[geordief (OP)]

Clearly this is something I cannot do insofar as I am presumably a part of this universe (and I think it is also said that the universe has no external boundary).

However is it not possible that the  beginning(if there was a beginning) of the universe was witnessed by an intelligent being (or even just another object?)  and so this being or thing would have had something of an objective view of what happened?

Is that feasible  ?

Would that mean that the universe  did in fact  have a  boundary, even if that boundary  was dynamic and poorly defined ?

[Kryptid]

If our universe is imbedded in some kind of higher-dimensional space, such a thing may be possible. I don't know of any such evidence, however.

[Bored chemist]

Clearly this is something I cannot do insofar as I am presumably a part of this universe (and I think it is also said that the universe has no external boundary).

However is it not possible that the  beginning(if there was a beginning) of the universe was witnessed by an intelligent being (or even just another object?)  and so this being or thing would have had something of an objective view of what happened?

Is that feasible  ?

Would that mean that the universe  did in fact  have a  boundary, even if that boundary  was dynamic and poorly defined ?

We  will never know; so the question isn't science.

[Eternal Student]

Hi Geordief.

You asked "can we see the universe from the outside?"

This is a difficult question to answer since there are many definitions of "the universe" that you could be considering.  One definition of the universe is that it is everything that exists.  This is a problem, since if we did find a "place" that was outside of the (previously known) universe we would just update and expand our understanding of the universe so that it included that place.  A similar argument can apply to the previous reply that involved the existence of higher dimensions.  If we did find more dimensions, we would still tend to update our understanding of the universe and say that it had always existed with those dimensions.  So there is never going to be any place that is outside the universe.

The remainder of your post seems to talk about boundaries (or the lack of boundaries) for the universe.  If you could make it clear what definition of "the universe" you are considering, it may be possible to continue this discussion.  Conventional definitions of "the universe" used in Physics and Astronomy include "the observable universe"; "a Hubble Sphere"  and  "the particle horizon".   "The universe" is NOT a simple thing to define and you could make a good forum post just discussing that.

Best wishes to you.

[geordief (OP)]

If you could make it clear what definition of "the universe" you are considering, it may be possible to continue this discussion.

Hi, well I have had the same idea as you vis a vis adding bits on to any definition and finding that the new piece of the jigsaw was now included  as an integral part of the newly considered "universe".

So ,for the purposes of this  thread ,I was imagining an observer (or simply a physical configuration) that was at a remove (if that is even 100% possible) from the events  unfolding in our arena prior to what is called the Big Bang.

Would that observer,so defined  have a bird's eye view of the process and would his/her/its(other) view actually be any different from the view it may be possible for us to achieve through  mathematical/technological ingenuity, or even in our "mind's eye) ?

I have come across (and possibly suffered from) the misconception that the (loosely defined) universe  has a clearly defined  border or edge border . I think the correct answer may be  just "we don't know but it seems unlikely"   

[Eternal Student]

Hi, well I have had the same idea as you vis a vis adding bits on to any definition and finding that the new piece of the jigsaw was now included  as an integral part of the newly considered "universe".

   Describing the universe as everything that exists was not my idea.  That's the way an ordinary English dictionary may define the universe.  Here's an example:

Universe,  (Noun)   
everything that exists, especially all physical matter, including all the stars, planets, galaxies, etc. in space:

[Taken from the Cambridge dictionary, available online]

   Most scientists do not claim to know everything that exists.   If we try to discuss the remainder of your post using this sort of definition for the universe then we will rapidly run out of what is considered to be established science and plunge into conjecture.  There is nothing wrong with a good abstract or philosophical discussion but I'm not sure that it can be done here in this forum.

What is the (entire) Universe and how does it work?  I don't know... but we can define and try to build models for something called the observable universe. 

There's a video from "MinutePhysics" that discusses the issue rapidly.   [Not sure I can post links as a "Newbie" to this forum but you can find it yourself on YouTube with the title  What is the Universe? - MinutePhysics]

prior to what is called the Big Bang.

This is another problem.  It's not clear that there was any quantity or parameter that behaved like time BEFORE the big bang.

Would that observer,so defined  have a bird's eye view of the process and would his/her/its(other) view actually be any different from the view it may be possible for us to achieve through  mathematical/technological ingenuity, or even in our "mind's eye) ?

   You have a good imagination and an interest, which is great.  I am less able,  I can't easily imagine an observer defined in the way you described.  I'm certain that such an observer is not well defined within the context of mainstream science and so I'm confident that (current) Science won't provide many good answers to your question. I'm very sorry about this.

  You continue to ask about borders...

I have come across (and possibly suffered from) the misconception that the (loosely defined) universe  has a clearly defined  border or edge border .

