Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[shunyadragon]

I love this essay: The Beginning. by Brig Klyce

Nor is anything gained by running the difficulty farther back.... Our going back, ever so far, brings us no nearer to the least degree of satisfaction upon the subject. — William Paley (1)
How did life begin in the first place? It's a natural question. Yet science is nowhere near the answer to this question. In fact, the question may be flawed. Maybe there was no beginning. This possibility cannot be logically ruled out.

Old references, 1873 and 1914 are meaningless today. This view as with many with a strong religious bent against science based on the fallacy 'arguing from supposed ignorance does not reflect the current knowledge of abiogenesis and evolution.

​

Helmholtz​

This possible consequence of cosmic ancestry is not new. In 1873, the great German physicist Hermann von Helmholtz said, "if failure attends all of our efforts to obtain a generation of organisms from lifeless matter, it seems to me a thoroughly correct scientific procedure to inquire whether there has ever been an origination of life, or whether it is not as old as matter..." (2). Contemporaneously with Helmholtz, Louis Pasteur wrote (3):


In 1914, BAAS President William Bateson suggested that life may have evolved from an original complex that already included all of its ensuing variety (3.5). How could that begin? And in 1926, Russian geochemist V. I. Vernadskii observed (4):

 

[wellwisher]

The universe cannot have always existed. That would be an infinite regress, meaning we would never arrive at the present moment. Let's say I have to complete a certain number of math problems before I can play video games. Maybe it's five problems; fine, then I can play in five minutes. Maybe it's a hundred problems. Less convenient, but I'll get there. Infinite problems? I'd never get to play video games! Similarly, if there were an infinite number of points in time before this one, this point in time could never exist. Ergo, the universe must have a beginning.

What do you think? Am I missing something? Peace

That is a good point. If the universe always existed how long did to take to get to here? Was it infinite time? The estimate we have for time until today is based on a BB beginning, and not a perpetual universe with no beginning. If there was no beginning, we can conceptually start t=0 anywhere, as a reference variable, but will never have an actual genuine t=0. BB time would be a temporal fad.

Say we start from the BB, and it took 13 billion earth years to get to here, how long did the singularity linger in earth years? Or are we still within the singularity, but looking out from the inside, via a more expanded space-time reference?

If I could travel at the speed of light; Special Relativity, the universe would appear contracted to a point instant, which would appears to be the original BB singularity. The universe would not have contracted, because of me, but rather I would appear to see what is not there, due to my reference relativity. If we had an eternal universe; steady state, and the brain could alter reference, we could appear to see the early contracted or expanded universe, all from the POV of an eternal steady state universe. Consciousness could phase in and out, like zooming in an out with a telescope or microscope.

An always existing universe, disproves the universal claim of the BB, since its t=0 is arbitrary as well as reference dependent. There was no earth reference at t=0, yet we measure from the earth. The BB, at t=0, would have been so time dilated due to GR and SR. The inflation could be an artifact of both GR and SR, both able to contract reference to a point; double whammy, until GR and SR shrink add property for space-time.

I prefer the idea of space-time and independent space and independent time. Space-time is finite, while independent space and time is not limited to the constraints of space-time, and can be define as always having existed. This model has two realms, with space-time like an ice cube floating in the endless sea of separated space and time. It is melting back to the mother ship; 2nd law. It is very simple solution that first graders can memorize. Unlike most physics theory it can also accommodate life and consciousness, which is beyond just space-time physics.

For example, imagination, connected to consciousness, can put together space-time data in combinations that are not part of space-time. For example, wings, sun, humans, and wax are all part of space-time. How about wings made of wax used by human, to fly into the sun. This is possible in the imagination, but it is not part of space-time, even though the four parts are. The imagination; innovation, is beyond just space-time and what we can expect to happen in space-time, from just the laws of physics and chance. Innovation needs the human mind, that can go beyond these laws, where space and time are not tethered; impossible combinations in space-time. A genuine theory of everything has to go beyond just physics, and also include consciousness and life, since life and consciousness can manipulate space-time rules for innovative solutions. This comes from separated space and time, where we break the tethers of space-time rules, to add an added stream to space-time; civilization.

This topic is mind expanding and is occurring where space-time ends and separated space and time begin. There is no real solution but rather all the options can be on the table, since they are possible in separated space and time.

 

[gnostic]

That is a good point. If the universe always existed how long did to take to get to here? Was it infinite time? The estimate we have for time until today is based on a BB beginning, and not a perpetual universe with no beginning. If there was no beginning, we can conceptually start t=0 anywhere, as a reference variable, but will never have an actual genuine t=0. BB time would be a temporal fad.

Say we start from the BB, and it took 13 billion earth years to get to here, how long did the singularity linger in earth years? Or are we still within the singularity, but looking out from the inside, via a more expanded space-time reference?

If I could travel at the speed of light; Special Relativity, the universe would appear contracted to a point instant, which would appears to be the original BB singularity. The universe would not have contracted, because of me, but rather I would appear to see what is not there, due to my reference relativity. If we had an eternal universe; steady state, and the brain could alter reference, we could appear to see the early contracted or expanded universe, all from the POV of an eternal steady state universe. Consciousness could phase in and out, like zooming in an out with a telescope or microscope.

An always existing universe, disproves the universal claim of the BB, since its t=0 is arbitrary as well as reference dependent. There was no earth reference at t=0, yet we measure from the earth. The BB, at t=0, would have been so time dilated due to GR and SR. The inflation could be an artifact of both GR and SR, both able to contract reference to a point; double whammy, until GR and SR shrink add property for space-time.

I prefer the idea of space-time and independent space and independent time. Space-time is finite, while independent space and time is not limited to the constraints of space-time, and can be define as always having existed. This model has two realms, with space-time like an ice cube floating in the endless sea of separated space and time. It is melting back to the mother ship; 2nd law. It is very simple solution that first graders can memorize. Unlike most physics theory it can also accommodate life and consciousness, which is beyond just space-time physics.

For example, imagination, connected to consciousness, can put together space-time data in combinations that are not part of space-time. For example, wings, sun, humans, and wax are all part of space-time. How about wings made of wax used by human, to fly into the sun. This is possible in the imagination, but it is not part of space-time, even though the four parts are. The imagination; innovation, is beyond just space-time and what we can expect to happen in space-time, from just the laws of physics and chance. Innovation needs the human mind, that can go beyond these laws, where space and time are not tethered; impossible combinations in space-time. A genuine theory of everything has to go beyond just physics, and also include consciousness and life, since life and consciousness can manipulate space-time rules for innovative solutions. This comes from separated space and time, where we break the tethers of space-time rules, to add an added stream to space-time; civilization.

This topic is mind expanding and is occurring where space-time ends and separated space and time begin. There is no real solution but rather all the options can be on the table, since they are possible in separated space and time.

Your post have to many “What if…”, including the 3 paragraphs, but here you offer “What I prefer” scenario go with the “What if…”

The question I have is why do you want the cosmology to venture into human imagination and not on physics of the cosmology?

I think there are already more than enough imagination in theoretical aspects of sciences (eg theoretical physics, theoretical astrophysics, theoretical cosmology, etc), but you want to go beyond that.

A lot of these theoretical scientists have already tried to “think outside-the-box”, with some successes of their models of becoming accepted science, but there have been some failed models too (eg (A) those models that have been tested but refuted, and (B) those models have rejected out of hand for being unrealistic & unfalsifiable).

So my next question to you:

Just exactly what non-physics solution that you have as alternative to the BB theory?