Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[Subduction Zone]

So you think there could be no time and space, but that is not necessarily nothing. Ok, so tell me what is something, anything, that is not in space and time?

I understand that nothing is impossible in our universe, but I don't understand how the absence of space and time is not nothing?

The basic laws of physics would still exist. And an actual valid answer is "We do not know yet". But we can also know that you cannot make an absolute assumption based upon Newtonian physics. The very base of the universe may be mathematical in nature.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The basic laws of physics would still exist. And an actual valid answer is "We do not know yet". But we can also know that you cannot make an absolute assumption based upon Newtonian physics. The very base of the universe may be mathematical in nature.

So if the basic laws of physics would still exist, then there must be physical existence conforming to these laws, for without existence, there would be no laws existing. I mean it would be a strange state of affairs for there to be physical laws in existence to govern non-physical existence, how would they exist?

No assumptions are being made, if there is no 4D space-time in existence, there is non-existence. This is not Newtonian, this is common sense logic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From my experience with certain ones you're not going to get anywhere even if you make sense and the other does not allow for elaboration of his ideas, and as usual starts calling those he may disagree with as ignorant, uneducated, etc. Providing nothing but that.

Please, you get far more basic science wrong. Quit trying to play the victim. HIs mistake was to make a claim of something being a fact when he could not support it at all. There is a very small chance that his conclusion may be right, but that would just be luck. It would not justify making such a claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So if the basic laws of physics would still exist, then there must be physical existence conforming to these laws, for without existence, there would be no laws existing. I mean it would be a strange state of affairs for there to be physical laws in existence to govern non-physical existence, how would they exist?

No assumptions are being made, if there is no 4D space-time in existence, there is non-existence. This is not Newtonian, this is common sense logic.

Have you heard of "virtual particles"?

 

[YoursTrue]

Please, you get far more basic science wrong. Quit trying to play the victim. HIs mistake was to make a claim of something being a fact when he could not support it at all. There is a very small chance that his conclusion may be right, but that would just be luck. It would not justify making such a claim.

I'm not playing the victim. You and a few others victimize some of those you do not agree with about faith and understanding. Why not just state your viewpoint without declaring the other individual ignorant, uneducated, etc. I believe it's because you really just say whatever you believe without backup. Kind of similar to faith in another aspect.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not playing the victim. You and a few others victimize some of those you do not agree with about faith and understanding. Why not just state your viewpoint without declaring the other individual ignorant, uneducated, etc. I believe it's because you really just say whatever you believe without backup. Kind of similar to faith in another aspect.

Not true at all which means that you are playing the victim again. About half of the people that have interacted with you have been theists. No one is correcting their beliefs. You are being corrected because of what your beliefs say about your God if it exists.

When I was a Christian I did not call God a liar which is why I accepted science. Science does not say anything about God. It does say things about bogus versions of God. Once again, most Christians accept evolution because they believe that God i snot a liar. You can accept both. There are consequences if you reject science which is testable and confirmable. Science is not based upon faith.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Have you heard of "virtual particles"?

Yes. I have heard of virtual particles, what about them in the context of 4D spacetime, or the lack thereof?

 

[Polymath257]

Time is the 4th dimension of space, hence the concept of time-space, the continuation of space as time.

Thus there is no time without space and no space without time, and it follows logically that without space and time, there is nothing, ie. non-existence.

So logically, the BB theory involves the creation of 4D time-space from no time-space, aka nothing, nada, zero, non-existence!

If you disagree, please address my point, and do not claim that BB theory implies no such thing, it does, so now deal with it!

No, it does not. All it says is that the universe of spacetime exists. There is no 'creation' because creation happens *within time*. So, logically, the BB does NOT involve the 'creation' of spacetime at all.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, it does not. All it says is that the universe of spacetime exists. There is no 'creation' because creation happens *within time*. So, logically, the BB does NOT involve the 'creation' of spacetime at all.

Ok, the 4D spacetime universe exists, no beginning/creation in time, therefore it follows it is eternal. Therefore the BB happened in this pre-existing 4D spacetime 'multiverse', and in the relative sense, time for it began, I'm ok with that.

 

[gnostic]

The reality of life is simply not that life evolved from whatever is said to begin life by scientists to humans. You don't get it. But out of kindness I'll explain it again. Bonobos do not write books. They have not invented microscopes and telescopes.

Book, telescopes, microscopes, have absolutely nothing to do with Evolution.

These are learned skills that humans create these objects.

Writing is skill that was developed a little over 5000 years ago. But much of human history, about more than 250,000 years, the Homo sapiens were illiterates. They were independently in predynastic period of Egypt and in proto-Sumerian Uruk.

And even when writing started, most of the world, for most people, they were still illiterate. Not everyone began writing in the same period. Australian natives didn’t learn writing until after Australia was colonised and settled by British immigrants.

As a learned process, writing isn’t built into your DNA; you would learn to write, you weren’t born with this ability.

you are making another absurd claim, claim that has nothing to do with Evolution.

if you were good as you have bragged about being top biology student in high school, then you would have & should have known that the ability to write are not imprinted into your DNA, as it isn’t an inheritable trait.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, the 4D spacetime universe exists, no beginning/creation in time, therefore it follows it is eternal. Therefore the BB happened in this pre-existing 4D spacetime 'multiverse', and in the relative sense, time for it began, I'm ok with that.

No. You make the mistake of assuming that time is infinite into the past. While that may be the case, it is far from proven.

The word 'eternal' has a couple of meanings:

1) for all time.
2) for an infinite amount of time.

