posted 21 May 2003 09:22 PM
profile
quote:
How would they measure that if they can't "see" the entire universe and/or get outside of it, to be an observer?
Probably the same way they got into the habit of talking about "the universe" beginning with a Big Bang that can really only be said to involve this part of it.
How could anyone assume that what we can observe is all there is? Why would anyone even want to? But I guess it's common to talk loosely about "the universe" as referring just to all observable matter. Maybe that's the context in which the 4.5 hz figure evolved. The idea of having to be outside of something to be conscious of it is an interesting axiom in some philosophies.
The article on Brane theory is interesting. It brings to mind a lecture I attended a few years ago by an astronomer from Chicago. I don't remember exactly what the theme of the lecture was, but the Q&A period got around to the usual question about the One Time-Only Big Bang:
"If 'The Universe,' along with all time and differentiation began from a tiny point, how is it possible to envision an explosion happening without some pre-existing instability or outside influence?"
As I recall, this astronomer was honest enough to say that we really know absolutely or almost nothing about what "things were like" prior to whatever the tiny part of one second after the Bang is that they've traced the different forces back to. According to this particular guy, even a sort of "creationist" model could still be plausible. Since our entire frame of reference would cease to exist back further than a certain point, who can say?
It reminds of a particular quote that has been made about the limitations on our understanding:
The analogy was made of two dogs deciding that Euclidean Geometry didn't exist, because it wouldn't submit to the "sniff test."
And then there is the idea (more popular in the East) that there always is a unified substratum of being that underlies all form. This substratum would theoretically exist regardless of what happened on the material level, and was the same before The Bang as it is today. That's something that most scientists don't want to talk about, although I would imagine that David Bohm has, as well as a few of the popular authors.
I'm really not as up on modern science as I'd like to be. It's nice to take things this far out once in awhile.
Are we atonal yet, or beyond that back into harmony? [This message was edited by Jeff A. Smith on 21 May 2003 at 09:27 PM.]
[This message was edited by Jeff A. Smith on 21 May 2003 at 09:31 PM.]