The multiple universe believe

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

Linde, Tegmark, Davies, Hoyle, Rees, Penrose... Here's a quote from Hawking:.

Dont invoke Hoyle, just dont okay lol

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Is this fine tuning lark nothing more than a massive case of confirmation bias; we think the universe is fine tuned for life because we're here to see it.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

Yes, this is an appeal to authority, and no it's not fallacious, because Hawking and Tegmark and Linde are authorities on this, and you should listen to them. They happen to be right.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

Linde, Tegmark, Davies, Hoyle, Rees, Penrose...

Fred Hoyle? Really? And you want people to take you seriously?

[Butter!]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

This is indeed why many people don't consider the so called fine tuning problem a genuine problem. Douglas Adams' puddle analogy is usually used to illustrate the error being made, ie we should no more marvel that the universe is exactly right for us than a puddle should marvel that the hole it sits in is exactly the right shape for it. Others point out that a universe which is actually 99.999 ... % hostile to life can't really be described as fine tuned for it. Still others argue that there may be many other "sweet spots" which would support life of some kind - in the most recent Science of the Discworld books the authors use the analogy of an engine which would cease to work if any individual part is tweaked (eg a bolt replaced with a larger one) yet that not meaning there is only one possible engine design (simply replacing the corresponding nut with a larger one will produce another workable design).

So the multiverse is a possible solution to a problem which many people consider is imaginary to begin with.

This is awesome.

[ehcks]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Dont invoke Hoyle, just dont okay lol

Wait, why not? Who's that guy?
*Googles*
Oh wow. That guy's a loon. Steady state universe, intelligent design, believing that the flu comes from outer space.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

So the multiverse is a possible solution to a problem which many people consider is imaginary to begin with.

I don't consider it a solution in the true definition of the word as such.

Fine tuning is not a "problem" as such, it is really a perception that we have as intelligent, reasoning beings.

The Multiverse theory is a possible explanation for why we have that perception, rather than a solution to a problem that doesn't exist

[Dani]

As far as I know, the multiverse is no more than a hypothesis that makes mathematical sense to theoretical physicists given the current knowledge of the physical universe. It's not an arbitrary "let's make up stuff", as the OP implies. It's a mathematically plausible model of reality with no empirical data to confirm it.

As for Occam's razor, if you want to dismiss the hypothesis on the basis of multiplication of entities, why stop at universes? Why not elementary particles of such universes? That would make the number of entities much bigger, thus much less likely, right?

But no. The multiverse hypothesis doesn't separately postulate every single universe of the multiverse. They're all contained within a single theoretical framework, so if we take two universes from the multiverse hypothesis, the postulation of universe X doesn't come up as an explanation for the postulation of universe Y, and so on with every single universe. You don't need a new theory to explain every single universe in the multiverse, and the scientific and rational use of Occam's razor doesn't mean that you dismiss a theory on the basis of the number of elements, but on the number of ad hoc hypothesis that the central hypothesis needs.

If I claim that I just saw someone I know, the veracity of my alleged encounter doesn't get excluded in favor of an alternative hypothesis on the basis that I'm implicitly claiming that I interacted with trillions and trillions of atoms. It doesn't depend on the number of atoms, and it doesn't depend on the number of universes. It depends on something like different layers of explanatory theories.

[MaartenVergu]

Quote:

As far as I know, the multiverse is no more than a hypothesis that makes mathematical sense to theoretical physicists given the current knowledge of the physical universe. It's not an arbitrary "let's make up stuff", as the OP implies. It's a mathematically plausible model of reality with no empirical data to confirm it.

'mathematical truth' has nothing to do with physical truth. Reality is about physical truth.

[Dani]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

'mathematical truth' has nothing to do with physical truth. Reality is about physical truth.

Who talked about mathematical truth?

Please, feel free to respond to anything you want from my post, but don't quote me as if you were rebutting something remotely close to what I said when it's not the case.

[MaartenVergu]

I answer this, because these mathematical models are most of the time presented to the public as being truth.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by ehcks

Wait, why not? Who's that guy?
*Googles*
Oh wow. That guy's a loon. Steady state universe, intelligent design, believing that the flu comes from outer space.

