singularity is of infinite mass and gravity; that would mean it could contain an infinite amount of matter and could continue to add matter until it absorbed all that was within the event horizon.

However, energy may escape a black hole in the form of Hawking radiation.

A singularity is of infinite mass and gravity; that would mean it could contain an infinite amount of matter and could continue to add matter until it absorbed all that was within the event horizon.
Or it could reach the speed of light.

I suppose not.

Damn, now I have to be pious and virtuous... life is so much more fun when all you think you're missing out on is angels playing harps.

Don't worry about it. Getting into Heaven is a lot easier than some groups of people would like you to believe. In fact, I would go so far as to say that your chances of getting in are better if you DON'T listen to them. :p

When I refer to meaning, I mean purpose, or we were designed to fulfill a purpose, of sorts. It has been my experience through life that life has no purpose, but in a sense has a meaning in that our life is our meaning, or the mere existance is the justification for our existance. A bit hard to explain, really.

I imagine our meaning, whatever it is, is way greater and much more complex than we can possibly conceive. It might be on the scale of a civilization, or all of humankind, or all sapient beings, but whatever it is there is some drive that causes us to do what we do. I personally feel the desire to live or exist is only a small part of that meaning, something given to us that we can comprehend with our limited senses.

Of course, the more advanced technologically we get the better we may be at solving that problem, so perhaps that is meaning of sorts, along with other aspects like bettering ourselves or improving the lives of others. Each individual's personal development contributes to the development of the civilization which contributes to all mankind, which in turn might eventually contribute on higher scales than that...whatever it is, we only know a little of it.

Or it could reach the speed of light.

Well, in the event horizon the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light, so it would be impossible for anything equal to or slower than light to escape.

The question is meaningless, if you are referring to the Big Bang, since time and space, and the laws that define them, arose after the Big Bang.
Hang on, I thought we cannot know of what preceeded the Big Bang and so we cant know if time or space existed prior to it?:confused:

We cannot talk meaningfully about conditions preceding it.
I thought that this was more a matter of determination, ie that whatever was prior (if there was a prior) was not determinable from a 'post Big-Bang' perspective?:confused:

There is no difference, except perhaps a semantic one involving "happening."
There's definately a difference to the two states I am considering - either or both those states may be physical impossibilities and/or analytical impossibilities, however, if that is the case I dont know enough to work that out (so you might need to bear with my ignorance for a post or two if you wish to continue to discuss the matter with me).

It certainly seems to me that the two states I am considering are possible as analytical states (ie states that dont or cannot exist physically but which are useful for 'thinking with' given we dont think things as they actually are and tend to be more able to work and reason with conceptual representations).

"Everything exist[ing] in one single unchanging state" is the same thing as "all possible events and states happening simultaneously."
Not as I am considering these two states (keeping in mind that I dont suggest the states are possible but rather ask if it were possible for time to be absent which of these states would in such an imaginary instance occur).

To clarify, I'll reconfigure the question. If you travelled away from me (for a distance) at the speed of light and returned and both you and I had exactly accurate time pieces that were exactly sinchronised when you departed, yet when you returned your time piece showed a lesser amount of time had passed than mine, would that mean you had experianced a greater amount of 'time-force' (ie that time increases instaneousity) or a lesser amount of 'time-force' (ie that time increases statsis)?

I imagine our meaning, whatever it is, is way greater and much more complex than we can possibly conceive. It might be on the scale of a civilization, or all of humankind, or all sapient beings, but whatever it is there is some drive that causes us to do what we do. I personally feel the desire to live or exist is only a small part of that meaning, something given to us that we can comprehend with our limited senses.

Of course, the more advanced technologically we get the better we may be at solving that problem, so perhaps that is meaning of sorts, along with other aspects like bettering ourselves or improving the lives of others. Each individual's personal development contributes to the development of the civilization which contributes to all mankind, which in turn might eventually contribute on higher scales than that...whatever it is, we only know a little of it.

In what sense are you conceiving of "meaning"?

That is to say, what do you mean when you say that our meaning is "x"?

Hang on, I thought we cannot know of what preceeded the Big Bang and so we cant know if time or space existed prior to it?:confused:

Time and space as we know it originated with the Big Bang.

True, they could have been there beforehand, but we have no way of knowing, and no way of conceiving of the possible alternatives.

I thought that this was more a matter of determination, ie that whatever was prior (if there was a prior) was not determinable from a 'post Big-Bang' perspective?:confused:

Doesn't it amount to the same thing?

