André, we are very much in agreement, and I like that we are discussing various details that help us both move forward.
I am trying to be very careful with the words that I am using; it is so easy to not say it right.
"To say that the Universe began X years ago can have no meaning."
Absolutely, because the Big Bang was a transformation process of (some) energy becoming matter. That means that the prior state of the universe is not telling us when it started. We do not have any data about time, space, or energy’s first appearance. We know the material event, the outcome, but that is it. With that information, however, it is possible to grasp some more about the prior state through investigating the results, but it is not possible to grasp all about the prior state.
Like a police officer arriving at a car accident in which no one survived, we should not say that we have no evidence because the folks involved are all dead, so there is no one to corroborate what we are concluding. In reality, we do have the outcome, and the outcomes do tell us their own stories. We should not throw these babies out with the bathwater.
--
"Sure, we can say something accurate about "the cosmos", but to say, anything really, about the universe is illogical."
This needs to be worked out better. It is too generic of a statement, though I tend to agree with the general sentiment. There is more that can be explored, so I'd like to investigate this further.
The examples I provided, of 'blue' from the color book and the periodic table as universal truths, was meant to show that there are possibilities to 'stand on the universe' for real. Nevertheless, these are all specific ways of viewing the reality we live in.
We should, for instance, not undermine the idea that we are here. That means the material outcomes of the universe are here indeed. There is a truth there.
Nor should we undermine the reality of matter that it is always on the move. Obviously, the prior energized state of the universe created a catapulting event for energy/matter, and we are still on that ride (forever).
Another aspect is the subatomic reality, because we have the positive charges of the protons, the negative charges of the electrons, and their existing in the exact same numbers. Obviously, one is the source (proton) and the other the reaction (electron). On top of that, the charges do not annihilate each other, so they are not really inside the same state. They can interact (beta decay), but that only indicates how there can be a split toward different states.
Somehow, the universe demands a balanced outcome, and that means once more that we do have the ability to state something truthful about the universe.
Based on the three options of negative, neutral, and positive truths, we find once more a neutral truth. Charge-wise, the universe is a neutral state. Note how this does not indicate that the universe itself is functional. I said nothing functional, but I did capture a truth.
--
One of the things I keep in mind, and this goes back to intuitive mathematicians like L.E.J. Brouwer, is that there is a third way where folks may think a third way is not available.
When I hold a rock in my hand, it is silly to divide the universe into male and female because the rock is not going to care either way. The rock is the third gender, if you allow me to make this joke. Rejecting the third way is silly because the brain is of course not capable of capturing reality with just a pair of opposites.
Sure, everything in the universe is either coffee or not-coffee, but there is nothing substantive in that obvious truth. Oppositional pairs are therefore not where we find an absolute truth, except about how our brain likes to organize things in convenient (short-cut) ways.
--
All systems are not based on any other system than the systems themselves.
The confusing part is how systems can have gray areas that show a real truth in multiple systems. Yet that is where we have to pay close attention. We should not meld our two eyes into one eye simply because we have one vision. We need the two eyes to be two eyes. We must express the context correctly, and fit in the contents in that special setting.
I do think we are fully aligned here, correct?
--
Truths about the prior state of the universe are harder to grasp. Yet we do know for 100% that it was possible for it to end up producing the known results.
From the example of the broken toy, we can see something important:
1. Nothing of the toy was lost. The entire (energy of the) toy is still there. It's just in tatters now.
2. The special trick that the toy could perform is now lost. It will never return. It's gone, while none of the energy of the toy is gone.
Keep that in mind. The prior state is not the present state, and the present state does not exclude the prior state to have been more in some kind of context.
Looking at the prior state of the universe, using words that would make sense to us, one can state that the prior state was collective in essence.
Like a group deciding to all walk into a different direction and to not-change course, the group basically disbanded itself. The group decided that the group would cease to exist.
Same with the material view on the universe, all this matter 'walking' into its own direction, not going to turn around. The prior state is what we would call collective. It broke apart into non-collective directions, and then nevertheless formed new (smaller) collectives of matter/energy.
So, there is another truth about matter.
Given the opportunity, matter likes to band together.
In our universe, the opportunity to return to the prior state is not available. The human brain can think it is, but that is then not based on science but on desired thinking how all should be one. Matter follows the first law of physics; it does not follow the human mind’s directions.
--
André, I think we are on a very good track. We are helping each other see the bigger picture, acknowledging that there are aspects that we cannot know.
I can look at the prior state, but I cannot see how that prior state began. Based on the outcome, there is quite the information there about how the prior state ended up collapsing itself. There isn't much more to say than the ending of the prior state.
That is, with one exception. It is possible to propose (!) that the prior state was not the original state either. Don’t worry, that is the furthest out, inside the prior state of the universe, that one can propose to go, based on the known outcomes.
Thank you, sir. I really appreciate your replies.
