Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Atreyu]

The OP does not make any sense because of the word "When". You cannot say when the Universe began because before it existed there was no time. Nor does that last statement make any sense because there was no before either.

So the OP can really be translated to "Was there a first moment of time, and if so, when was it? How far back do we need to go to reach it?"

The answer is that there cannot be a first or last moment of time. That is not the nature of time, in spite of how we like to cognize it when we insist on a "beginning" or an "ending". No matter how far back you go in time, you can always imagine a time before that. And no matter how far ahead you go in time, you can always imagine a time after that. Our cognition of time reveals that it cannot begin or end, and since time is an inherent property of the Universe as we know it, we must conclude that it too cannot begin or end.

So our relation to this question of when was the first moment of time (when did the Universe begin) would be akin to a bunch of "stupid scientists" travelling around a circle and asking themselves what point on the circle might be the beginning point, and what point is the ending point. So backward they go on the circle, on and on, as they wonder when they will "arrive" at the starting point; and forward they go on the circle, on and on, wondering when they will "arrive" at the ending point.

The dilemma is resolved when the scientists realize that their "time" is really a circle, and not a line. And so too will our dilemma be resolved when we realize this "circular", or cyclical, nature of time, which is also the nature of our Universe as a whole since time is an integral and inherent aspect of it.

[Philosophy Explorer]

The OP does not make any sense because of the word "When". You cannot say when the Universe began because before it existed there was no time. Nor does that last statement make any sense because there was no before either.

So the OP can really be translated to "Was there a first moment of time, and if so, when was it? How far back do we need to go to reach it?"

The answer is that there cannot be a first or last moment of time. That is not the nature of time, in spite of how we like to cognize it when we insist on a "beginning" or an "ending". No matter how far back you go in time, you can always imagine a time before that. And no matter how far ahead you go in time, you can always imagine a time after that. Our cognition of time reveals that it cannot begin or end, and since time is an inherent property of the Universe as we know it, we must conclude that it too cannot begin or end.

So our relation to this question of when was the first moment of time (when did the Universe begin) would be akin to a bunch of "stupid scientists" travelling around a circle and asking themselves what point on the circle might be the beginning point, and what point is the ending point. So backward they go on the circle, on and on, as they wonder when they will "arrive" at the starting point; and forward they go on the circle, on and on, wondering when they will "arrive" at the ending point.

The dilemma is resolved when the scientists realize that their "time" is really a circle, and not a line. And so too will our dilemma be resolved when we realize this "circular", or cyclical, nature of time, which is also the nature of our Universe as a whole since time is an integral and inherent aspect of it.

Bad reasoning on your part.

According to the BBT, when the scientists trace back to the beginning through reversing through the paths of the galaxies, they arrive at a figure of 13.77 billion years ago where they say the universe started from a singularity (or more recently, they say a small region of space, whatever that means).

There is a point in time that coincides with the Big Bang, that's what the mainstream scientists do say. The scientists also say that once entropy becomes zero, that'll signify the end of the universe and time too. The scientists never have referred to a circle to figure to figure out when time has started (apparently Atreyu made this up - can he cite a reputable source?)

That's enough for now unless Atreyu can come up with something else?

PhilX

[Bohm2]

A few points. General relativity theory breaks down below the Planck time. So we need a theory of quantum gravity to go beyond Planck time to time zero. No such theory has yet been worked out. So it's not clear that there is no time "before" the big bang or whether, in fact, the question is meaningless. In fact, currently many cosmologists do think that such a question is a legitimate one. See 1:35 of this video for a vote posed to a group of leading cosmologists. Similar views are held by many cosmologists:

What Happened Before the Big Bang?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vdkmj/buzz

[Atreyu]

Bad reasoning on your part.

According to the BBT, when the scientists trace back to the beginning through reversing through the paths of the galaxies, they arrive at a figure of 13.77 billion years ago where they say the universe started from a singularity (or more recently, they say a small region of space, whatever that means).

