Science Proves Creation

[Kylie]

But it is a belief when there isn't something that settles it, and it is yet used to explain anything.

The fact that many scientists accept the multiverse as a possibility does not mean that they are using it as part of their scientific models. Of course, if you can show me where they are doing this, I'd be happy to reconsider my position.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But it is a belief when there isn't something that settles it, and it is yet used to explain anything.

No, it's a hypothesis -- one of several considered.

When person X says "It is true" or "I think it is true" or "I believe it is true." Then it is the belief of person X. That is true whether it is true or not true and regardless of the level of supporting evidence for the believed claim.

[The rest of the cut-n-paste content not replied to.]

 

[FredVB]

But it is a belief when there isn't something that settles it, and it is yet used to explain anything.
This being the case is in a way like a two-edged sword. I have had these same thoughts, which could be applied to you, and all scientists with their conclusions. Ability to perceive as a result of natural processes with survival value having effect on it has it questionable for any perceiving what is really true. How can you or any scientists be trusted then? It would be very limited to what capacity is evolved and not corresponding to actual true reality, which there is not capacity for either sensing or understanding. Any real understanding would have to have another source that makes it reliable.
It really is not at all settled, there isn't the basis for that.

I was rushing with the post I did and am sorry that I posted it with not remembering to mention, I simply looked up multiverse, that any might do, and found information in Wikipedia that I copied for this, I don't know who composed that though. But scientists are named who are quoted. I certainly understood it, it shows what I would say, and there is not conclusively compelling basis to say there is a multiverse of many universes.

It's not formally being used to explain anything yet. Scientific theories explain; the multiverse is merely an hypothesis.

It is actually philosophical speculation. Right, it shouldn't be used for that. But I still have had to hear it being used.

Evolution is no philosopher of reality, it's just a matter of survival, so from a pragmatic viewpoint, reality is what you're adapted to survive.

Evolution from natural processes and environmental pressure does not explain adapting with far greater capacity than what is useful for surviving better than others. There is not basis for trusting capacity for knowing any truth of all reality from that.

The fact is that a lot of current science, especially physics, is the product of hypotheses that were unfalsifiable when first proposed. Extending the boundaries of enquiry beyond the testable is the metier of theoretical physics, and the philosophy of science becomes most apparent at the boundaries. Pretty much all theories make untestable predictions, and if you absolutely insist on falsification, it's available - such predictions stand or fall on their assumptions and the theory behind them.

If other universes have no physical effect on anything in this universe, as that has to be admitted, there is never going to be anything that confirms that they are there, from anything studied by scientists and researchers in this universe.

The fact that many scientists accept the multiverse as a possibility does not mean that they are using it as part of their scientific models. Of course, if you can show me where they are doing this, I'd be happy to reconsider my position.

They might not, I don't suppose they do. But I have been seeing this in communication with me.

No, it's a hypothesis -- one of several considered.

It is just philosophical speculation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution from natural processes and environmental pressure does not explain adapting with far greater capacity than what is useful for surviving better than others. There is not basis for trusting capacity for knowing any truth of all reality from that.

Actually it explains it quite well. All that is needed for one population to survive over another is a slight edge. And those slight edges keep appearing regularly. Over time they add up. Like most creationists you are arguing that it is possible to walk to the corner store but it is impossible to walk across the country.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I was rushing with the post I did and am sorry that I posted it with not remembering to mention, I simply looked up multiverse, that any might do, and found information in Wikipedia that I copied for this, I don't know who composed that though. But scientists are named who are quoted. I certainly understood it, it shows what I would say, and there is not conclusively compelling basis to say there is a multiverse of many universes.

We have to take your word that you understood it precisely because you posted it wholesale without attribution instead of summarising it in your own words.

It is actually philosophical speculation.

You can use it for philosophical speculation, but as I said, several multiverses (there is more than one type) are actually predicted by current theories, given plausible assumptions, so they're more than purely speculative, they have a theoretical (mathematical) foundation.

Evolution from natural processes and environmental pressure does not explain adapting with far greater capacity than what is useful for surviving better than others.

