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

[Nakul]

The question supposes that there is a beginning and there will be an end. When, is a better question that why ..., so let us discuss.
The Big Bang or the steady state or the Big Crunch or the big bounce all have something to add to the question, but I seriously doubt that a single known theory can fully answer the question....but let me not ramble.
For us the universe began when / and till the point we can/could comprehend its existence. For someone that can comprehend deeper, that start point or end point would be different.
The Big Bang theory says 13.7 billion years, not enough time for a single tired photon....
Again, this question is based on a concept of time , as a passage and more clearly unidirectional...only forward moving...do we agree to the above boundaries?

[Fanman]

I think that if we imagine or perceive time-and-space as an “eternal-cube” this goes some way to negating the problem of infinite regression. In that there can be, with this conceptualisation, an infinite number of causes within the “cube” for the existence of the universe. Possibly consisting of a multitude of “domino-like” events (or causes and effects) which eventually resulted in the forming of the universe. With this hypothesis, there doesn't have to be a “First Cause” or "Primary Cause," because time-and-space are eternal quantities.

[Bermudj]

The "big bang" is pure (and untenable) hypothesis based on fundamental misunderstandings and doesn't hold up to intense scrutiny.

The universe has always been. There is no beginning and no end. It's just there.

A more apt question might be "When did the concept of "universe" begin?"

And when did the concept of the universe ended? When then concept of multi universes began.

[Nakul]

But the theory of Big Bang or crunch ... Have nothing to do with when the universe began. The 'when the ...' Is a question of time as we understand it. Unidirectional , forward moving, almost causal. So the question, 'when did ...' Hints at an underlying assumption of causality. But is the nature of the universe causal?

[Wayne92587]

Time began at the Zero-0 hour; the Event Horizon

-- Updated January 2nd, 2016, 10:48 am to add the following --

Fanman wrote;

If we imagine or perceive time-and-space as an “eternal-cube

Wayne wrote; If, If, If,; Why would I attempt to create a valid theory by beginning with;" If we imagine or perceive time-and-space as an “eternal-cube.

-- Updated January 2nd, 2016, 11:31 am to add the following --

Platos Stepchild wrote;

Let's define the universe as the totality of that which is contained within spacetime.

Wayne wrote;

That works fine as long as you qualify the term Universe by saying that you are speaking of the Physical Universe; what about the stuff that exists having no mass, is not readily apparent, is not measurable as to location and momentum in Space-Time; the single substance from which the Heavens and the Earth, the Physical Universe, the Reality of Everything is made of.

Existence, Reality, is there a time when something might not exist and then begin to exist, "something that has no cause, is to be defined as being the "beginning; the first in a series, the beginning of a process such as the Evolutionary Process, the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time.

The problem with understanding the beginning is that, "in the beginning" the only thing that existed was Nothingness.

If you include nothingness in the definition of Universe then in the beginning of the Universe was without form, void, there being only Darkness upon the deep.

When was the Light separated from the Darkness??

-- Updated January 2nd, 2016, 11:36 am to add the following --

Into the Light, differentiated Time began at the Zero-Hour, at the Event Horizon, at the Moment the Light was separated from the Darkness, the Day from the Night.

-- Updated January 2nd, 2016, 11:41 am to add the following --

The separation of the Light from the Darkness was begun by a, "Transcendent Singularity."

[Nakul]

I think that if we imagine or perceive time-and-space as an “eternal-cube” this goes some way to negating the problem of infinite regression. In that there can be, with this conceptualisation, an infinite number of causes within the “cube” for the existence of the universe. Possibly consisting of a multitude of “domino-like” events (or causes and effects) which eventually resulted in the forming of the universe. With this hypothesis, there doesn't have to be a “First Cause” or "Primary Cause," because time-and-space are eternal quantities.

Very interesting, but some scientific research points that a single perturbation as a initiation of universe might not be accurate.

[Fanman]

Nakul:

Very interesting, but some scientific research points that a single perturbation as a initiation of universe might not be accurate.

Thank you, but I'm not entirely sure whether I understand what you mean. Do you mean that a single pertubation in the forming of the universe in the model I describe, could of caused the universe not to be as it is?

