Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[Polymath257]

I have been trying to open your eyes to another possibility, so don't be ungrateful. The universe is infinite and eternal because nothing does not exist. The BB would only make sense if there was space already existing.

So you can believe the BB came from nothing, or you can consider a preexisting infinite universe (multiverse), up to you.

When you use the words 'came from', you are implying the existence of time. But time is part of the universe of spacetime. That is true whether or not time is finite into the past.

An analogy is to look at a globe and think of latitude as analogous to time and longitude as analogous to space. At any 'time' (i.e, any latitude), 'space' is finite (the latitude line is finite in length). 'Time' has a 'start' at the South pole and an 'end' at the North pole. Space starts as a 'singularity' at the South pole, expands until we get to the equator, then contracts again, ending in another 'singularity' at the North pole. The South pole represents the Big bang and the North pole represents a 'Big Crunch'.

Now, this is an analogy that is two dimensions down from what we see around us. In the analogy, 'space' is one dimensional (in fact, circular). In reality, it is (at least) three dimensional. But the basics of the analogy hold: the 'singularity' of the Big Bang is simply when time started. There is no 'before the Big Bang' in this model any more than there is a 'south of the South pole'. Space expands as time proceeds, and expands 'into the future'. As far as we know, the universe will continue to expand and not contract again (so the analogy is wrong in this particular--easy modifications can be made to make it more realistic--say a trumpet shape).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When you use the words 'came from', you are implying the existence of time. But time is part of the universe of spacetime. That is true whether or not time is finite into the past.

...

How do you know that the universe is everything? Because that is what your claim entails.

 

[Polymath257]

How do you know that the universe is everything? Because that is what your claim entails.

Not really. The universe is defined as all that is physical and time is physical in the relevant sense of being measurable. The term 'before' implies time and thereby physicality, and so the universe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not really. The universe is defined as all that is physical and time is physical in the relevant sense of being measurable. The term 'before' implies time and thereby physicality, and so the universe.

A definition is not a fact. If that was the case, then this definition of God is a fact: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.
Thus it is unknown, if there is more than the universe. Your argument is rational and not empirical.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Probably not for long. I have life issues over here.

Nice to "see" you again. I hope the life issues aren't too serious. You've retired, haven't you?

 

[Polymath257]

A definition is not a fact. If that was the case, then this definition of God is a fact: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.
Thus it is unknown, if there is more than the universe. Your argument is rational and not empirical.

Yes, that could be a definition used. Now, the issue is whether such a thing actually exists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, that could be a definition used. Now, the issue is whether such a thing actually exists.

Yeah, and if it is a fact that the universe is in effect everything. Or if it is just how some believe because of the defintion of the universe. So does that universe actually exist as you believe it to do and do you have evidence for that, or it is how you think, because of the defintion?

 

[Polymath257]

Nice to "see" you again. I hope the life issues aren't too serious. You've retired, haven't you?

Yes, I have. But it seems I am busier now than before. We moved and are getting the new place in order. My mother has been having health issues, and I am taking care of the dog more. Once things get reasonably stabilized, I will return.

 

[Pogo]

Inside is the past; outside is the future. Time is represented by the radius.

A useful analogy, thank you.

 

[Pogo]

Probably not for long. I have life issues over here.

May they resolve positively for whatever positive may mean in this environment.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yes, I have. But it seems I am busier now than before. We moved and are getting the new place in order. My mother has been having health issues, and I am taking care of the dog more. Once things get reasonably stabilized, I will return.

Sorry about your mother, but otherwise good to hear. I was worried that you or your wife were having health issues

You once had questions for me about Mexican life for expats. Any chance of you becoming a neighbor? I would love to meet you and introduce our wives to one another.

 

[Pogo]

A definition is not a fact. If that was the case, then this definition of God is a fact: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.
Thus it is unknown, if there is more than the universe. Your argument is rational and not empirical.

No but you are free to provide us with more that we can all find useful. Your Turn.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Subjective experiences can generate knowledge, by which I mean ideas that can be used to predict future outcomes. They are the results of the internals senses and report reproducible experiences like beautiful and tasty, or repulsive. Strawberries taste good to me and Brussels sprouts bad EVERY TIME I try them. This is subjective knowledge, but as objectively true for me as any other knowledge I have, just not necessarily true for you or anybody else.

Where I part ways with the faithful is in their interpretation of such experiences. I've had spiritual experiences just like they have and do, and once I explained them to myself in terms of the Holy Spirit, since they usually occurred in my first church at the hands of a joyful and charismatic preacher I encountered in my Army days. After discharge and a return to California, I tried a half dozen congregations, all pretty dead, and no more spiritual experiences in church, which is how I determined that my previous experiences were not what I thought they were, but rather, my own mental states improperly interpreted and attributed. This is how I decided that the religion was false and returned to atheism.

I have such experiences today looking at the night sky with understanding of what I am looking at and my connection to it, or with much music, but I don't call it a god anymore.

