A Universe from Nothing?

[Polymath257]

Let us find common ground on the understanding of the concept time. Existence continuing to exist is not time, time is temporal, existence is atemporal, meaning not temporary. Eternal is not in time, it is atemporal. Do you agree?

No. Eternal simply means existence throughout time. ALL existence is in time. Being temporary simply means not existing throughout all of time.

 

[Polymath257]

Let us find common ground on the understanding of the concept time. Existence continuing to exist is not time, time is temporal, existence is atemporal, meaning not temporary. Eternal is not in time, it is atemporal. Do you agree?

'Continuing to exist' requires time. The word 'continuing' implies the existence and extension of time.

 

[Willamena]

the first few verses of Genesis are a statement of existence....with God as the First

and yes....Someone had to be first

Creator...then His Word (universe)

"I love the Lord I praise the Lord
I do the Lord forgive
I hope I won't be sorry
For allowing him to live"
(Leonard Cohen)

 

[gnostic]

been there did that......
have a higher than average iq

you cannot fool me

High IQ are just number. It doesn't mean you are more intelligent than others.

And, then I don't find much what you write at RF to be "intelligent".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No. Eternal simply means existence throughout time. ALL existence is in time. Being temporary simply means not existing throughout all of time.

Please explain your understanding of the reality represented by the concept of time so that we can find some common ground?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

'Continuing to exist' requires time. The word 'continuing' implies the existence and extension of time.

While I await for your response wrt to your understanding of the reality represented by the concept of time, please consider the reality represent by the concept "real". If something is real, it means it actually exists, not imagined, not a phantom, it does not vanish. So if something is real, it persists being real, so are you saying the persistence of reality to stay real, or duration if you like, is what time is? Is time a real thing or is it an abstract measurement?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

In those models where this happens, the universe goes through a contraction phase where the density increases. This produces a larger gravitational field which slows down and stops time.

If the gravitational field stops time, then this singularity gravitational field must continue to exist to keep time stopped, must it not?

 

[gnostic]

How can existence be finite into the future in which case you say there will not be a transitional ending of existence into "nothing"? If there is time - space and then there is no time - space, this is an ending, no?

No. There is no 'then there is no time-space'. Without time, there is no 'then'. At any point where there is time, there is also space and matter/energy. There is no transition because there is nothing to transition to.

This is weird....you are interpreting my language as if I am implying I understand you to be implying a nothing existing in time...I am categorically not. Please do not continue the pedantics and answer this question, what happens to the universe when time stops which eventually must happen if the universe is finite as you claim?

In those models where this happens, the universe goes through a contraction phase where the density increases. This produces a larger gravitational field which slows down and stops time. The time coordinate cannot be extended past that point.

An analogy is the north pole. There simply is no 'north of the north pole' because of the geometry and the way north is defined. In the same way, there is no 'before the Big Bang'.

I am not asking about before the big bang, I am asking about what happens to the mass of the universe when time ends? I am now getting that the the very dense singularity does not disappear...yes?

That very dense singularity is the end of time. There is no time after that, so no disappearing. To disappear, there would have to be one time where it exists and another time where it doesn't. That is not the case.

You are trying to get a violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy. But what, precisely, does that law say? It says that the total amount of mass/energy at any two times is the same. Without there being two times, there is no violation.

At the beginning, or at the end, time itself cannot be extended past the singularity. There is no time before the Big Bang or time after the end (if such happens). Again, in these models.

What make you think "time" will stop if the universe is "finite", ben d?

From what I can understand from polymath' posts, he is giving you an explanation to the only one possible scenario out of number different scenarios for how the universe could return to the "state" of being no time.

The only way to for there being no "time" or "spacetime" is to return to the state of singularity...and that's only if the universe go through "contraction", to what cosmologists called the "Big Crunch".

The singularity is where maths, such as those found in General Relativity, break down, where spacetime cease to be relevant.

That's the case with Big Bang as how the universe began...and it could be one of the probabilities "if" the universe end the way those who predict the Big Crunch.

But this scenario is merely one possibility that "may" or "may not" happen, because at this stage, it is still theoretical and very hypothetical.

As things stand today, there are no evidences to show the universe is contracting. For the universe to contract, there must be deceleration first, then the universe should go in reverse mode - contraction instead of expansion.

If anything, the universe is still expanding, so space and time are still expanding...and the expansion of the universe seemed to be accelerating.

As astrophysicists understand it, the acceleration is caused by Dark Energy.

Because with the current evidences available to us - showing the universe is accelerating in expansion, therefore no deceleration and no contraction - then the other scenario seemed more probable and more likely, known as the Big Freeze.

The Big Freeze is the universe will continue indefinitely, perhaps forever, so spacetime will continue to exist, but all the stars and galaxies in the universe will run out of hydrogen and helium to fuse. The universe will just become ever expanding, but it would be cold and dark wasteland.

