Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[ChristineM]

That's fine .. they are philosophizing, as they don't know for sure .. not from science
i.e. it cannot be observed

They are basing their hypothesis on extrapolation of current observations and measurements.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Not really because they are basing their view on particular models that are extrapolated from the science we do know, for example the Hawking no boundary proposal. This is exactly how science works. You have to come up with new ideas to make any progress at all. Every tested theory we have today started life as a speculation.

Right, but that does not mean that they are necessarily correct .. it's speculation.

Furthermore, such arguments are circular, as I've already explained.
eg. define time as a property of the universe, and conclude that it IS ONLY a property of the universe

 

[ChristineM]

Furthermore, such arguments are circular, as I've already explained.
eg. define time as a property of the universe, and conclude that it IS ONLY a property of the universe

So what else it a property of?

 

[muhammad_isa]

So what else it a property of?

How should I know? An alternative universe? Whatever..
It goes against common-sense, that elapsed time is finite.

Relativity also suggests that there is more to it, as when we say 'billions of years',
we have to ask measured "relative to what" ?

 

[ratiocinator]

Right, but that does not mean that they are necessarily correct .. it's speculation.

Yes. That's how all scientific theories start.

Furthermore, such arguments are circular, as I've already explained.
eg. define time as a property of the universe, and conclude that it IS ONLY a property of the universe

It's not at all circular. The phenomenon we call time, has been scientifically investigated theories about it have been constructed and tested. There is no further conclusion that it is only a property of the universe, there is simply not one scrap of evidence to suggest that it is anything else, so the question doesn't even arise.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There is no further conclusion that it is only a property of the universe, there is simply not one scrap of evidence to suggest that it is anything else, so the question doesn't even arise.

See my post #1,664

 

[ChristineM]

How should I know?

You are making the statement, i thought you may know what you were talking about.

An alternative universe?

Possible, there are several hypothesis that suggest this. Do they have their own time or do the use the same time as us?

It goes against common-sense, that elapsed time is finite.

Fortunately the universe is not built common sense

Relativity also suggests that there is more to it, as when we say 'billions of years',
we have to ask measured "relative to what" ?

Relative to what human being understand a year is.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Relative to what human being understand a year is.

You mean, as in the earth in orbit around the sun?

Well, that is all relative, when discussing the possibility of universes.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Do they have their own time.. ?

I'm not sure what that even means.

 

[ChristineM]

You mean, as in the earth in orbit around the sun?

Well, that is all relative, when discussing the possibility of universes.

I mean precisely what i said.

 

[ChristineM]

I'm not sure what that even means.

You mentioned alternative universes, do they have their own time?

 

[muhammad_isa]

You mentioned alternative universes, do they have their own time?

It's own clocks? Does their 'time' begin abruptly before and/or after our universe/time?

I don't know what that means.
For me, time is of infinite nature .. but we perceive it to be as a series of events.

 

[ratiocinator]

See my post #1,664

Okay...

How should I know? An alternative universe? Whatever..

Possible, but, like I said, no evidence.

It goes against common-sense, that elapsed time is finite.

There is absolutely no reason to think "common sense" (human intuition) is applicable for such fundamental questions. It evolved to deal with the very limited environment we had to survive in on Earth. Quantum mechanics couldn't be further from "common sense" and yet its counterintuitive predictions are demonstrably true.

Relativity also suggests that there is more to it, as when we say 'billions of years',
we have to ask measured "relative to what" ?

Relative to a notional frame of reference that emerged from the BB and is affected by nothing but the expansion of the universe.

 

[ChristineM]

It's own clocks? Does their 'time' begin abruptly before and/or after our universe/time?

I don't know what that means.
For me, time is of infinite nature .. but we perceive it to be as a series of events.

In some hypothesis their time would begin with their bb. In others, time for them began at a point on the infinite arrow of time. And in some scenarios our brain could not understand or recognise a particular universe, never mind it's time.

Basically, no one knows if other universes exist, nor when or if time began with that universe or is infinite.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Relative to a notional frame of reference that emerged from the BB and is affected by nothing but the expansion of the universe.

That's nothing but waffle .. the universe is vast, and measured time is not constant throughout
the universe.

..but the important point is, that it is relative to itself, in some way.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Basically, no one knows if other universes exist, nor when or if time began with that universe or is infinite.

That's it .. I agree.
From a scientific perspective, we just don't know.

 

[ratiocinator]

That's nothing but waffle ..

No, it's exactly how the mathematics is done.

the universe is vast, and measured time is not constant throughout
the universe.

It depends on the frame of reference, which is exactly why cosmology uses the one I described.

 

[wellwisher]

There is no such thing as time other than a direction through space-time that depends on the observer/frame of reference. The same is true of 3-dimensional space. That is what all the evidence is telling us.


That's what science does. It builds models of reality that it then tests against reality. That's all your brain does too. Nobody has anything but models.


Nonsense. Before Einstein, they were treated separately. Now we know that they can't be because such models don't work.

The tools of science, used to measure time are clocks. Clocks measure time as a function of space, and do not measure pure time. Science is using the wrong tool for the phenomena; time, it is trying to explain.

As an analogy, say we decide to measure body weight, but define that as the human body, fully dressed. We are not measuring just the body, but the body and clothes like space/ time, instead of just time. One correlation that science may notice, is by assuming clothes plus body equals body weight, is everyone seems to get heavier in the winter. This may appear like a mystery, but it is really due to the winter clothes being heavier than summer clothes. But that only makes sense, if we separate the two unconnected things, when we speak of body weight. Empirical is only as good as the foundation premises. You can do valid science with bad foundation premises.

