Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[ratiocinator]

Believe what you like .. I, for one, am not fooled by the deception.

Looks like you're the one trying a deception, since you won't even tell us how you test your ideas against reality.

We know how science tests its ideas. If you have some equally reliable way of testing ideas, I'm all ears.....

 

[muhammad_isa]

..you won't even tell us how you test your ideas against reality..

For you, 'reality' = 'the physical universe', and that is your philosophy.
There is no point in me enlightening you otherwise. You will only reject.
'science rules OK' bla bla

 

[ratiocinator]

Ok, let me get this straight, because the lines of longitude converge at the North Pole, you can't travel further north on the surface of the planet.

Got that!

Because a human being cannot travel on the surface of the planet any further north than the North Pole, it is analogous to why there is no time before the BB.

Yes!

No, I don't get it!

Clearly not. Struggling to think of how better to explain.

We can treat the surface of a sphere is a 2-dimensional manifold with certain geometrical properties. It has constant positive curvature, for example, which means that the rules of geometry are somewhat different from a flat surface, like the internal angles of a triangle add up to more than 180°.

GR treats the space-time as a 4-dimensional manifold, with even stranger geometry (even where it's 'flat'). Nevertheless, it is a manifold.

Latitude and longitude are a coordinate system we can use on a sphere (like Earth), but we are also free to use any other coordinate system. The coordinate system is not the manifold.

Each observer or frame of reference in the space-time manifold has a 'natural' coordinate system that is how they would see space and time. Generally speaking, different observers will have different natural coordinate systems. This happens even in 'flat' space-time, where relative motion results is a kind of 'rotation' of the two coordinate systems. This results in time dilation, length contraction, and the relativity of simultaneity. The latter meaning that there is no universal present and the traditional, intuitive, or Newtonian idea of time is dead.

Any space-time coordinate system can break down, and certain coordinates can terminate, on the space-time manifold, just as latitude and longitude can on the Earth's surface.

In cosmology, when considering the universe as a whole, we use a notional coordinate system that is based on a frame of reference that emerged from the BB and has experienced nothing but the expansion of space ever since.

According to GR, that frame's time dimension terminates about 14 billion years ago at the BB where there is a space-time singularity - which, unlike the Earth's North Pole, is a feature of the underlying manifold and at which all timelike past-pointing coordinates terminate.

I guess the main point is that we are dealing with a manifold which has a geometry, not space that just persists through (separate) time.

 

[ratiocinator]

For you, 'reality' = 'the physical universe', and that is your philosophy.
There is no point in me enlightening you otherwise. You will only reject.

You don't appear to have even tried.

What reality does your version of time exist in and how do you test ideas about that reality?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes!


Clearly not. Struggling to think of how better to explain.

We can treat the surface of a sphere is a 2-dimensional manifold with certain geometrical properties. It has constant positive curvature, for example, which means that the rules of geometry are somewhat different from a flat surface, like the internal angles of a triangle add up to more than 180°.

GR treats the space-time as a 4-dimensional manifold, with even stranger geometry (even where it's 'flat'). Nevertheless, it is a manifold.

Latitude and longitude are a coordinate system we can use on a sphere (like Earth), but we are also free to use any other coordinate system. The coordinate system is not the manifold.

Each observer or frame of reference in the space-time manifold has a 'natural' coordinate system that is how they would see space and time. Generally speaking, different observers will have different natural coordinate systems. This happens even in 'flat' space-time, where relative motion results is a kind of 'rotation' of the two coordinate systems. This results in time dilation, length contraction, and the relativity of simultaneity. The latter meaning that there is no universal present and the traditional, intuitive, or Newtonian idea of time is dead.

Any space-time coordinate system can break down, and certain coordinates can terminate, on the space-time manifold, just as latitude and longitude can on the Earth's surface.

In cosmology, when considering the universe as a whole, we use a notional coordinate system that is based on a frame of reference that emerged from the BB and has experienced nothing but the expansion of space ever since.

According to GR, that frame's time dimension terminates about 14 billion years ago at the BB where there is a space-time singularity - which, unlike the Earth's North Pole, is a feature of the underlying manifold and at which all timelike past-pointing coordinates terminate.

I guess the main point is that we are dealing with a manifold which has a geometry, not space that just persists through (separate) time.

I have always understood an analogy was used to provide a simpler way of explaining something, but this...

 

[Polymath257]

You think maybe there was not?

I think it is almost certain that there can be no cause for the universe as a whole (including a multiverse if such exists). Causality is *within* the universe and requires physical laws. That means that there cannot be a cause of causality and thereby no cause of the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

I have always understood an analogy was used to provide a simpler way of explaining something, but this...

And this wasn't just an analogy, but is a simplified version of the actual theory.

 

[Polymath257]

Thank you SZ, you have supported what I have been trying to convey to Polymath and Pogo, that the Earth's spin axis can be extended beyond the actual North and South Poles in the respective north and south directions to the north and south celestial poles.

Polymath and Pogo have argued that my implying there is a north or south direction beyond the north and south poles is incorrect.

I k

Yes, the axis of spin is a direction in space. But that direction *is not north*.