Sometimes it pays to look a little closer - evolution refers to changes in populations of species, but the environment that exerts selection pressure on individuals includes members of the same species. This is how sexual selection produces extravagant display features in many species, that give no competitive advantage over other species. In humans, the selective advantage over other species provided by the flexible behaviour resulting from simple metacognition is also a competitive advantage among humans in complex social interactions (probably including sexual selection); this is an intra-species variation on the 'evolutionary arms race' that can cause rapid development and exaggeration of the relevant traits.

There is not basis for trusting capacity for knowing any truth of all reality from that.

That was my point. Pragmatically, (a particular) reality is what you are adapted to survive. But concepts of truth and knowledge of reality have been moot points since humans first thought about them.

If other universes have no physical effect on anything in this universe, as that has to be admitted, there is never going to be anything that confirms that they are there, from anything studied by scientists and researchers in this universe.

That's true, although we could get supporting evidence or falsifying evidence for them. For example, the mathematics of an inflationary multiverse might predict a specific 'fingerprint' common to its pocket universes that would be unexpected in a monoverse (e.g. a pattern in the CMB, a particular distribution of large-scale structure, etc). Detecting such a feature would be supporting evidence. The converse could also happen - we could find a feature that is inconsistent with that multiverse model, or the theory that predicts it might be falsified.

However, some, like the quilted cosmological multiverse, only require that the observable universe is a very small part of the universe as a whole (which could be infinite in extent). We already have strong evidence that the universe as a whole must be at least 250 times the radius of the observable universe, which means a volume of space that's over 15 million times as large, minimum. Within that volume will be a large number of causally isolated volumes the size of our observable universe, which makes them effectively universes in their own right.

 

[FredVB]

I was rushing with the post I did and am sorry that I posted it with not remembering to mention, I simply looked up multiverse, that any might do, and found information in Wikipedia that I copied for this, I don't know who composed that though. But scientists are named who are quoted. I certainly understood it, it shows what I would say, and there is not conclusively compelling basis to say there is a multiverse of many universes.

It is actually philosophical speculation. Right, it shouldn't be used for that. But I still have had to hear it being used.

Evolution from natural processes and environmental pressure does not explain adapting with far greater capacity than what is useful for surviving better than others. There is not basis for trusting capacity for knowing any truth of all reality from that.

If other universes have no physical effect on anything in this universe, as that has to be admitted, there is never going to be anything that confirms that they are there, from anything studied by scientists and researchers in this universe.

It is just philosophical speculation.

We have to take your word that you understood it precisely because you posted it wholesale without attribution instead of summarising it in your own words.

It does not matter to me really whether you take it as truth or not. There is the information posted and you can argue against it as far as you think you can, and what I answer with will be what I understand anyway. It does not all stand on my own statement, which would not matter here anyway. But the quotes from Paul Davies and George Ellis come with their authority, which is why I included those, rather than just saying what I understand from them, and the list of other scientists who say much the same thing on that issue is shown, so that your argument with me is not just with me, and you would presume to understand better than they do.

You can use it for philosophical speculation, but as I said, several multiverses (there is more than one type) are actually predicted by current theories, given plausible assumptions, so they're more than purely speculative, they have a theoretical (mathematical) foundation.

Your statement is argument with George Ellis as I quoted him for that, such that it is philosophical speculation. I see assumptions involved, so it is this.

Sometimes it pays to look a little closer - evolution refers to changes in populations of species, but the environment that exerts selection pressure on individuals includes members of the same species. This is how sexual selection produces extravagant display features in many species, that give no competitive advantage over other species. In humans, the selective advantage over other species provided by the flexible behaviour resulting from simple metacognition is also a competitive advantage among humans in complex social interactions (probably including sexual selection); this is an intra-species variation on the 'evolutionary arms race' that can cause rapid development and exaggeration of the relevant traits.

That I change what I find believable for this to explain everything including what is claimed to be known is asking for a lot.

That was my point. Pragmatically, (a particular) reality is what you are adapted to survive. But concepts of truth and knowledge of reality have been moot points since humans first thought about them.