But to be fair I think in his case he was just that smart he became a little unstable. He virtually wrote the book on nucleosynthesis. He should have won at least one Nobel prize for that work. He just needed to keep away from cosmology and evolution

[Giordano]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

'mathematical truth' has nothing to do with physical truth. Reality is about physical truth.

Math truth is physical truth. One apple plus one apple equals two apples just as the number symbolizing one in math, plus the same number, equals the number symbolizing two.

This is very different from the question of if a math model has been applied correctly to physical reality. If you are combining two and one apples, but using the one plus one math model, you would be wrong. But the problem is not in the truth of the math itself, but in the mis-application of the math to the physics of the problem. This falsehood due to mis-application need not involve math at all: if I claimed that an object in motion tends to stay in motion, but I ignored air resistance, I would simply be wrong.

Now, math used in physics often attempts to model a physical event, but most everyone understands that the model might be wrongly applied. In fact, physics tries to improve the mathematical models with time: in many ways Relativity improved the mathematical modeling of Newton. But the real test is if the math models predict accurately novel observations never before made. Much of the math allows that there may be multiple Universes. Some of the predictions from this math even seem to hold as more observations are made. So it is fair enough to consider that multi-verses may exist. But I don't think that most atheists are convinced by the evidence that they actually do exist. Unlike your claim. Straw man.

[Fudbucker]

Originally Posted by Aridas

That depends a fair bit on what you think the problem in question actually is. Sounds like you're not really understanding the words that are written, yet again, though. Either way, it may be worth pointing out that there is a very real distinction between older Creationist general concepts of fine tuning, which the OP was actually referencing, when taken in context, and the fine tuning problem that you're referencing, though the OP was not, and have been rather making a fool of yourself by failing to recognize what's actually being talked about. Admittedly, there are other posters here who have been having some issues distinguishing between the issues at hand, too, which has lead to them taking your rather confused bait.



...Seriously? Did anyone here argue or even simply claim that multiverse theory is not invoked as an answer to fine tuning? I may just be forgetful right now, but I don't remember anyone doing so. Rather, the kind of things that have been pointed out are that, while multiverse theories can answer the fine tuning claim, no one that we know of is claiming that that is sufficient reason to accept any multiverse theories, nor are they claiming that multiverse theories are the case solely because they can address fine tuning claims and that the weak anthropic principle is not at all dependant upon multiverse theories being the case.

Again, sounds like you're really not following what's actually been said, again.



Yup, obviously not following what's been said.



LOL at you not understanding how much of a clown you're being in these posts.



That is an important thing to understand about that fine-tuning problem, yes. It's also important to remember that the people that the OP's drawing upon tend to extend the "problem" to try to include a whole lot of demonstrably false or simply unsupported "requirements" that have remarkably little to do with what you're talking about. A main point of those who consider it to only be a "problem," though, is that only under conditions where there are observers can the observers marvel at how "perfect" things have to be and that, at last check, how much the conditions even can be different in reality had yet to be confirmed, much less all the rest of the relevant information. No point in considering something to be a serious problem with how probable it is when there's not enough information to properly evaluate what any of the relevant probabilities are.

Have you been following the thread? There are plenty of posters here who think the tine-tuning problem isn't even a problem. The corollary to that is that a bunch of real smart mathematicians and cosmologists, currently working at the top universities, are a bunch of dupes, which I find hilarious on a skeptics forum!

But whoever said skeptics had the lock on rationality?

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

Have you been following the thread?

I have. That you've quite failed in your reading comprehension of many posts in this thread is very much your problem, not mine, if you are asking that. Still, if you want to pursue the issue, please, quote where you think that people have claimed that multiverse theories have not been used to answer fine tuning?

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

There are plenty of posters here who think the tine-tuning problem isn't even a problem.