Although, the current evidences show that the universe is picking up speed in expansion, there are not enough data or evidences to say the Big Freeze is inevitable, the Big Freeze is still hypothetical and theoretical.

Polymath is only pointing out just one scenario - a scenario where no "time" could possibly happen. I don't think polymath is saying that how it will be; he is only giving you just a "possibility".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What make you think "time" will stop if the universe is "finite", ben d?

From what I can understand from polymath' posts, he is giving you an explanation to the only one possible scenario out of number different scenarios for how the universe could return to the "state" of being no time.

The only way to for there being no "time" or "spacetime" is to return to the state of singularity...and that's only if the universe go through "contraction", to what cosmologists called the "Big Crunch".

The singularity is where maths, such as those found in General Relativity, break down, where spacetime cease to be relevant.

That's the case with Big Bang as how the universe began...and it could be one of the probabilities "if" the universe end the way those who predict the Big Crunch.

But this scenario is merely one possibility that "may" or "may not" happen, because at this stage, it is still theoretical and very hypothetical.

As things stand today, there are no evidences to show the universe is contracting. For the universe to contract, there must be deceleration first, then the universe should go in reverse mode - contraction instead of expansion.

If anything, the universe is still expanding, so space and time are still expanding...and the expansion of the universe seemed to be accelerating.

As astrophysicists understand it, the acceleration is caused by Dark Energy.

Because with the current evidences available to us - showing the universe is accelerating in expansion, therefore no deceleration and no contraction - then the other scenario seemed more probable and more likely, known as the Big Freeze.

The Big Freeze is the universe will continue indefinitely, perhaps forever, so spacetime will continue to exist, but all the stars and galaxies in the universe will run out of hydrogen and helium to fuse. The universe will just become ever expanding, but it would be cold and dark wasteland.

Although, the current evidences show that the universe is picking up speed in expansion, there are not enough data or evidences to say the Big Freeze is inevitable, the Big Freeze is still hypothetical and theoretical.

Polymath is only pointing out just one scenario - a scenario where no "time" could possibly happen. I don't think polymath is saying that how it will be; he is only giving you just a "possibility".

Gnostic mate, I'm sorry to sound condescending, but because yo do not understand the reality represented by the concept of "finite", the rest of your post is not relevant. Finite implies limitation, and in the context of a finite universe as Polymath believes, a limitation of temporal extent.

 

[gnostic]

Gnostic mate, I'm sorry to sound condescending,

But condescending is your middle name.

but because yo do not understand the reality represented by the concept of "finite", the rest of your post is not relevant. Finite implies limitation, and in the context of a finite universe as Polymath believes, a limitation of temporal extent.

No, Ben.

I am fine with the universe being "finite" or "infinite". It matters to not one bit, because I will never find out once I am dead. The universe will exist long after I am gone, regardless if it is "finite" or "infinite".

I am merely curious about the universe and cosmologies, and the science, but why should it matter one way or the other, when we will not be around to see it.

Polymath is merely giving you an explanation as to how no time can happen to the universe in the future. I don't see him that's the way it wil be.

Did you not understand him, when he states it is a "model"?

There are few other different models about the end of he universe. He is only giving you just one model, because that's what and where your questions and comments were leading to.

He is not agreeing that he accepts or believes in this model, just explaining to you there is one, where you were leading him to.

I think you have mistaken his intention to explain something to you as if it is "acceptance".

 

[Thief]

"I love the Lord I praise the Lord
I do the Lord forgive
I hope I won't be sorry
For allowing him to live"
(Leonard Cohen)

ran out of denial?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But condescending is your middle name.

No, Ben.

I am fine with the universe being "finite" or "infinite". It matters to not one bit, because I will never find out once I am dead. The universe will exist long after I am gone, regardless if it is "finite" or "infinite".

I am merely curious about the universe and cosmologies, and the science, but why should it matter one way or the other, when we will not be around to see it.

Polymath is merely giving you an explanation as to how no time can happen to the universe in the future. I don't see him that's the way it wil be.

Did you not understand him, when he states it is a "model"?

There are few other different models about the end of he universe. He is only giving you just one model, because that's what and where your questions and comments were leading to.

He is not agreeing that he accepts or believes in this model, just explaining to you there is one, where you were leading him to.

I think you have mistaken his intention to explain something to you as if it is "acceptance".

Thank you gnostic, I understand we are talking models, but it is these theoretical scenarios that Polymath takes seriously, and he talks of the cessation of time, the cessation of anything in existence to persist existing. That is what I am challenging, for to my mind, the beginning of, or ending of the continuation of existence is impossible.