That's true, although we could get supporting evidence or falsifying evidence for them. For example, the mathematics of an inflationary multiverse might predict a specific 'fingerprint' common to its pocket universes that would be unexpected in a monoverse (e.g. a pattern in the CMB, a particular distribution of large-scale structure, etc). Detecting such a feature would be supporting evidence. The converse could also happen - we could find a feature that is inconsistent with that multiverse model, or the theory that predicts it might be falsified.

However, some, like the quilted cosmological multiverse, only require that the observable universe is a very small part of the universe as a whole (which could be infinite in extent). We already have strong evidence that the universe as a whole must be at least 250 times the radius of the observable universe, which means a volume of space that's over 15 million times as large, minimum. Within that volume will be a large number of causally isolated volumes the size of our observable universe, which makes them effectively universes in their own right.

I was not making an issue of the size of the universe, any size that it would be cannot be known because there is no information ever available from beyond the observable universe. So if it were "250 times the radius of the observable universe" we wouldn't know, though we can see it might be. There is no causally isolated volumes that way as such. An observer near the edge of your observable universe does not have the same observable universe, and can see further with his, hers, or its observable universe in that direction away from you, and any place in the universe has that distinct observable universe for it, and so on, that there are no absolutely isolated parts of the universe.

Mathematics might be used to extrapolate how there may be other universes stemming from this one, maybe, though we do not know that. It is not conclusive. But this is not the same as saying there are distinct separate universes in a universe that were always a part from it. This universe with a beginning still must have an explanation.

Actually it explains it quite well. All that is needed for one population to survive over another is a slight edge. And those slight edges keep appearing regularly. Over time they add up. Like most creationists you are arguing that it is possible to walk to the corner store but it is impossible to walk across the country.

I see that is really not analogous. Regardless that we can walk further, and likely as it is that I can walk further than you, there is yet basis to see, as far as I know, that slight edges adds up at increments to the ability of any among us to know true reality of anything so much.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see that is really not analogous. Regardless that we can walk further, and likely as it is that I can walk further than you, there is yet basis to see, as far as I know, that slight edges adds up at increments to the ability of any among us to know true reality of anything so much.

It is quite analogous. It was an explanation of your error. One question, do you realize that evolution is the only process that is supported by reliable evidence, and very strong evidence at that? There is no scientific evidence for creationism.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... I see assumptions involved, so it is this.

Assumptions are aways involved, in any human endeavour. Science is no exception. Making reasonable inferential assumptions (in a Humean sense), whose absence would raise more questions or require special conditions, is the best policy - for example, assuming the sun will rise tomorrow as it has done since records began, or assuming that the world (or the universe) doesn't coincidentally end at the limit of your vision.

That I change what I find believable for this to explain everything including what is claimed to be known is asking for a lot.

I'm not asking you to change your beliefs. I'm presenting a simple explanation based on a simple principle whose effects can be seen in other examples throughout the animal kingdom. For scientists and critical thinkers in general, it isn't a question of belief but of provisional acceptance of the best available explanation (where 'best' means satisfying abductive criteria such as testability, fruitfulness, explanatory power, unifying scope, accuracy, simplicity, consistency, not raising more questions than it answers (particularly unanswerable questions), and so-on).

I was not making an issue of the size of the universe, any size that it would be cannot be known because there is no information ever available from beyond the observable universe. So if it were "250 times the radius of the observable universe" we wouldn't know, though we can see it might be.

The link I posted explains how we can know with a reasonable degree of confidence.

There is no causally isolated volumes that way as such. An observer near the edge of your observable universe does not have the same observable universe, and can see further with his, hers, or its observable universe in that direction away from you, and any place in the universe has that distinct observable universe for it, and so on, that there are no absolutely isolated parts of the universe.

Space is expanding, so the greater the distance between two objects, e,g, galaxies or galaxy clusters, the faster they recede from each other. At a certain distance their separation velocity will exceed the speed of light, meaning they are causally isolated from each other. No signal can reach from one to the other, no matter how many observers you have between them.

Mathematics might be used to extrapolate how there may be other universes stemming from this one, maybe, though we do not know that. It is not conclusive. But this is not the same as saying there are distinct separate universes in a universe that were always a part from it.

