First Cause

[ChristineM]

Is what difficult?

You appear to be calling the unknown "goo"

 

[ChristineM]

that's wrong.

Nope, that's correct, the laws of thermodynamics, including causality did not begin to resolve until 10^-34 of a second after the universe began.

 

[syo]

"Splain," said Ricky to Lucy.

the universe must have a cause because the universe had a beginning. you wrote ''In the beginning the universe was formed by expansion.'' so i guess you say that the universe had a beginning. the universe wasn't always there, something must have started it. something must have caused it. god.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

You appear to be calling the unknown "goo"

Skwim asked what was moving at the start of the universe's expansion. Since I may not know the proper term for the state of everything in the universe when it was too small to imagine I called it goo.

If I'm interpreting you correctly we're not sure what it was like during the plank epoch, so I'll call it goo.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

the universe must have a cause because the universe had a beginning. you wrote ''In the beginning the universe was formed by expansion.'' so i guess you say that the universe had a beginning. the universe wasn't always there, something must have started it. something must have caused it. god.

You may not have followed the whole thread as it so long. I'll touch on some points. Cause and effect is an action of the natural world. There was no natural world at the singularity thus no cause and effect. It was something else.

 

[syo]

There was no natural world at the singularity

what is that singularity?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

what is that singularity?

All of the universe condensed to a single point.

 

[syo]

All of the universe condensed to a single point.

who created it?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

who created it?

Why would that be a cause and effect issue?

 

[syo]

Why would that be a cause and effect issue?

because god is known to be the first cause that started the universe.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

because god is known to be the first cause that started the universe.

I don't understand how something that happened after caused what came before.

The only suitable situation I can think of is that cause and effect existed in the singularity and cause effected itself and it blew up. Seems weird to me though. Perhaps it's a conundrum.

 

[metis]

The only suitable situation I can think of is that cause and effect existed in the singularity and cause effected itself and it blew up.

How about infinity?

 

[Subduction Zone]

All of the universe condensed to a single point.

Not even necessarily that far. From my understanding all we can do right now is to go to the point where Relativity fails. Beyond that one enters the realm of speculation. The universe could still have been very large at that time There are still unanswered questions about the beginning of the universe as we know it.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

How about infinity?

My perception of infinity is that includes all things. Apparently "things didn't happen until the expansion of the universe. Therefore, as a concept, infinity didn't exist until the universe.

Polymath can prolly splain it better. But it certainly seems like a natural world occurrence.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Not even necessarily that far. From my understanding all we can do right now is to go to the point where Relativity fails. Beyond that one enters the realm of speculation. The universe could still have been very large at that time There are still unanswered questions about the beginning of the universe as we know it.

Agreed. Language is tricky here. It seems like the singularity yawned and there was a universe.

 

[viole]

In the beginning the universe was formed by expansion. Simultaneously space began when the movement began. Would not movement have started cause and effect?

What movement?
There is not such a thing as a flow of time. Ergo, there is no movement, nor beginning, nor expansion of the Universe, either. For obvious reasons. Can you imagine expansion of a spacetime continuum?

By the way, cause/effect are macroscopic concepts. They make sense, if any, only in an already existing Universe which is not in thermodynamical equilibrium. If you do not believe me, try to define them without it.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ChristineM]

Skwim asked what was moving at the start of the universe's expansion. Since I may not know the proper term for the state of everything in the universe when it was too small to imagine I called it goo.

If I'm interpreting you correctly we're not sure what it was like during the plank epoch, so I'll call it goo.

Goo suggests a gelatinous substance. An innacurate term considering the density following the planck epoch. But feel free to use whatever you feel best suits your understanding.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

What movement?
There is not such a thing as a flow of time. Ergo, there is no movement, nor beginning of the Universe, either.

Ciao

- viole

The movement was the expansion of the universe.

I see your point about the beginning though. Bad word pun I guess. A veiled reference to Scripture.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Goo suggests a gelatinous substance. An innacurate term considering the density following the planck epoch. But feel free to use whatever you feel best suits your understanding.

What's a better word? I'm dyin here.

 

[viole]

The movement was the expansion of the universe.

I see your point about the beginning though. Bad word pun I guess. A veiled reference to Scripture.

There is no expansion of the Universe. Can you imagine something like a spacetime continuum expanding?

Ciao

- viole