Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[ratiocinator]

You are changing the subject, do you see that the concept of time represents the continuation of existence, and measurement of existence existing must employ using a proxy because there is no actual entity called time.

No. That is not what the actual evidence supports. All the evidence points to the reality of space-time. And I wasn't changing the subject. Your simplistic view has no explanation for the (measurable) phenomena that I pointed out.

Word salad maybe, but there is only one omnipresent universal space, and there are all these attributes claimed for it, a wise soul may consider them all.

A wise soul would not put superstition and ignorance above evidence and reality.

Space being omnipresent is a rather comical truism. ZPE and dark energy are not attributes of space. Spirit is superstition. Ether is an obsolete concept. This is simple ignorance. Ignorance is correctable, if you decide to learn.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No. That is not what the actual evidence supports. All the evidence points to the reality of space-time. And I wasn't changing the subject. Your simplistic view has no explanation for the (measurable) phenomena that I pointed out.


A wise soul would not put superstition and ignorance above evidence and reality.

Space being omnipresent is a rather comical truism. ZPE and dark energy are not attributes of space. Spirit is superstition. Ether is an obsolete concept. This is simple ignorance. Ignorance is correctable, if you decide to learn.

Of course objects influence each other via, gravity, Casimir effect, radiation pressure, etc., but the principle of time being the continuation of existence is correct, but go ahead and believe what you will, it is your present understanding that counts for you.

Ah ha, but atheism is the pits of ignorance, to imagine that the universe is not alive, and conscious, is simply amazing. But that is the present understanding of atheists, God bless them, they will learn about more about their true nature eventually.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Remind you? Space and time are not separate, they are combined into one manifold..

So that's a no, then .. you would NOT like to remind us..
..just witter on.

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..

Science cannot tell you anything about the unseen .. only philosophy and religion can
explore those possibilities.
To suggest that science can tell you point blank that there is "no before the big-bang" is erroneous.

I'll try again .. would you like to give the scientific definition of time?
Would you like to tell us the definition of space?
They are physical dimensions .. whereas 'before the big-bang' would not be.

The traditional philosophical views of time have simply been overtaken by the science and evidence..

Ha ha!
Only the blinkered, narrow-minded and arrogant would presume 'their field' is the sum total
of knowledge.

In the same way, a blinkered, narrow-minded 'religionist' presumes science can be discarded.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, you are defining it as a psychological trick..

..and how can you be sure that our 'reality' is not some 'psychological trick', which
could all disappear in a 'puff of smoke' ?

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..

Well, it isn't in a physical sense.

 

[ratiocinator]

Ah ha, but atheism is the pits of ignorance, to imagine that the universe is not alive, and conscious, is simply amazing. But that is the present understanding of atheists, God bless them, they will learn about more about their true nature eventually.

More ignorant, evidence- and reasoning-free grandiose claims. Seriously, you demanded evidence from me, but now you are making all these absurd claims and providing no evidence at all.

The double standard is breathtaking.

 

[ratiocinator]

So that's a no, then .. you would NOT like to remind us..

I questioned 'remind' because you don't seem as if you've ever understood. I nevertheless went on to explain as best I can in English (rather than mathematics). Not liking or not understanding what I said does not mean I didn't answer. If you have questions, I'll try to answer.

To suggest that science can tell you point blank that there is "no before the big-bang" is erroneous.

I already said that we can't know this. That is the conclusion we get if we apply GR alone. However, we know that quantum effects would be significant and we don't have a unified theory yet. Hence, all the hypotheses.

Science cannot tell you anything about the unseen ..

Is this a joke? Science deals with the unseen all the time. Ever seen a gamma ray? An electron? The way a star produces energy? I could go on endlessly....

.. only philosophy and religion can
explore those possibilities.

Philosophy can ask question but has never provided definitive answers, at least about questions of the nature of the universe or physical reality. Religion is just superstition.

I'll try again .. would you like to give the scientific definition of time?
Would you like to tell us the definition of space?

As I said, they are not separate. They are one, continuous 4-dimensional manifold. What one observer sees as space and time is generally different from other observers.

Ha ha!
Only the blinkered, narrow-minded and arrogant would presume 'their field' is the sum total
of knowledge.

I didn't make that claim. However, the nature of time is firmly in the realm of physics. Philosophy had a go at the question without any real evidence and came up with some possibilities. These were basically all wrong, to a greater or lesser degree. We now have a very well tested scientific theory of space-time that matches reality and is used in technology.

