Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[ratiocinator]

There cannot be a scientific explanation, because science is about observations of
the universe.

As I pointed out in #992 in the 'standard' view, based only on General Relativity (GR), it's a non-question, because the space-time is self-contained. It is not subject to time, time is an observer dependant direction though it.

Hypothetically (because we don't really know how GR works with Quantum Field Theory and both will be important) there are many possibilities. Science absolutely can deal with this.

One cannot deduce something scientifically about something that has not yet existed.

Of course you can. This is a misunderstanding of how science works. Science predicted, and brought about, the first nuclear fission explosion on the planet, and possibly the first, full stop (fission explosions are not known to occur naturally).

 

[ratiocinator]

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

Then we have what the evidence tells us. Which is the GR view of space-time. Loosely like the philosophical view of eternalism or the 'block universe', except that we know, from evidence, that space-time is one manifold and that space and time are not separate.

We also know it can 'curve', the rate of time can change and that there is no such thing as a universal present.

 

[Polymath257]

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

Both of these views, as stated, have deep problems.

Newton did his work 350 years ago. We have learned a bit since then. Unlike the Newtonian description given, the universe of spacetime is not stratified sequentially. Instead, time is one of the dimensions we use to describe locations in spacetime. But different observers will give different time intervals as well as different space intervals: the geometry is in no single coordinate system, but rather in the overall 4D geometry.

In analogy, a sphere has no pre-determined latitude and longitude, no north or south poles. But, once those coordinates are chosen, we can describe any location on the sphere.

But *proper* time *is* a central physical aspect of our universe, not simply a mental construct. It relates directly to that 4D geometry and can be measured to very high precision. Many aspects of time cannot be detected directly by humans (anything shorter than a few milliseconds). But they can still be measured and used to understand.

In sum, the first view is wrong mainly because it has been superceded and the second is wrong because it ignores the fact that we *can* measure time intervals and understand how time relates to physics.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Of course you can. This is a misunderstanding of how science works..

Errr.. , no.
Science is about observation of the universe. One cannot say anything about anything
'before the big-bang'.

Naturally, if one defines time in terms of space, it is no surprise, that it appears
as though 'before the big-bang' is a nonsense.

It's much like 'think of a number' add such and such .. take away the number you first thought of,
and hey presto .. what a surprise.
i.e. the mathematical answer is dependent on the definition.

 

[muhammad_isa]

But *proper* time *is* a central physical aspect of our universe, not simply a mental construct.

As far as scientific observation of the universe goes, yes .. and the definitions are based on these.
i.e. how we observe time in relation to space.

There IS no defined 'time and space' before the big-bang. Therefore we cannot observe anything
about that.
We can only make deductions through mathematical extrapolation, with our already defined
dimensions.

The answer is quite obvious .. as we have already defined time in that manner.

In sum, the first view is wrong mainly because it has been superceded and the second is wrong because it ignores the fact that we *can* measure time intervals and understand how time relates to physics.

There is nothing wrong with the second view .. it just means that we are not defining time as
being only a dimension of this universe.

It cannot be observed. This reality is all we see .. anything else is hidden from us.
Furthermore, it is unreasonable (and arrogant) to assume that we have reached the pinnacle
of what CAN be observed.

 

[ratiocinator]

Errr.. , no.

Err..., yes.

Science is about observation of the universe. One cannot say anything about anything
'before the big-bang'.

We absolutely can, although we are currently limited to hypotheticals because we have no tested theory that unites General Relativity with Quantum Field Theory. Just using GR, says that 'before the big bang' is meaningless. Other hypotheses abound. There is a rather good series of documentaries on YouTube about various hypotheses:

Before the Big Bang 1 - Loop Quantum Cosmology Explained
Before the big bang 2 - Conformal Cyclic Cosmology explained (part 7 is an update of this)
Before the Big Bang 3: String Theory Cosmology (unfortunately there's no sound for about the first minute)
Before the Big Bang 4: Eternal Inflation & The Multiverse
Before the Big Bang 5: The No Boundary Proposal
Before the Big Bang 6: Can the Universe Create Itself?
Before the Big Bang 7: An Eternal Cyclic Universe, CCC revisited & Twistor Theory
Before the Big Bang 8: Varying Speed Of Light Cosmology (VSL)
Before the Big Bang 9: A Multiverse from "Nothing"
Before the Big Bang 1O : Black Hole Genesis
Before the Big Bang 11: Did the Universe Create itself ? The PTC model

Many of them have interviews with the actual theorists working on them. Enjoy.

Naturally, if one defines time in terms of space, it is no surprise, that it appears
as though 'before the big-bang' is a nonsense.

It's not a question of definition. The view of space-time we have was deduced from the evidence and has been extensively tested.

It's much like 'think of a number' add such and such .. take away the number you first thought of,
and hey presto .. what a surprise.
i.e. the mathematical answer is dependent on the definition.

It isn't like that at all. Sorry.

 

[ratiocinator]

There is nothing wrong with the second view .. it just means that we are not defining time as
being only a dimension of this universe.

So, just making things up, without reasoning or evidence.

If you want fiction, that's okay, but if you're interested in reality, it's absurd.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It's not a question of definition. The view of space-time we have was deduced from the evidence and has been extensively tested.

Right .. we have investigated how time and space are related through scientific observation,
and continually update our definition of the physical dimensions.

Perhaps you'd like to remind us all of the current scientific definitions of 'time' .. and 'space'.

Incidentally, these definitions are not truths in themselves .. they are convenient representations
for their intended purpose .. i.e. measurements in this universe

 

[muhammad_isa]

So, just making things up, without reasoning or evidence.

