We don't. if General Relativity is wrong in the very early universe (which it is likely to be), then it might be *possible* to extend the time dimension past a phase transition we currently call the Big Bang. The problem is that, of the several possible theories of quantum gravity (which is what...
In the strictest sense, the universe is expanding *into the future*. More specifically, the four dimensional vector perpendicular to the expansion is directed into the future light cone.
In the analogy with the balloon, the radius of the balloon is analogous to *time* with the future being...
Yes, but the analogy is between the two dimensional surface of the Earth and four dimensional spacetime. In the second case, there is no reason to think there is any 'outside'.
Nope. Multiverses arise naturally when attempting to model quantum gravity. In fact, they show up in quantum theory...
Well, if there was anything before the Big bang (which is a possibility in quantum gravity), then time may go back infinitely far and the universe as well. In that case, it had no beginning.
We don't know. It is one of the many possibilities.
I'm not sure what is meant by the word 'emergent' in this context. Time is one of the four-dimensional geometric aspects of the universe--just like space (which is three of the dimensions).
I'm also not sure how to interpret the word 'eternal' in this context. My default definition is 'for all...
You are asking for a mechanism for what we believe is a fundamental force. In other words, there is no deeper explanation (although you are certainly free to look for one--but that will simply push the issue back a stage).
I'd also point out that gravity is what keeps the Earth in orbit around...
The current best prediction is that gravity is “made from” gravitons (spin 2 massless particles) in a way similar to how electromagnetism is “made from” photons.
It isn’t any more circulars than thinking any other operationally defined property will continue to obey the laws we have found so far. In fact, until we find an exception, that is a perfectly reasonable assumption.
ALL physical concepts are operationally defined.
No, it does not necessarily imply a point of origin. Maybe a three dimensional submanifold of origin.
Again, that sounds like a very strange usage. If a tree limb falls, that is not an accident. There is no intention either way.
I see the Big Bang as closer to the South Pole. It represents...
Hmmm. If the properties are so complex no human could figure them out, then possibly. So far, though, the basic laws seem to not be overly complicated. The ones we think we know build boil down to how fundamental particles can interact and how strongly they do so. So, mass determines the...
I do not think a natural law needs to be observed by any consciousness to be a fact of nature. A rock can exist without anyone knowing it is there. The same holds for properties and thereby natural laws.
In fact, conscious beings, when attempting to describe how things work, tend to get things...