I think the universe is a co-incidence of all-people's perspectives, that we partly create by agreeing it's there---as the world WAS the center of the Solar system until Galileo convinced everybody otherwise. As far as I'm concerned, the Big Bang was 9 months before I was born; everyone else being robots fed with memories of their lives up to that point (like in BLADE RUNNER lol)
I know you KNOW you're not a robot (just like I think some of the BLADE RUNNER robots were programmed to KNOW lol)
@tonyfalca Well, you are certainly entitled to express your emotional attitude about the big bang. However, your comment does not contribute to an increase in understanding; and since I am here sincerely trying to solve FOR MYSELF the mystery of my life, it actually seems quite mean, and you were really hurt my feelings:( Unless you are talking about the tv show. Then yeah, you're right, it's silly;)
@ProfessorHansen Well, the TV show too.. lol. Though seriously, the big bang theory is plausible, in the sense that it's superficially pleasing, even persuasive, but that's about it. Anyways, isn't that why they call it a theory, because it's not for sure, so to speak? Now, don't get me started on how silly this idea is of an expanding space, seems like they're jumping the gun on that one, too...
@tonyfalca Do you really think these people come up with these ideas easily and fivolously? These people dedicate their lives to studying these things. Aslo, they are constantly checking their methods to see if the methods are appropriate to what is being explained. So I feel good about accepting the explanations, because then I ( with a fully open mind) can compare them to all of the other explanations (symbolic, natural, hermeneutic--whatever) that I also enjoy learning about.
@ProfessorHansen Of course not. I'm sure they'd spent lots and lots of energy, effort and time creating the theory, but the amount of energy, effort and time spent designing a theory doesn't necessarily equate to its validity. It's only my personal opinion, and nothing more, that the big bang theory seems without logic. No need to get all worked up my friend. :)
@tonyfalca Oh, I'm not worked up. I thought we were having a discussion about how to determine the merits of an explanation, and about keeping an open mind. And of course the point is not that the amount of energy spent on designing something necesssitates its truth. These people try hard to get it right; and if you can dedicate yourself to something and get it right, why is it so surprising that others might be able to do that also? And if I put you, well, sorry but that's me.
@ProfessorHansen Ahhh, sorry. It was misinterpreted then. I'm kind of lost at the end of your message and I'm also somewhat confused by your question. I'm not saying that I'm right and they're wrong. In fact, I have no idea how the universe began, assuming there was a beginning. It's just, I feel as if the big bang theory has been supplemented in the place of uncertainty, but then again, that's what progression is all about, isn't it? ---continued---
@tonyfalca I certainly never said that the bang theory was an ultimate truth, since I do not believe in ulitmate truths. All that I was trying to do was give another explanation of the big bang so others might better understand it. Besides, no theory is true (unltimate or not); and nothing in science is know to be true, that's why we keep retesting everything. But I'm going to learn as much as I can about as many thing as I can before I die, so that I will be ready for whatever.
@ProfessorHansen Ultimate truth, maybe that was a poor choice of words. But anyways, from this: "These people try hard to get it right; and if you can dedicate yourself to something and get it right, why is it so surprising that others might be able to do that also?" I'd assumed you were saying they had it right; another misunderstanding, I guess. Yep, yep, yep, I'm trying to do the same as you, let's just hope we're learning about the things we'll need to know then.. lol:)
@tonyfalca Why not? It is physically proven actually ( due to homogeneity, isotropy, CMB radiation and the high Redshift of distant galaxies) No one can really deny the Big Bang.
@Neueregel The only thing the Redshift of distant galaxies has proven, is that galaxies are moving away from one another, not that space itself is expanding. Why would you ever assume that space in its totality is expanding, simply because two objects in space are moving away from one another? I mean, sure, the space in between those two objects may be increasing, but that doesn't imply that space itself is expanding...
@tonyfalca Off wiki for Metric_expansion_of_space "The metric expansion of space is the increase of distance with time between distant parts of the universe.It is an intrinsic expansion that is, it is defined by the relative separation of parts of the universe and not by motion "outward" into preexisting space.A frequently used analogy is the expansion of the surface of an expanding rubber balloon.In this analogy the universe has two spatial dimensions (surface of the balloon) rather than three"
@Neueregel I understand what you're trying to say, but what a poor definition of expansion, not to mention what a poor analogy that is, and for the simple reason that the surface of the balloon is still expanding outwards. Again, space is not expanding. Sure, the distance in between objects of space is increasing, and therefore it would take more time to travel from Object-A to Object-B; I'm not arguing that, but how can anybody claim that space itself is expanding?? If we were ---
@tonyfalca Here's an analogy I like to use: if we were standing on a field facing one another, and we then paced backwards gradually, away from one another, is the actual space fabric, that we're both inherent to, expanding??
