Science develops models, abstract representations that we believe mirror the reality. At the same time history shows that the models always end up being shown to be invalid and so the search for a better model begins.

No model can account for the presence of the universe because science deals with how systems change over time, but until there is a system that exists, science has no role to play.

It seems to me that naturalism (material causality) cannot account for the presence of this universe and its laws, there must be some other explanation like "In the beginning God created" or something. Some say "that's not much of an explanation" but it is, it tells us that naturalism didn't create the universe something more profound did, something that is not reductionist, not causal, not deterministic.

Yes a higher entity. This leads me to think that everyone believes in "God" even if they don't yet realize it. That's if you allow the definition of God to include some sort of alien or aliens of a higher intelligence that has achieved a very high class of material/energy manipulation.
To ask where that entity or entities came from is not reasonable if you assume that that entity or entities always existed, which is something else hard for us to fathom.

What else is interesting is the so-called block universe that contains everything that ever happened and I guess ever will happen.

 

It seems to me that our ability to conceptualise and model is limited by our minds having been shaped by natural selection in a specific physical environment. When we attempt to conceptualise things that deviate significantly from the limits of our minds (eg the very small and the very large) we are reduced to either - using the coherence of mathematical models (so avoiding true conceptual understanding), or - postulating a higher entity that is in charge (handing the problem to some being more intelligent).

Hi,

Yes, it's like we are looking though a partially opaque window, like fogged up. We can only see so well and that's it. We have to guess at a lot of stuff that may lie behind the glass.

 

It seems to me that our ability to conceptualise and model is limited by our minds having been shaped by natural selection in a specific physical environment. When we attempt to conceptualise things that deviate significantly from the limits of our minds (eg the very small and the very large) we are reduced to either - using the coherence of mathematical models (so avoiding true conceptual understanding), or - postulating a higher entity that is in charge (handing the problem to some being more intelligent).

Well "handing the problem" is right when the current methodology cannot be used. Science is incapable of explaining the presence of the universe. This isn't a matter of "not yet" either. We know that the square root of two has infinite digits, yes we could experiment for years looking for an expansion that doesn't, but we happen to know that that's a waste of time.

Same thing here, a methodology that presumes laws, matter, fields cannot be used to explain those presumed things.

 

This isn't a matter of "not yet" either. We know that the square root of two has infinite digits, yes we could experiment for years looking for an expansion that doesn't, but we happen to know that that's a waste of time.

Interesting take: it'll take infinite time to discover that last digit at the end of the universe.

Like my wife, the Universe is irrational.

 

Well "handing the problem" is right when the current methodology cannot be used. Science is incapable of explaining the presence of the universe. This isn't a matter of "not yet" either. We know that the square root of two has infinite digits, yes we could experiment for years looking for an expansion that doesn't, but we happen to know that that's a waste of time.

Same thing here, a methodology that presumes laws, matter, fields cannot be used to explain those presumed things.

I've heard it said once that we only need to know the things that allow us to calculate everything we need to calculate. If we don't actually have a need to calculate the age of the universe or something else, then it won't matter if we can't. I'm not sure if we do have to calculate the age of the universe for any good reason or not. I guess it will always be a curiosity for many though.

 

Hello again,

I realized that the question of how big the universe is happens to be a very hard question to answer because there are multiple ways to interpret what we mean by "the universe".
Some interpretations:
The observable 'now' universe.
The observable 'then' universe.
The 'greater' universe.

We seem to have the first two sort of well in hand. If we can observe it now it makes sense we can measure it, and if we observe it now and it slips farther away we saw it then and measured it then and can now calculate where it will be in the future, but we'll never see it again. Also, these are sort of smooth, well-defined measurements.

Now we get to the third one. This one is what is out there past the second one. This is too hard to figure out because we don't really know how it evolves that far out. The way I understand it is that it probably does not expand the same way the first two do. Parts of it could expand faster than other parts, and some parts may stop expanding for a while and then start up again later. This means it would look like a very strange shape with parts sticking out in different places. It could look like a broccoli crown, that's how strange it could be. Not only that, but each part of it could have different physics than we have here, and there would be places that act like barriers that divide the regions up. If you were to cross one barrier you would enter a part that had different physics so you would be destroyed along with anything you brought with you like a cell phone.

It's impossible to grasp what could actually be taking place way out there except we know it would be very different than it is here.

 

It's impossible to grasp what could actually be taking place way out there except we know it would be very different than it is here.

At universal scale, things may be pretty much a uniform distribution. A much bigger version of the near perfect smoothness of the earth's surface viewed globally.

It seem likely that as in all things, context determines significance and as you reduce locality you probably reduce "features" leaving only whatever the fabric of spacetime is.

 

At universal scale, things may be pretty much a uniform distribution. A much bigger version of the near perfect smoothness of the earth's surface viewed globally.

It seem likely that as in all things, context determines significance and as you reduce locality you probably reduce "features" leaving only whatever the fabric of spacetime is.

