Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[gnostic]

You are considering the eternal aspect of the universe (at least wrt no ending), but not the infinite aspect. Note that in the Taoist symbol that there are smaller Taoist symbols. Consider the 'universe' known to science as existing in a larger 'universe', and these in an even larger universe, etc., etc., to infinity. There was never a beginning to the infinite universe.

There is no such reality as nothing, nothing does not exist, ever. +1 -1 = 0 in math relates to relativity, in absolute terms, zero represents the reality, depending on the culture, of Tao, or God, etc..

You mean, because scientists can only study finite reality, it follows that most of the proposed models of the universe will obey finite rules.
I am not knocking the scientific method, it works quite well, just that there is much more to reality than is presently understood confined to finite parameters.

So yes, I suppose you are right, you can leave the bigger picture to those whose discernment, or at least interest, extends beyond the finite.

Bigger picture?

Sorry, but in ancient India (wrt Hinduism) & ancient China (wrt Taoism), their respective concepts were of the world, what were on lands & seas, and the observable sky that included the Sun, Moon, some planets of which only from Mercury to Saturn were visible to them, and some 2000 to 3000 (3000, if they have very good eyesight) stars that they could possibly count…plus the white band of the Milky Way.

Other than that, these ancient people all have the same limitations as the rest of world, in the West (“West” as referring to contemporaries in Western Asia (eg Babylonia), Egypt & Europe (ancient Greece polis & Macedon).

That were the limitations of what they thought of the world, for all ancient religions, philosophies and astronomy.

No one (not the Hindus, not the Taoists) in ancient times, knew much about the limited view of the Milky Way being a galaxy. They have no concept of much universe that contained hundreds of billions of galaxies in much larger Universe.

It was only in 1919, when Edwin Hubble looked through the newly constructed largest telescope at that time, from the Mount Wilson Observatory - the Hooker Telescope - that Hubble discovered that Andromeda, Triangulum, Virgo A, etc, were galaxies, not nebulae. Astronomers of the last couple of centuries have misidentified these galaxies as nebulae…these astronomers before Hubble’s time, thought the Milky Way was the only galaxy, hence the entire Universe. They were all, so wrong, including the ancient Indian & Chinese astronomers.

The Indian astronomy & Chinese astronomy were no more advanced than Babylonian astronomy or Greek astronomy, during ancient times, sometimes they made discoveries & contributions to astronomy, but they were all limited by their eyesight, so there are much they couldn’t see, and they certainly wouldn’t know more we do in this century (21st century).

All you are doing, Ben, is mixing Hindu mysticism with Taoist mysticism, and this mysticism of Panetheism…none of which provide any useful information about the Universe.

And equating the Universe with your version of “God”, isn’t useful to anyone except you.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Bigger picture?

Sorry, but in ancient India (wrt Hinduism) & ancient China (wrt Taoism), their respective concepts were of the world, what were on lands & seas, and the observable sky that included the Sun, Moon, some planets of which only from Mercury to Saturn were visible to them, and some 2000 to 3000 (3000, if they have very good eyesight) stars that they could possibly count…plus the white band of the Milky Way.

Other than that, these ancient people all have the same limitations as the rest of world, in the West (“West” as referring to contemporaries in Western Asia (eg Babylonia), Egypt & Europe (ancient Greece polis & Macedon).

That were the limitations of what they thought of the world, for all ancient religions, philosophies and astronomy.

No one (not the Hindus, not the Taoists) in ancient times, knew much about the limited view of the Milky Way being a galaxy. They have no concept of much universe that contained hundreds of billions of galaxies in much larger Universe.

It was only in 1919, when Edwin Hubble looked through the newly constructed largest telescope at that time, from the Mount Wilson Observatory - the Hooker Telescope - that Hubble discovered that Andromeda, Triangulum, Virgo A, etc, were galaxies, not nebulae. Astronomers of the last couple of centuries have misidentified these galaxies as nebulae…these astronomers before Hubble’s time, thought the Milky Way was the only galaxy, hence the entire Universe. They were all, so wrong, including the ancient Indian & Chinese astronomers.

The Indian astronomy & Chinese astronomy were no more advanced than Babylonian astronomy or Greek astronomy, during ancient times, sometimes they made discoveries & contributions to astronomy, but they were all limited by their eyesight, so there are much they couldn’t see, and they certainly wouldn’t know more we do in this century (21st century).

All you are doing, Ben, is mixing Hindu mysticism with Taoist mysticism, and this mysticism of Panetheism…none of which provide any useful information about the Universe.

And equating the Universe with your version of “God”, isn’t useful to anyone except you.