There is a point in time that coincides with the Big Bang, that's what the mainstream scientists do say. The scientists also say that once entropy becomes zero, that'll signify the end of the universe and time too. The scientists never have referred to a circle to figure to figure out when time has started (apparently Atreyu made this up - can he cite a reputable source?)

That's enough for now unless Atreyu can come up with something else?

This is a philosophy forum, not a science forum. It's excellent reasoning on my part.

What science has to say concerning this means nothing. They can only see 13.77 billion years down the "line of time". The fact that they know nothing of what happened before 13.77 billion years does not mean that there was no time, i.e. that nothing happened, before that.

It was you yourself who originally asked the question "When did the Universe begin?". I would assume that by asking you were asking philosophically, since science only can go back 13.77 billions years theoretically, to the alleged 'big bang'. If you are going to just take what science theorizes and assume it true why ask in the first place? The whole point of philosophy is to go where science cannot.

If the conditions which precipitated the big bang were previously caused by a cyclical Universe, as in the so called 'bang-crunch' model, science would know nothing whatsoever about it. Nothing whatsoever about any pre big bang conditions could possibly be known. My position is merely that such conditions must have existed in time because that is the nature of time, and thus the Universe.

If you want to insist on a beginning, and insist on it being a fact beyond question, go for it. But I'm sticking with an eternally existing Universe because I trust my general cognition of time.

A mind which insists on a beginning and ending limits itself. A mind which does not insist on any beginning or ending does not limit itself. Time is a product of our cognition, a tool which we have by default to make sense of and understand our world. To insist on a beginning or ending is to limit that cognitive tool. Our puny minds might not have any choice but to think of time as a line. But even our puny minds need not limit themselves into only thinking of time as a line segment. Even our puny minds can imagine time as an infinite line, or even like a circle or a spiral, even if they cannot imagine it as a plane or a solid.

[Mechsmith]

Hi PE,

Now the scientific types are calling fifteen billion years as a probable age to the Universe. This is on the Hubble "Deep Field" website.

In the nearly fourscore years that I have resided on this planet the Universe has aged from about eight billion (10>9th) to about 15 billion. It's ageing faster than I am

I suspect that it will keep on ageing as our ideas and equipment get better. Probably forever

The tracing back of the paths of the galaxies to the BB hasn't worked in observations. The first BB Theory called for an expansion IN space. That didn't work with the observed "red shift" or the paths of the galaxies so it was necessary to change the theory. The newest BB Theory calls for an "expansion" OF space. This theory calls for an observation of time cessation which will work if time requires gravity to happen. This theory doesn't seem to require the trails to a beginning as there would be simply an "expansion in place". However this makes gravity and time a field not a force.

Happy thinkin, M.

I am a Mechanist. Everything has to work together if we are ever going to be able to drive this Universe down the road. Paradoxes may be a result of faulty attributions to observations.

[Bohm2]

If the conditions which precipitated the big bang were previously caused by a cyclical Universe, as in the so called 'bang-crunch' model, science would know nothing whatsoever about it. Nothing whatsoever about any pre big bang conditions could possibly be known. My position is merely that such conditions must have existed in time because that is the nature of time, and thus the Universe.

For some reason the link to BBC video doesn't work (as was pointed out to me by Philosophy Explorer) but it appears that the overwhelming majority of cosmologists polled in that BBC video series, thought the question of "before the big bang" is a legitimate one. I thought I would also mention a cyclical model like the one you are suggesting that sorta provides an answer to Kant's paradox:

1. If the universe extends back infinitely in time it leads to contradiction because if time extended back forever, there would be an infinite period of time before any event and hence no starting point so it would be impossible for the universe to evolve forward.

2. If the universe began at some finite time (e.g. beginning) in the past – it also results in contradiction since then one can ask what happened beforehand to cause it? And what happended before that...it leads to an infinite regress.