To clarify, I'll reconfigure the question. If you travelled away from me (for a distance) at the speed of light and returned and both you and I had exactly accurate time pieces that were exactly sinchronised when you departed, yet when you returned your time piece showed a lesser amount of time had passed than mine, would that mean you had experianced a greater amount of 'time-force' (ie that time increases instaneousity) or a lesser amount of 'time-force' (ie that time increases statsis)?

Lesser, I would think.

A singularity is of infinite mass and gravity; that would mean it could contain an infinite amount of matter and could continue to add matter until it absorbed all that was within the event horizon.

However, energy may escape a black hole in the form of Hawking radiation.
Sorry, I mustn't have been clear. It isnt the amount of mass that I query.

it would seem logical that time would slow to an effective stop.
If the above statement is true, then nothing can happen in a singularity and nothing that is a happening occurs within a singularity. The addition of mass is a happening, therefore either it isnt true that nothing happens in a singularity (ie there isnt an 'effective stop'), or it isnt true that the addition of mass characterises a singularity.

Either mass is entering, therefore stuff is happening and no effective stop is occurant, or an effective stop is occurant and so nothing (such as the addition of mass) is happening.

Er, well, I'm not convinced that is any clearer (it's about as clear as mud to me and I friggen well wrote it), but hopefully you'll make heads and tails of it....

Time and space as we know it originated with the Big Bang.

True, they could have been there beforehand, but we have no way of knowing, and no way of conceiving of the possible alternatives.
Ok, that's what I believed the case to be.

Doesn't it amount to the same thing?
I dont think so, but that may be why it's not a good idea to let escapees from the human sciences play with physics...it's probably best to evict people such as myself from the hard sciences before we make our way into the basement and start to undermine the whole operation from the foundations, brick by brick....also letting us loose with metaphors might be inadvisable.;)

Lesser, I would think.
ok.

In what sense are you conceiving of "meaning"?

That is to say, what do you mean when you say that our meaning is "x"?

I'm using it in terms of the significance of our existence and our role in the larger scheme of things. Personally, I feel that the meaning of the big picture is inherently impossible for us to understand but we can discover our own role in that picture by living and gaining experience. We may not be significant on a universal level, but at the same time no puzzle is done without putting all of its pieces together.

We both determine our role in that picture and have it determined for us; by our actions, we cause the possibilities of our actions to fall in to one path, and as we make more and more decisions we can start to see an inherent pattern in what we do even though our decisions are in fact freely chosen.

I do believe there is some meaning of some kind behind this existence, although I don't know what it is or even how I figure in to it, although I hope by living that I will reveal more and more of it until I gain at least some appreciation of what it is.

If the above statement is true, then nothing can happen in a singularity and nothing that is a happening occurs within a singularity. The addition of mass is a happening, therefore either it isnt true that nothing happens in a singularity (ie there isnt an 'effective stop'), or it isnt true that the addition of mass characterises a singularity.

Either mass is entering, therefore stuff is happening and no effective stop is occurant, or an effective stop is occurant and so nothing (such as the addition of mass) is happening.

Er, well, I'm not convinced that is any clearer (it's about as clear as mud to me and I friggen well wrote it), but hopefully you'll make heads and tails of it....

You have to remember, though, that the passage of time is relative. Even though time isn't passing to an observer inside of the singularity, it is passing to those outside of it. Now, I would think this means things do enter a black hole and do get compressed in to the singularity, but to the observer within that point it would appear as if nothing has changed because time is not passing.

I'm using it in terms of the significance of our existence and our role in the larger scheme of things.

See, I understand what you're getting at at the immediate level. We all ask the question "What is the meaning of life?"

The problem is that the moment I begin to analyze it, I start to have trouble. Our significance? To whom? What does "role" mean? I might say the "role" of the President is to lead the country - but this is an artificial, created role, purely arbitrary and wholly relative to the perspective of our society. In what sense can a "higher" role (which is really what is being asked about) exist?

And since I have free will, I can reject the "role" outright. If so, how is it a "role" at all?

(My friend says that I'm just a thinking mind, not a human being. Perhaps he has a point.)

We both determine our role in that picture and have it determined for us; by our actions, we cause the possibilities of our actions to fall in to one path, and as we make more and more decisions we can start to see an inherent pattern in what we do even though our decisions are in fact freely chosen.

Do you think everything has a purpose? Or do some things violate the natural order, subverting their role?

Nothing. Look at it this way - there's nothing holding it back from expanding.

See, I understand what you're getting at at the immediate level. We all ask the question "What is the meaning of life?"