@tonyfalca There are thousands of peer-reviewed papers on space expansion by professionals, you can't just really disagree with the FACT that the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric, is the best to describe the space expansion.. It appears that space was created in the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since. Check also wiki for Shape_of_the_universe. -N.
@Neueregel You missed my point. I don't acknowledge "the big bang" and or "the expansion of space" as fact. I find it extremely suspicious that humans have been around supposedly for only 2.2 million years, homo sapiens supposedly for only 250 thousand years, and yet we know what happened 13.7 billion years ago, somehow.... Nice, now if we can know about something that happened billions of years before our creation, why is it so hard for us to solve the problems right under our nose?
@tonyfalca " we know what happened 13.7 billion years ago"....because we follow the scientific method. I told you the reasons why the Big Bang is the correct theory,(homogeneity, isotropy, CMB radiation and the high Redshift of distant galaxies)) no matter how far in the past in was made. We have found rocks on Earth and the Moon, aged 4.6 billion years. These are facts and are on public display. Also, the earthly problems are so many, due to the lack of humanist education in my opinion.
@Neueregel There's so many Earthly problems because too many people take things for granted, without ever questioning them. Science is a religion my friend. Sure, we may have rocks from 4.6 billion years ago. And sure, those may say something, provide some sort of information. There's still a big difference between 13.7 billion years and 4.6 billion years, and it's going to take more than a few rocks and a THEORY to convince me that space is expanding and has been expanding for 13.7 b
@tonyfalca No science is not religion my friend. No even close. Yes, there are some rules in the scientific method, but everything follows a logic pattern, without any leap of faith. "Theory" in science is an axiomatically established set of methodology, therefore true. Check the WMAP images of the CMB anisotropies. These are REAL images, taken with a high-end telescope. The Hubble galaxy redshift is also observed. These are facts, and if ignore them, you ignore reality.
@Neueregel I understand the whole red shift and etc., although it's a leap of faith to assume space itself is expanding, instead of objects in space moving away from one another. Science is a religion.
@georgemc25 That reminds me of when the now-aging comedian Woody Allen (in Stardust Memories, I think) complained to an invading alien that he didn't want to be a screen-writer any more, he wanted to help human beings. And the alien replied, "If you want to help human beings, tell funnier jokes!!! Ok, I'll try to tell funnier jokes (or at least longer jokes).
Thanks for the video. I have reservations about this being that it's very similiar to the ontological argument for God. Mostly that for the explanation leading to these alternate realities is based on our principles and conceptions. However, among these realities there would necessarily be principles and concepts that are diametrically opposed to ours. This lack of symmetry or the ability to go back and forth consistently would be problem with the whole proposition no?
@CharlieUlivarri I would like to add that I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of unknown underlying principles yet to be noticed or discovered in quantum theory. I am hesitant to take a statistical probability as the actual mechanic (akin to taking a coin and flipping it and saying that WILL land on both heads AND tails) ala Schroedinger's Cat. While it is an intriguing possibility that things work that way, I think there needs to be more verification to justify the claim.
The whole thing about parallel universes and quantum mechanics gives me a kind of creepy sensation. One thing is certain, we are in the middle of infinity, and the infinite is retroactive... but at the same time it is hard for us little humans to fully grasp the concept of something that is without beginning and also endless.
Greetings Dr. Hansen,
Do I get belated extra credit for finding a case of Solipsism as you discussed in class?
CharlieUlivarri 1 month ago
I think the universe is a co-incidence of all-people's perspectives, that we partly create by agreeing it's there---as the world WAS the center of the Solar system until Galileo convinced everybody otherwise. As far as I'm concerned, the Big Bang was 9 months before I was born; everyone else being robots fed with memories of their lives up to that point (like in BLADE RUNNER lol)
I know you KNOW you're not a robot (just like I think some of the BLADE RUNNER robots were programmed to KNOW lol)
mythmanjay 1 month ago
The big bang theory is silly, seriously.