Since a cyclical universe is finite and also has no beginning or 'first cause', Kant'’s paradox is avoided. So in this model the big bang is actually caused by the big crunch which really in the future of the big bang. So we have an endless/beginningless universe that is also finite:

Why there is something rather than nothing-The finite, infinite and eternal
http://lanl.arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/ ... 5.2720.pdf

On a Finite Universe with no Beginning or End
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0612/0612053.pdf

[Philosophy Explorer]

If the conditions which precipitated the big bang were previously caused by a cyclical Universe, as in the so called 'bang-crunch' model, science would know nothing whatsoever about it. Nothing whatsoever about any pre big bang conditions could possibly be known. My position is merely that such conditions must have existed in time because that is the nature of time, and thus the Universe.

For some reason the link to BBC video doesn't work (as was pointed out to me by Philosophy Explorer) but it appears that the overwhelming majority of cosmologists polled in that BBC video series, thought the question of "before the big bang" is a legitimate one. I thought I would also mention a cyclical model like the one you are suggesting that sorta provides an answer to Kant's paradox:

1. If the universe extends back infinitely in time it leads to contradiction because if time extended back forever, there would be an infinite period of time before any event and hence no starting point so it would be impossible for the universe to evolve forward.

2. If the universe began at some finite time (e.g. beginning) in the past – it also results in contradiction since then one can ask what happened beforehand to cause it? And what happended before that...it leads to an infinite regress.

Since a cyclical universe is finite and also has no beginning or 'first cause', Kant'’s paradox is avoided. So in this model the big bang is actually caused by the big crunch which really in the future of the big bang. So we have an endless/beginningless universe that is also finite:

Why there is something rather than nothing-The finite, infinite and eternal
http://lanl.arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/ ... 5.2720.pdf

On a Finite Universe with no Beginning or End
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0612/0612053.pdf

Sounds interesting and logical Bohm. This is a good argument against infinity. I'll review the articles you linked up.

PhilX

[Neznac]

The OP does not make any sense because of the word "When". You cannot say when the Universe began because before it existed there was no time. Nor does that last statement make any sense because there was no before either.

Nice work Atreyu. Your theory makes sense even though the context of cyclical time/universe is difficult to properly conceive. Contrast this with the "beginning & ending" theories like the Big Bang and you notice that even while the context is very simple (all events begin and end) the overall idea makes no sense. This is why the majority of cosmologists keep revising their data and reinterpreting their "facts!"

Scientists are committed to certain assumptions, and if these are incorrect (e.g. The universe had a beginning), then they will experience the cyclical nature of time by being caught up in their own circularity, which could conceivably last forever!

[Atreyu]

1. If the universe extends back infinitely in time it leads to contradiction because if time extended back forever, there would be an infinite period of time before any event and hence no starting point so it would be impossible for the universe to evolve forward.

Could you elaborate more on this idea? I don't think I agree with it. Even if we can go infinitely forward or backward in time (which obviously we can, cognitively speaking), I see no reason why the Universe cannot "evolve forward". In fact, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "evolving forward". To me, that merely means time as we perceive it, so obviously it can. The fact that our perception of time seems to be moving in a certain "direction" (from the past to the future) seems to me to have no relation to the question of whether or not time is infinite or finite.

[Logic_ill]

It was interesting to find out that, according to some scientists, light did not immediatly emerge from the Big Bang. It makes sense because the universe´s stuff had to organize, I suppose.

When did the universe begin? I think this question cannot really be answered because before the universe began, there must have been no time. I suppose time began then...

[Wooden shoe]

Bohm wrote:

If the universe extends back infinitely in time it leads to contradiction because if time extended back forever, there would be an infinite period of time before any event and hence no starting point so it would be impossible for the universe to evolve forward.[end quote]

I do not see the point in this statement. Time is not something by itself, it is just a measure of change. There is no contradiction in saying that change has always happened, so all that is required is to substitute change for time.