[QUOTE]The problem is that the moment I begin to analyze it, I start to have trouble. Our significance? To whom? What does "role" mean? I might say the "role" of the President is to lead the country - but this is an artificial, created role, purely arbitrary and wholly relative to the perspective of our society. In what sense can a "higher" role (which is really what is being asked about) exist?

You know, that's a good question.

Maybe it's kind of the universe's biggest "choose your own adventure" book with an infinite number of choices, and we have no idea where the choices lead or even what the story's about. We're here, and something's going on, but we have no idea what exactly other than the immediate page in front of us. There is a larger purpose, but it's a mystery to us...although the more pages we choose, the more clear our story becomes.

And since I have free will, I can reject the "role" outright. If so, how is it a "role" at all?

Well, it's possible for things to be both free and determined. Individuals may be inherently free and choose their own role but ultimately because of their small scale relative to everything else, they can't really affect the larger picture. It's also possible that things are gradually progressing to a purpose through the free actions of individuals; the "purpose" in this case might be on our scale something like a moral code that guides us towards that purpose even though we can freely disobey it, yet we follow it because of its practical benefits.

Mind you, this is sort of a new concept I'm looking at so it's in an evolutionary phase at best.

(My friend says that I'm just a thinking mind, not a human being. Perhaps he has a point.)

Perhaps...all I know is that it's coming up with some damn good questions.

Do you think everything has a purpose? Or do some things violate the natural order, subverting their role?

You know, that's a good question. Personally, I feel that it works both ways. Individuals can willfully violate the natural order, but they can ultimately also work inadvertently in the direction of the larger purpose. For example, a thief may violate his purpose but his actions might lead to better law enforcement or social reform that prevents a much more serious loss later on; it could have happened on its own, but by violating the natural order he actually caused it to unfold in a similar direction.

In that case, the question becomes "what is that natural order", and that's a question best answered either by ethicists, philosophers, or religious institutions, or through your own introspection.

You have to remember, though, that the passage of time is relative.
My question arises in part because time is relative, were it constant I dont know that the question would have occured to me.

Even though time isn't passing to an observer inside of the singularity, it is passing to those outside of it. Now, I would think this means things do enter a black hole and do get compressed in to the singularity, but to the observer within that point it would appear as if nothing has changed because time is not passing.
It's not about an observer, whether or not a happening is witnessed or observed, if it happens then it happens. Either things do or do not happen inside a singularity. If they dont happen mass isnt continuing to accumulate in the singularity (since this would be a happening), if however mass is accumulating in the singularity then it cant be true that nothing is happening. It cantboth be true that there has been an 'effective stop' to happenings and the happening of continued accumulation of mass. Or at least that's my (?mis?)understanding.

You know, that's a good question.

Maybe it's kind of the universe's biggest "choose your own adventure" book with an infinite number of choices, and we have no idea where the choices lead or even what the story's about. We're here, and something's going on, but we have no idea what exactly other than the immediate page in front of us. There is a larger purpose, but it's a mystery to us...although the more pages we choose, the more clear our story becomes.

The "choose your own adventure" book example helps a bit. By "role" then you mean something like "direction" - we are going somewhere with all of this, somewhere determined, or at least influenced, by the conditions of the universe.

But what meaning does this have for us? The laws of nature determine the framework of our existence, and technologically, we are certainly advancing towards something - but does that really provide us with a "higher meaning," or is it merely a prediction without much aesthetic value?

Well, it's possible for things to be both free and determined.

Indeed. But not if it's determined externally - we are the ones who have to determine it. (That is to say, free will may be compatible with causal determinism, as long as the physical manifestation of the self is causing our actions, but if some "higher purpose" in the universe external to us is determining it, we are not free.)

Individuals may be inherently free and choose their own role but ultimately because of their small scale relative to everything else, they can't really affect the larger picture. It's also possible that things are gradually progressing to a purpose through the free actions of individuals; the "purpose" in this case might be on our scale something like a moral code that guides us towards that purpose even though we can freely disobey it, yet we follow it because of its practical benefits.

Or we follow it because we recognize its... not "truth" exactly, but obligatory relevance, much like a moral code. We are capable of disobeying it, but we are not willing to.

Mind you, this is sort of a new concept I'm looking at so it's in an evolutionary phase at best.

Hah, the well-developed ones are hardly any better; quite a few are substantially worse.

Perhaps...all I know is that it's coming up with some damn good questions.

That's his problem with it. It incessantly asks for justifications and refuses to feel its way to understanding something. (Well, sometimes, anyway. I have the opposite approach in epistemology.)