 

[muhammad_isa]

As I said, they are not separate..

Of course they are defined separately .. what's the matter with you?

Since 1967, the SI base unit for time is the SI second, defined as exactly "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom" (at a temperature of 0 K and at mean sea level)
Current_time_standards - Wikipedia

Currently, the standard space interval, called a standard meter or simply meter, is defined as the distance traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of exactly 1/299,792,458 of a second.
Space#Physics - Wikipedia

They are both base dimensions in physics, and are used in calculations.
They do NOT define what time and space actually are.

..so drawing conclusions about what they are from these definitions is erroneous.

I didn't make that claim. However, the nature of time is firmly in the realm of physics.

As defined in physics, how could it not be?

We now have a very well tested scientific theory of space-time that matches reality and is used in technology.

Well, as Einstein has been reported to have said:-

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.

 

[ratiocinator]

Of course they are defined separately .. what's the matter with you?

No, they are not. You are confusing the units we use to measure them, with the basic physics.

Yet again: any specific observer will see space and time differently, but they are seeing different 'slices' through space-time, as their space and time, from other observers. A simple calculation in Special Relativity, shows that just a walking pace relative speed (about 4mph) results in a difference in simultaneity (what is happening 'now' relative to each observer), at the distance of the Andromeda galaxy, is about five and a half days.

The difference in time 'slices' is why we get relative speed time dilation, that has to be compensated for in the GPS.

The underlying reality is that space-time is one manifold that you cannot separate out into space and time in any absolute way (you can only do it for a specific observer/frame of reference). That is the theory that works.

Well, as Einstein has been reported to have said:-

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.

As far as I've been able to find out, this is a (widely shared) misquote. What he actually referred to as a 'persistent' or 'tenacious' illusion was the distinction between past, present, and future - a direct reference to the nature of the space-time manifold.

Quote Origin: The Distinction Between Past, Present, and Future Is Only a Stubbornly Persistent Illusion – Quote Investigator®

quoteinvestigator.com

 

[Polymath257]

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.,

No, it does not extend beyond the pole. You can go *up*, but not further south, when you are at the South Pole.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, it does not extend beyond the pole. You can go *up*, but not further south, when you are at the South Pole

Your understanding, or lack thereof, wrt the reality meant to be represented by the concept of direction, is not sufficient to warrant the effort, for it is on a par with atheists who think there the universe invented itself in a BB. God bless them though, they will eventually learn.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, they are not. You are confusing the units we use to measure them, with the basic physics.

I don't think so..

The difference in time 'slices' is why we get relative speed time dilation, that has to be compensated for in the GPS.

You are just wittering on about scientific observations of our universe, which while interesting, is irrelevant to the points I raise.

If time and space are not "separate" concepts, than why do we not use one word for them in everyday language? (and scientific calculation, for that matter)

As far as I've been able to find out, this is a (widely shared) misquote. What he actually referred to as a 'persistent' or 'tenacious' illusion was the distinction between past, present, and future - a direct reference to the nature of the space-time manifold.

Again, irrelevant .. I'm aware of that, and it makes no difference.

 

[ratiocinator]

...for it is on a par with atheists who think there the universe invented itself in a BB.

Looks like shameless misrepresentation. This atheist thinks no such thing, and I know of nobody at all that does.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Looks like shameless misrepresentation. This atheist thinks no such thing, and I know of nobody at all that does.

Then who does an atheist think created the BB?

 

[ratiocinator]

I don't think so..

And people should care about your uninformed, unjustified opinion because.......?

You are just wittering on about scientific observations of our universe, which while interesting, is irrelevant to the points I raise.

Our understanding of the nature of space-time is very relevant to consideration of the BB and if there was anything 'before'. If you abandon that, you are just **** up.

If time and space are not "separate" concepts, than why do we not use one word for them in everyday language? (and scientific calculation, for that matter)

Because we experience them differently, and there is a distinction between timelike and spacelike intervals (the space-time version of distance). If you're actually doing calculations in relativity, one tends to use relativistic units in which the speed of light is 1. In special relativity, your axes are basically (x, y, z, ct), where c is the speed of light in a vacuum and ct is now in units of distance.

 

[ratiocinator]

Then who does an atheist think created the BB?

Atheism is just not believing in any God or gods. Beyond that, nobody can say what they collectively believe or not.