 

[Polymath257]

Is not the North Celestial Pole in the direction of north? Why else would it be called North Celestial Pole?

The direction on the celestial sphere pointing to the pole is north. There is no such direction at the pole.

 

[Polymath257]

No, not science .. philosophy .. but that's all nonsense to you, right?

Most of philosophy is simply confirmation bias on the part of the author. So, yes, the vast majority of philosophy is nonsense.

Philosophy is best when pointing out flaws in arguments and hidden assumptions. it is worst when it claims to make conclusions. It is best done while drinking with friends.

 

[Polymath257]

There is no south of the South Pole, on the two dimensional surface of the three dimensional object that is the earth. The analogy only works in two dimensions; the earth’s electromagnetic field obeys no such constraints.

No, it also works in any number of dimensions. The surface of the Earth is a two dimensional manifold. Spacetime is a four dimensional manifold. And, in fact, the 'singularity' at the BB in general relativity is very similar to the 'singularity' in the coordinate system of the Earth at the south pole.

The main difference is that there are two coordinates on the Earth (latitude and longitude) and four coordinates in spacetime (three for 'space' and one for time). That's why, in one of my analogies, I used latitude as analogous to time.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, the axis of spin is a direction in space. But that direction *is not north*.

You can believe what you want, I deal in the reality represented by names, the names are analogous to sign posts to me pointing to reality.

 

[Polymath257]

You can believe what you want, I deal in the reality represented by names, the names are analogous to sign posts to me pointing to reality.

No, names are conventions and need to be used correctly. There is no such thing as 'north' when you are at the North Pole. There is only 'south'. Similarly, there is no such thing as 'south' when at the South Pole. There is only 'north' there. That is the reality.

Analogously, at the BB there is only 'after', no 'before'.

 

[wellwisher]

Yes, the axis of spin is a direction in space. But that direction *is not north*.

The modern convention of north and south is connected to the compass and earth's magnetic north. It is not about relative reference. The North Star was part of the early convention. You find the Big Dipper, and align the outside two stars of the cup, and these point to the brightest star; North Star. Based on these two things all the maps use that convention. The north and south poles is where the compass spins; true north and south.

This is all less about physical reality; space-time, and more about convention; separated space and separated time. Space-time is about tangible instead of ideas that can set precedent, show the relationships of thing and stand the test of time; blue print for organizing space-time.

things

 

[muhammad_isa]

Causality is *within* the universe and requires physical laws.

Circular argument .. we observe causality within the universe, so
you claim that it is not possible in any other context.

The same with 'time' .. we observe it in this universe, so "that's what it is".
..but in reality (my reality, which encompasses all, and not just physical phenomena), the concept
is not limited to a man-made physical definition.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, names are conventions and need to be used correctly. There is no such thing as 'north' when you are at the North Pole. There is only 'south'. Similarly, there is no such thing as 'south' when at the South Pole. There is only 'north' there. That is the reality.

Analogously, at the BB there is only 'after', no 'before'.

No, names and conceptualizations are meant to represent reality, they are not the reality they are meant to represent. Religious practice otoh is about reality itself, not about definitions of reality,

 

[muhammad_isa]

..the vast majority of philosophy is nonsense..

In your opinion.
In my opinion, it is not designed to 'replace physical science', and encourages a
broader investigation of various topics and phenomena.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Analogously, at the BB there is only 'after', no 'before'.

Only because you define 'time' as merely a property of the universe.

i.e. the beginning of the universe

It cannot be proved either way.

 

[ratiocinator]

Circular argument .. we observe causality within the universe, so
you claim that it is not possible in any other context.

No, that's not the argument. Causality needs time, time is, according to all the evidence, a part of the physical universe.

That doesn't exclude time (or something similar) and causality (or something like it) from existing in other contexts, but the claim that there actually are other contexts and that time and causality exist in them, is a baseless one with no supporting evidence or logical reasoning.

We are not rejecting it because we can logically argue against it or prove it false, simple that you've given us no reason to take the idea at all seriously.

Unless you can actually get round to telling us how you think you know, and how you test that claim....

 

[gnostic]

No, not science .. philosophy .. but that's all nonsense to you, right?

Which philosophy?

You do realize there are not just “one” philosophy, don’t you?

There are hundreds of philosophies…possibly even thousands of them, if you count all the ancient and medieval philosophies that are no longer active today.


Most of them have to do with cultural during certain periods, relating to social relationships or social norms. Some have to do with religions (perhaps more precise word is theology) or mysticism.

And as there are so many of them, different schools of philosophy or different philosophers, often don’t with each other. And as each schools have different worldviews, they often disagree with other, they get defensive, and often use circular reasoning and confirmation biases.

But the majority of them have absolutely to do with the study of nature. Most of them have nothing to do with science.

The one that are most relevant to modern “empirical science” - whether it Natural Sciences or Physical Sciences - is the Methodological Naturalism.

So which philosophy are you talking about?

Unless, you tell us exactly which philosophy you were referring to, you are being rather vague, generic and generalising. Most philosophies on people and on communities, as I said before, dealing with social matters, not about the “Universe”.