Not quite sure what you mean here. Multiverses are certainly not a conclusion - as already mentioned, they are predictions of theories (some well tested and established), given plausible assumptions.

This universe with a beginning still must have an explanation.

Sure - some multiverses are the result of exploring, using current fundamental physical theories, how some prior state could produce big bang conditions that would develop into a universe like ours. Of course, that doesn't explain where the multiverse came from, but they're generally compatible with not having a beginning, i.e. having always existed, though not necessarily with an arrow (direction) of time. Sean Carroll's book 'From Eternity To Here' has some readable explanations of what these various ideas are and how they came about.

 

[FredVB]

Your statement is argument with George Ellis as I quoted him for that, such that it is philosophical speculation. I see assumptions involved, so it is this.

That I change what I find believable for this to explain everything including what is claimed to be known is asking for a lot.

I was not making an issue of the size of the universe, any size that it would be cannot be known because there is no information ever available from beyond the observable universe. So if it were "250 times the radius of the observable universe" we wouldn't know, though we can see it might be. There is no causally isolated volumes that way as such. An observer near the edge of your observable universe does not have the same observable universe, and can see further with his, hers, or its observable universe in that direction away from you, and any place in the universe has that distinct observable universe for it, and so on, that there are no absolutely isolated parts of the universe.

Mathematics might be used to extrapolate how there may be other universes stemming from this one, maybe, though we do not know that. It is not conclusive. But this is not the same as saying there are distinct separate universes in a universe that were always a part from it. This universe with a beginning still must have an explanation.

Assumptions are aways involved, in any human endeavour. Science is no exception. Making reasonable inferential assumptions (in a Humean sense), whose absence would raise more questions or require special conditions, is the best policy - for example, assuming the sun will rise tomorrow as it has done since records began, or assuming that the world (or the universe) doesn't coincidentally end at the limit of your vision.

Space is expanding, so the greater the distance between two objects, e,g, galaxies or galaxy clusters, the faster they recede from each other. At a certain distance their separation velocity will exceed the speed of light, meaning they are causally isolated from each other. No signal can reach from one to the other, no matter how many observers you have between them.

Not quite sure what you mean here. Multiverses are certainly not a conclusion - as already mentioned, they are predictions of theories (some well tested and established), given plausible assumptions.

Sure - some multiverses are the result of exploring, using current fundamental physical theories, how some prior state could produce big bang conditions that would develop into a universe like ours. Of course, that doesn't explain where the multiverse came from, but they're generally compatible with not having a beginning, i.e. having always existed, though not necessarily with an arrow (direction) of time. Sean Carroll's book 'From Eternity To Here' has some readable explanations of what these various ideas are and how they came about.

Of course it is sensible to make assumptions where they are fairly reliable where it is needed, so that we are not needlessly uncertain, but this is not the same as extrapolations further from known reality, where it necessarily becomes less certain. This is not the same as presuming that everything ends where all that is perceived ends. It admits some things really are not known. Some things will remain unknown.

Where there is any to observe the universe far from us and much closer to the limit of our observable universe, in a place itself having more space rapidly between there and here, there is observation possible further beyond our observable universe, in that sense there is no absolutely causally isolated regions. So it could be possible they would see as far as to where another observer is beyond our observable universe, and that other observer could see further beyond that first other observer's observable universe, and it could go on further.

I mean what is said to be predicted is what comes from the initial inflation that is thought to explain this universe, such that others might come from what became this universe. But those would not be universes already distinct from their origin. So if there are only these other universes from the same initial inflation of this universe there is the same need of explanation as there already is for this universe, which came about with exactly the right parameters for this.

I see that is really not analogous. Regardless that we can walk further, and likely as it is that I can walk further than you, there is yet basis to see, as far as I know, that slight edges adds up at increments to the ability of any among us to know true reality of anything so much.

It is quite analogous. It was an explanation of your error. One question, do you realize that evolution is the only process that is supported by reliable evidence, and very strong evidence at that? There is no scientific evidence for creationism.

