science as a religion

[outhouse]

What I am suggesting is that time exsisted before the Big Bang however that time is infinite and unending,

That's nice of you to define the unknown with such certainty as infinite and unending, but it is not substantiated.

I also believe that another time exist, and our time may fall in with it. We don't know that the end of our universe does not have a border to different space. It could be our space is running into the same exact type of space as we know and define space.

Imagine multiple super massive black holes spread out a million time larger then our universe, and one of these expanded into our universe. While our time was created, that time extends into a universal time.

Its how I imagine it with no specific certainty of any mount..

 

[bud123]

Sorry were these black holes present before the Big Bang. From my understanding the big bang created the concept of a black hole? Would we be able to support that idea and if so wouldn't it just raise more questions about everything? I'm not saying that couldn't have happened either?

 

[outhouse]

Sorry were these black holes present before the Big Bang.

Why not?

Our universe was created from a singularity. A black hole is a singularity.

From my understanding the big bang created the concept of a black hole?

How could it create them if it was one, BB was a singularity, a black hole is a singularity. As far as we know they are one in the same,

Would we be able to support that idea and if so wouldn't it just raise more questions about everything?

Its already a solid hypothesis as any other.


Our universe is full of singularities, and our universe was created from one, SO singularities are quite natural. No reason to suspect ours is the only one.


AS we speak. they are looking at the background radiation left over, and trying to see if we are expanding into another universes time.

 

[outhouse]

It is just matter compacted into a state in which we cannot define, nor can we define the process.

They are fact, yet we just cannot define them yet.

Mush like gravity. The apple falls but we cannot tell you anything about the weak force other then measuring the force and its relationship to time.


I have my own ides along quantum mechanics for gravity in relationship to the TOE, but its still imaginative at this point

 

[bud123]

Oh i see, the concept of singularity applies for black holes as well. But the most center of the black hole when matter becomes infinite and when it reaches this certain point (singularity) it is the same as asking what came before that measurable 0.000000001 second before the big bags development. In both instances time and the laws of physics that we as humans can understand and verify cease to exist in the way we understand. Just out of curiosity you said you "believe that another time exist", what would this time of yours be like?

 

[viole]

Why not?

Our universe was created from a singularity. A black hole is a singularity.




How could it create them if it was one, BB was a singularity, a black hole is a singularity. As far as we know they are one in the same,



Its already a solid hypothesis as any other.


Our universe is full of singularities, and our universe was created from one, SO singularities are quite natural. No reason to suspect ours is the only one.


AS we speak. they are looking at the background radiation left over, and trying to see if we are expanding into another universes time.

Singularity is just a moniker for "what we do not know, yet". That is the locus where our current laws of physics break.

Ciao

- viole

 

[outhouse]

Singularity is just a moniker for "what we do not know, yet". That is the locus where our current laws of physics break.

Ciao

- viole

Correct. But it represents a hair more then that.

It represents compacted matter that has created gravity strong enough to overcome light speed. It is a matter scrambler on the quantum level.

 

[outhouse]

. But the most center of the black hole when matter becomes infinite and when it reaches this certain point (singularity) it is the same as asking what came before that measurable 0.000000001 second before the big bags development. In both instances time and the laws of physics that we as humans can understand and verify cease to exist in the way we understand.

Non sequitur to black holes being very natural. How do you know only the center does this? How do you know matter is infinite ? It is not. It is compacted matter. The more matter the larger the BH. To much matter to quickly and the BH is forced to release energy/matter.

We don't understand how the matter is compacted, or breaks down. But the gravity dictates the dense matter factually does exist.

Just out of curiosity you said you "believe that another time exist", what would this time of yours be like?

Space as we know it with dark energy and dark matter as we have here in this universe, could be exactly what makes up space outside our universe.

Imagine bubbles popping inside bubbles that popped inside other bubbles. each creating their own time with each expansion of a singularity.

SO the time would depend on when said bubble burst.


My point is it would be very naïve to think we are the only universe when our origins come from something there are literally billions or trillions of.

 

[Crypto2015]

What kind of scientific experiment can you devise in order to know if life is worth living, or if there is a spiritual world, or if there is a God? All of these things are outside the realm of science and therefore science cannot be a religion. Moreover, since science cannot provide any information when it comes to metaphysical dilemmas, science cannot be a source of morality.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What kind of scientific experiment can you devise in order to know if life is worth living, or if there is a spiritual world, or if there is a God? All of these things are outside the realm of science and therefore science cannot be a religion. Moreover, since science cannot provide any information when it comes to metaphysical dilemmas, science cannot be a source of morality.

Science wouldn't the be source of morality. It can understand morality and help explain it.

 

[Crypto2015]

Science wouldn't the be source of morality. It can understand morality and help explain it.

Science cannot understand morality. If morality is a by-product of our evolution, the only valid conclusion is that morality is illusory.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Science cannot understand morality. If morality is a by-product of our evolution, the only valid conclusion is that morality is illusory.

Illusionary to a degree. Objective morality as an unwritten law of the universe is a myth. However understanding the components and mechanisms that drive our morality that seems to be highly intrinsic in our psyche would be understanding morality.

 

[Crypto2015]

Illusionary to a degree. Objective morality as an unwritten law of the universe is a myth. However understanding the components and mechanisms that drive our morality that seems to be highly intrinsic in our psyche would be understanding morality.

A subjective morality is a morality that does not really exist. Anything would be permitted. Nothing would be wrong and nothing would be right. Morality would be meaningless.

 

[Ouroboros]

A subjective morality is a morality that does not really exist. Anything would be permitted. Nothing would be wrong and nothing would be right. Morality would be meaningless.

Not really. If everyone agrees on the same morality based on subjective experience, ideas, and reasoning, you still get to a semi-objective morality that is all based on subjective thoughts. Morality is mostly centered around human experience and values. So it is by nature depending on subjective input and need.

 

[gnostic]

A subjective morality is a morality that does not really exist. Anything would be permitted. Nothing would be wrong and nothing would be right. Morality would be meaningless.

Of course they exist, because the nature of moral or morality is subjective.

Why would you consider anything that's subjective to be meaningless?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

A subjective morality is a morality that does not really exist. Anything would be permitted. Nothing would be wrong and nothing would be right. Morality would be meaningless.

True. However a morality can be "subjective to a degree" as I would like to call it. Its rooted in our own biological processes of both logic and empathy. But the specifics are hazy and it is ultimately solidified by what is functional.

 

[Ouroboros]

Of course they exist, because the nature of moral or morality is subjective.

Why would you consider anything that's subjective to be meaningless?

Yup.

It's a funny way of arguing that "if it's subjective, then it doesn't exist." What does "it's subjective" mean if it doesn't mean that it is something that does exist? It's like suggesting that only objective exists, but subjective doesn't.

 

[paarsurrey]

Science as religion is worthless.
Regards