Yes. There's a couple things that need reiterated again, then, since you evidently weren't really reading what was in the quoted, again. In particular, you seem to be quite wrong about which fine tuning problem has really been under discussion in the first place. Furthermore, you've completely failed to properly address the points made for why posters think that it's not a problem, an exercise that likely would have helped clarify things. For that matter, what the fine tuning problem in question is a problem for matters, too. Usually, it's being used as an attempt to point out a problem for certain more philosophical parts of some world views, which is a fair bit different from the actual implications of the problem that you've cited, at last check, which is likely named poorly.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

The corollary to that is that a bunch of real smart mathematicians and cosmologists, currently working at the top universities, are a bunch of dupes, which I find hilarious on a skeptics forum!

Some are. Arguments from authority don't count for much here, and frankly, most people, regardless of whether they are very smart people or not, have wrong beliefs. The arguments themselves tend to matter a fair bit more than the people who make the argument. Who makes the argument is of some importance, yes, though, because many categories of people can be dismissed out of hand as completely untrustworthy on a lot of subjects.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

But whoever said skeptics had the lock on rationality?

Not me, much as you've quite demonstrated that your judgement is highly untrustworthy on the subject, so far.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by Aridas

I have.



Yes. There's a couple things that need reiterated again, then, since you evidently weren't really reading what was in the quoted, again. In particular, you seem to be quite wrong about which fine tuning problem has really been under discussion in the first place. Furthermore, you've completely failed to properly address the points made for why posters think that it's not a problem, an exercise that likely would have helped clarify things. For that matter, what the fine tuning problem in question is a problem for matters, too. Usually, it's being used as an attempt to point out a problem for certain more philosophical parts of some world views, which is a fair bit different from the actual implications of the problem that you've cited, at last check, which is likely named incorrectly.



Some are. Arguments from authority don't count for much here, and frankly, most people, regardless of whether they are very smart people or not, have wrong beliefs. The arguments themselves tend to matter a fair bit more than the people who make the argument. Who makes the argument is of some importance, yes, though, because many categories of people can be dismissed out of hand as completely untrustworthy on a lot of subjects.



Not me, much as you've quite demonstrated that your judgement is highly untrustworthy on the subject, so far.

Well said... makes it unnecessary for me to respond because you said all I wanted to say in a better way than I could have.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by turingtest

Or, to use another analogy...I can easily imagine a lottery winner thinking that the lottery was "designed" specifically for him to win it; this kind of reasoning is where religion comes from. Life is certainly an outcome of the way our universe is built and works (at least in our little corner of it); but that, by itself, is no reason to assume it was an aim.

(Don't mind me snipping the rest of your excellent post for space, Leumas; I think your point about constants like Pi being simply useful descriptions of the way the universe works, rather than given "laws" that imply agency, is also a good one that most people have a hard time grasping.)

I am always amazed at how even scientists and intellectuals who REALLY should know better seem to always talk about the laws of physics as if they were PRESCRITIVE rather than descriptive.

From there it is so easy to step into anthropomorphizing and talking in terms like "obey" and "follow" and "should" and "must".

Lesser intellect listening to those intellectuals talking have no understanding of the situation and end up mistaking the language and then run wild with their misunderstandings.

Moreover, people with lesser knowledge of the fields of science seem to not understand scientists' tendencies to research (as they should) even the tiniest minutia of scientific topics of interest even if just to put them to rest.

They do not understand that once an issue is posed then whether they think it is valid or not some scientists will sooner or later research it if someone is willing to fund it and there are PhD candidates looking for a topic to dig into.

But above all let's not forget the role of the MEDIA in all this. They love to sensationalize anything scientists come out with that might have impact on things religious or woo. Of course even scientists love the 15 minutes (or longer if they can run with it) in the limelight.

But the most heinous of them all are the DELIBRATE USURPERS of scientific stuff with their added twisting and reinterpreting to serve their religious bamboozling. These are the most insidious because their pseudo-science based upon subtle corruption of real science can fool even intelligent people who obviously cannot know all the details of the real science to realize how it has been warped and twisted so subtly.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Aridas

Furthermore, you've completely failed to properly address the points made for why posters think that it's not a problem, an exercise that likely would have helped clarify things.