This just doesn't deal with what I have been talking about. Steps to absolutes does not make real sense. There is true reality, independently, and there are beings that perceive things, you say through steps of biological evolution, and I, not through claiming there is scientific evidence of evolution, which I won't say I have information on, say there is absence of evidence of these steps to perceptions with which the truth of reality is known. And the evidences there are do not show what is conclusive to me, as I have been discussing in another thread, for seeing creatures descend directly from a previous ancestor distinct from them. This is a different topic in this thread though.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This just doesn't deal with what I have been talking about. Steps to absolutes does not make real sense. There is true reality, independently, and there are beings that perceive things, you say through steps of biological evolution, and I, not through claiming there is scientific evidence of evolution, which I won't say I have information on, say there is absence of evidence of these steps to perceptions with which the truth of reality is known. And the evidences there are do not show what is conclusive to me, as I have been discussing in another thread, for seeing creatures descend directly from a previous ancestor distinct from them. This is a different topic in this thread though.

What do you mean by "absolutes"? There are none that I am aware of.

By the way, the only evidence that counts in a scientific debate is scientific evidence. And there does not appear to be any for creationism, while there is endless evidence for evolution. Understanding the concept is a must if one wants to discuss the sciences.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Where there is any to observe the universe far from us and much closer to the limit of our observable universe, in a place itself having more space rapidly between there and here, there is observation possible further beyond our observable universe, in that sense there is no absolutely causally isolated regions. So it could be possible they would see as far as to where another observer is beyond our observable universe, and that other observer could see further beyond that first other observer's observable universe, and it could go on further.

It makes no difference whether observers are interposed, or how many - once two regions of space are receding from each other at greater than the speed of light they are causally isolated, i.e. no signal can pass between them. Signals (e.g. light) can pass between observers between two such regions, but a signal originating in one region can never catch up with a region receding from it at > c (also note that any observers are also receding from each other).

I mean what is said to be predicted is what comes from the initial inflation that is thought to explain this universe, such that others might come from what became this universe. But those would not be universes already distinct from their origin. So if there are only these other universes from the same initial inflation of this universe there is the same need of explanation as there already is for this universe, which came about with exactly the right parameters for this.

The inflationary hypothesis is attractive because it resolves several different cosmological puzzles, but as yet there is no direct evidence for it - I've heard cosmologists say they give it a 50% to 70% chance of being right. It generates 'pocket' universes continually as its 'false vacuum' state decays into a lower energy state at random points. Each such pocket universe has its own configuration of parameters (within the limits of quantum theory), so many kinds of possible universes can result. Some (probably small) percentage of these will be similar to our own, with the potential for life as we know it. In the Eternal Inflation model, an infinite number of pocket universes will be produced.

But the inflationary multiverse is only one of a variety of multiverses of different types - several of which can exist concurrently. The multiverse of the 'Many Worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics is another well-known example. Wikipedia outlines some of the variations.

 

[FredVB]

What do you mean by "absolutes"? There are none that I am aware of.

By the way, the only evidence that counts in a scientific debate is scientific evidence. And there does not appear to be any for creationism, while there is endless evidence for evolution. Understanding the concept is a must if one wants to discuss the sciences.

Knowing the real truth of reality is an absolute. There are no steps possible for evolving from natural processes to that.

I am not claiming here to know of evidences of creation. If the Creator created all other existence, as I think, I can just speak of the logic of that, as I do not know there can be investigation with science to show that, any more than you would. Rather, scientific claims for everything coming from processes can be questioned, as I think I can here. If there are shortcomings with that, that can be noted.

It makes no difference whether observers are interposed, or how many - once two regions of space are receding from each other at greater than the speed of light they are causally isolated, i.e. no signal can pass between them. Signals (e.g. light) can pass between observers between two such regions, but a signal originating in one region can never catch up with a region receding from it at > c (also note that any observers are also receding from each other).

The inflationary hypothesis is attractive because it resolves several different cosmological puzzles, but as yet there is no direct evidence for it - I've heard cosmologists say they give it a 50% to 70% chance of being right. It generates 'pocket' universes continually as its 'false vacuum' state decays into a lower energy state at random points. Each such pocket universe has its own configuration of parameters (within the limits of quantum theory), so many kinds of possible universes can result. Some (probably small) percentage of these will be similar to our own, with the potential for life as we know it. In the Eternal Inflation model, an infinite number of pocket universes will be produced.

