Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[muhammad_isa]

"Philosophical time" appears to be something you've just made up to suit your preference or faith. A story you like, not anything you seem able to actually provide any reasoning or evidence for. A fantasy.

Not at all .. it is just not a scientific definition/concept of time, which seems to be the only thing
that you are able to understand .. or so you claim.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Thinking “out of the box” is good, but only if it can be tested, supported by experiments or evidence, or both..

..but people who say that 'time starts at the big-bang' cannot test their claims, any
more than somebody who hypothesizes that it doesn't.

 

[muhammad_isa]

One possibility is that that the universe simply is..

Of course, but most scientists believe otherwise.

 

[ratiocinator]

So is the "big Bang" theory tested? or can it be tested?

The "big bang theory" is not actually about the very start, it's about the development of the expanding universe from a very hot, dense state and, yes, it can be, and has been, tested.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The "big bang theory" is not actually about the very start..

How convenient .. and what is "the very start" ?

 

[ratiocinator]

Not at all .. it is just not a scientific definition/concept of time, which seems to be the only thing
that you are able to understand .. or so you claim.

I don't claim to not be able to understand anything but science. You've told me what it isn't but you still haven't distinguished it from a personal fantasy that you seem to have taken from outdated philosophical ideas.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You've told me what it isn't but you still haven't distinguished it from a personal fantasy that you seem to have taken from outdated philosophical ideas.

Anything that isn't modern science seems "outdated" to you, it would appear.
Many people are of the opinion that mankind today are so much smarter than their ancestors.

..and yet we are all heading for a precipice (climate-change for example, and the increasing use of fossil fuels despite the fact we have known for decades).
So much for science.

I studied a degree in Maths and Physics, and have an interest .. but I balance the knowledge
with other academic pursuits, as science is not the b all and end all.
Economics, philosophy and other humanities have a major part to play in our environment
and welfare.

 

[ratiocinator]

..but people who say that 'time starts at the big-bang' cannot test their claims, any
more than somebody who hypothesizes that it doesn't.

Nobody has said they can, or that the conclusion is certain. Everybody who is talking about the science is saying that that is the conclusion from GR alone, without considering QFT and how the two may be unified (something we don't know yet).

You are the only one that seen to be saying that you know (that it didn't).

One possibility is that that the universe simply is.

Of course, but most scientists believe otherwise.

Actually "simply is" is a good way to describe the space-time because it is not, itself, subject to time. Time is directions through it.

How convenient .. and what is "the very start" ?

See all the posts you seem to be basically ignoring in favour of your own version of what you think/would like to think other people are saying.

If you actually paid some attention, it might help reduce the amount of repetition.

 

[Pogo]

So is the "big Bang" theory tested? or can it be tested?

It is not only tested but it has passed every test devised for it.
Furthermore, the theory it is based on passes yet another test every time your GPS tells you where you are.

Have you got another theory or even hypothesis or even wild assed guess that can approach that in terms of reliability to explain the world we live in?

 

[Pogo]

Anything that isn't modern science seems "outdated" to you, it would appear.
Many people are of the opinion that mankind today are so much smarter than their ancestors.

..and yet we are all heading for a precipice (climate-change for example, and the increasing use of fossil fuels despite the fact we have known for decades).
So much for science.

I studied a degree in Maths and Physics, and have an interest .. but I balance the knowledge
with other academic pursuits, as science is not the b all and end all.
Economics, philosophy and other humanities have a major part to play in our environment
and welfare.

And this is a problem with science why? Yes we know all of these things, but as evidence for anything beyond our current understanding towards some external spirit or whatever, they have yet to demonstrate anything beyond being variables in psychology.

 

[Pogo]

How convenient .. and what is "the very start" ?

Nothing you have any better explanation for, when you do science will listen.

 

[ratiocinator]

Anything that isn't modern science seems "outdated" to you, it would appear.
Many people are of the opinion that mankind today are so much smarter than their ancestors.

