A fun little article that could've gone either in the Philosophy subforum (maybe even my treatise), or here.

Some of my thoughts:

Looks like a (much needed) paradigm shift in cosmology in imminent.

I've thought for a long time that the "laws" of physics weren't static, but also subject to change. And change seems to be the only constant, though it changes in how it changes, which is a paradox, so...

Maybe some of these paradoxes are "facts of the matter" and not to be solved.

But I don't know, I'm a skeptic

Enjoy

One love

Thanks. I was just wondering about your choice of the word "immanent", meaning "intrinsic" as opposed to "imminent", meaning "about to happen". Maybe both apply

Cosmology makes guesses, seemingly based upon a uniformitarian mindset, about the furthest reaches of time and space. Is this perhaps a step towards accepting just how much of it is essentially unknowable?

Those where exactly my thoughts when i read this.

Some deep gut feeling tells me that the whole process of theory building automatically sets limits to how much information a theory can hold, and that when you try to cramp more stuff in it, you just start ending up with inconsistencies.

Well, I was either high and not paying attention, was high and forgot the distinction, or my phone autocorrected for no reason like it sometimes does when I write "my" and it changes it to "MT."

DF0, I have similar thoughts. Within cosmology, and as the article articulates, there has always been inconsistencies between varied methods of gathering data.

DR, very Godelian.

One love

A few thoughts;

1. I'm not entirely certain, but I think that the Sun being ~5 billion years of age is due to fitting the existance of the Solar Sytem within the Standard Model of Cosmology. I had also seen writing about the fully formed galaxies found with the Webb telescope. What if the Sun is older than has been thought, perhaps old enough so that Planet Earth has already recycled all of her crustal material at least one entire time. Would there be any way to date the age of the Earth?

2. Type 1a supernovas. Type 1a supernovas are said to all be the exact same energy. How is it known that all supernovas which have been said to be type 1a are actually such? What if a supernova was said to be type 1a and in reality was closer to Earth and actually less energetic? Or the reverse? How can such be known, and how would we know we know from one vantige point on Earth?

3. What if red shift is at least somewhat illusory? Perhaps there are yet to be known, or even never to be known properties of our universe, which cause a red shift-like phenomanon.

4. As with with #3, what if there are imposdible to know phenomina which would be required to be known in order to know about the universe to the extent that the standard model had been said to know? In such a case any explaination of the universe would be incomplete at least.

Think of vastness of our universe. In my estimation, it seems at least a bit huberistic to conclude that we've explained almost everything from our one little vantage point. On the other hand, I also think cosmology has done an awesome job at causing people to ponder the universe. Though, hopefully our knowldge horizons will expand with new discoveries.

All of science is predicated on experimentation, observation, inductive reasoning, and interpretation. Everything is subject to change given new information that challenges a standard (as seen in the article). The inductive reasoning aspect is what stands out to me. By definition, inductive reasoning is not 100% valid, but what seems to be the closest approximation to that which is valid. It's not binary, such a deductive reasoning, and so the more inductive steps that are involved in a given conclusion, the more that conclusion moves away from being 100% true.



Shulgin speculated in TIHKAL that the red shift could be a product of time actually speeding up, with newly formed particles moving faster than older ones such that they overtake them in speed and so we see such a redshift. It's kind of the inverse of the commonly held theory.



Possible, but we would never know because we can't observe it Science doesn't explicitly state this, but to sum up, think of science is saying "we have drawn x conclusions due to y observations, and it's the best information we have at the moment." There definitely is a tone of knowing throughout science (particularly physics, and repeatability in some contexts seems to be very (to me, loosely, but still understandably) reliable, so...), but that's an epistemic matter.

There may be somethings that based on our state and the nature of existence on the whole that we may never know. That won't stop us as beings from attempting to though.

One love

The original article is a paywall for me.

For me too. But I found it here: https://dnyuz.com/2023/09/02/the-story-of-our-universe-may-be-starting-to-unravel/

Thanks!

I believe primordial black holes have been proposed as an explanation for the early galaxies. They may also explain dark matter.

As for the hubble constant issues, I think the proffesionals are leaning towards the microwave background being accurate, and the discrepancies from stellar observations coming from hard to track systematic errors. I believe richer stellar observations are being done to clarify the situation.

There is another way to think about it all. One that entices me more than listening to whichever physicist is flavour of the decade explain how they have nearly worked it all out, again.

That is that we create new phenomena by theorizing about them. Black holes were predicted, then found. Neutron stars, predicted, then found. Other galaxies, predicted, then found. Higgs boson, predicted, then found. We could list a whole thread of these even just with physics and cosmology.

If consciousness precedes matter then it would be a small ask to accept that we manifest all of creation just by thinking it up. The current state of physics has far more gaping holes and place holders as an idea.


The great joke at the end of modern science will be when we realise we are biting our own tail.

Mmmm, idk.

I mean what's the limit to this creative ability? Are you saying that the human existed before its environment? I don't think that's how consciousness preceding matter works.

Also, why do we get to dictate the universe. We speculated about black holes and then found them. According to your argument, we pretty much dictated that they exist for the whole of the universe. Well, what about other species that also think? How would we decide what mind created what phenomena? It seems much more probable that we noticed a phenomena, theorized, tested, speculated about the holes, and then, sometimes, are able to confirm those speculations.

One love

In a limitless universe there would be no limit. Not that the human existed before matter, that consciousness did.



Because we as the collective conciousness are the universe? The deep possible curve ball there is that none of it actually exists, just a clever illusion.



Not exactly my way of thinking about this one but let's say ok. Why would that be a problem in a limitless material realm that only exists because we were so bored of the eternal void?




A few ways to think about that. One is that they don't exist as they are a figment of our creation. Another is the limitless space solution. If the playground is infinite/illusory then everyone can manifest to their heart's content.

Finally, nothing about modern physics seems probable to me any more. Doesn't it strike anyone else as strange that a hairless monkey (that cannot even learn to stop killing each other) has managed to predict so many wildly unlikely scenarios that turn out to be 'true'?

Seems far more likely that we are having a right old laugh at ourself. Us, the one conciousness, enjoys running ourself around in circles. The next smallest particle, the next smallest particle, got to find the next smallest particle. Keep going ever deeper until we realise we were biting our own tail.

Because the endless void was just so mind numbingly boring.

Um... there can be limits within something that is limitless... and typically, there are...

Otherwise, I'm not sure I should respond as it seems you're having a personal gripe with science and my response would only inflame a likely pointless and unfulfilling debate.

One love

Perhaps a little bit off the mark with regard to my personal feelings my friend.

I have no gripe with science. Only to say that many fundamental place holders, some from over 100 years ago, when removed, bring the whole house of cards down in certain areas of traditional physics. The math involved only adds up when the frabricated equational place holder is allowed to remain.

I offer an idea forward in an appropriate thread about the story of creation, nothing more. That conciousness came before matter and thus all matter is an illusion. If that sticks then it is possible that we manifest black holes in an otherwise empty void simply by thinking they exist and trying to observe them.

When you take into account the insanity of the double slit experiment, quantum entanglement and the observer effect... it is really not a huge stretch to imagine the idea as plausable.

In the most simple terms: there was no universe until we started looking for it (not just the human 'we' )

Well, I appreciate you sharing, brother.

One love