But the inflationary multiverse is only one of a variety of multiverses of different types - several of which can exist concurrently. The multiverse of the 'Many Worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics is another well-known example. Wikipedia outlines some of the variations.

Before going on to more thorough consideration of various ideas, I first of all want to question what it is you envision for causally isolated regions of the universe. Is each causally isolated region, such as our observable universe, thought of as a sphere? This idea would also mean we consider our place special, as being so close to the center of the observable universe that we cannot discern at all with any measurement there being more of it on one side than the other. That view you describe shows there could be observors on one side nearer the edge of the observable universe, with not as much for them to observe on the side further away from us. That is not what I ever read about that. My question to still ask, if the causally isolated regions of the universe are distinct spheres isolated from one another, what is there of the universe between those causally isolated regions, which are spheres and would leave spaces between them? With all that is expanding faster than lightspeed, are those vast spaces inbetween really just empty of anything? What do you envision?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Knowing the real truth of reality is an absolute. There are no steps possible for evolving from natural processes to that.

I am not claiming here to know of evidences of creation. If the Creator created all other existence, as I think, I can just speak of the logic of that, as I do not know there can be investigation with science to show that, any more than you would. Rather, scientific claims for everything coming from processes can be questioned, as I think I can here. If there are shortcomings with that, that can be noted.

That is quite a bit of pointless handwaving. Yes, logically there is a right and wrong answer. So what? There is no way of absolutely knowing that. What we can do is to test ideas and see if they match up with reality or not. The only concept that is not self contradicting is that of evolution by natural causes. We do not even know if a God is possible, much less if one exists. And by "logic" since the Bible is self contradictory it is wrong. If you live by logic you die by logic.

Before going on to more thorough consideration of various ideas, I first of all want to question what it is you envision for causally isolated regions of the universe. Is each causally isolated region, such as our observable universe, thought of as a sphere? This idea would also mean we consider our place special, as being so close to the center of the observable universe that we cannot discern at all with any measurement there being more of it on one side than the other. That view you describe shows there could be observors on one side nearer the edge of the observable universe, with not as much for them to observe on the side further away from us. That is not what I ever read about that. My question to still ask, if the causally isolated regions of the universe are distinct spheres isolated from one another, what is there of the universe between those causally isolated regions, which are spheres and would leave spaces between them? With all that is expanding faster than lightspeed, are those vast spaces inbetween really just empty of anything? What do you envision?

This is again pointless handwaving. Please try to make addressable points. All we can say about regions beyond the light speed barrier is that we do not know what is going on there, but there is no reason to assume that physical laws are any different in those areas of the universe.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...Is each causally isolated region, such as our observable universe, thought of as a sphere? This idea would also mean we consider our place special, as being so close to the center of the observable universe that we cannot discern at all with any measurement there being more of it on one side than the other.

It can be any shape, as long as it is outside the future light cone of the other region in question. Spherical volumes are often used for ease of calculations. We are inevitably at the centre of the observable universe, since our observations are limited to the same distance in all directions.

In the standard model of cosmology, there is no unique centre of the universe, but since the metric of space is expanding, an observer anywhere will see galaxies moving away from her in all directions at speeds proportional to their distance from her; so every observer will appear to be at the centre of expansion.

That view you describe shows there could be observors on one side nearer the edge of the observable universe, with not as much for them to observe on the side further away from us. That is not what I ever read about that.

No, that's not what it describes. Space itself is expanding. The edge of the observable universe is simply the furthest a particular observer can see; it's not really an edge, any more than the horizon is an edge. Each observer has their own observable volume (though, of course, they can overlap).

My question to still ask, if the causally isolated regions of the universe are distinct spheres isolated from one another, what is there of the universe between those causally isolated regions, which are spheres and would leave spaces between them? With all that is expanding faster than lightspeed, are those vast spaces inbetween really just empty of anything? What do you envision?

All of space is expanding at the same rate (pretty slowly), but since each parsec is expanding by the same amount per second, the more parsecs between you and the target, the faster it is receding from you.