Hi there,

Yes, and I was trying to think about what those features could be.
One of the interesting things is that in the theory of inflation, the part that 'inflated' could still be out there and still inflating. Since it might be active at different rates depending on the region, we might see that broccoli structure if we could see it from outside the universe that is.
I don't think anything is going to be definitive though because we can't measure anything that far out. It's interesting to think about sometimes though. It's almost like a weather system.

 

https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2025/09/hungry-star-is-eating-its-cosmic-twin.page
Hungry star is eating its cosmic twin at rate never seen before

A greedy white dwarf star not far from Earth is devouring its closest celestial companion at a rate never seen before, space scientists have discovered.

Their study found the double star, named V Sagittae, is burning unusually bright as the super-dense white dwarf is gorging on its larger twin in a feeding frenzy.
Experts think the stars are locked in an extraterrestrial tango as they orbit each other every 12.3 hours, gradually pulling each other closer.
They say it could cause a massive explosion so bright it would be seen by the naked eye from Earth, some 10,000 lightyears away.

 

Physicists Predict When The Universe Will End in a Reverse Big Bang

​

However, in about 11 billion years, the axion's push will weaken sufficiently that the pull of negative λ will take over, bringing the Universe's outward expansion to a standstill at a maximum size of about 1.7 times its current size. Then, the Universe will start to contract again – whooshing down to a Big Crunch in just 8 billion years.

 

Physicists Predict When The Universe Will End in a Reverse Big Bang
View attachment 357023​

Nope. No good.

I've already made plans for that week.

 

You don't have to cancel your plans. All you have to do is adjust them a little. Instead of a blast you're gonna have a crunch!

 

Physicists Predict When The Universe Will End in a Reverse Big Bang
View attachment 357023​

Hi there,

If this is like many of the other 'predictions' they have been making in recent years, I have a feeling it will only end for them not for the rest of us.
Enough said

I posted this and then read it over for typos and now I realize the truth: They see the end of physics on the horizon, so they are trying to shift to a new career by very quickly becoming comedians.

 

I honestly think that "the end of physics" is still far beyond the horizon. There are simply too many anomalies yet to be explained, and quite a few paradoxical predictions by our current theories inconsistent with observation and reality.

The current problem imho, is rather the arrogance shown by a lot of scientists that have entrenched themselves in their own perspectives.

 

The current problem imho, is rather the arrogance shown by a lot of scientists that have entrenched themselves in their own perspectives.

That's silly.

There is an old definition for 'expert': someone who knows more and more about less and less until he knows everything about nothing.

That was meant to be critical of specialization. But, in reality, it is such single-track focus over years of effort from which all the important discoveries arise.

Yes, 1,000 scientists might be wrong (and all that time and energy "wasted"), but, eventually, one gets it right.

Those men's names are honored and remembered forever.

 

Yes, 1,000 scientists might be wrong (and all that time and energy "wasted"), but, eventually, one gets it right.

yes that's more or less what I was trying to say ... that's why I said "a lot", and not "all" of them ... to paraphrase Max Plank: "Science progresses one funeral at a time"

 

 

yes that's more or less what I was trying to say ... that's why I said "a lot", and not "all" of them ... to paraphrase Max Plank: "Science progresses one funeral at a time"

Hi,

Hey that's a pretty cool quote. Don't think I have ever heard that one before now. It's unfortunately so true, at least until the last red dwarf star burns out.

 

https://phys.org/news/2025-10-mathematical-proof-debunks-idea-universe.html
Mathematical proof debunks the idea that the universe is a computer simulation

Dr. Mir Faizal, Adjunct Professor with UBC Okanagan's Irving K. Barber Faculty of Science, and his international colleagues, Drs. Lawrence M. Krauss, Arshid Shabir and Francesco Marino have shown that the fundamental nature of reality operates in a way that no computer could ever simulate.

Their findings, published in the Journal of Holography Applications in Physics, go beyond simply suggesting that we're not living in a simulated world like The Matrix. They prove something far more profound: the universe is built on a type of understanding that exists beyond the reach of any algorithm.
...
Co-author Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss says this research has profound implications. "The fundamental laws of physics cannot be contained within space and time, because they generate them. It has long been hoped, however, that a truly fundamental theory of everything could eventually describe all physical phenomena through computations grounded in these laws. Yet we have demonstrated that this is not possible. A complete and consistent description of reality requires something deeper—a form of understanding known as non-algorithmic understanding."

I suspect that human intelligence is also non-algorithmic.

 

https://phys.org/news/2025-10-mathematical-proof-debunks-idea-universe.html
Mathematical proof debunks the idea that the universe is a computer simulation


I suspect that human intelligence is also non-algorithmic.

Today's cutting-edge theory—quantum gravity—suggests that even space and time aren't fundamental. They emerge from something deeper: pure information.

This information exists in what physicists call a Platonic realm—a mathematical foundation more real than the physical universe we experience. It's from this realm that space and time themselves emerge.

This is simply mind-blowing ...