Not smarter. We've just learned to question things and to rely on testing of ideas against reality, instead of bowing to authority or just trusting imagination and thought alone to tell us about it.

It's made a big difference and is exactly why you are able to post this stuff and for everybody else to it, no matter where in the world they are, all but instantly.

..and yet we are all heading for a precipice (climate-change for example, and the increasing use of fossil fuels despite the fact we have known for decades).
So much for science.

Except you wouldn't know about the problem without science. Science is a powerful tool for understanding but it can't make us more intelligent, less self-interested, or less prone to believe what we'd rather be true over what the evidence tells us....

Economics, philosophy and other humanities have a major part to play in our environment
and welfare.

Indeed, they do. Your problem seems to be that you prefer older ideas from philosophy about time, even though science has now provided better (testable and tested) ideas that go way beyond them. You need to apply the appropriate discipline for the subject at hand.

 

[Pogo]

Nobody has said they can, or that the conclusion is certain. Everybody who is talking about the science is saying that that is the conclusion from GR alone, without considering QFT and how the two may be unified (something we don't know yet).

You are the only one that seen to be saying that you know (that it didn't).


Actually "simply is" is a good way to describe the space-time because it is not, itself, subject to time. Time is directions through it.


See all the posts you seem to be basically ignoring in favour of your own version of what you think/would like to think other people are saying.

If you actually paid some attention, it might help reduce the amount of repetition.

When we leave the realm of the demonstrable we are into philosophy where all is possible and all you need to do is believe because no one has any thing better to counter your logic such as it might be.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Not smarter. We've just learned to question things and to rely on testing of ideas against reality..

Semantics .. you assume that your ancestors "did not question things" .. same thing.

Except you wouldn't know about the problem without science. Science is a powerful tool for understanding but it can't make us more intelligent, less self-interested, or less prone to believe what we'd rather be true over what the evidence tells us....

That's right ..

Indeed, they do. Your problem seems to be that you prefer older ideas from philosophy about time..

No, I do not.
If I was plotting the course of a rocket, I wouldn't use the philosophical definition of
time, it makes no sense.
Similarly, when thinking about the concept of eternity, I wouldn't use the scientific definition of time,
as that makes no sense.

What you are trying to do, is insist that one definition is right, and the other wrong .. when
it is more about context.
The fact that we can observe the relationship between time and space in this universe, means we can
determine how they behave IN THIS PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.

The philosophy of time is not "dead" .. even modern scientists have philosophical
ideas about it:-
There is also something called imaginary time, this was from Stephen Hawking, who said that space and imaginary time are finite but have no boundaries. Imaginary time is not real or unreal, it is something that is hard to visualize. Philosophers can agree that physical time exists outside of the human mind and is objective, and psychological time is mind-dependent and subjective.
- Wikipedia -

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

Look at our star system. Take a point above the Earth and draw a line through the north pole along the spin axis so it comes out the south pole to below the globe. Now this line can be extended in both directions north and south respectively. Fwiw, in the north direction, the North Star would sit almost directly on this line, but it won't always stay north.

 

[muhammad_isa]

When we leave the realm of the demonstrable we are into philosophy where all is possible and all you need to do is believe because no one has any thing better to counter your logic such as it might be.

No .. I have a methodical approach to both science and philosophy.
I question all .. not blindly follow.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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?

Ahem, there was no Earth BB beginning.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Under the standard model, the BB was not created. There was no 'cause'.

Then we don't exist, so this is what nothing looks like!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, for the umpteenth time not believing in a god is not the same as believing there is no god. Personally, all the gods that have been posited by humans are unbelievable, but that is not a positive statement that they cannot or do not exist.

So what does this god you don't believe in look like, describe it? Perhaps I would not believe it exists too?

 

[YoursTrue]

It is not only tested but it has passed every test devised for it.
Furthermore, the theory it is based on passes yet another test every time your GPS tells you where you are.

Have you got another theory or even hypothesis or even wild assed guess that can approach that in terms of reliability to explain the world we live in?

To explain the world we live in is another story.