I listed the three main objections to the argument that the universe is fine tuned for life (together with sources for two of them) in post #98; Fudbucker's only response was to ask for a list of people who agree with them. If the objections are really as laughable as Fudbucker is suggesting one would think he would address and demolish them, or at least point to where the sources he prefers do so.

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

I listed the three main objections to the argument that the universe is fine tuned for life (together with sources for two of them) in post #98; Fudbucker's only response was to ask for a list of people who agree with them. If the objections are really as laughable as Fudbucker is suggesting one would think he would address and demolish them, or at least point to where the sources he prefers do so.

Do you know hermeneutics? Do you know of all its practical applications within different fields of work?

Now apply that on one of our standard believers:

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

...
But whoever said skeptics had the lock on rationality?

There is always at least 2 agendas in play if you look closely enough for a sufficient large number of woo-believers.
What reality is?
Why that matters?

Now let me explain that for "you are wrong, because you use a wrong argument". I have yet to come across scientific evidence of any actual human, which can be for her/his life in general objective in this sense: " Based on facts rather than feelings or opinions; not influenced by feelings". Or rational in this sense: "Based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feeling". That goes all the way back to the old Greeks of philosophy.
See they overlap and for those of us, you know, not - we, the scientists - but we, the caretakers of those, who can't take care of themselves, we can't use only objective and rational alone, because if that is the only standard we use, we will in practice harm those we care for.

In practice when you deal with humans as humans, you can't use natural science, math/logic and engineering alone. You have to include it, but it would be over by my dead body if "we, the scientists," would be given the responsibility to care for humans in the totality of the word human only using the methodology of natural science.

In other words, the only proper, correct and valid skeptics, who understand how reality works are those who are from within natural science, math or engendering. The only form of not wrong skepticism is scientific skepticism and since that is only possible for the above mentioned professions, then rest of us humans can't be skeptics.

In short the only form of correct methodology is to describe and explain reality in true/valid/correct terms using natural science and math/logic. So here is how falsification works in practice: No!!!
You don't have to understand or include me or any other human for some cases of rational, logic and objective, but it is a fact that we are still humans and that you hold no objective authority over any other human despite being a scientist.

So do you as a scientist and skeptic hold the lock on rationality?
You don't have to answer, but that is also an answer.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen

You don't have to answer, but that is also an answer.

I neither know nor care what you are blathering on about.

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

I neither know nor care what you are blathering on about.

Okay,we would like a pier-previewed paper with scientific evidence that it is true/right/correct/valid and not anecdotal evidence that you don't care. We can't trust individual human cognition and that applies to you. So where is your evidence for the fact, that you don't care???

Unless you can give evidence for that, we will consider you irrelevant for how reality works and we know, that you are wrong.
[Reductio ad absurdum in the absurd sense]

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen

Okay,we would like a pier-previewed paper

There's a particularly impressive pier near me (in Weston Super Mare), but not even that one is qualified to preview (or even review) a paper. So you (and whoever else you're including in we) are out of luck.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen

Now apply that on one of our standard believers:

I'm not convinced that Fudbucker is a believer in the sense that you're claiming. He's demonstrated that his reading comprehension is quite poor over multiple threads, certainly, but I don't think that I've seen much basis for what you're claiming. With that said, would you be kind enough to back your claim up?

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen

Now let me explain that for "you are wrong, because you use a wrong argument".

What follows this isn't really as relevant as you seem to think. If one uses a bad argument, their argument is bad and can thus be refuted and dismissed. In other words, they're wrong. Whether the conclusion is actually the case is a separate matter, it's true, and the fallacy fallacy is a good thing to remember there.

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen

I have yet to come across scientific evidence of any actual human, which can be for her/his life in general objective in this sense: " Based on facts rather than feelings or opinions; not influenced by feelings". Or rational in this sense: "Based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feeling". That goes all the way back to the old Greeks of philosophy.

And your relevant point is? Humans are fallible and emotional creatures. All of us are wrong at times. I'm pretty sure that all of us are right at times, too. The same for rational, irrational, and many other things. This really goes without needing to be said.

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen

See they overlap and for those of us, you know, not - we, the scientists - but we, the caretakers of those, who can't take care of themselves, we can't use only objective and rational alone, because if that is the only standard we use, we will in practice harm those we care for.