Whether the big bang was a cyclical or a once off event, there must have been change occurring at least on the quantum level, so to say time started with the BB can only have happened if the creation story is involved, however if we believe in the conservation of energy law, then all the energy that is in the universe today also was there before the BB.

Because of the above I put my vote in the cyclical universe slot.

Regards, John.

[Logic_ill]

So the time in our universe began with the Big Bang. There may have been another time, in which all that material of our universe condensed. But do we have access to that time? I don´t think we have access to either... Cyclical sounds ok to me.

These are problems that arise from any theory of origins, even the scientific ones. I think it´s fine to attempt a theory based on some observational evidence but it doesn´t mean they are right.

-- Updated September 7th, 2014, 10:07 pm to add the following --

So the time in our universe began with the Big Bang. There may have been another time, in which all that material of our universe condensed. But do we have access to that time? I don´t think we have access to either... Cyclical sounds ok to me.

These are problems that arise from any theory of origins, even the scientific ones. I think it´s fine to attempt a theory based on some observational evidence but it doesn´t mean they are right.

[Wooden shoe]

Logic

By saying that time started with the BB you are in effect saying that all change was stopped before the BB, no quantum movement, no molecular activity was happening. If this was indeed so, the BB would not have occurred. There may have been a large concentration of energy/matter with gravity holding it together (gravity being the only known force capable as far as I know) until an instability occurred. All this speaks of change and therefore time.

I think you are correct in saying that there is a great likelihood we will never know for sure just what happened.

Regards, John.

[Mechsmith]

A cyclic universe would probably work but I don't think we need it. I suspect that all the tools we need are here and now. A cyclic galaxy would answer for matter and energy formation and if there wasn't enough stuff in one galaxy to run through a "Black Hole" all we have to do is wait a while and enough will show up sooner or later.

In my Universe the observed black holes just keep pulling matter and energies into them until they enter the realm of quantum mechanics and then they blow up or expand back into a galaxy again. This is not perpetual motion as any black hole can draw "stuff" from the whole Universe to reach the required amount. No Big Bang needed. We have enough black holes to do the job.

First, No Big Bang-Expanding Universe. The Hubble Constant is merely evidence of light ageing in gravity fields. (It's harder to pedal uphill than coasting downhill.)

Second, The Universe is much larger than 15 billions of light years. Eventually we may be able to resolve the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation into starlight at distances much further than are now possible.

Third, Olbers Paradox states that in an infinite universe (or merely a much larger one) then every possible sightline would have a star. This is very close to what the CMBR probes show us. There are other characteristics of Electromagnetic Radiation that make it difficult to resolve (focus) longer wavelengths than microwaves. Perhaps we'll never be able to do it.

Fourth, Another effect of Olbers Paradox is that the universe would be very hot. I think that the "Black Holes" absorb enough energy-matter to keep things at our observed temperatures. It is a self correcting mechanism up to a point. The denser-hotter a region is the better a black hole works. Olber didn't know about this. Us mechanics would call them heat sinks.

Things that I have looked at amongst others natch. They can be googled easily.

"The Big Bang Never Happened" book and website.

Any big dictionary will have a "color chart" that relates colors and frequencies (in the case of radio ) probably a few on the web also.

CMBR probes have a website

The "Harvard Tower Experiments" show that EMR wavelength and frequencies are affected by gravity (and time)

Getting late on this side of the blue speck. Happy thoughts, M.

[Bohm2]

Could you elaborate more on this idea?

I take Kant to be arguing that an infinite past has no endpoint. Then how is it possible to completely traverse an infinite past and reach the present? Another way of putting it, is the present, by definition, is the endpoint of the past. However, an infinite past cannot have an end. Therefore, either the present has not be reached, or the past is not infinite. I'm also not sure about this argument, but I haven't thought about it.