tonyfalca 1 month ago
@tonyfalca Well, you are certainly entitled to express your emotional attitude about the big bang. However, your comment does not contribute to an increase in understanding; and since I am here sincerely trying to solve FOR MYSELF the mystery of my life, it actually seems quite mean, and you were really hurt my feelings:( Unless you are talking about the tv show. Then yeah, you're right, it's silly;)
ProfessorHansen 1 month ago
@ProfessorHansen Well, the TV show too.. lol. Though seriously, the big bang theory is plausible, in the sense that it's superficially pleasing, even persuasive, but that's about it. Anyways, isn't that why they call it a theory, because it's not for sure, so to speak? Now, don't get me started on how silly this idea is of an expanding space, seems like they're jumping the gun on that one, too...
tonyfalca 1 month ago
@tonyfalca Though I did enjoy your video, thanks!
tonyfalca 1 month ago
@tonyfalca Do you really think these people come up with these ideas easily and fivolously? These people dedicate their lives to studying these things. Aslo, they are constantly checking their methods to see if the methods are appropriate to what is being explained. So I feel good about accepting the explanations, because then I ( with a fully open mind) can compare them to all of the other explanations (symbolic, natural, hermeneutic--whatever) that I also enjoy learning about.
ProfessorHansen 1 month ago
@ProfessorHansen Of course not. I'm sure they'd spent lots and lots of energy, effort and time creating the theory, but the amount of energy, effort and time spent designing a theory doesn't necessarily equate to its validity. It's only my personal opinion, and nothing more, that the big bang theory seems without logic. No need to get all worked up my friend. :)
tonyfalca 1 month ago
@tonyfalca Oh, I'm not worked up. I thought we were having a discussion about how to determine the merits of an explanation, and about keeping an open mind. And of course the point is not that the amount of energy spent on designing something necesssitates its truth. These people try hard to get it right; and if you can dedicate yourself to something and get it right, why is it so surprising that others might be able to do that also? And if I put you, well, sorry but that's me.
ProfessorHansen 1 month ago
@ProfessorHansen Ahhh, sorry. It was misinterpreted then. I'm kind of lost at the end of your message and I'm also somewhat confused by your question. I'm not saying that I'm right and they're wrong. In fact, I have no idea how the universe began, assuming there was a beginning. It's just, I feel as if the big bang theory has been supplemented in the place of uncertainty, but then again, that's what progression is all about, isn't it? ---continued---
tonyfalca 1 month ago
@tonyfalca Assuming the big bang theory to be an ultimate truth is too much of a stretch, for me personally.
tonyfalca 1 month ago
@tonyfalca I certainly never said that the bang theory was an ultimate truth, since I do not believe in ulitmate truths. All that I was trying to do was give another explanation of the big bang so others might better understand it. Besides, no theory is true (unltimate or not); and nothing in science is know to be true, that's why we keep retesting everything. But I'm going to learn as much as I can about as many thing as I can before I die, so that I will be ready for whatever.
ProfessorHansen 1 month ago
@ProfessorHansen Ultimate truth, maybe that was a poor choice of words. But anyways, from this: "These people try hard to get it right; and if you can dedicate yourself to something and get it right, why is it so surprising that others might be able to do that also?" I'd assumed you were saying they had it right; another misunderstanding, I guess. Yep, yep, yep, I'm trying to do the same as you, let's just hope we're learning about the things we'll need to know then.. lol:)
tonyfalca 1 month ago
Comment removed
Neueregel 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tonyfalca Why not? It is physically proven actually ( due to homogeneity, isotropy, CMB radiation and the high Redshift of distant galaxies) No one can really deny the Big Bang.
Neueregel 2 weeks ago
@Neueregel The only thing the Redshift of distant galaxies has proven, is that galaxies are moving away from one another, not that space itself is expanding. Why would you ever assume that space in its totality is expanding, simply because two objects in space are moving away from one another? I mean, sure, the space in between those two objects may be increasing, but that doesn't imply that space itself is expanding...
tonyfalca 2 weeks ago
@tonyfalca Off wiki for Metric_expansion_of_space "The metric expansion of space is the increase of distance with time between distant parts of the universe.It is an intrinsic expansion that is, it is defined by the relative separation of parts of the universe and not by motion "outward" into preexisting space.A frequently used analogy is the expansion of the surface of an expanding rubber balloon.In this analogy the universe has two spatial dimensions (surface of the balloon) rather than three"
Neueregel 2 weeks ago
@Neueregel I understand what you're trying to say, but what a poor definition of expansion, not to mention what a poor analogy that is, and for the simple reason that the surface of the balloon is still expanding outwards. Again, space is not expanding. Sure, the distance in between objects of space is increasing, and therefore it would take more time to travel from Object-A to Object-B; I'm not arguing that, but how can anybody claim that space itself is expanding?? If we were ---
tonyfalca 2 weeks ago
@tonyfalca Here's an analogy I like to use: if we were standing on a field facing one another, and we then paced backwards gradually, away from one another, is the actual space fabric, that we're both inherent to, expanding??
tonyfalca 2 weeks ago
@tonyfalca There are thousands of peer-reviewed papers on space expansion by professionals, you can't just really disagree with the FACT that the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric, is the best to describe the space expansion.. It appears that space was created in the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since. Check also wiki for Shape_of_the_universe. -N.
