Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[Pogo]

Reality is on the other side of words/concepts, keep that in mind as we strive to improve our effectiveness to convey a difficult conceptualization with clarity.

The concept of "no 'before the BB' " lacks clarity imho, I would hope we can find an appropriate alternative concept to represent the idea of no "before the BB".

Let me propose a couple and let me know which you prefer, first is "timelessness". We can agree that if we travel back in time far enough, we will get to BB time zero which could be called timelessness. Or we could call it "nonexistence". But my favorite is the combination, "timeless nonexistence".

What do you think?

I think that you should stop using colloquial understandings of words to express concepts where rigid definitions are appropriate, the ambiguity in meaning is not a sign of greater wisdom, but a sign of lack of understanding of the concepts being dealt with.
The idea that no thing can be contracted to nothing is not enlightening in an exploration of the universe however we define it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

For each day we can count we can count both forwards and backwards forever and ever
The BB would require energy in order for it to start, who provided that dynamic energy start ____________
Since God is from everlasting then God is the Source of the BB - Psalm 90:2
God sent forth His spirit according to Psalm 104:30 in order to create

I understand, but I would like to also understand what others have to say.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I think that you should stop using colloquial understandings of words to express concepts where rigid definitions are appropriate, the ambiguity in meaning is not a sign of greater wisdom, but a sign of lack of understanding of the concepts being dealt with.
The idea that no thing can be contracted to nothing is not enlightening in an exploration of the universe however we define it.

Forgive me for not understanding your belief with clarity yet, but are you implying that the idea that something cannot be contracted to nothing is not true or true? Just a plain true or not true will be fine, thanks.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If I understand what some here and elsewhere say, the laws (these said 'basic laws') do not need a creator. Some believe they just came about by themselves.

Yes, I understand this, which makes how it came about according to their belief/understanding, the hottest question around.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Forgive me for not understanding your belief with clarity yet, but are you implying that the idea that something cannot be contracted to nothing is not true or true? Just a plain true or not true will be fine, thanks.

You need to precisely define what you mean by "nothing" otherwise no one can properly answer your question.

 

[Pogo]

You need to precisely define what you mean by "nothing" otherwise no one can properly answer your question.

And that is just a start in going from popular philosophy to science.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You need to precisely define what you mean by "nothing" otherwise no one can properly answer your question.

You will have to ask Pogo. I was referring to his statement in his post #861, I presumed he was using it to mean 'nothing' as I would in the context, nothing, nonexistence.

 

[YoursTrue]

They have telescopes that get very very close. Have yo ever heard of the Cosmic Background Radiation? That dates to 379,000 years after the Big Bang. That is the upper limit of where we can see. Any older than that and the universe was dark because it was so hot that it was a sea of ions that was opaque to light.

OK. Have a good evening.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, I understand this, which makes how it came about according to their belief/understanding, the hottest question around.

I suppose so. Again, I go back to the old song by Cole Porter -- "Anything Goes..." (thanks)

 

[Polymath257]

If it's not within the universe it is not in the purview of science then. If there was an outside, or a beyond of the universe we could never know about it using science. Or do you go so far as to say that it is known that the universe is all there is.

When did I say there was something outside of the universe?

 

[Polymath257]

Are there time-travel telescopes or go back in time video cameras that can record what happened?

No telescope travels in time. Telescopes can detect light that has been traveling for long periods of time. That light carries information from when it started on ours journey.

But, no, no telescope can pick up information from before the point when the universe became transparent. That happened about 300000 years after the Big Bsng. No telescope or video (?) will be able to directly see anything before that.

 

[Polymath257]

For each day we can count we can count both forwards and backwards forever and ever

Actually, we do not know this. If the simplest versions of the BB hold, then we cannot count backwards forever. There was a point when time started— no before, no counting further backwards.

This comes from the math of general reality.

The BB would require energy in order for it to start, who provided that dynamic energy start ____________
Since God is from everlasting then God is the Source of the BB - Psalm 90:2
God sent forth His spirit according to Psalm 104:30 in order to create

 

[Polymath257]

Reality is on the other side of words/concepts, keep that in mind as we strive to improve our effectiveness to convey a difficult conceptualization with clarity.

