Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[Polymath257]

So it is unknown and no reason to claim there are some or aren't some. So there is no reason to postulate that all causation is in the universe.

There is reason to *postulate* it as a hypothesis. And that hypothesis is supported as long as no other causes are found.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is reason to *postulate* it as a hypothesis. And that hypothesis is supported as long as no other causes are found.

So it is not a fact.
"In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done. A theory, on the other hand, is supported by evidence: it's a principle formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data."

Or are you using the word hypothesis differently?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nobody is 'blowing up' the balloon. In the analogy, three dimensional space is the universe of spacetime. Time is the radial coordinate. That is all.

ALL causality happens within the universe.

As I see it, the universe of spacetime 'simply exists'. It has no cause because it *cannot* have a cause since all causes are inside of it.

If you think we live in a multiverse, just exchange the word 'universe' above with 'multiverse' and all is well. We can then talk about a cause for our universe. And that is quite likely to be some sort of quantum fluctuation in the grander multiverse. But the multiverse would then be uncaused.

A multiverse type model is the only BB model I would consider possible.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

A less inflated balloon represents the past. Since there is no radius smaller than 0, there simply is no 'before the balloon'.

If we consider a multiverse model, I withdraw my question.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, as an example, neutrinos are 'dark' in this sense. They are not charged, almost no mass, no magnetic field, etc. They do not interact strongly via electromagnetism. So they are 'dark'.

They were initially a candidate for dark matter, but it turns out that their small mass would make them relativistic which messes up galaxy formation. So, the dark matter that affects galaxy rotation rates is *massive* and 'cold' (in the sense of not being relativistic). That is why we have CDM: Cold Dark Matter.

We do not know specifics of what the composition of dark matter is in terms of fundamental particles, but there are quite a large number of possibilities. One I sort of like are axions, which are sort of a massive version of photons. But any weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP) would also be a good candidate. This is mostly a particle physics question, not a cosmological question.

And no, it is NOT simply zero point energy (which is closer to dark energy) or 'ether' or 'spirit' (neither of which has any evidence of existence).

We have three different names from three different ways of understanding for the omnipresent energy of the universe, religious, metaphysical, and physical science. And while your expertise is science, I respect your position, and I also respect the position of the others. That is not to say I agree with them all in what they say, but they all have something important to offer imho.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Attention all spiritual skeptics, you may like to watch this video? This physicist finally saw the light of what he truly was in the context of universal existence, and he became one with it, ie, an experience of the realization of non-duality. So long as you think you already know reality through the dualistic process, this position becomes the stumbling block to transcending the conceptual mind's limited view of reality.

 

[gnostic]

A multiverse type model is the only BB model I would consider possible.

The problem with any Multiverse model (there are several models), it is only theoretical, and still a hypothesis...it is untestable and untested, so it isn't science.

Until some scientists developed technology that are capable of observing other multiverse, it may never be tested. So Multiverse would be more than likely just ending up just philosophical discourse on during suppertime or only relevant in sci-fi novels, comic or film/tv shows.

But sci-fi is fiction, not science.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The problem with any Multiverse model (there are several models), it is only theoretical, and still a hypothesis...it is untestable and untested, so it isn't science.

Until some scientists developed technology that are capable of observing other multiverse, it may never be tested. So Multiverse would be more than likely just ending up just philosophical discourse on during suppertime or only relevant in sci-fi novels, comic or film/tv shows.

But sci-fi is fiction, not science.

The question is, is the universe eternal or is it finite?

I opt for an eternal multiverse model on the basis of common sense, for existence could never come from non-existence, nor have I seen any direct evidence/proof that existence came from non-existence such as is a prerequisite requirement for a BB non-multiverse model.

 

[RestlessSoul]

ALL causes we know about are within the universe. Until we see causes outside of it, there is no reason to postulate such.

It seems you have difficulty with the concept of a definition. A definition is simply how we use language. So, if I want to define a smorgle to be a yellow unicorn, I can do so. From that point on, a yellow unicorn is a smorgle. A definition does not 'cause' anything other than how we use language. It does not imply existence of the thing defined (defining a smorgle as a yellow unicorn does not imply that unicorns exist).

So, as a matter of how we use language, the universe is *defined* to be all that interacts with anything we identify as physical. It is an inductive definition. An alternative definition is that the universe is simply anything causally connected to the Big Bang. In that case, the multiverse would be the causal closure of any particular thing. And, by causal closure, it cannot itself be caused.

That definition of the universe only works if we accept that everything in the universe is fundamentally physical. And that anything apparently non-physical - consciousness, for example - is an emergent property of physical processes. But at this point such absolute physicalism isn’t even a hypothesis; though it may be a doctrine.

 

[Polymath257]

That definition of the universe only works if we accept that everything in the universe is fundamentally physical. And that anything apparently non-physical - consciousness, for example - is an emergent property of physical processes. But at this point such absolute physicalism isn’t even a hypothesis; though it may be a doctrine.

What makes you think consciousness is non-physical? EVERY piece of information we have about it suggests that it is a consequence of brain processes.