Neueregel 2 weeks ago
@Neueregel You missed my point. I don't acknowledge "the big bang" and or "the expansion of space" as fact. I find it extremely suspicious that humans have been around supposedly for only 2.2 million years, homo sapiens supposedly for only 250 thousand years, and yet we know what happened 13.7 billion years ago, somehow.... Nice, now if we can know about something that happened billions of years before our creation, why is it so hard for us to solve the problems right under our nose?
tonyfalca 2 weeks ago
@tonyfalca " we know what happened 13.7 billion years ago"....because we follow the scientific method. I told you the reasons why the Big Bang is the correct theory,(homogeneity, isotropy, CMB radiation and the high Redshift of distant galaxies)) no matter how far in the past in was made. We have found rocks on Earth and the Moon, aged 4.6 billion years. These are facts and are on public display. Also, the earthly problems are so many, due to the lack of humanist education in my opinion.
Neueregel 2 weeks ago
@Neueregel There's so many Earthly problems because too many people take things for granted, without ever questioning them. Science is a religion my friend. Sure, we may have rocks from 4.6 billion years ago. And sure, those may say something, provide some sort of information. There's still a big difference between 13.7 billion years and 4.6 billion years, and it's going to take more than a few rocks and a THEORY to convince me that space is expanding and has been expanding for 13.7 b
tonyfalca 2 weeks ago
@tonyfalca No science is not religion my friend. No even close. Yes, there are some rules in the scientific method, but everything follows a logic pattern, without any leap of faith. "Theory" in science is an axiomatically established set of methodology, therefore true. Check the WMAP images of the CMB anisotropies. These are REAL images, taken with a high-end telescope. The Hubble galaxy redshift is also observed. These are facts, and if ignore them, you ignore reality.
Neueregel 1 week ago
@Neueregel I understand the whole red shift and etc., although it's a leap of faith to assume space itself is expanding, instead of objects in space moving away from one another. Science is a religion.
tonyfalca 1 week ago
Given the example, this all just sounds like a sciency way of taking pantheism (mystical atheism) to the multiverse level.
nymphrenic 1 month ago
Please make your videos longer - there's so much more to say on this point!
georgemc25 1 month ago
@georgemc25 That reminds me of when the now-aging comedian Woody Allen (in Stardust Memories, I think) complained to an invading alien that he didn't want to be a screen-writer any more, he wanted to help human beings. And the alien replied, "If you want to help human beings, tell funnier jokes!!! Ok, I'll try to tell funnier jokes (or at least longer jokes).
ProfessorHansen 1 month ago
@ProfessorHansen Haha. Sorry I didn't mean to make it sound like I was ungrateful. It was a great video, seriously.
georgemc25 1 month ago
Greetings Dr. Hansen,
Thanks for the video. I have reservations about this being that it's very similiar to the ontological argument for God. Mostly that for the explanation leading to these alternate realities is based on our principles and conceptions. However, among these realities there would necessarily be principles and concepts that are diametrically opposed to ours. This lack of symmetry or the ability to go back and forth consistently would be problem with the whole proposition no?
CharlieUlivarri 1 month ago
@CharlieUlivarri I would like to add that I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of unknown underlying principles yet to be noticed or discovered in quantum theory. I am hesitant to take a statistical probability as the actual mechanic (akin to taking a coin and flipping it and saying that WILL land on both heads AND tails) ala Schroedinger's Cat. While it is an intriguing possibility that things work that way, I think there needs to be more verification to justify the claim.
CharlieUlivarri 1 month ago
The whole thing about parallel universes and quantum mechanics gives me a kind of creepy sensation. One thing is certain, we are in the middle of infinity, and the infinite is retroactive... but at the same time it is hard for us little humans to fully grasp the concept of something that is without beginning and also endless.
CoolCrazyAtheist 1 month ago
Very cool! That's all I can say at this point.
rodgerbroome 1 month ago
So great to hear your thoughts. I love this topic!
Greatings from the UK
amabodei 1 month ago