Technically, is agnosticism the only valid option?

[Voyager]

@Smartass

This is about the third time in a row that your response seems to be intentionally misrepresenting what I said. Please tell me where I suggested that the use of Occam’s Razor was the only example of science being pragmatic.

Keep in mind, I wasn’t speaking of pragmatism conversationally; rather, I was referring to philosophical Pragmatism (with a capital ‘P’).

All of science is pragmatic. My objection was to you equating the Razor with the Null hypothesis.

Given the density required to reach black hole status, this hardly seems likely–I would expect the universe to be collapsing, not expanding. The outer boundary of the universe is pretty much defined by how far the light from the Big Bang has travelled in the time since it happened. To suggest that there is an outer edge that light can’t escape…well, this is the first I’ve heard of it.

That is to say, I’ve never seen a universe theory where the current outer “edge” is thought of as an Event Horizon in the way that the outer edge of a black hole is, and I’ve certainly not seen anyone claim that our universe is “sucking” things into it. We can’t travel past the edge of the universe because we physically can’t go far enough fast enough (and it’s still moving away from us), but that’s way different than saying there is a boundary that gravitational forces won’t let you pass.

That being said, I’ve read theories that suggest you couldn’t pass through the edge of the universe because there’s nowhere to go. In my imagination, the universe seems to be surrounded by empty space, but apparently there isn’t even that. We can’t go there because there is no “there” to go to…one of many notions that physics has thrown at me that I have difficulty internalizing.

-VM

Here is the wiki article on event horizons. First definition:

In general relativity, an event horizon is a boundary in spacetime beyond which events cannot affect an outside observer.

While event horizons around black holes are the most common, I was referring to the cosmic event horizon:

In cosmology, the event horizon of the observable universe is the largest comoving distance from which light emitted now can ever reach the observer in the future.

Something occurring beyond this event horizon “now” - whatever now means - will never be known to us.
You have a common misconception. “Light” from the Big Bang (actually energy) does not travel anywhere, but is all around us, in fact it is the cosmic microwave background radiation detected by Penzias and Wilson.
If light traveled from the Big Bang in the way you said, we could see it if we looked out far enough. That’s not the way it works.

If you are thinking of going to the “end” of the universe, you need to read some more and better cosmology books. Some I’ve read (I forget which) explicitly say why this idea is fallacious.

Remember - the Hubble red shift does not come from things moving away from each other in the normal way, it comes from space expanding.

[Smartass]

@Voyager

All of science is pragmatic. My objection was to you equating the Razor with the Null hypothesis.

Your objection was a “when”: I use Null when I’m talking about X, but I use Razor when I’m talking about Y. You never actually suggested a way that they were incompatible or not two names for the same underlying approach to figuring out the world.

If I tried to nail down “atheism” as surely as you are trying to nail down Occam’s Razor, you’d have a fit.

@Voyager

While event horizons around black holes are the most common, I was referring to the cosmic event horizon:

Then you could’ve saved us some trouble by mentioning that when I made my initial joke about black holes, rather than suggesting that we are inside one. It’s a little late now to say, “Oh, I meant something else.”

I wouldn’t make a big deal out of it, but you are doing way too much of this kind of crap. To the point that I have no idea what the fuck we’re talking about.

@Voyager

You have a common misconception. “Light” from the Big Bang (actually energy) does not travel anywhere, but is all around us…

I’m no one’s physics expert, but I am quite sure that light, pretty much by definition, is travelling somewhere, or it isn’t light. That’s like saying the waves aren’t actually rolling into the shore.

@Voyager

If light traveled from the Big Bang in the way you said, we could see it if we looked out far enough. That’s not the way it works.

I’m not sure how you think light works, but my understanding is that it is damn difficult to see when it is travelling away from you.

In the same way, you describe “looking out” as being similar to “reaching out”. All we can do is try to “see” the light that’s bouncing back to us.

@Voyager

If you are thinking of going to the “end” of the universe, you need to read some more and better cosmology books.

I don’t remember saying anything about the “end” of the universe.

@Voyager

Remember - the Hubble red shift does not come from things moving away from each other in the normal way, it comes from space expanding.

The universe is expanding, which you can also transliterate to “space is expanding”. The fact remains, the rest of the universe is moving further away from us.

If you shine an outrageously powerful flashlight in the direction of the “edge” of the universe (which is to say, in any old direction you like), will the light ever get there?

-VM