[Nakul]

Yes, a single perturbation followed by a domino effect. Domino effect still might be possible, but again let us not link this to casual dominoes, but a single perturbation as a beginning is not scientifically supported. But then maybe science has not yet matured enough to conceptualise it.

[Wayne92587]

There was a single perturbation that was the cause of the initiation of universe, but it was not as theorized in The Theory of the Big Bang.
Singularity was no doubt an Infinitely Finite, Indivisible Singularity having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0, having no Mass, no density.

The perturbation was an uncaused cause, an affect, having a relative, numerical, value of One-1, that transcended the differentiation between Nothing and Something.

The Reality of First Cause being a Transcendental Singularity, a Singularity having a dual quality, 0\1.

[Nakul]

I am lost, could you point to some text that I can read to support the single perturbation, indivisible singularity, transcendental singularity concept.Thanks

[Alec Smart]

I am lost, could you point to some text that I can read to support the single perturbation, indivisible singularity, transcendental singularity concept.Thanks

you'd have to refer back to Wayne's previous posts for that, but beware of absolutely bad knowledge.

[Sy Borg]

I am lost, could you point to some text that I can read to support the single perturbation, indivisible singularity, transcendental singularity concept.Thanks

One of the theories about the big bang involves a single perturbation amongst countless perturbations in the pre-universe "quantum foam" that, popped into existence but, for whatever reasons, it didn't disappear but kept on inflating.

[Wayne92587]

Nekul wrote;

I am lost, could you point to some text that I can read to support the single perturbation, indivisible singularity, transcendental singularity concept.

Wayne wrote;

God is defined as being a Transcendental Singularity.

Look in Wikipedia; Individuality, Singularity, Transcendental number.

The First primary number, two is the first rational number; 0\1 being irrational, each being a transcendental Singularity.

It has been argued that no purely objective science can exist because no ideation or thought can exist outside the influences of an individual perception. The ideation of any single perception is limited not only by the physics of its existence, but also by its own assumptions and beliefs which are formed by the perceiver's unique culture and history. A conclusion of this philosophy is that no absolute (or transcendental) truth can exist because in order to be a transcendental truth it would need to transcend the limits of perception.

Knowledge the Transcendent Singularity having a dual quality, 0\1 allows you to transcend the limits of perception, Empiricism, Space-Time, the Four-Dimensional Empirical World of Reality, become Rational.

Hermes Trismegistus, Lord of the Ring, Keeper of the Holy Grail-->0
Ye, Amen Ra, 0

[Alec Smart]

Wayne wrote;

God is defined as being a Transcendental Singularity.

Look in Wikipedia; Individuality, Singularity, Transcendental number.

The First primary number, two is the first rational number; 0\1 being irrational, each being a transcendental Singularity.

It has been argued that no purely objective science can exist because no ideation or thought can exist outside the influences of an individual perception. The ideation of any single perception is limited not only by the physics of its existence, but also by its own assumptions and beliefs which are formed by the perceiver's unique culture and history. A conclusion of this philosophy is that no absolute (or transcendental) truth can exist because in order to be a transcendental truth it would need to transcend the limits of perception.

Knowledge the Transcendent Singularity having a dual quality, 0\1 allows you to transcend the limits of perception, Empiricism, Space-Time, the Four-Dimensional Empirical World of Reality, become Rational.

Hermes Trismegistus, Lord of the Ring, Keeper of the Holy Grail-->0
Ye, Amen Ra, 0

Does that make everything clear, Nakul?

[Wayne92587]

Smart Alec!

The Singularity having a dual quality 0\1, of Zero-0 and One-1; 0ne-1 being the first singularity to have relative, numerical value, the Uncaused Cause, the Reality of First Cause, Transcending the differentiation between Nothing and Something.

-- Updated January 7th, 2016, 11:05 am to add the following --

Alec, in order for you to be critical of a post in a philosophy forum you should endeavor to improve upon your ideation of your perception which is limited not only by the physics of your existence, but also by your own assumptions and beliefs which are formed by your own individual unique culture and perceptions of history.

For there to be any true philosophical value to any of your conclusion about my post will need to transcend the limits of your own perception.