Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[Ben Dhyan]

No, because it is in the southern celestial hemisphere as seen from Earth.

You are conflating different notions of 'nothing'. I am not saying that a thing called nothing existed prior to the BB. I am saying that there was no existence at all before the BB. Do you see the difference?

That is what I conveyed in different words.

And that is what I call nothing. not a notion of nothing, but no existence at all.

 

[Polymath257]

Are you saying that the Southern Cross is not in the southern direction as seen from the southern hemisphere? Why do you think it is called the Southern Cross?

The southern cross would look like it was to the north if you were at the south pole of the Earth.

 

[ratiocinator]

Objectivity is duality, experiencer and experience, non-duality is unity.

Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.

 

[Polymath257]

There is the scientific definition of time (used in 'the standard model'), which is defined
relative to space.

There is also philosophical time, which is NOT defined relative to space.

No, time is defined through *motion*.

Please give the definition for 'philosophical time'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dodger.

No, you cannot even ask a proper question. You were the one that ran away from an actual question.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, did space or time exist when the BB universe did not exist?

There was no 'when the BB universe did not exist' (under the standard model).

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, I will keep it simple, if I ask you to look at the stars in the eastern sky, would you know where to look? If I ask you to look at the stars in the southern sky, would you know where to look?

The origin of the names that represent the respective directions, east, north, west, and south, is another subject, but as concepts, they represent the reality of direction, not place, there is no finite limit to distance wrt direction.

If you are not on Earth, but are instead in space, then the notions of 'north, south, east, and west' have no meaning.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The southern cross would look like it was to the north if you were at the south pole of the Earth.

And it would look different if you were on Mars.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, if the universe existed always then it had no beginning, now we are in agreement, the universe is eternal.

That does not follow.

 

[ratiocinator]

That's ok, keep your models, they are models of reality, not the reality they are meant to represent. Funny how some people get so caught up in mental representation of reality, they forget what they are capable of as an expression of Universe

Capable of what? You have shown zero evidence that you are capable of anything that is as good as the models, let alone better. The world is full of people who claim great insights without evidence. They are two-a-penny, and they disagree with each other.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There was no 'when the BB universe did not exist' (under the standard model).

Ok.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, time is just the continuation of 3D space.

No, it is not. Not any more than 'left' is a continuation of 2D space.

So if you have GR saying spacetime just is, always, why do the BBers here say spacetime only came into existence with the BB?

The phrase 'came into existence' is inaccurate. Spacetime *began* at the BB singularity (in the standard model).

 

[Polymath257]

What is the reality represented by 'no before the BB'?

There is no reality there. That is the point.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Capable of what? You have shown zero evidence that you are capable of anything that is as good as the models, let alone better. The world is full of people who claim great insights without evidence. They are two-a-penny, and they disagree with each other.

Duality has its place, but science is out of its depth when it bites off more than it can chew.

 

[ratiocinator]

Duality has its place, but science is out of its depth when it bites off more than it can chew.

Still waiting for the smallest hint of the tiniest morsel of evidence that anything else can do any better.

Science has actually shown that it's very good at modelling space and time. There is plentiful evidence that it has an accurate model. You have given us nothing but waffle, hand-waving, and unjustified assertions.

 

[Polymath257]

And it would look different if you were on Mars.

The stars would not look significantly different on Mars. They are far enough away that the constellations would be the same. The motion of the planets would look quite different.

The directions of north, south, east, and west would also be different. The north celestial pole of Mars is in the direction of the constellation of Cygnus, not Ursa Minor like Earth's pole. Also, while the Earth has a *north* pole star (Polaris), Mars has a *south* pole star (Kappa Velorum).

 

[gnostic]

Here are the following responses of yours to @ratiocinator -

Neither are strictly right. The second is falsified by evidence. Time just isn't like that.

The first isn't really right either, because it's not that simple. Time isn't a single direction that is added to 3D space. Different observers will see different directions though space-time as time and space relative to them. Other observers (generally speaking) will see different directions.

This is even true in Special Relativity. Relative velocity corresponds to a kind of 'rotation' of the perceptions of space and time, which is why we have time dilation, space contraction, and the relativity of simultaneity.

Show me the evidence.

Seriously? I can't type it all out on a forum. Just do a search. Here are the Wiki articles to get you started.

Tests of special relativity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Tests of general relativity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't mean a conceptualization of reality, I mean reality itself.

If you think you are directly in touch with reality, show me the evidence.

I don't think, thinking is conceptualizing. Reality can't be shown, you are stuck in duality, a seer and a seen, non-duality has to be realized in stilling the mind.

You ask for evidence, ratiocinator directed you to 2 links.

You responded dismissively with “conceptualization of reality” vs “reality itself”.

You responded with a philosophical sophistry about meditation vs duality…

you demand for evidence, but ignore any requests for evidence from others. You have accused others of dodging, but that’s all you have been doing. Double standard wrt burden of proof and evasion are trick of the trade for your New Age woo…

And btw, you are and always have been “conceptualizing reality”. That’s all you have been doing. Your hypocrisy is louder than thunder.

 

[gnostic]

Are you saying that the Southern Cross is not in the southern direction as seen from the southern hemisphere? Why do you think it is called the Southern Cross?

i have told before, if you were at the South Pole, the Southern Cross would not be seen directly overhead from your position; the observer would see the Southern Cross at 60 degrees from the south pole.

plus, given that you already at the South Pole, it will still be guiding you south, but how can you go further south when you’re already there?

 

[muhammad_isa]

And thus the dilemma for the BB start theory, how to find a reasonable scientific explanation for getting 4D timespace reality into existence from no 4D timespace reality.

There cannot be a scientific explanation, because science is about observations of
the universe.
One cannot deduce something scientifically about something that has not yet existed.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, time is defined through *motion*.

Please give the definition for 'philosophical time'.

Two contrasting viewpoints on time divide prominent philosophers. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe – a dimension independent of events, in which events occur in sequence. Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.

The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.
Time_in_Western_philosophy - Wikipedia