Science, the Universe, and Ex Nihilo

[Aupmanyav]

But that doesn't tell us if there is no time prior to the universe.

Wait, it is a question for 22nd Century or later. How can one understand it today? We do not know what may crop up tomorrow. Whether relativity or quantum mechanics, all things came to be known in their own time. Did we know CMBR before 1965? Things take time.

"The accidental discovery of the CMB in 1965 by American radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson was the culmination of work initiated in the 1940s, and earned the discoverers the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physics."
Cosmic microwave background - Wikipedia

 

[Brian2]

uni - literally means all, or one; otherwise there would be two. so it either a uni-verse or a multi-verse but you can't have anything apart from verse and it be uni-. you see this in many languages with un meaning one.

As far as I know science teaches that even space was produced with the BB and expanded so that the universe had something to expand into.
It is hard to imagine no space or no time.
If God does not need space and time to exist it is no wonder we cannot picture God.

 

[Brian2]

Well, one version of nothing is that we can't know nothing, because we always know as something and thus we can't know nothing. Rather nothing is a concept in the mind and only real as a concept existing in the mind, but even then it is something, because it is not nothing, it is the idea of nothing.

This idea would not need space or time to exist but the being that has that idea would also not need space and time to exist if these things came into existence with the universe.

 

[viole]

does science believe that there was nothing before the creation of the universe? or that the universe was created from nothing?

What do you mean with "before" ?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Fool]

What do you mean with "before" ?

Ciao

- viole

before forms arose in contrast, or before creation? or even if you like, was there even a before creation? or has there just always been creating?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What do you mean with "before" ?

Ciao

- viole

Well, if you can observe that the universe is everything, there is a Nobel prize in it. Otherwise we are just playing philosophy dressed up as theoretical physics.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This idea would not need space or time to exist but the being that has that idea would also not need space and time to exist if these things came into existence with the universe.

Can you rephrase that?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Wait, it is a question for 22nd Century or later. How can one understand it today? We do not know what may crop up tomorrow. Whether relativity or quantum mechanics, all things came to be known in their own time. Did we know CMBR before 1965? Things take time.

"The accidental discovery of the CMB in 1965 by American radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson was the culmination of work initiated in the 1940s, and earned the discoverers the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physics."
Cosmic microwave background - Wikipedia

Or it is could be unknown as per Charles Sanders Pierce as to the limits of science.

 

[firedragon]

does science believe that there was nothing before the creation of the universe? or that the universe was created from nothing?

Science doesnt have a conclusion or a belief. Science has theories and hypotheses. And in this case, there are many.

 

[viole]

Well, if you can observe that the universe is everything, there is a Nobel prize in it. Otherwise we are just playing philosophy dressed up as theoretical physics.

I am not. I am just pointing out that spacetime is a part of physics. And that therefore "before" might be meaningless. For "time" is also a physical thing, like probably everything else.

Can I win a Nobel for that? Unlikely, considering that not even Einstein did for stating exactly that.

Bummer. I will miss the opportunity to personally know our beloved King.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

before forms arose in contrast, or before creation? or even if you like, was there even a before creation? or has there just always been creating?

I claim that the concept of "before" is meaningless, if it assumes that what was "before", ceased to exist. And if "before" makes sense only if what was "before" is no more, then there is not such a thing as "before".

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am not. I am just pointing out that spacetime is a part of physics. And that therefore "before" might be meaningless. For "time" is also a physical thing, like probably everything else.

Can I win a Nobel for that? Unlikely, considering that not even Einstein did for stating exactly that.

Bummer. I will miss the opportunity to personally know our beloved King.

Ciao

- viole

Well, it is not that simple. Because what science is, is based on one or more versions connected to philosophy.

 

[Fool]

Or it is could be unknown as per Charles Sanders Pierce as to the limits of science.

science, like polymath said, is based on testability. what can't be controlled, or experienced, can't be tested. So then we ignore the subject, or hold a belief on it.


so if a belief can't be tested, it will never be known, whether in a lab, or in life.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Or it is could be unknown as per Charles Sanders Pierce as to the limits of science.

We have been breaking limits all the time. So where are the limits? You can pay and have a few rounds around the earth.

 

[Fool]

I claim that the concept of "before" is meaningless, if it assumes that what was "before", ceased to exist. And if "before" makes sense only if what was "before" is no more, then there is not such a thing as "before".

Ciao

- viole

i can agree with this; so long as we're talking about forms vs a process of continual/constant change

 

[viole]

Well, it is not that simple. Because what science is, is based on one or more versions connected to philosophy.

According to the Nobel committee, it is that simple.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We have been breaking limits all the time. So where are the limits? You can pay and have a few rounds around the earth.

Well, here is one. We can't currently observe the singularity. And since there is a difference between some and all as per induction and black swans, we hit the following problem. Just because we so far have gone from many limits to fewer limits it doesn't follow that we will no limits. Or in other words so far we have found no limits to the expansion of some knowledge, therefore there is no limit to all knowledge.

You really have to learn to check your own thinking.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

According to the Nobel committee, it is that simple.

Ciao

- viole

Expand more.

 

[viole]

Expand more.

What is there to expand? Philosophy has no place when it comes to serious things, like science.

Philosophy is to science, what masturbation is to real sex.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is there to expand? Philosophy has no place when it comes to serious things, like science.

Philosophy is to science, what masturbation is to real sex.

Ciao

- viole

Well, apparently you don't understand that real is philosophy and not science.