For the first definition, the universe is eternal because *time is part of the universe*. Even if time is finite into the past, the universe has existed for all time (and is thereby eternal according to the first definition).

But it seems that you prefer the second definition. That may of may not be the case. In the simplest versions of the BB theory, time is finite into the past. Spacetime did not 'pre-exist' because there simply was no 'pre-'. There simply is no 'before the BB'. This is NOT the existence of a 'nothing'. There simply was no existence prior to the BB (again, in the standard models).

This changes if some sort of multiverse theory is correct.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

That links went pretty well for a while. It essentially *defines* physical to be testable. It went off the rails, though, when it *assumed* that ghosts are not testable. Why would that be the case? Under this use of the word, why would ghosts necessarily be non-physical?

But we can go a bit further. What does it mean for some thing to 'exist'? What is the meaning of that verb?

For example, no pink unicorns exist in my office. Why not? how do I know? How would I know whether or not any given thing exists or not?

The *only* way to determine existence is, again, testability. And *that* means, by the above definition, that anything that exists is physical.

Now, you might not like the definition of physical I use (and your link uses), but if not please give a different definition that is workable.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That links went pretty well for a while. It essentially *defines* physical to be testable. It went off the rails, though, when it *assumed* that ghosts are not testable. Why would that be the case? Under this use of the word, why would ghosts necessarily be non-physical?

But we can go a bit further. What does it mean for some thing to 'exist'? What is the meaning of that verb?

For example, no pink unicorns exist in my office. Why not? how do I know? How would I know whether or not any given thing exists or not?

The *only* way to determine existence is, again, testability. And *that* means, by the above definition, that anything that exists is physical.

Now, you might not like the definition of physical I use (and your link uses), but if not please give a different definition that is workable.

No, I don't have to, because you need to show that you have to assume that the universe is physical, in order for you to do science at all.

You added physical, now show that it is needed.

 

[Polymath257]

No, I don't have to, because you need to show that you have to assume that the universe is physical, in order for you to do science at all.

You added physical, now show that it is needed.

And the fact that science is possible (it is possible to test hypotheses) shows that physical things exist (all with appropriate definitions).

The *definition* of physical used in your link was 'testable'. So, anything testable is, by definition, physical.

But that means that anything non-physical is untestable. But then, what can it possibly mean for it to exist?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And the fact that science is possible (it is possible to test hypotheses) shows that physical things exist (all with appropriate definitions).

The *definition* of physical used in your link was 'testable'. So, anything testable is, by definition, physical.

But that means that anything non-physical is untestable. But then, what can it possibly mean for it to exist?

Well, the meaning of meaning as a word is not physical and nor is the word supervenes. So the universe is not physical, because you can't test all human behavior and only get meaningful answer using physical testing.
To please state mean in purely physical terms!!!

You are using words that have no physical referent and you don't understand that. That is your problem.

 

[YoursTrue]

Book, telescopes, microscopes, have absolutely nothing to do with Evolution.

Brains have MUCH to do with the theory of evolution
Anyway, "anything goes..." as the old song went.

 

[YoursTrue]

No. You make the mistake of assuming that time is infinite into the past. While that may be the case, it is far from proven.

What's "proven" about time? anything?

 

[YoursTrue]

Book, telescopes, microscopes, have absolutely nothing to do with Evolution.

These are learned skills that humans create these objects.

Writing is skill that was developed a little over 5000 years ago. But much of human history, about more than 250,000 years, the Homo sapiens were illiterates. They were independently in predynastic period of Egypt and in proto-Sumerian Uruk.

And even when writing started, most of the world, for most people, they were still illiterate. Not everyone began writing in the same period. Australian natives didn’t learn writing until after Australia was colonised and settled by British immigrants.

As a learned process, writing isn’t built into your DNA; you would learn to write, you weren’t born with this ability.

you are making another absurd claim, claim that has nothing to do with Evolution.

if you were good as you have bragged about being top biology student in high school, then you would have & should have known that the ability to write are not imprinted into your DNA, as it isn’t an inheritable trait.

You must have me confused with someone else. Anything goes, take care.

 

[Polymath257]

What's "proven" about time? anything?

Well, it extends back about 13.7 billion years in our current reference frame. We know a fair amount about the geometry of spacetime and how it interacts with matter and energy.

 

[osgart]

No. You make the mistake of assuming that time is infinite into the past. While that may be the case, it is far from proven.

The word 'eternal' has a couple of meanings:

1) for all time.
2) for an infinite amount of time.

For the first definition, the universe is eternal because *time is part of the universe*. Even if time is finite into the past, the universe has existed for all time (and is thereby eternal according to the first definition).

But it seems that you prefer the second definition. That may of may not be the case. In the simplest versions of the BB theory, time is finite into the past. Spacetime did not 'pre-exist' because there simply was no 'pre-'. There simply is no 'before the BB'. This is NOT the existence of a 'nothing'. There simply was no existence prior to the BB (again, in the standard models).

What's the difference between nothing, and no existence?

Also if there were no existence prior to the BB, then from where did the BB instantiate? You seem to be saying the universe could have created itself. From what though?

This changes if some sort of multiverse theory is correct.

Time to me is that which propels events forward, allows motion, and change to happen. How can anyone measure time, and it not be an arbitrary measure? Whether it be atomic clocks, or entropy, those measures seem arbitrarily chosen.

The actual measure of time is perhaps not at all capable of being measured.

Also by eternal I think the most common definition is that there was never a time where existence did not exist.