Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Polymath257]

Which is what you claim, believe, etc.

No, that is the terminology I am using. If you use a different definition, please be explicit about the differences.

So...
It wasn't. (Referring to nonexistent time, space, the universe, etc)

Nope. it never wasn't.

Then it was. (referring to post big bang existence of time, space, the universe, etc.

Nope. No 'then'. it just 'is'.

It poofed. I rest my case.

Nope. No process of 'poofing'.

 

[RestlessSoul]

there was never a point where it was not.

So the universe always was, and always will be? That's not necessarily true of the observable universe though, is it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's obvious, but it has nothing to do with science.

No, but it happens in the universe as a part of the universe, so there is that. So it has to be included as a part of the science about the universe as a part of the universe. At least, that is what I think being in the universe as a part of the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

So the universe always was, and always will be? That's not necessarily true of the observable universe though, is it?

Ambiguous question.

The universe has existed through all time. But time itself may be finite into the past. It may also be finite into the future (but less likely given our current evidence).

 

[viole]

So the universe always was, and always will be? That's not necessarily true of the observable universe though, is it?

I think the problem is the use of tensed verbs for something where they might not be applicable.

ciao

- viole

 

[RestlessSoul]

Even if that was reasonable, that would not entail that the container of those things, the entire Universe, would have a beginning, too. If all balls in a container are red, that does not entail that the container is red. Same with beginnings.

ciao

- viole

In referring to the "entire universe", are you suggesting something greater than the universe the BB theory describes?

 

[Polymath257]

Which is what you claim, believe, etc.

So...
It wasn't. (Referring to nonexistent time, space, the universe, etc)

Then it was. (referring to post big bang existence of time, space, the universe, etc.

It poofed. I rest my case.

Let me give an analogy.

There is no 100 degrees south latitude. Such a location does not exist.

The farthest south you can go is 90 degrees south latitude. But 90 degrees south latitude does NOT 'poof' into existence. It is simply the lowest latitude possible.

In the same way, if the BB model is correct, there is no 15 billion years ago. Such a time does not exist.

The earliest you can go is 13.7 billion years ago. But that does NOT mean that things 'poofed' at 13.7 billion years ago. It simply means that 13.7 billion years ago is the earliest time possible.

 

[We Never Know]

No, that is the terminology I am using. If you use a different definition, please be explicit about the differences.

Nope. it never wasn't.

Nope. No 'then'. it just 'is'.

Nope. No process of 'poofing'.

"it just 'is"

What science is that?
You sound like someone saying a god "just is"

 

[viole]

In referring to the "entire universe", are you suggesting something greater than the universe the BB theory describes?

No, I am referring at the possibility of the universe being a 4 dimensional timeless block. in that case, the BB would not the beginning of anything, but just a point on it.

ciao

- viole

 

[Polymath257]

In referring to the "entire universe", are you suggesting something greater than the universe the BB theory describes?

Even if everything in the universe has a cause, that does not mean that the universe has a cause.

 

[Polymath257]

"it just 'is"

What science is that?
You sound like someone saying a god "just is"

The universe of spacetime *cannot* have a cause because all causes are in time and time is part of the universe. In that sense, the universe of spacetime 'simply exists'.

The science is that which says that time might go only finitely far into the past and that notes that causality implies time.

 

[Polymath257]

I think the problem is the use of tensed verbs for something where they might not be applicable.

ciao

- viole

Precisely. In the absence of time, all tensed verbs are meaningless.

 

[We Never Know]

Let me give an analogy.

There is no 100 degrees south latitude. Such a location does not exist.

The farthest south you can go is 90 degrees south latitude. But 90 degrees south latitude does NOT 'poof' into existence. It is simply the lowest latitude possible.

In the same way, if the BB model is correct, there is no 15 billion years ago. The earliest you can go is 13.7 billion years ago. But that does NOT mean that things 'poofed' at 13.7 billion years ago. It simply means that 13.7 billion years ago is the earliest time possible.

"It simply means that 13.7 billion years ago is the earliest time possible"

Again.. You don't know that and you can't show that. Its the earliest time to when our science breaks down. It cant go back farther because it breaks down, not because farther back doesn't exist.

You are basing your answer on "if's"

 

[RestlessSoul]

I think the problem is the use of tensed verbs for something where they might not be applicable.

ciao

- viole

So language isn't up to the task of describing the origins of the universe. You may be right. The BB is a mathematical model, supported by observations, right? Don't the equations run into just as many problems as language, around 13.8 billion years into the past? Maybe some things just surpass all human understanding.

 

[Polymath257]

"It simply means that 13.7 billion years ago is the earliest time possible"

Again.. You don't know that and you can't show that. Its the earliest time to when our science breaks down. It cant go back farther because it breaks down, not because farther back doesn't exist.

You are basing your answer on "if's"

I am basing my answer on the BB description. If it is wrong, then some other description is correct. But, at this point, it is *by far* the most accurate description we have. And, as such, its conclusions should not be dismissed simply because one doesn't like them.

 

[Polymath257]

So language isn't up to the task of describing the origins of the universe. You may be right. The BB is a mathematical model, supported by observations, right? Don't the equations run into just as many problems as language, around 13.8 billion years into the past? Maybe some things just surpass all human understanding.

Well, it is possible, even likely, that some version of quantum gravity needs to be invoked in that first fraction of a second. Since we don't have a tested theory of quantum gravity, anything from that is pure speculation.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Precisely. In the absence of time, all tensed verbs are meaningless.

But if time and space are fundamental properties of the universe, there can be no absence of time. Absence of time can only exist outside of time and space; in other words, beyond the universe.

 

[viole]

So language isn't up to the task of describing the origins of the universe. You may be right. The BB is a mathematical model, supported by observations, right? Don't the equations run into just as many problems as language, around 13.8 billion years into the past? Maybe some things just surpass all human understanding.

If we take relativity at face value (which might be a good approximation of time space in most of its entirety), time does not flow, and therefore it makes no sense to use tensed verbs. Future, past and the flow of time would just be stubborn illusions of our psychology. But in fact nothing start to exist, nor ceases to exist.

for instance, your birth is not something that is no more, nor is your death something yet to be exist. They are all points existing on time space as we speak. And they will eternally be there. Or, better, they are there.

ciao

- viole

 

[We Never Know]

I am basing my answer on the BB description. If it is wrong, then some other description is correct. But, at this point, it is *by far* the most accurate description we have. And, as such, its conclusions should not be dismissed simply because one doesn't like them.

Questioning it isn't dismissing it.

You defend it like christians defend a god.
Don't question the BB. Don't question a god.
You, like them, are blind to anything else.

Since our science breaks down at a point(humor me), then there is a "beyond" that point. We just can't get there yet.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's standard terminology, even among scientists. Would you prefer LCDM?

Misleading terminology whether standard or not. The beginning of our universe is open to many questions regardless.