     The Observable universe has a border or clearly defined edge but it is simply the limit (in terms of distance) that we have been able to see light from other parts of the Universe, so far.  It is not a physical wall of any kind.  If we could travel there in a spaceship, we wouldn't expect to find anything different about that region of space to any other.   We do not know what is beyond the observable universe but we expect it to be much the same kind of thing that exists within the observable universe.
      There are several Cosmological models of the universe that I have studied and none of them need to have any sort of physical border.  Even if you consider a universe with closed (spherical) geometry that may have finite extent there still doesn't need to be any border (since we should only consider what can be observed intrinsically).  I am not saying there isn't any model with such a border, just that there doesn't need to be one.

Best Wishes to you, sorry I couldn't be more help.

[geordief (OP)]

Best Wishes to you, sorry I couldn't be more help.

Could I pare down the question to "Could  there have been  anything in the universe  that had a potential causative  relationship    to the configuration we understand  "prior" to the Big Bang but was not in a reciprocal  causative relationship with it?"

Or "Might it (one day)  be possible to detect objects in the universe whose provenance was not from the Big Bang?"

[Eternal Student]

Hi again.

Could I pare down the question....

   First of all, I am not a moderator and my opinion hardly matters.  I have read some guidance for use of this forum and there does seem to be some limits about what can be discussed here.

   I can see that you have tried to modify your question and seem tolerant of replies that are trying to keep things on track and related to mainstream science.  However, I do not own or operate this forum and I am concerned about encouraging you to continue.  There are other sections of this forum (and also other forums) that seem better suited to your discussion.

   Thank you for the time you have already spent in discussion.  It has been a pleasure speaking with you.

[geordief (OP)]

There are other sections of this forum (and also other forums) that seem better suited to your discussion.

Could you suggest  another section of this forum?Were you thinking of the "Just Chat" section?
Would be happy if a mod thought  this thread should be relocated there ,or elsewhere(fairly sure New Theories  would be inapplicable and that is all I can see apart from Just Chat)

I realize it can be a pain weeding out idle speculation from hard science....

[Eternal Student]

Could you suggest  another section of this forum?

    Actually, no I couldn't.  I agree with your assessment, there isn't enough places on this forum.  Many other science forums do have a much bigger selection of places for discussion where the policies on sticking to mainstream science have been relaxed and more general philosophy can be discussed.   

    It may be worth speaking to the moderators or whatever administration exists for this site.  I can sympathize with your situation - where else can you take this discussion and why shouldn't you want to discuss it with scientists?  They (the moderators / administration) may decide to allow continued discussion here or construct another place suitable for these discussions.

[jeffreyH]

Outside is a relative term. I am inside my house but outside the kitchen. I am inside my garden but outside my house. Define what outside means in this context.

[geordief (OP)]

Outside is a relative term. I am inside my house but outside the kitchen. I am inside my garden but outside my house. Define what outside means in this context.

What about  in my reply#6 above?

Might my attempt  there to bring in causality  have in a sense  addressed  the inside/outside question.?

Can a system of events lie outside or inside  the causality region of another system.?

Would that be a more productive  definition,perhaps?

[geordief (OP)]

Actually, no I couldn't.  I agree with your assessment, there isn't enough places on this forum.  Many other science forums do have a much bigger selection of places for discussion where the policies on sticking to mainstream science have been relaxed and more general philosophy can be discussed.   

I wonder if there could be a space for the interpretation of  established scientific theories?

On another forum there is an ongoing discussion of virtual particles which apparently may be something of a misnomer,being as they apparently are disturbances in the waves in the fields that may be related to particles - but not really particles.

Maybe those kinds of discussions are a kind of halfway house between philosophy and general scientific discussion?

[Colin2B]

On another forum there is an ongoing discussion of virtual particles which apparently may be something of a misnomer,being as they apparently are disturbances in the waves in the fields that may be related to particles - but not really particles.

Maybe those kinds of discussions are a kind of halfway house between philosophy and general scientific discussion?

We have had those discussions on this very section. The problem is there is always someone who wants to expound their own ideas without any solid backing. It doesn’t take long before it becomes a new theory, which is why we have the new theories section.
If it is a worthwhile idea you will get a good discussion in that section.

[Zer0]

Humble Request to Always Kind MODS...
🙏

Most of the times, i Imagine things which do Not have any practical realistic relation with Reality.
eg - FTL, Multiverse, Aliens, etc etc.
🛸

I wish to Imagine certain UnRealistic things.
(I really Like to do it)
😇

Hence, May i Please have the
 ' Permission ' to set my Imagination Wild & Free in the Just Chat Section?
🙏
(It'd be Fine if you said NO. I won't do it then. & I do Not wish to Offend Anyone in here. & I most certainly shall NOT go to any other forum or place)
🙃



P.S. -



5830afe4379f19c1f3d0102b86f38a93.jpg (19.2 kB . 400x253 - viewed 2317 times)