 

[Polymath257]

Gnostic mate, I'm sorry to sound condescending, but because yo do not understand the reality represented by the concept of "finite", the rest of your post is not relevant. Finite implies limitation, and in the context of a finite universe as Polymath believes, a limitation of temporal extent.

I am quite comfortable with time existing only finitely into the past, but infinitely into the future. In fact, this seems likely given our current state of knowledge.

You also have to be more careful about your definition of 'finite'. The concept of a 'limit' is a tricky one, especially in general relativity.

So, for example, is the collection of decimal numbers between 0 and 1 limited or unlimited? There are certainly limits: 0 and 1. But the number of things between those limits is infinite. And this is only the most trivial case.

Another, more relevant example: latitudes are finite, but the surface of the Earth is not bounded. But even with this, there is no 'north' from the North Pole nor 'south' from the South Pole. Nothing 'disappears' at the South Pole, but you cannot go farther south there.

In precisely the same way, in *some* models, time in the past acts like the south pole. You cannot go father into the past than the Big Bang. If time is limited into the future, the same could be said about the time past which you cannot have a future.

 

[Polymath257]

If the gravitational field stops time, then this singularity gravitational field must continue to exist to keep time stopped, must it not?

no. If a brake stops a car, the car remains stopped even if you remove the brake.

 

[Polymath257]

While I await for your response wrt to your understanding of the reality represented by the concept of time, please consider the reality represent by the concept "real". If something is real, it means it actually exists, not imagined, not a phantom, it does not vanish. So if something is real, it persists being real, so are you saying the persistence of reality to stay real, or duration if you like, is what time is? Is time a real thing or is it an abstract measurement?

Time is an expression of causality. There is some arbitrariness because of relativistic effects, but the basics are the the the cause of an event is earlier in time than that event.

Something is real if it exists, yes. But many things can exist at one time and not exist at another. So it is not required that something real continues to be real. As an example, my first car was a real object. It existed. It was not an imagined thing. It was not a phantom. But now it no longer exists. So it's reality was not persistent. It vanished by being dismantled.

Time is as real as space. Together they form the geometry of spacetime, which is where/when things exist.

 

[Thief]

once more.....time is not a force or substance

it's all in your head

 

[Polymath257]

once more.....time is not a force or substance

it's all in your head

Define 'force' and 'substance' and explain why nothing else can be 'real'.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am quite comfortable with time existing only finitely into the past, but infinitely into the future. In fact, this seems likely given our current state of knowledge.

You also have to be more careful about your definition of 'finite'. The concept of a 'limit' is a tricky one, especially in general relativity.

So, for example, is the collection of decimal numbers between 0 and 1 limited or unlimited? There are certainly limits: 0 and 1. But the number of things between those limits is infinite. And this is only the most trivial case.

Another, more relevant example: latitudes are finite, but the surface of the Earth is not bounded. But even with this, there is no 'north' from the North Pole nor 'south' from the South Pole. Nothing 'disappears' at the South Pole, but you cannot go farther south there.

In precisely the same way, in *some* models, time in the past acts like the south pole. You cannot go father into the past than the Big Bang. If time is limited into the future, the same could be said about the time past which you cannot have a future.

Wrt reality represented by the concepts of 0 and 1, first wrt 0, nothing does not exist so all the rest is irrelevant until the reality of nothing can be proven to exist, (we are not talking in the relative sense of "I have no bananas to day").

Wrt North - South Pole, the extended axis of the Earths North South Poles goes on forever, so the rest of the comment is irrelevant.

Wrt models, they are conceptualizations that are meant to represent an imagined reality, they are not real except a being conceptual, the real is forever on the other side of the concept,

 

[Polymath257]

Wrt reality represented by the concepts of 0 and 1, first wrt 0, nothing does not exist so all the rest is irrelevant until the reality of nothing can be proven to exist, (we are not talking in the relative sense of "I have no bananas to day").

And your metaphysics is irrelevant to the point I was making. Your definition of 'finite' is flawed because it is ambiguous.

Wrt North - South Pole, the extended axis of the Earths North South Poles goes on forever, so the rest of the comment is irrelevant.

And that the axis can be extended by going off the Earth is irrelevant. My point is that *one the Earth*, there is no north of the north pole. Similarly, if time is finite, there is no 'before' time begins nor 'after' time ends.

Wrt models, they are conceptualizations that are meant to represent an imagined reality, they are not real except a being conceptual, the real is forever on the other side of the concept,

But models are always what we use to help us understand. I agree, they never encompass all of reality, but they can encompass enough to allow understanding. If you don't allow models, there can be no discussion.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

no. If a brake stops a car, the car remains stopped even if you remove the brake.

Haha....but it's the car that represents the universe, whether it is moving or stopped, it continues to exist....besides, on any incline, the car would start moving again if you remove the brake..