All languages, including math, is conceptual. Concepts are meant to represent reality, but they are not reality. The Taoist ying yang symbol captures a reality underlying the nature of the universe, whether one uses language, math, pictures, etc., one should always be aware that reality is not the language, math, pictures, etc., but that which they represent.

Now the Hindus, Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese, Hebrews, etc., all have their own way to conceptualize reality, and unlike some people I know, actually knew the difference between the concept and the reality for which the concept represented.

All religions are true, but only those who understand the reality the conceptualization represents will understand this. Once you understand, they all make sense. Modern science is no different, to understand, one must know the reality for which the conceptualization represents, but it does not compare with religion because it only studies the material part of universal reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing does not exist, so there was no beginning to existence, but there obviously are beginnings (and endings) to material manifestations, If there were a BB, this known 'universe' is a material manifestation existing in some preexisting medium.

I need to remind you that you are using a strawman argument. I have never claimed that it was from "nothing" and in fact I asked you to define what you mean by "nothing". And please, do not use word salad when you post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It depends on what one's standard of validity is. Your bar is set so low that any inane comment that is used against me by the bandwagon folk is fair in your eyes.

Projection again. Please no false claims about others if you want a polite conversation.

Please repost with a rational answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Boy oh boy, ok, if there is no nothing in existence, there is something present everywhere, always. Everywhere means existence spatially is infinite, and always means eternal.

No, it simply does not mean that. You are making all sorts of unjustified assumptions again. When you make such posts you put the burden of proof upon you, but all that you can do is to wave your hands franticly. Also you need to define "nothing'.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I need to remind you that you are using a strawman argument. I have never claimed that it was from "nothing" and in fact I asked you to define what you mean by "nothing". And please, do not use word salad when you post.

I can only explain my understanding according to my ability to convey it in conceptualization form, and I trust the reader can interpret it the way I meant. I likewise could categorize some of your conceptualizations as word salads when they appear vague to me.

So first off, my definition of nothing is that it is non-existence in the absolute sense. It follows that nothing does not exist.

So tell me, do you agree that nothing/non-existence does not exist?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can only explain my understanding according to my ability to convey it in conceptualization form, and I trust the reader can interpret it the way I meant. I likewise could categorize some of your conceptualizations as word salads when they appear vague to me.

Then you should not state them as being facts. Here is what you do not realize is that sometimes it is best to admit that you are not sure.

So first off, my definition of nothing is that it is non-existence in the absolute sense. It follows that nothing does not exist.

So tell me, do you agree that nothing/non-existence does not exist?

Okay, in the "absolute sense" then "nothing" is probably impossible in the universe. But this goes against your earlier claims when you tried to claim that matter could not come from no matter and when you found out that matter can come from energy you still did not realize that local positive energy can come from a state of no energy. In our universe at the quantum level there is no such thing as "empty space". Space is alive with virtual particles. In special conditions energy or even matter can be created by empty space. The Big Bang could have started in such a manner. Though not required, it is possible, at least by the laws of physics that the universe could, not necessarily did, begin from a state of no mass, no energy, and no space. Still that is not nothing because the underlying laws of science would have still exised.

As to the universe being eternal but still having a beginning that is where the number line analogy comes into play. Time is also thought to have started with the Big Bang in some models. So everything, time, space, energy, and matter, could have all had a beginning and yet still, because the universe has existed "for all time" it would also be eternal. The idea of a "Before the Big Bang" may be as nonsensical as the idea of "South of the South Pole".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Then you should not state them as being facts. Here is what you do not realize is that sometimes it is best to admit that you are not sure.

Okay, in the "absolute sense" then "nothing" is probably impossible in the universe. But this goes against your earlier claims when you tried to claim that matter could not come from no matter and when you found out that matter can come from energy you still did not realize that local positive energy can come from a state of no energy. In our universe at the quantum level there is no such thing as "empty space". Space is alive with virtual particles. In special conditions energy or even matter can be created by empty space. The Big Bang could have started in such a manner. Though not required, it is possible, at least by the laws of physics that the universe could, not necessarily did, begin from a state of no mass, no energy, and no space. Still that is not nothing because the underlying laws of science would have still exised.

As to the universe being eternal but still having a beginning that is where the number line analogy comes into play. Time is also thought to have started with the Big Bang in some models. So everything, time, space, energy, and matter, could have all had a beginning and yet still, because the universe has existed "for all time" it would also be eternal. The idea of a "Before the Big Bang" may be as nonsensical as the idea of "South of the South Pole".

