quote:

---

Originally posted by karl

As the Universe expands space is stretched flat and becomes perfectly symmetrical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CarsonZi

Hey Karl....

quote:

---

Originally posted by karl

As the Universe expands space is stretched flat and becomes perfectly symmetrical.

---

I have not read the book, but I am currently doing a lot of reading on "super-symmetry". According to all accounts I have read by people like Steven Hawking and the likes indicate that only in the moments BEFORE the "big bang" was there any symmetry in the Universe. In fact, as I understand it, if there WAS symmetry in the Universe nothing would exist. It is only because there ISN'T symmetry anymore that existance is even possible. The way I have understood what I have read is that before the Big Bang, all forces were combined into a "superforce". Meaning that fission, fusion, electromagnetic energy and gravity, the four forces at work in our Universe, were all one before the big bang. But after the big bang they split into their respective forces. But the fact is, that gravity afterwards is not at equal force compared to the other three. The other three forces all stayed about the same strength while gravity dropped in its strength....if this had not happened we would not exist. Nothing would exist. If symmetry in the Universe existed, there would be no gravity. If you take all the particles in the known Universe and bring them all back together like they were just after the big bang, you would see that there is NOT an even distribution between all particles....there is more space here then there. If there was symmetry all the stars would be evenly spaced out etc etc.

Just figured I would put my two cents in since I am currently reading up on a similar subject.

Love,
Carson

---

quote:

---

[P]hysics demands causes, and the will is never a cause. Its whole relation to the phenomenon is not in accordance with the principle of sufficient reason. But that which in itself is the will exists in another aspect as idea; that is to say, is phenomenon. As such, it obeys the laws which constitute the form of the phenomenon. Every movement, for example, although it is always a manifestation of will, must yet have a cause from which it is to be explained in relation to a particular time and space; that is, not in general in its inner nature, but as a particular phenomenon. In the case of the stone, this is a mechanical cause; in that of the movement of a man, it is a motive; but in no case can it be wanting. On the other hand, the universal common nature of all phenomena of one particular kind, that which must be presupposed if the explanation from causes is to have any sense and meaning, is the general force of nature, which, in physics, must remain a qualitas occulta, because with it the etiological explanation ends and the metaphysical begins. But the chain of causes and effects is never broken by an original force to which it has been necessary to appeal. It does not run back to such a force as if it were its first link, but the nearest link, as well as the remotest, presupposes the original force, and could otherwise explain nothing.
—Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Idea, § 27, p. 182.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by onomatopoios

Astrophysics and metaphysics have always interested me. I must admit I'm a huge nerd in this topic.

Spaceandmotion.com cosmology has a great review of the current Big Bang inspired models of the universe. Here's some Schopenhauer in addition:

quote:

---

[P]hysics demands causes, and the will is never a cause. Its whole relation to the phenomenon is not in accordance with the principle of sufficient reason. But that which in itself is the will exists in another aspect as idea; that is to say, is phenomenon. As such, it obeys the laws which constitute the form of the phenomenon. Every movement, for example, although it is always a manifestation of will, must yet have a cause from which it is to be explained in relation to a particular time and space; that is, not in general in its inner nature, but as a particular phenomenon. In the case of the stone, this is a mechanical cause; in that of the movement of a man, it is a motive; but in no case can it be wanting. On the other hand, the universal common nature of all phenomena of one particular kind, that which must be presupposed if the explanation from causes is to have any sense and meaning, is the general force of nature, which, in physics, must remain a qualitas occulta, because with it the etiological explanation ends and the metaphysical begins. But the chain of causes and effects is never broken by an original force to which it has been necessary to appeal. It does not run back to such a force as if it were its first link, but the nearest link, as well as the remotest, presupposes the original force, and could otherwise explain nothing.
—Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Idea, § 27, p. 182.

---

The problem with the majority of modern theories is that they don't satisfy the principle of sufficient reason: a birth-time singularity would be a causa sui (cause of itself) that is not logically possible. All these spontaneous symmetry changes and Big Bangs sound like the glamorous Hollywood movies with a lot of special effects, but it's really as fantastic as a vehicle running without any source of fuel. But if we suppose an Infinite universe, of which our observed universe is only a infinitesimal portion, then it's clear that such space would've existed infinitely long... always without a beginning or end.

Best of regards!

---