You know, that's a good question. Personally, I feel that it works both ways. Individuals can willfully violate the natural order, but they can ultimately also work inadvertently in the direction of the larger purpose. For example, a thief may violate his purpose but his actions might lead to better law enforcement or social reform that prevents a much more serious loss later on; it could have happened on its own, but by violating the natural order he actually caused it to unfold in a similar direction.

In that case, the question becomes "what is that natural order", and that's a question best answered either by ethicists, philosophers, or religious institutions, or through your own introspection.

Here's a slightly different question - why should I care about the natural order?

If space is always expanding, what is it expanding into?

Spandex Pants.

The "choose your own adventure" book example helps a bit. By "role" then you mean something like "direction" - we are going somewhere with all of this, somewhere determined, or at least influenced, by the conditions of the universe.

Yes, we each play a role in moving towards some goal that is a mystery to us, albeit one that is slightly clearer with each step forward.

But what meaning does this have for us? The laws of nature determine the framework of our existence, and technologically, we are certainly advancing towards something - but does that really provide us with a "higher meaning," or is it merely a prediction without much aesthetic value?

I don't know; there are theories like the "Omega Point" or "Singularity" that foresee this technological evolution as a significant, even religious event. Nevertheless, the explanation that "technological change is going to bring something big, so work for it" smacks of an almost-millenarian desire for an end of the world as we know it or teotwawki scenario so I tend to avoid seeing the evolution of technology as a meaning in itself.

However, I think this accelerating technological change will mark the next significant shift in human evolution, from the world of just survival and raw growth to a much more refined and self-determined world in which we have the tools to develop ourselves to a new level of individual existence. And perhaps, at this point we can begin the next chapter of that book and advance the story further; it's not an end in itself, but rather a step forward in that story. Much like a good book, our desire to keep reading is because we like the story, not because we're trying to get to the end of it or to reach some particular point. (And, to make matters weirder, if we reach the end it might be our turn to keep writing the story.)

I think in this case our meaning would primarily be our own desire to find out more about the story of the universe and make of it what we can. Perhaps that's not the most satisfying answer, but there is a lot to discover and we're going to need a lot of work to find it out

Indeed. But not if it's determined externally - we are the ones who have to determine it. (That is to say, free will may be compatible with causal determinism, as long as the physical manifestation of the self is causing our actions, but if some "higher purpose" in the universe external to us is determining it, we are not free.)

I imagine the higher purpose in this case is something we know vaguely of, and are seeking it more out of a desire to know it rather than it pulling us towards it. All it has provided is a way to get there; I've always felt that God(s), whatever they are, would have to be discovered by us and that we'd have to seek them rather than expect them to come to us.

Or we follow it because we recognize its... not "truth" exactly, but obligatory relevance, much like a moral code. We are capable of disobeying it, but we are not willing to.

That would be freedom, as well as evidenced by our biological desires. We can decide not to eat or drink, but it gets very unpleasant very quickly if we decide not to; the natural state in this case is to be well fed and hydrated.

Hah, the well-developed ones are hardly any better; quite a few are substantially worse.

Maybe it's because so many of my ideas come from a lot of sources, and then I work on them some more to make them fit my worldview. It could also be that I like to discuss them to find ways to refine, improve or even replace them if they don't work.

That's his problem with it. It incessantly asks for justifications and refuses to feel its way to understanding something. (Well, sometimes, anyway. I have the opposite approach in epistemology.)

Generally, I've found trying to justify your positions ultimately makes the ones you retain stronger even if it's painful to let go of the ones that can't be justified. Sometimes, it'll leave you adrift in an existential void but eventually you develop new ideas that turn out to be better than the ones you were forced to abandon.

However, in the end there are few things more emotionally satisfying than a justified and well thought-out philosophy especially when it comes to applying it to your life.

Here's a slightly different question - why should I care about the natural order?

Maybe we should care about it because we don't know exactly what it is; even if you plan to go against the natural order, without considering it or its nature it would be impossible to break the natural order or go against it.

Not caring about the natural order causes you to lose your free will, because in practicality ignorance of choice is no different than having no choice whatsoever. In neither case do you consider it, and in neither case can you change your actions according to your own desires.

This 12 min video will send you into the 10th dimension and will seriously blow your mind. Ive watched it like 10x and still dont get 100% of it.

http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php


Hit the nav bar on the left side second line down on the menu and start it

Im serious this really changed some fundemental thinking on my part.

My head hurts.:eek: I want to get that book, though.