Good, you agree that in the absolute sense, nothing is impossible. I have never said that matter can come from no matter, if you think I did, then please provide your evidence, failing to do so means you made it up. What I have said is that nothing, including energy and/or matter can come from nothing (absolute sense).

Playing with words does not change the fact that if nothing, in the absolute sense, is impossible, then there was never non-existence, and so eternal infinite existence didn't need a BB to create it. The BB only would be possibly reasonable as happening in the context of a preexisting eternal infinite multiverse.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good, you agree that in the absolute sense, nothing is impossible. I have never said that matter can come from no matter, if you think I did, then please provide your evidence, failing to do so means you made it up. What I have said is that nothing, including energy and/or matter can come from nothing (absolute sense).

Playing with words does not change the fact that if nothing, in the absolute sense, is impossible, then there was never non-existence, and so eternal infinite existence didn't need a BB to create it. The BB only would be possibly reasonable as happening in the context of a preexisting eternal infinite multiverse.

Yes you did. Read all of your post 332. Do not cherry pick it:

"The fact to understand is that nothing can come from nothing, the sum total of universal mass in existence has always existed. If there are any physicists who deny this, then the onus is on them to prove that mass can come into existence from nothing, before any reasonably intelligent person would accept it."

Please note, you said "the sum total of universal mass has always existed". That is simply wrong.

There can be "negative energy" but even antimatter is not "negative mass". There is no such thing as negative mass. So you cannot use the mass energy equivalence for that.

 

[gnostic]

All languages, including math, is conceptual. Concepts are meant to represent reality, but they are not reality.

Not really.

It depends on the concepts, what those concepts supposed to represent, what the concepts meant to be used for, etc.

Not all concepts represent reality.

I don’t mean to get into issues of semantics, but there are problem with the word like “reality”.

Reality have different meanings to different people, for instances,

• you have concept of various mysticisms, eg mixture of Taoism (eg the Yin and Yang), Hinduism (eg Brahman), etc,
• the Abrahamic religions where people have with their “one god”, with teachings of their leaders (eg Moses, Jesus or Muhammad) and their concepts of heaven, hell, afterlife, etc,
• and those that confined reality to “nature”, without the mysticism & without the superstitions.

Over the years, I have believed in one thing or the other when I was younger, but over time, as in the last 10 years, I preferred to be more pragmatic, that the natural reality or nature is the only reality that are actually observable…which the same cannot be said for any notion (or “concept”) of “God”, not yours, not those of any abrahamic religions.

 

[Brian2]

Why didn't the universe always exist? Because since God is supposed to be outside of time and is supposed to have always existed, then how could God have used a point in time to start creation? Any thoughts on this?

The evidence seems to point to a beginning to this universe and the evidence does not tell us whether a creator was or was not needed.
The Bible uses the term "In the beginning" which implies that time (as we know it) began when God started creating. This is logically possible even if some people say that God would need to act in time and not in timelessness. Even I can act and cause at the same time I am acting. I can for example move my hands apart and cause a space simultaneously. (cause and effect at the same time).

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes you did. Read all of your post 332. Do not cherry pick it:

"The fact to understand is that nothing can come from nothing, the sum total of universal mass in existence has always existed. If there are any physicists who deny this, then the onus is on them to prove that mass can come into existence from nothing, before any reasonably intelligent person would accept it."

Please note, you said "the sum total of universal mass has always existed". That is simply wrong.

There can be "negative energy" but even antimatter is not "negative mass". There is no such thing as negative mass. So you cannot use the mass energy equivalence for that.

Here it is, My post #332 Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?
No where did I say or imply that matter can come from no matter, please quote my precise words where you think I did?

Created does not necessarily imply a separate agency, as in "stars are created out of the dust of exploded stars", nor does form necessarily not imply an agency, as in "the child formed a castle out of sand".

The fact to understand is that nothing can come from nothing, the sum total of universal mass in existence has always existed. If there are any physicists who deny this, then the onus is on them to prove that mass can come into existence from nothing, before any reasonably intelligent person would accept it.

Nor did I say or imply there was negative mass, please quote my exact words where you think I did?

You've gone off the deep end methinks?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here it is, My post #332 Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?
No where did I say or imply that matter can come from no matter, please quote my precise words where you think I did?

Nor did I say or imply there was negative mass, please quote my exact words where you think I did?

You've gone off the deep end methinks?

What?! You got my post backwards. Look at the question of yours that I was answering.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Not really.

It depends on the concepts, what those concepts supposed to represent, what the concepts meant to be used for, etc.

Not all concepts represent reality.

I don’t mean to get into issues of semantics, but there are problem with the word like “reality”.