For myself, I reject the baseless assumption in your question, and you clearly haven't been paying any attention to the answers you've already been given. There is no reason whatsoever to think the BB needed creating, let alone by a 'who'.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Atheism is just not believing in any God or gods. Beyond that, nobody can say what they collectively believe or not.

For myself, I reject the baseless assumption in your question, and you clearly haven't been paying any attention to the answers you've already been given. There is no reason whatsoever to think the BB needed creating.

But you were all indignant when I said that atheists believe that the universe invented itself. Now you are admitting that it did, for if you believe there is no creator God, the universe had to have started itself in a BB. Yes?

 

[wellwisher]

Here is what I see from the Bible (Genesis 2:5-7 Berean Study Bible translation)
"Now no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, nor had any plant of the field sprouted; for the LORD God had not yet sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6But springs welled up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.
7Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being."

So in v. 5 it says no shrub had appeared and no plant sprouted because God had not yet sent rain, AND there was no man to cultivate the ground. Then verse 6 says that springs welled up from the earth and water the surface. AFTER THAT God formed man from the dust of the ground and the man became a living being. (verse 7) As I said, I'm not a scientist, but from what I'm reading, moisture in the air and in the soil is very, very important for vegetation to grow.

So I don't see a contradiction in chapter 2 of Genesis regarding the unfolding (sequence) of events.

This symbolism reminds me of the desert, where there is no rain and few if any plants, except near an oasis where water springs up from the ground. It is very dusty. Through climate change, the weather pattern changes and rains begin to appear in that same place and plant life follows. The end of the last glacial period happened about 10,000 years, which is consistent with the Genesis dating; 6000 years ago there is a shift in the climate.

Humans have two center of consciousness; inner self and ego. The inner self is common to all animals. Human have an inner self, like all animals, as well as an ego. The human inner self is innate to all humans based on our common human DNA, while the ego secondary is empty at birth and matures via cultural learning. This ego can be as varied as cultures and subcultures. I tend to belief that Adam and Eve, symbols the rise of the modern human ego, in men and women, which appear to have consolidated with the rise of civilization and the invention of written language. The ego appears around 6-10k years ago; end of the last glacial period. Genesis was one of the first published papers in science. The invention of writing, was needed before publication was even possible.

In Genesis, Adam is assigned the task of naming all the plants and animals. By giving them a name and writing it down, the animals formally appear in terms of the official written catalog. Until any science is published it is not formally accepted. When Einstein finished and published his theories of relativity, that is when we date the discovery, not the years of thought before that.

The appearance and consolidation of the human ego, created a more differential view of the universe, since it is more connected to the left brain. The inner self is more right brain like instincts, which are integral and spatial. The inner self is more immersed into nature, while the ego sets one apart from nature, so you can better see and notice all the distinctions that the inner self integrates. The animal, via its inner self can see all the things around it, but unless their instinct fixates on anything; instinctive interest, it is not cataloged the same way as the ego would do. The little differences mean much more to the ego. With the appearance of the ego, the universe would appear to suddenly differentiate to humans, as though it suddenly appears from nothing and comes into focus.

I remember taking my first chemistry course in high school, which became my favorite all time subject. After that, I started to notice the chemical nature of all the things around me. I had never thought of it that way before; immersion comes into focus.

 

[ratiocinator]

But you were all indignant when I said that atheists believe that the universe invented itself. Now you are admitting that it did, for if you believe there is no creator God, the universe had to have started itself in a BB. Yes?

No. As I said, you've clearly not paid any attention to what has been said (or it's gone way over your head). Did the Earth start itself at the North Pole?

 

[Polymath257]

..and how can you be sure that our 'reality' is not some 'psychological trick', which
could all disappear in a 'puff of smoke' ?

To what extent of surety? I could be just a brain in a vat with all my perceptions illusory. I don't believe that is the case and I assume that is not the case. My confidence that it is not the case is as high as any belief I have.

Well, it isn't in a physical sense.

Not being observable in a physical sense is equivalent to only existing in the imagination.

 

[Polymath257]

Your understanding, or lack thereof, wrt the reality meant to be represented by the concept of direction, is not sufficient to warrant the effort, for it is on a par with atheists who think there the universe invented itself in a BB. God bless them though, they will eventually learn.

Look at a globe. Take a point at the equator and draw an arrow in the direction of 'south'. Then go half way to the south pole and draw another arrow in the direction of 'south' at that point. Those two arrows will NOT be in the same direction. They are both tangent to the sphere and pointing in directions that are quite different.