We're the caretakers, now? Either way, there is a time and place for different approaches, I will agree with that. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like any of this or the rest of the post really addresses what you're claiming to be responding to very well at all.

[MaartenVergu]

Originally Posted by Leumas

This is not a snide remark nor is it an argument against your argument or anything of the sort.

It is just that you are using the word "believe" in a mistaken way grammatically that is (sorry) annoying.

I certainly am not deriding your language abilities just humbly correcting a mistake you are making with all good intentions at just correcting a small mistake albeit a little annoying.

The word

believe

Is a verb (to believe) with the implied ACTION of accepting a claim as true.... one believes in things and one can believe someone saying something... e.g.

I believe your claim. I believe that you are sincere.

However, the word

belief

Is a noun on which actions can be done.... one can have a belief in something or can hold the belief that something is so and so.... e.g.

I think the belief in god is unfounded. I cannot partake in your belief system.

Notice the difference in this sentences

I believe that the belief in god is irrational despite the fact that billions of people believe that their beliefs are based on facts.

Irrational beliefs lead to believing in mistaken notions.

Accordingly your above grammatically incorrect sentence should in fact read

The belief in a first cause requires a belief in magic

Ok, thank you.

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Originally Posted by Aridas

...

Yes, I used a bad argument in reference to Fudbucker.

No, skeptics don't have a lock on rationality.

• Is that a bad argument?
• Can you here on this site find someone who claims to be a skeptic and claims in effect to have a lock on rationality?

[MaartenVergu]

I will never understand the BigBang-idea in the first place.
The theorie says that space and time began to exist 14 billion years ago. Who can logically understand such phrase?
The theory says that it was a ball expanding in nothing. This ball had no edges and there was no 'outside'. Who can logically understand such idea?
The theory says that there was infinite space inside this 'small expanding ball, expanding in nothing'.
Who can understand this logically? When we are intellectually honest about it, everyone of us must admit that we don't have a clue what we are talking about here.

So, logically, it still makes no sense (to me).
I think that our brain is not wired to understand what we are talking about here. It's something behind our understanding.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen

No, skeptics don't have a lock on rationality.

• Is that a bad argument?
• Can you here on this site find someone who claims to be a skeptic and claims in effect to have a lock on rationality?

Already answered that previously by saying that I didn't claim that skeptics have a lock on rationality. I can easily go further and say that that's a claim that I wouldn't make, regardless, though. Either way, to directly answer your questions, for the former, I don't consider it an argument at all. It's a claim. A fairly safe claim, for that matter, unless rationality is redefined to something more specific than the common usage. For that latter? Potentially, using an aforementioned redefinition and/or changing the subject a bit to skepticism, rather than particular people who consider themselves skeptics. I haven't been looking, though, and would likely be a bit amused by such attempts.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen

Yes, I used a bad argument in reference to Fudbucker.

No, skeptics don't have a lock on rationality.

• Is that a bad argument?
• Can you here on this site find someone who claims to be a skeptic and claims in effect to have a lock on rationality?

I locked mine in the attic along with the crazy aunt.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

I will never understand the BigBang-idea in the first place.

Alright, that may be fair, depending, even if it is a bit defeatist. Projection, however, isn't likely to be so reasonable, though.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

The theorie says that space and time began to exist 14 billion years ago. Who can logically understand such phrase?

A lot of people, I think. The biggest step there, though, is understanding what, exactly, are the space and time.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

The theory says that it was a ball expanding in nothing. This ball had no edges and there was no 'outside'. Who can logically understand such idea?

A lot of people, I think, much as, again, it requires understanding what the terms are actually referring to.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

The theory says that there was infinite space inside this 'small expanding ball, expanding in nothing'.

Not quite. Infinite is not really the term, at last check, though for this, what do you think space is?

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

Who can understand this logically? When we are intellectually honest about it, everyone of us must admit that we don't have a clue what we are talking about here.

Projection isn't the healthiest or wisest action.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

So, logically, it still makes no sense (to me).