Reality have different meanings to different people, for instances,

• you have concept of various mysticisms, eg mixture of Taoism (eg the Yin and Yang), Hinduism (eg Brahman), etc,
• the Abrahamic religions where people have with their “one god”, with teachings of their leaders (eg Moses, Jesus or Muhammad) and their concepts of heaven, hell, afterlife, etc,
• and those that confined reality to “nature”, without the mysticism & without the superstitions.

Over the years, I have believed in one thing or the other when I was younger, but over time, as in the last 10 years, I preferred to be more pragmatic, that the natural reality or nature is the only reality that are actually observable…which the same cannot be said for any notion (or “concept”) of “God”, not yours, not those of any abrahamic religions.

Sure, confining your interest in life to the conceptual representation of the finite is your choice, another may be more interested in realizing the true nature of one's existence in the context of the infinite/all that is.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What?! You got my post backwards. Look at the question of yours that I was answering.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Please start again and quote the exact words that trouble you.

 

[gnostic]

Good, you agree that in the absolute sense, nothing is impossible. I have never said that matter can come from no matter, if you think I did, then please provide your evidence, failing to do so means you made it up.

No one said it (red highlighted bit).

Even with the Big Bang - the initial expansion - no one said there was “nothingness”.

You are making strawman argument that “something comes from nothing”, but we have already told you that nothingness are not possible in the Universe.

No one said that energy is nothing, yet another strawman.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No one said it (red highlighted bit).

Even with the Big Bang - the initial expansion - no one said there was “nothingness”.

You are making strawman argument that “something comes from nothing”, but we have already told you that nothingness are not possible in the Universe.

No one said that energy is nothing, yet another strawman.

When I say "in the absolute sense, nothing is impossible", it means that non-existence in the absolute sense is impossible.

I know you never said that there was nothingness when the BB was expanding, but since we agree that "nothing" is impossible, then the BB initial expansion would have to be happening in an infinite universe/multiverse devoid of nothingness, otherwise you are left with the concept of the BB expanding into nothingness, which we agree is impossible because non-existence does not exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Please start again and quote the exact words that trouble you.

You appear to have a reading comprehension problem at times. and you also use very poor language. You may mean something other than what you say. I already quoted what you said that went against what you have claimed lately:

""The fact to understand is that nothing can come from nothing, the sum total of universal mass in existence has always existed. If there are any physicists who deny this, then the onus is on them to prove that mass can come into existence from nothing, before any reasonably intelligent person would accept it."

I put the part that you got wrong in bold and it does imply that you disagree with physicists. Oh and as to the "prove" part, They have already shown how this is possible.

You appear to keep forgetting that the measured total energy of the universe is zero. That means that the universe could have, but did not have to, arisen from a state of no energy, no mass, no volume and no time. Do you understand this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

When I say "in the absolute sense, nothing is impossible", it means that non-existence in the absolute sense is impossible.

I know you never said that there was nothingness when the BB was expanding, but since we agree that "nothing" is impossible, then the BB initial expansion would have to be happening in an infinite universe/multiverse devoid of nothingness, otherwise you are left with the concept of the BB expanding into nothingness, which we agree is impossible because non-existence does not exist.

Several errors. The universe does not expand "into" anything. You are using Newtonian physics where it does not apply again. The expansion of space was just an expansion. As far as we can tell space is its own entity that does not expand into anything. The universe may have been infinitely large at the time of the Big Bang, it may not have been. It is possible that it curved in on itself. And what you do not seem to understand is that the mere existence of physical laws means that there never was "nothing". Physical laws are something. So even if there was "no mass" and "no space" and "no time" and even "no energy" there still would have been physical laws which are "something".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You appear to have a reading comprehension problem at times. and you also use very poor language. You may mean something other than what you say. I already quoted what you said that went against what you have claimed lately:

""The fact to understand is that nothing can come from nothing, the sum total of universal mass in existence has always existed. If there are any physicists who deny this, then the onus is on them to prove that mass can come into existence from nothing, before any reasonably intelligent person would accept it."

I put the part that you got wrong in bold and it does imply that you disagree with physicists. Oh and as to the "prove" part, They have already shown how this is possible.

You appear to keep forgetting that the measured total energy of the universe is zero. That means that the universe could have, but did not have to, arisen from a state of no energy, no mass, no volume and no time. Do you understand this?

Yes, please do try and understand, the mass of the universe is an integral of the infinite universe, and thus is also infinite. Since we agree there is no 'non-existence', the universe must be infinite and eternal, so there could be no beginning, and the mass will never change.

So how was this total energy of the universe measured or is it just a conceptualization by someone ignorant of actual reality?