Science is not 'making things up', and neither is philosophy.
They are two different disciplines, and both have a contribution to make to
enlighten mankind, and stimulate further thought.

 

[ratiocinator]

Right .. we have investigated how time and space are related through scientific observation,
and continually update our definition of the physical dimensions.

Perhaps you'd like to remind us all of the current scientific definitions of 'time' .. and 'space'.

Remind you? Space and time are not separate, they are combined into one manifold. The way that is defined is in mathematics (it's a 4-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian manifold). As I explained before, in practical terms, this means that different observers will see different directions though the manifold as their space and time. There is no universal present or universal direction that is time.

This model (the exact mathematical version) has been tested extensively and has correctly predicted outcomes entirely accurately to date.

Incidentally, these definitions are not truths in themselves .. they are convenient representations
for their intended purpose .. i.e. measurements in this universe

What we have is a well tested scientific theory. That means we have a model that matches reality closely. It isn't some arbitrary definition. The same model is used in the GPS system, which simply wouldn't work without it. Every time you use GPS you are testing our theory of space-time.

Science is not 'making things up', and neither is philosophy.

Science is not about making things up, it's about building models and testing them. Philosophy is a curate's egg at best. It can be very useful in asking questions and thinking about principles, but it never settled anything. The traditional philosophical views of time have simply been overtaken by the science and evidence. It's actually more complicated than any philosopher managed to think of before the science got there.

The closet they got was eternalism. But they failed to anticipate that the directions though the 'block' that correspond to space and time might be relative, rather than fixed, nor did they imagine that its geometry could vary from place to place within the 'block'.

 

[Polymath257]

As far as scientific observation of the universe goes, yes .. and the definitions are based on these.
i.e. how we observe time in relation to space.

There IS no defined 'time and space' before the big-bang. Therefore we cannot observe anything
about that.

At least, under the standard model using only general relativity. When quantum effects are added, it becomes *possible* that there was earlier time and space. if so, we might be able to observe such through its effects on the past-BB universe.

We can only make deductions through mathematical extrapolation, with our already defined
dimensions.

Yes. And this is a technique that has worked quite well if done from otherwise tested theories.

The answer is quite obvious .. as we have already defined time in that manner.


There is nothing wrong with the second view .. it just means that we are not defining time as
being only a dimension of this universe.

No, you are defining it as a psychological trick.

It cannot be observed. This reality is all we see .. anything else is hidden from us.
Furthermore, it is unreasonable (and arrogant) to assume that we have reached the pinnacle
of what CAN be observed.

True that we may well be able to observe more as we learn more about the universe. For example, 200 years ago, nobody knew about radio, gamma rays, nuclear radiation, etc. We may very well find new ways to detect aspects of our universe that we cannot detect today.

But that isn't what many theists claim about a supernatural. Instead, they often claim that a supernatural is, by its nature, never observable or testable. And it is that move that takes it from 'possible, but we don't know' to 'what does it even mean for something like that to exist'?

 

[gnostic]

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?

of course, I would look to the sky in east and to the south, as I am Earth-bound, just as about everyone else, except those few people who get to become astronauts on their missions.

Those who do get to travel to space, the Cartesian direction don’t apply.

 

[gnostic]

Science is about observation of the universe. One cannot say anything about anything
'before the big-bang'.

Actually, a number of theoretical physicists and theoretical cosmologists have tried to go beyond the limits of the models of the Big Bang theory.

However a lot of theoretical models, have failed to test their alternatives.

There are various models or versions on the Cyclical Universe and on Multiverse, and every single ones of them, have only their respective mathematical solutions, but no real-world evidence & data to support their respective maths.

There are also the String Universe model or Brane Universe model, which are governed by String Theory and Superstring Theory, however String & Superstring theories themselves remained untested, so these cosmological models fall apart.

You are correct In that the Big Bang theory is based on the evidence & data, observational experiments of our Observable Universe, and the earliest light that we can observe are those mapped out of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. We cannot observe beyond that because the universe before the CMBR is opaque and hot, due to the whole universe being in plasma state.

All those alternative theoretical cosmological models that I have mentioned, as I said are untested, therefore each one of them are speculations than anything else.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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

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

So what is the reality represented by the concept 'time' if not the continuity of 3D space?

I say that you are trying to dodge the reality that the concept 'came into existence' means the BB 'began'. It also self evident that nothing can come from nothing, so that leaves either a God was present or a multiverse.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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

We are on Earth and south is a direction, and just as it extends beyond the pole, so does time extends in the past beyond the theoretical BB beginning.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There is no reality there. That is the point.

Exactly, that is the best definition of nothing anyone can provide but the problem is, nothing does not exist, and if it did, nothing could come out of it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

Science may be good a modelling, but models of reality are not the same as the reality they are meant to represent, a lot of smoke and mirrors can be involved in scientists trying to get money grants, etc.. Corruption pervades science like it does religious institutions.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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).

Ok, but back to the point, south is a direction on Earth, and it extends beyond the South Pole. As does philosophical time has a past back to the time when BBers believe nothing existed.,

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Here are the following responses of yours to @ratiocinator -












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.

Links to BB beliefs are not evidence, as links to bible passages are not evidence.

Look, BB believers are just the same as religious fundamentalists, neither can provide evidence of their respective beliefs on how the universe came into existence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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?

You are not following. south is a direction, I am only using it because it was put forward as an analogy to try and show there was no before the BB, but the analogy does not work as planned, it in fact shows that that time extends in the past beyond the BB beginning, The concept of direction has no limit, it extends to infinity.