My position is that everything supervenes on the physical: in order for anything to be different, something physical must be different.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What makes you think consciousness is non-physical? EVERY piece of information we have about it suggests that it is a consequence of brain processes.

My position is that everything supervenes on the physical: in order for anything to be different, something physical must be different.

Yeah, but it is not physical as such. The problem is that any rule that everything is physical, the rule is not physical itself, but an abstract mental rule, that says everything should be treated as physical.

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah, but it is not physical as such. The problem is that any rule that everything is physical, the rule is not physical itself, but an abstract mental rule, that says everything should be treated as physical.

The rule is a thought, which is a brain state, and so supervenes on the physical.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The rule is a thought, which is a brain state, and so supervenes on the physical.

Yeah, we are playing with words. Now if you can show the referents to all words as physical as per science, I will listen to you. But some of your words have no physical referent.

 

[RestlessSoul]

What makes you think consciousness is non-physical? EVERY piece of information we have about it suggests that it is a consequence of brain processes.

My position is that everything supervenes on the physical: in order for anything to be different, something physical must be different.

Yes, I realise that's your position, but it rests on the as yet unevidenced assumption, with respect to aspects of consciousness and electro-chemical processes in the brain, that correlation equals causation.

We also have evidence, by way of neuroplasticity, to support the notion that some brain processes are the consequence of thought.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, I realise that's your position, but it rests on the as yet unevidenced assumption, with respect to aspects of consciousness and electro-chemical processes in the brain, that correlation equals causation.

We also have evidence, by way of neuroplasticity, to support the notion that some brain processes are the consequence of thought.

On the contrary, it is based on the best evidence we have currently: analysis of how the brain works, analysis of different states of consciousness, analysis of how conscious states changwe based on changes in the brain, etc. The neuroplasticity is simply the fact that there are feedback loops. The brain interacts with itself to modify its future behavior.

And, while it is true that correlation does not imply causation, the complete lack of any other cause, the lack of any data suggesting such a cause, *is* good enough reason to discount such external causes. Unless and until such causes are established, saying that they exist in consciousness is simply unevidenced.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

On the contrary, it is based on the best evidence we have currently: analysis of how the brain works, analysis of different states of consciousness, analysis of how conscious states changwe based on changes in the brain, etc. The neuroplasticity is simply the fact that there are feedback loops. The brain interacts with itself to modify its future behavior.

Well, if you have actually solved the reason to how come science is based on methodological naturalism, please publish that.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, if you have actually solved the reason to how come science is based on methodological naturalism, please publish that.

Well, it isn't. Science is based on the scientific method: collecting data, making hypotheses, making predictions based on the hypotheses, testing to see if new data agrees with the predictions, and changing hypotheses as required.

There is no assumption of 'naturalism': simply the requirement that meaningful statements be testable. If spirits exist, that same process could determine their properties and the laws governing their behavior. But, at this point, the data does not support that hypothesis.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, it isn't. Science is based on the scientific method: collecting data, making hypotheses, making predictions based on the hypotheses, testing to see if new data agrees with the predictions, and changing hypotheses as required.

There is no assumption of 'naturalism': simply the requirement that meaningful statements be testable. If spirits exist, that same process could determine their properties and the laws governing their behavior. But, at this point, the data does not support that hypothesis.

What’s natural? - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

Well, I will go with a site on science rather than what you say. But that is me as a skeptic using critical thinking.

 

[RestlessSoul]

On the contrary, it is based on the best evidence we have currently: analysis of how the brain works, analysis of different states of consciousness, analysis of how conscious states changwe based on changes in the brain, etc. The neuroplasticity is simply the fact that there are feedback loops. The brain interacts with itself to modify its future behavior.

And, while it is true that correlation does not imply causation, the complete lack of any other cause, the lack of any data suggesting such a cause, *is* good enough reason to discount such external causes. Unless and until such causes are established, saying that they exist in consciousness is simply unevidenced.

Okay. My speculative position would be, that studying consciousness with reference only to physical activity in the brain is a bit one-eyed. Since consciousness is absolutely fundamental to the human experience, I consider it axiomatic that we ought to begin where we are; by examining consciousness from within, as it were. And in so doing, afford at least as much significance to the mind - which, correlations not withstanding, is not the brain - as to the body.

 

[gnostic]

The question is, is the universe eternal or is it finite?

I opt for an eternal multiverse model on the basis of common sense, for existence could never come from non-existence, nor have I seen any direct evidence/proof that existence came from non-existence such as is a prerequisite requirement for a BB non-multiverse model.

you are still (falsely) persistent that the BB models to be the universe coming from non-existence, when none of these models have made such claims about nothingness or nonexistent.

you like a broken record…repeating the same strawman, over and over and over again.

The BB models have proposed no such things as to what you are claiming, because you don’t understand them as well as you believe that you do. Your presumptions are not only wrong, they are false too…no matter how many times you have spun this strawman.

Beside, all that. You are like a yo-yo. One moment you claim that logic is the best route to find answers, then the next moment you say you trust intuition more, then it now common sense.

Which is it, Ben?

I have asked, because intuition is the opposite of logical reasoning, and is the opposite of common sense…and common sense also differs from logical reasoning.