When a believer tells me that they have communed with God or have a personal relationship with their god, or know with certainty that a god exists, I don't accept those interpretations of their mental states. That's also how I view your comment about the mystical being tested.

So, a subjective experience can be pleasant or unpleasant and reproducibly so, and this constitute personal knowledge, but the interpretation of it might not be knowledge. If I say that my experiences of strawberries and Brussels sprouts - the tests - are due to my genetics and how my brain processes such experiences - the understanding of what they imply about reality - I am probably correct, but if I say that that is God speaking to me and instructing me which foods to eat and which to avoid, that's no longer experience of any kind, but rather, an interpretation of its significance, and it's likely wrong however certain I am otherwise.

*******

Within seconds of posting this, I saw the following on another thread, a great example of what I'm talking about. I have no reason to believe that either of them has experienced a god. They've had experiences, but I have no reason to believe that they haven't misunderstood their significance:

A: "We can talk about religion all you like. Nothing will make me doubt. Nothing you say, nothing you do, nothing anyone says or does will make me doubt that God is real and that He loves me. Which is actually pretty amazing."

B: "Same here. Nothing will make me doubt, especially after all I have been through which I survived, only by the Grace of God.
It is amazing that God loves me in spite of the way I feel about myself."

Thank you for your analysis AINS.

Fwiw, I have been meditating hours every day for over 45 years, and now have mystical experiences every day. Most are just what they are meant to be, ongoing unfolding of my understanding of what and who I am in the context of all that is, no interpretation is necessary for me, though they would probably be meaningless to another unless they were at a similar level of experience.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

In the strictest sense, the universe is expanding *into the future*. More specifically, the four dimensional vector perpendicular to the expansion is directed into the future light cone.

In the analogy with the balloon, the radius of the balloon is analogous to *time* with the future being outward.

Welcome back Polymath.

But who is blowing the balloon up, answer that, and where did it come from if there is no nothing?

 

[gnostic]

What is the actual test as per evidence that the universe is in effect everything?

The word “everything” that I was referring to, that can be observed or detected, not just by our visual perceptions, but also by whatever devices or instruments using the technology that enable us to detect, quantify, measure, test, etc, some things that we wouldn’t see, hear or feel.

I am talking about everything as in the natural world of our universe, the smallest particle to the most distant galaxies ever observed, to the relic radiation (eg photons of CMBR).

And yet, despite our advanced technology of the present, the are limitations as to what can be observed from Earth or from Earth’s satellite orbits and spacecraft that gone just beyond the Solar System limits (eg Voyagers 1 & 2). Sure we have learned a lot from our terrestrial & space observatories, but these are just still the tiniest of fraction of what’s really out there.

The only living organisms we have observed are only from Earth. But there are unknown billions of planets and moons in the Milky Way, and there unknown numbers in the several hundreds of billions of galaxies (the data comes from NASA’s New Horizons). We have detected and measured of water and some organic matters (eg about 70 different types of amino acids, nucleobase groups of molecules - purines (adenine, guanine) and pyrimidines (cytosine, thymine, uracil), and various types of oil that came from space (eg Murchison meteorite, Allende meteorite, etc).

just how many of the planets or moons containing life, we dont know, and our current technology cannot even determine that even just exploring those within the Milky Way.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Inside is the past; outside is the future. Time is represented by the radius.

In the strictest sense, the universe is expanding *into the future*. More specifically, the four dimensional vector perpendicular to the expansion is directed into the future light cone.

In the analogy with the balloon, the radius of the balloon is analogous to *time* with the future being outward.

I know and understand the analogy, but if the balloon expansion represents the future, the delated balloon at the beginning represents what?
It seems to me that the deflated balloon must represent the whatever it is that becomes the BB?

 

[gnostic]

Probably not for long. I have life issues over here.

Yes, I have. But it seems I am busier now than before. We moved and are getting the new place in order. My mother has been having health issues, and I am taking care of the dog more. Once things get reasonably stabilized, I will return.

it is good to hear from you…even for a short time.

I am sorry to hear that are some issues with home/family life, and that will of course take precedence over your duties & contributions here.

Your presence are still welcomed. Our thoughts are with you.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Inside is the past; outside is the future. Time is represented by the radius.

Ok as an analogy except the question of what the deflated balloon represents?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And this is wrong.

Not 'expanding into' such a field. The field is the lowest energy state of a vacuum (i.e, of space) and space is expanding.

What is wrong?

So where did this space that is not expanding into space come from it originally?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What does that even mean? That we use math to model concepts? Sure. That math is an abstract subject? Sure. beyond that? I have no idea.

All concepts, both mathematical and verbal, are meant to represent some form of reality, reality being all that exists. Only those religious souls who are one with reality understand that reality can never be fully understood through concepts, but accept that concepts are needed to initially guide the religious student to cease conceptualizing.