211–220 of 248 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If a Bell inequality is violated, then either locality or realism (or simply "local realism") has also been violated. In other words, it's a violation of classical realism, not a violation of locality.
Why not both? i.e. truly a violation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about 2001 year ago?
The point is, it's an easy question to answer and it was as soon as it was posited. There was never a controversy recorded before this internet forum prank we have. The trope that people in olden times (usually some sort of renaissance/medieval mashup) were stupidly believing Earth had a flat shape has no basis in historical record.
Infinite density, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's nothing new in human experience. If we have flat Earthers now then they absolutely existed back then.
There is no historical record of such controversy. It's an easy question to answer with basic astronomy and geometry. The controversy is a modern manufacture and the cartoon trope of old timey misconceptions about the shape of Earth is not based on evidence. Those in a position to ask the question have always been in a position to reach the obvious answer.
Interesting to note that the idea of the "Big Bounce" has been around a long time. Penrose's claim seems to be that there may be evidence of it in cosmic background radiation hotspots. This was Nietzsche in 1885, musing on how developments in thermodynamics had complicated the mechanistic picture of the universe: > And do you know what "the world" is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: a monster o…
I don’t see what is the alternative. If it’s not cyclic how can there be something from nothing? The only solution is every thing has always existed and there is no such thing as nothing
There are alternative hypotheses like Eternal Inflation, and Blackhole Cosmology. Mathematical Universe hypothesis would have our existence merely be one expression of consistent mathematical laws, all possible variations of which exist in a level 4 multiverse. Or we could just be a Boltzmann Brain that only imagines it is a universe that started with a big bang and real physics are markedly different. It is worth ke…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If a Bell inequality is violated, then either locality or realism (or simply "local realism") has also been violated. In other words, it's a violation of classical realism, not a violation of locality.
Why not both? i.e. truly a violation.
The concept of infinity seems impossible to me in physical world. It's a great mathematical concept to model our understanding. Just like imaginary numbers. I cannot imagine anything being infinite in the physical world. I find the simulation hypothesis more probable than Universe being infinite. Space and Time is not infinite. It may be Gazillions of centuries old, but not infinity. It can't be.
See wikipedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity "Cosmology" section; the key point being The question of being infinite is logically separate from the question of having boundaries.
The concept of infinity seems impossible to me in physical world. It's a great mathematical concept to model our understanding. Just like imaginary numbers. I cannot imagine anything being infinite in the physical world. I find the simulation hypothesis more probable than Universe being infinite. Space and Time is not infinite. It may be Gazillions of centuries old, but not infinity. It can't be.
But it can’t NOT be infinite! If space were three dimensionally finite, then there must be a boundary. But if there were a boundary, then there must be something beyond that boundary. And now we have a paradox that infinitely regresses. Same goes for time. Same goes for distance. How can there be both a finite distance, as well as an infinite number of points between two distinct points? To me, infinity seems to be e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That presumes that the cycle isn't the ground state and something had to start it. Also,i feel there are no satisfactory answers here. See also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover
What you are describing is infinity. For infinite time, this cycle has existed. That concept is easy to say, but very difficult to mentally accept. We’re too accustomed to thinking of time linearly since we’ve never had examples to the contrary.