The concept of "no 'before the BB' " lacks clarity imho, I would hope we can find an appropriate alternative concept to represent the idea of no "before the BB".

Let me propose a couple and let me know which you prefer, first is "timelessness". We can agree that if we travel back in time far enough, we will get to BB time zero which could be called timelessness. Or we could call it "nonexistence". But my favorite is the combination, "timeless nonexistence".

What do you think?

The analogy is that for every point on earth it is possible to go south. But there is an exception at the South Pole. There is no south of the South Pole. There is no “southlessness”. It is simply that south cannot be defined there.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Actually, we do not know this. Of the simplest versions of the BB hold, then we cannot count backwards forever. There was a point when time started— no before, no counting further backwards.

This comes from the math of general reality.

So that is no physically tested and thus not known. Is that correct?

Also as per your post above the one I quoted.

 

[Polymath257]

Reality is on the other side of words/concepts, keep that in mind as we strive to improve our effectiveness to convey a difficult conceptualization with clarity.

The concept of "no 'before the BB' " lacks clarity imho, I would hope we can find an appropriate alternative concept to represent the idea of no "before the BB".

Let me propose a couple and let me know which you prefer, first is "timelessness". We can agree that if we travel back in time far enough, we will get to BB time zero which could be called timelessness. Or we could call it "nonexistence". But “spotless my favorite is the combination, "timeless nonexistence".

What do you think?

The analogy is that for every point on earth it is possible to go south. But there is an exception at the South Pole. There is no south of the South Pole. There is no “southlessness”. Or isn’t “southless nonexistent”. It is simply that south cannot be defined there.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Actually, we do not know this. Of the simplest versions of the BB hold, then we cannot count backwards forever. There was a point when time started— no before, no counting further backwards.
This comes from the math of general reality.

Because 'eternity is in our hearts' that is also why we can think and count both forwards and backwards forever and ever

Time starting where? because in Scripture God is both from everlasting to everlasting <- Psalm 90:2
Yes, in our material realm of existence, for example, we think of sunrise to sunset as a matter of time
We think of time when we say in grandfather's day or time frame
When God chose to send out His spirit (Psalm 104:30) that started or began the material realm of existence
To me that does Not mean there was No time before that starting point in time
In Scripture, the angelic realm of existence came first before the physical realm

 

[URAVIP2ME]

You will have to ask Pogo. I was referring to his statement in his post #861, I presumed he was using it to mean 'nothing' as I would in the context, nothing, nonexistence.

Was there ever non-existence because as Creator (Rev. 4:11) at Psalm 90:2 God always existed being from everlasting to everlasting

 

[Polymath257]

So that is no physically tested and thus not known. Is that correct?

Also as per your post above the one I quoted.

Yes that is correct. I am explaining the best current theory that has been tested in other cases.

 

[osgart]

When did I say there was something outside of the universe?

You didn't. I did. It seems you cannot define things in the universe past a certain point. Through science no one can ever know if the universe or existence is infinite or not. I'm just saying that if the universe is finite then science is going to reach a limit on what it can know. And if the universe is infinite science will only ever able to go back so far before it reaches a limit.

I don't think the analogy about south of the South Pole is a good one. The furthest point South is merely a conceptual limit to southernness. It says nothing about how far existence goes from a fixed point. We might live in a finite universe and if that's the case there's probably infinite more out there. Otherwise we are talking about non existence existing.

 

[Polymath257]

You didn't. I did. It seems you cannot define things in the universe past a certain point. Through science no one can ever know if the universe or existence is infinite or not. I'm just saying that if the universe is finite then science is going to reach a limit on what it can know. And if the universe is infinite science will only ever able to go back so far before it reaches a limit.

I don't think the analogy about south of the South Pole is a good one. The furthest point South is merely a conceptual limit to southernness. It says nothing about how far existence goes from a fixed point. We might live in a finite universe and if that's the case there's probably infinite more out there. Otherwise we are talking about non existence existing.

And the Big Bang might be the conceptual limit of time. According to general relativity, the time coordinate cannot be extended past that point in a way very similar to the inability to extend latitude past the South Pole. The geometry is similar, although the curvature is more in the BB.