Still? You say that like something significant changed from when you sait that earlier in the post.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

I think that our brain is not wired to understand what we are talking about here. It's something behind our understanding.

And I disagree on the points you named, though I will grant that there's a possibility that your brain is not wired in a way that can understand it. People are different, after all.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

I will never understand the BigBang-idea in the first place.
The theorie says that space and time began to exist 14 billion years ago. Who can logically understand such phrase?
The theory says that it was a ball expanding in nothing. This ball had no edges and there was no 'outside'. Who can logically understand such idea?
The theory says that there was infinite space inside this 'small expanding ball, expanding in nothing'.
Who can understand this logically? When we are intellectually honest about it, everyone of us must admit that we don't have a clue what we are talking about here.

So, logically, it still makes no sense (to me).
I think that our brain is not wired to understand what we are talking about here. It's something behind our understanding.

Your lack of understanding has no bearing on reality.

Do you fully understand electricity?

[MaartenVergu]

So, you claim that you understand the sentence: 'time begins to exist at moment x' and a ' a very small ball expands more and more in nothing and it has no edges'
Hmmm. You must have a superior intellect or you act as if you understand this 'idea'.
I believe that you are a good actor

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

So, you claim that you understand the sentence: 'time begins to exist at moment x' and a ' a very tin and very small ball expands more and more in nothing and it has no edges'
Hmmm. You must have a superior intellect or you act as if you understand this 'idea'.
I believe that you are a good actor

What is time, physically speaking? What is space, physically speaking? Can you answer those questions?

[MaartenVergu]

You are avoiding the question with another question. Nice try.
My question: do you really think that you can grasp the 'idea': "time begins to exist'? "Something very small expands, it has no edges and there is nothing outside'"
Or you have a superior brain (I don't believe that) or you like to act as if you understand this 'ordening of words in one sentence'.
I guess that you do not have a superior brain.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

You are avoiding the question with another question. Nice try.
My question: do you really think that you can grasp the 'idea': "time begins to exist'?
Or you have a superior brain (I don't believe that) or you like to act as if you understand this 'ordening of words in one sentence'.
I guess that you do not have a superior brain.

I wasn't avoiding it at all, unlike you're trying to do here. Understanding what time is is necessary for comprehending the idea of 'time begins to exist.' If you don't understand what time is, of course you won't be able to grasp it.

So, would you be kind enough to answer the questions? They are, after all, entirely relevant, and understanding the idea in question should be quite simple if you can answer them correctly.

[MaartenVergu]

Ok, I admit, you probably know more about physics than me. And that's important, when you want to discuss: to admit what you don't know.
But, I know how time is defined in physics. And I can not imagine 'time begins to exist'.
I cannot imagine a mathematically acceptable expression like t=0 in a physical, measurable world. (in experimental conditions)
I know how 'small' and 'big' is defined in our language. (it's a relative statement).
So, when you are talking about a small dense ball (in the beginning), you are making a relative statement. Small, relative to what?
When you are using a term as 'expansion', then we all know that this term is well defined. 'An expanding ball' is a well-understood phenomenon and can be shown in experimental conditions.
But a small ball, expanding in nothing, and inside it has infinite space?
Sorry, a logical contradiction in the terms.

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

I will never understand the BigBang-idea in the first place.
The theorie says that space and time began to exist 14 billion years ago. Who can logically understand such phrase?
The theory says that it was a ball expanding in nothing. This ball had no edges and there was no 'outside'. Who can logically understand such idea?
The theory says that there was infinite space inside this 'small expanding ball, expanding in nothing'.
Who can understand this logically? When we are intellectually honest about it, everyone of us must admit that we don't have a clue what we are talking about here.

So, logically, it still makes no sense (to me).
I think that our brain is not wired to understand what we are talking about here. It's something behind our understanding.

"I don't understand this, therefore it's beyond anyone's understanding"- what a comfort that sort of attitude must be to carry through life.

And, no, before you ask, beyond the notion that, since time is a measure of the interactions of matter, the two necessarily go together (and even that might be wrong), I can't really say I grasp the idea(s) either. But I don't insist that my limits must define the limits of everyone else.