I don't know; there are theories like the "Omega Point" or "Singularity" that foresee this technological evolution as a significant, even religious event. Nevertheless, the explanation that "technological change is going to bring something big, so work for it" smacks of an almost-millenarian desire for an end of the world as we know it or teotwawki scenario so I tend to avoid seeing the evolution of technology as a meaning in itself.

Not to mention the fact that it seems kind of pointless. Technology is hardly a good in itself.

However, I think this accelerating technological change will mark the next significant shift in human evolution, from the world of just survival and raw growth to a much more refined and self-determined world in which we have the tools to develop ourselves to a new level of individual existence.

The changes will have to be more than technological, though. They will have to be social and economic as well. Indeed, it is the social change that should be dominant, with the technology as a means to that end.

Mere human survival has never been all that difficult to protect, except when we ourselves have made it so. The important question is how we deal with what we have left.

And perhaps, at this point we can begin the next chapter of that book and advance the story further; it's not an end in itself, but rather a step forward in that story. Much like a good book, our desire to keep reading is because we like the story, not because we're trying to get to the end of it or to reach some particular point. (And, to make matters weirder, if we reach the end it might be our turn to keep writing the story.)

Hmm, yes.

What we will have to do is combine the benefits of technology with an awareness of the pitfalls of overly organized and centralized society; I've used the term "libertarian community of equals" before in conversation with you, and I think it's appropriate again here. A world that's interconnected with modern communication, that's aware of and expands modern science, and that uses modern health care techniques, but that also does its best to curb the detrimental effects of overspecialization and guarantee freedom and equality to all its citizens.

If we can do that, we can open up the gates. Imagine all the potential that's been repressed by tyranny and inequality, the capacities we have whose development we have impeded... we will be able to accomplish so much more.

I think in this case our meaning would primarily be our own desire to find out more about the story of the universe and make of it what we can. Perhaps that's not the most satisfying answer, but there is a lot to discover and we're going to need a lot of work to find it out

The meaning is in the search, you mean?

I guess there's something to that.

I imagine the higher purpose in this case is something we know vaguely of, and are seeking it more out of a desire to know it rather than it pulling us towards it. All it has provided is a way to get there; I've always felt that God(s), whatever they are, would have to be discovered by us and that we'd have to seek them rather than expect them to come to us.

That's a good answer.

That would be freedom, as well as evidenced by our biological desires. We can decide not to eat or drink, but it gets very unpleasant very quickly if we decide not to; the natural state in this case is to be well fed and hydrated.

Well, there is an important difference, one that earlier natural law theorists, unfortunately, missed to some degree.

When I drink water or eat food, I do it to avoid unpleasantness. When I act morally, to ask "why" is to miss the nature of the action; I do not do it because of something, I do it to do it, for its own sake.

Maybe it's because so many of my ideas come from a lot of sources, and then I work on them some more to make them fit my worldview. It could also be that I like to discuss them to find ways to refine, improve or even replace them if they don't work.

Yes, that's likely why - you respond to objections and think what you say through.

Generally, I've found trying to justify your positions ultimately makes the ones you retain stronger even if it's painful to let go of the ones that can't be justified. Sometimes, it'll leave you adrift in an existential void but eventually you develop new ideas that turn out to be better than the ones you were forced to abandon.

However, in the end there are few things more emotionally satisfying than a justified and well thought-out philosophy especially when it comes to applying it to your life.

No, I think you're missing his point.

The problem is not the search for justification as much as the unwillingness to accept that there are some things that cannot be and should not be analyzed. If you always analyze, you cannot live; you are not human.

Intuition is, in some things, just as valid a road to knowledge as rational thought. Indeed, if there is any such thing as "truth" in ethics, it involves intuition, and certainly learning a higher meaning does.

Maybe we should care about it because we don't know exactly what it is; even if you plan to go against the natural order, without considering it or its nature it would be impossible to break the natural order or go against it.

Not caring about the natural order causes you to lose your free will, because in practicality ignorance of choice is no different than having no choice whatsoever. In neither case do you consider it, and in neither case can you change your actions according to your own desires.

Perhaps my intention is not to contradict the natural order, but to live without paying attention to it; to live irrelevantly of it.

If I can do this, in what sense does it matter?

While we are discussing time/space, do people see time as 'momentum' or as 'stasis'. That is if there were an absence of time would everything cease to happen or would everything happen instantaneously?

Talking about absence of time means the same as talking about the absence of width. Its not something humans (living in the third dimension) can percieve as it actually is. In theory.

It's making the trek over God's belly.

:p

Space and time exist only within the universe, so it's expanding into nothing.