Causally isolated volumes are simply regions that can never interact because they are too far apart and moving away from each other too fast. They're just arbitrary volumes - you can consider spherical volumes if it suits you, or not, as the case may be.

The gravity of galaxies (and even clusters of galaxies) can hold them together against the expansion, but the space between them contains very small amounts of gas and dust that will become increasingly tenuous over time - for all intents and purposes, it's empty.

 

[Ophiolite]

It can be any shape, as long as it is outside the future light cone of the other region in question. Spherical volumes are often used for ease of calculations. We are inevitably at the centre of the observable universe, since our observations are limited to the same distance in all directions.

In the standard model of cosmology, there is no unique centre of the universe, but since the metric of space is expanding, an observer anywhere will see galaxies moving away from her in all directions at speeds proportional to their distance from her; so every observer will appear to be at the centre of expansion.

No, that's not what it describes. Space itself is expanding. The edge of the observable universe is simply the furthest a particular observer can see; it's not really an edge, any more than the horizon is an edge. Each observer has their own observable volume (though, of course, they can overlap).

All of space is expanding at the same rate (pretty slowly), but since each parsec is expanding by the same amount per second, the more parsecs between you and the target, the faster it is receding from you.

Causally isolated volumes are simply regions that can never interact because they are too far apart and moving away from each other too fast. They're just arbitrary volumes - you can consider spherical volumes if it suits you, or not, as the case may be.

The gravity of galaxies (and even clusters of galaxies) can hold them together against the expansion, but the space between them contains very small amounts of gas and dust that will become increasingly tenuous over time - for all intents and purposes, it's empty.

I thought this was an excellent post, combining simplicity with accuracy to produce a clear description of those aspects of current cosmological theory that are troubling @FredVB . One hopes this will allow any remaining doubts he has to be based upon facts and not distorted, or flawed perceptions of the theory.

 

[Kylie]

It can be any shape, as long as it is outside the future light cone of the other region in question. Spherical volumes are often used for ease of calculations. We are inevitably at the centre of the observable universe, since our observations are limited to the same distance in all directions.

In the standard model of cosmology, there is no unique centre of the universe, but since the metric of space is expanding, an observer anywhere will see galaxies moving away from her in all directions at speeds proportional to their distance from her; so every observer will appear to be at the centre of expansion.

No, that's not what it describes. Space itself is expanding. The edge of the observable universe is simply the furthest a particular observer can see; it's not really an edge, any more than the horizon is an edge. Each observer has their own observable volume (though, of course, they can overlap).

All of space is expanding at the same rate (pretty slowly), but since each parsec is expanding by the same amount per second, the more parsecs between you and the target, the faster it is receding from you.

Causally isolated volumes are simply regions that can never interact because they are too far apart and moving away from each other too fast. They're just arbitrary volumes - you can consider spherical volumes if it suits you, or not, as the case may be.

The gravity of galaxies (and even clusters of galaxies) can hold them together against the expansion, but the space between them contains very small amounts of gas and dust that will become increasingly tenuous over time - for all intents and purposes, it's empty.

Wonderful and clear explanation!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I thought this was an excellent post, combining simplicity with accuracy to produce a clear description of those aspects of current cosmological theory that are troubling @FredVB . One hopes this will allow any remaining doubts he has to be based upon facts and not distorted, or flawed perceptions of the theory.

Thanks - the years of practice on this and other forums must be paying off!

I hope someone finds it helpful...

 

[FredVB]

That is quite a bit of pointless handwaving.
This is again pointless handwaving.

Huh?

We do not even know if a God is possible, much less if one exists. And by "logic" since the Bible is self contradictory it is wrong.

You may certainly not know whether God is possible. My perspective is not knowing how God is not possible. There is necessary existence that is something. We are aware, with our awareness. That there is awareness, of real reality, communicates that there was always awareness. That awareness then is characteristic of the necessary existence.

I am not needing the Bible to argue for this.

All we can say about regions beyond the light speed barrier is that we do not know what is going on there, but there is no reason to assume that physical laws are any different in those areas of the universe.

This was not addressing any of what I was talking about. I don't disagree with these things.