[MaartenVergu]

When we all look in the mirror, we must admit that some concepts in theoretical physics today are behind what we can understand.
We cannot even understand psychologically very big numbers. (a billion, a trillion).
But many people act as if they know what they are talking about when they are playing with the term 'infinity'. Do we really grasp these concepts?
Does it have meaning (for us)? Do you really think you understand a concept like 'time'?
I think that you are overestimating you own capacity of understanding 'time' f.e.
I admit that the mathematically meaningful expression t=0 is behind my capacity to understand how it can be translated to the world I live in.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

Ok, I admit, you probably know more about physics than me. And that's important, when you want to discuss: to admit what you don't know.
But, I know how time is defined in physics. And I can not imagine 'time begins to exist'.

Again, the necessary concept to understand is how time works to understand the idea. That doesn't mean that the idea's right, of course, but it is understandable.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

I cannot imagine a mathematically acceptable expression like t=0 in a physical, measurable world. (in experimental conditions)

Other than arbitrarily set t=0's that technically can have negatives, even if the negatives are irrelevant for the purpose in question?

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

I know how 'small' and 'big' is defined in our language. (it's a relative statement).
So, when you are talking about a small dense ball (in the beginning), you are making a relative statement. Small, relative to what?

At last check, infinitesimal works better. A size normally dealt with by quantum physics, at last check, in other words.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

But a small ball, expanding in nothing, and inside it has infinite space?
Sorry, a logical contradiction in the terms.

Again, understanding the nature of space helps with that.

[MaartenVergu]

Aridas, can't you make the distinction between a mathematical concept and understanding what it means in reality.
In math the concept of infinity is been used.
But can you really grasp the idea of infinity? When you are an honest thinker, and I believe you are, then you must admit that it's behind human capacity to understand a concept like infinity.
Some mathematicians play with this concept as if it is very easy to understand. But do they really believe that it's an easy concept?
Psychologists say that humans can't even understand big numbers.

People are playing with the term 'time'. Time this and time that. As if it is a word like 'football' or 'house'.
No, it's something wich is very abstract.

There will be a time that scientists will say to the public: psychologically we cannot go further in our understanding of Nature. Our journey stops here.
Maybe scientists have already reached this point.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

We cannot even understand psychologically very big numbers. (a billion, a trillion). It's behind our understanding.
But many people act as if they know what they are talking about when they are playing with the term 'infinity'. Do we really grasp these concepts?

In general senses, yes, people can grasp these concepts and their ramifications. The real question here, though, is what "really grasping these concepts" actually means?

[MaartenVergu]

Good question. What does it mean 'to grasp something'.
I started an eariier thread here to explain that psychological phenomenon (like to grasp something) cannot be defined in physical terms. You cannot proof or explain them physically.
So, I can only use a synonym: to understand something.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

Aridas, can't you make the distinction between a mathematical concept and understanding what it means in reality.
In math the concept of infinity is been used.
But can you really grasp the idea of infinity? When you are an honest thinker, and I believe you are, then you must admit that it's behind human capacity to understand a concept like infinity.
Some mathematicians play with this concept as if it is very easy to understand. But do they really believe that hey can understand this concept?
Psychologists say that humans can't even understand big numbers.

Again, first, what counts as grasping the idea of infinity? If you're talking about picturing an infinite number of something, for example, of course I can't. Infinity isn't a specific number, though, in the first place. That an infinity can be divided by an infinity and the result of that can be infinity should more than show such an approach to be fundamentally nonsensical, either way. If, instead, you're talking about understanding what the concept is in a more general sense, along with the ramifications when applied to various situations, and so on, that's doable, on the other hand. Going from past experience with similar claims, though, it sounds like you're likely focusing on something that's fundamentally nonsensical and trying to claim that it's a requirement to truly grasp the concept. You have more of a case with very large numbers, regardless, given that it's not fundamentally nonsensical to specifically quantify them.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

People are playing with the term 'time'. Time this and time that. As if it is a word like 'football' or 'house'.
No, it's something wich is very abstract.

That depends on what you mean by abstract. I will agree that it's not something that you can directly touch or picture like a football or house, though.