0

Taking time as a fourth dimension is due to Einstein because of the speed of light being fixed. But why should such a finding have so important consequence on our philosophical contemplation of existence? I think philosophical questions are generally deeper than such scientific contingencies.

Let me explain my point: Suppose that we came to discover a new mean of communication other than light, and suppose we can detect it and make calculations about it by our devices, much as we do of light, etc... Suppose that this physical object travels at a very imaginary speed, like for example can traverse the whole width of our universe is a negligible fraction of a nanosecond. Would that brings us back to the older model of having absolute space and time? by then we can map all of what is existing NOW in the universe, which would be a very different map from what we are seeing depending on light.

On the other hand, if we depend on light for our information, then light having a fixed speed, would raise doubt of deficient information! Let me explain: for example what our devices are detecting is what reached us of electromagnetic radiation from the parts of the universe that are so near to us as to make this reach possible. But there still can be the case that there are some parts of the universe like stars light from which didn't yet reach us! Accordingly what we are seeing like the big bang, the expanding universe, etc.., could be just a pocket of the universe that is within our reach, and it might be just a small territory in a vastly bigger universe that we cannot visualize because light from it didn't reach us yet. I mean the domain of place and time would be bigger than the observed universe. Is there a scientific argument that falsifies the existence of such external universe? that could even be eternal? having fixed rules, in which change only occurs on matters inside it (like our observed universe).

My question is: is the observed information that science is speaking about the universe enough to settle old philosophical questions about eternity or non-eternity of existence as a whole? Or should metaphysics settle such a question?

  • 1
    The problem with humans.. is.that they can imagine things that don't exist.. like infinity.. or pink unicorns that fart rainbows. Science... was foundered to determine what is real and what is not. It turns out.. that a lot of things we can imagine are real problems in metaphysics... are simply the secular equivelent of asking how many angels.can dance on the head of a pin. – Richard Feb 24 at 23:48
  • @Richard, yes you might be right, but here the question why should we believe that what we are seeing is necessarily the whole picture? it might not, especially speech about an expanding space-time complex, this seems to be incoherent, if space itself is expanding, its expanding where, in ordinary life we describe expansion of objects and we need those objects to be in space to expand, same to be said of having a beginning this is of events but there is time before them, the usual description of scientists seems to imply that both there is a space beyond space and time before and after time? – Zuhair Feb 25 at 4:59
  • No observed information can settle philosophical questions, and metaphysics has been unable to settle any questions since its inception, as already Kant pointed out. Our universe "could be" anything, we could all be stuck in a Matrix, or fooled by an evil demon. Such questions are idle and unanswerable without some specific context for handling them, we generally try to avoid entertaining pure speculations on this site. – Conifold Feb 25 at 5:47
  • There's something a bit off in this question relating to how exactly you're critiquing c and the BB. c in relativity doesn't really have to do with light per se; it has to do with space-time itself. Likewise, the BB doesn't as is commonly suggested say that the universe had a beginning, or that what we see is all there is; rather, it simply projects that all of the observable universe we do see was concentrated at a point ~14BYA, at which point in time none of our current models can say anything (that's the "singularity"). – H Walters Feb 25 at 6:37
  • @HWalters, the main point is that the universe is not eternal by this BB model. It appears to be a scientific fact much as the earth is not flat. However it is really difficult to understand what does it mean to say that time-space complex itself is expanding? Anyhow – Zuhair Feb 25 at 6:51
1

I believe metaphysics should answer this question, because big philosophical questions still seem to be argued even after science proves them unreal. This is my simple answer.

  • If you have any references this would support your answer and give the reader a place to go for more information. In particular, what has science proved unreal that people continue to argue? I agree with you, but I am looking for a way to strengthen your answer. – Frank Hubeny Feb 25 at 5:19
  • It is not a metaphysical question. Metaphysics assumes one Universe and one Reality. If it has an infinity of 'pockets' this makes no difference. – PeterJ Feb 25 at 12:03
  • @Frank Hubeny me too. I remember having seen arguments science proved unreal that people continue to argue, but right now none of them come to mind...How about certain aspects of all religions? – Math Bob Feb 25 at 15:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.