One thing we know about time, is time propagates to the future. It does not cycle like a sine wave. Clocks will cycle, like waves, but time moves in one direction only; putting aside science fiction and time travel. Clocks are waves, but time is not a wave. It is better described by a potential to the future; line that climbs. Entropy is also not a wave in the sense entropy always net increases to the future. Both time and entropy increase and all things change, via entropy, over time, Things do not return to where they started, like a wave. We are born, age and die like a sloped line with entropy increasing the entire path of the line.

Years ago, I invented what I called an entropic clock to measure pure time. Both seem to follow the same type of curve. This is more of a funny thought experiment but it can get the points across. This entropy clock uses fresh fish, that we leave on the counter to spoil. Pure time is a function of decomposition and entropy increase to a certain point; the dead fish clock. We place the fish on the counter, and when it stinks enough, that is one unit of time. We cannot reuse the dead fish clock since it only has so much time; potential, anti cannot be reverse and recharged like a battery.

This clock is not position dependent since we can place it anywhere in the house, but the counter is easier to clean. However, the fish clock can be a function of temperature; -TS. If I lower T=temperature, like relativity, I can slow pure entropy time, or if I add heat I can speed up the pure entropy time; rotting faster.

The dead fish clock will not be consistent, since the next dead fish may behave differently, and define different units of time; time potential. Time potential is how much time, to the future, until the end goal of any system is achieved; entropic clock time. Just as all fish are not the same, time potential and entropy increase has many variables and can be situational.

All humans a re born with human DNA, and the fertilized ovum has so much time potential. However, this is not the same for all people. Some can live longer. The difference has to do with the rate of entropy increase that expresses the time potential. If there is too much sickness and disease this adds more entropy and can shorter the duration of time, within the time potential.

 

[ratiocinator]

The tools of science, used to measure time are clocks. Clocks measure time as a function of space, and do not measure pure time. Science is using the wrong tool for the phenomena; time, it is trying to explain.

As an analogy, say we decide to measure body weight, but define that as the human body, fully dressed. We are not measuring just the body, but the body and clothes like space/ time, instead of just time. One correlation that science may notice, is by assuming clothes plus body equals body weight, is everyone seems to get heavier in the winter. This may appear like a mystery, but it is really due to the winter clothes being heavier than summer clothes. But that only makes sense, if we separate the two unconnected things, when we speak of body weight. Empirical is only as good as the foundation premises. You can do valid science with bad foundation premises.

One thing we know about time, is time propagates to the future. It does not cycle like a sine wave. Clocks will cycle, like waves, but time moves in one direction only; putting aside science fiction and time travel. Clocks are waves, but time is not a wave. It is better described by a potential to the future; line that climbs. Entropy is also not a wave in the sense entropy always net increases to the future. Both time and entropy increase and all things change, via entropy, over time, Things do not return to where they started, like a wave. We are born, age and die like a sloped line with entropy increasing the entire path of the line.

Years ago, I invented what I called an entropic clock to measure pure time. Both seem to follow the same type of curve. This is more of a funny thought experiment but it can get the points across. This entropy clock uses fresh fish, that we leave on the counter to spoil. Pure time is a function of decomposition and entropy increase to a certain point; the dead fish clock. We place the fish on the counter, and when it stinks enough, that is one unit of time. We cannot reuse the dead fish clock since it only has so much time; potential, anti cannot be reverse and recharged like a battery.

This clock is not position dependent since we can place it anywhere in the house, but the counter is easier to clean. However, the fish clock can be a function of temperature; -TS. If I lower T=temperature, like relativity, I can slow pure entropy time, or if I add heat I can speed up the pure entropy time; rotting faster.

The dead fish clock will not be consistent, since the next dead fish may behave differently, and define different units of time; time potential. Time potential is how much time, to the future, until the end goal of any system is achieved; entropic clock time. Just as all fish are not the same, time potential and entropy increase has many variables and can be situational.

And purple shapes deny short jelly.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't know about you, but I do not categorically know what is conscious and what is not. I do not have a 'sixth sense' that can detect other minds.

I think you're losing track of the discussion, which began with, "We have exactly zero evidence of any other conscious beings," and you asked what one would expect to see. Now, you're implying that you can't detect consciousness, which is supporting the original comment.

We can only detect our own consciousness directly. All other consciousness, if there is any other, is known inferentially through observing behavior that we recognize our own consciousness directing in ourselves. I don't seriously doubt that there is a consciousness on the other end of this discussion, but I don't really need to be correct in that assumption to continue making it and benefitting from making it. I consider such behavior evidence of consciousness, but it is indirect evidence and not definitive.

I think that the original comment was in reference to other conscious beings not on earth, which is obviously correct if that was what was intended. If there are other conscious beings out there, we don't know it yet.

You assume that only brains "generate" minds, yet that is only an assumption.

That wasn't part of my argument, nor is it my position. I am aware of no minds dissociated from brains, which is a different position from the one you attributed to me.

I wonder why you wanted to post that. Are you thinking of disembodied, divine consciousness? There's even less evidence of that than of consciousness in a dog, which we can observe doing things that we do intentionally when we're conscious or semi-conscious (dreaming, sleepwalking, talking or turning in our sleep), but not following general anesthesia or death.

That is merely a projection

That was a response to, "You're a faith-based thinker." I'm surprised that you disagreed. Most faith-based thinkers consider belief by faith to be a virtue and are proud to describe themselves that way.

I'm not surprised that you thought I was projecting. You probably believe that I'm a faith-based thinker as well. I consider belief by faith to be a logical error - it generates non sequiturs, or ideas that don't follow from whatever preceded them - and I know how to avoid doing that, so I do.

I have been given an intelligence, and I'll use it how I see fit.

Of course, and you see fit to believe by faith. Are you offended that I say so?