It can be any shape, as long as it is outside the future light cone of the other region in question. Spherical volumes are often used for ease of calculations. We are inevitably at the centre of the observable universe, since our observations are limited to the same distance in all directions.

In the standard model of cosmology, there is no unique centre of the universe, but since the metric of space is expanding, an observer anywhere will see galaxies moving away from her in all directions at speeds proportional to their distance from her; so every observer will appear to be at the centre of expansion.

No, that's not what it describes. Space itself is expanding. The edge of the observable universe is simply the furthest a particular observer can see; it's not really an edge, any more than the horizon is an edge. Each observer has their own observable volume (though, of course, they can overlap).

All of space is expanding at the same rate (pretty slowly), but since each parsec is expanding by the same amount per second, the more parsecs between you and the target, the faster it is receding from you.

Causally isolated volumes are simply regions that can never interact because they are too far apart and moving away from each other too fast. They're just arbitrary volumes - you can consider spherical volumes if it suits you, or not, as the case may be.

The gravity of galaxies (and even clusters of galaxies) can hold them together against the expansion, but the space between them contains very small amounts of gas and dust that will become increasingly tenuous over time - for all intents and purposes, it's empty.

Thanks, that was actually more helpful for me to understand. Maybe I can still ask questions. So any observer anywhere in our own observable universe would have the similar perspective which looks like being at the center of all the observable universe. Do those observers have the same observable universe accessable to observation with the same limits that we do here, even if those observers are at the limit of our observable universe, the edge for us? Even if we see nothing further on beyond where they would be, they would see the same observable universe we do to the same limit, with all that is in the same observable universe, while they have the perspective of being in the center, with more seen further off in the other direction, but we see those not further off, with where those observers are at the edge still. How does this work?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So any observer anywhere in our own observable universe would have the similar perspective which looks like being at the center of all the observable universe. Do those observers have the same observable universe accessable to observation with the same limits that we do here, even if those observers are at the limit of our observable universe, the edge for us? Even if we see nothing further on beyond where they would be, they would see the same observable universe we do to the same limit, with all that is in the same observable universe, while they have the perspective of being in the center, with more seen further off in the other direction, but we see those not further off, with where those observers are at the edge still. How does this work?

I'm sorry, I thought I'd explained that - there isn't really an edge to our observable universe - it's just a name for everything, as far as we can see; there's a limit to how far we can see, and there's stuff further out that we can't see. It's analogous to the horizon on Earth; wherever you are on the surface (assuming a smooth Earth), the horizon is (approximately) the same distance away in every direction, but there's plenty more we can't see.

Someone at the limit of visibility is (just) within your observable universe and vice-versa, but your two observable universes (i.e. what you can each see) only partly overlap, like a Venn diagram (they intersect by the volume of two spheres of the same size whose centres are one radius apart). So you can't see further than them because they're at your limit of visibility, and they can't see further than you because you're at the limit of their visibility. So each of you can't see most of what the other can see.

Is that what you meant?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I was rushing with the post I did and am sorry that I posted it with not remembering to mention, I simply looked up multiverse, that any might do, and found information in Wikipedia that I copied for this, I don't know who composed that though. But scientists are named who are quoted. I certainly understood it, it shows what I would say, and there is not conclusively compelling basis to say there is a multiverse of many universes.

It is actually philosophical speculation. Right, it shouldn't be used for that. But I still have had to hear it being used.

As Larry Krauss once said- if your theory requires an invisible infinite probability machine- it's not entirely clear that you even have a theory.

The multiverse was always going to be the last resort as an alternative to an intelligent creator, after static/ eternal/ steady state, big crunch models all became defunct- based on observable evidence. The multiverse avoids any possibility of this inconvenience.

Evolution from natural processes and environmental pressure does not explain adapting with far greater capacity than what is useful for surviving better than others. There is not basis for trusting capacity for knowing any truth of all reality from that.

It's a good point, a mechanism with no preferred outcome, would be perfectly 'happy' with a world full of bacteria- or nothing at all. But we ended up with a means by which the universe can ponder it's own existence.. I would agree, this suggests goals that extend a little further!