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

[Hamasen1]

The popular Big Bang theory which explains much, doesn't explain things like what set off the posited singularity let alone how it could expand to the dimensions of our space and we lack direct evidence for the theoretical dark matter and dark energy.

Decided to check the internet for updates and I've found a link giving three theories (I don't know if I'd buy Barbour's timelessly universe, the first two theories have more meat to them).

So the question is which of the three theories appeal to you? Which do you see have the strongest arguments going for it?

The link:

You ask when did the universe begin. But in what reference are you framing your question?

If you say the reference of our universe then it began when the universe began. There is no timescale beyond the universe that is also confined to the universe (it would be like a person within a movie asking when the movie began, the timescale of the movie cannot be used to deduce the beginning of the movie, you need to use the time-frame of the person watching the movie to determine the beginning of it). This would imply no real beginning since the concept of beginning has no applicability. By definition, beginning means:

"the point in time or space at which something starts." (google)

If you are assuming there was a time that extended before the universe, in other words a time in a more 'objective' frame of reference, then there can be no beginning to the universe. In the same way a balloon has no edge.

A simple deduction:

1) The universe having a beginning implies that our space-time scale had a beginning. 2) If our space-timescale had a beginning at time T on an external space-timescale B, then either space-timescale B had a beginning or did not have a beginning. 3) If it had a beginning then it would need to lie on some other space-timescale external to it.

Thus it would lead to an infinite regression of space-time beginnings implying no actual beginning for 'existence' itself (that is, anything that 'exists', in our frame of time and space or not).

If any one of the space-times didn't have a beginning, then it would still imply that existence always 'was' and 'will be' (the same thing applies for an 'ending' also.

So, in short, the universe never began. If you say it did, then that is only in regard to space time within our reference and thus no one could ever know when it began.

[Hamasen1]

Due to the logic of Kant's paradox, that eliminates the possibility of time being infinite. The next step is to consider finite time so the next question is to ask can time precede the Big Bang?

Any thoughts?

PhilX

Absolute infinite time does not imply infinite time between two relative events within the whole of time.

An example: You can still count 5 numbers from 10 to 15 despite the fact that there are infinite numbers on a number scale.

In other words, in the case of time in reference to matter that we are familiar with, we say there has been 13 billion years since the beginning of the universe (not implying existence itself).

That, again, is in regards to relating to events in an infinite scale.

Thus there is indeed no real beginning or quantifiable period from absolute beginning to the present. But there is a quantifiable period from a 'begining' in the relative sense of matter and space in 'our' universe and the present moment (the present moment also being a relative event).

[Philosophy Explorer]

Due to the logic of Kant's paradox, that eliminates the possibility of time being infinite. The next step is to consider finite time so the next question is to ask can time precede the Big Bang?

Any thoughts?

PhilX

Absolute infinite time does not imply infinite time between two relative events within the whole of time.

An example: You can still count 5 numbers from 10 to 15 despite the fact that there are infinite numbers on a number scale.

In other words, in the case of time in reference to matter that we are familiar with, we say there has been 13 billion years since the beginning of the universe (not implying existence itself).

That, again, is in regards to relating to events in an infinite scale.

Thus there is indeed no real beginning or quantifiable period from absolute beginning to the present. But there is a quantifiable period from a 'begining' in the relative sense of matter and space in 'our' universe and the present moment (the present moment also being a relative event).

I think you misunderstand. On an potentially infinite time scale, say you pick one point at one end which represents infinite time in the negative direction. Now pick another point anywhere along the time scale (or axis). To go from the first point to the second would take an infinite amount of time, an impossibility. That's what I mean (if someone says it's impossible to pick that first point at negative infinity, that automatically makes my point that infinite time can't exist).

With your example, you're starting at 10 and counting 5 units to 15. Isn't what I'm talking about. I'm saying that the first point must be negative infinity to the left. Then you're counting to the second point to the right. And no matter what that second point is, you must go an infinite amount of time to the right (which is impossible to do. Is that clear enough for you?

PhilX

-- Updated September 11th, 2014, 10:55 pm to add the following --

Olber's Paradox: here is a discussion regarding Olber's paradox which relates to this thread. It goes into nontechnical detail suggesting why the universe is finite while explaining the paradox.

Here's the link: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... lbers.html

PhilX

[Wooden shoe]

Philx.

Just how do you understand time to be? It really looks to that you mixing infinity with timelessness. Why would there be an infinite amount of time between two points on a time scale? If I pick a time in the past, say 10000 years BC and another point at 2100 AD, why does that mean it is an infinite amount of time?

The two posters previous to yours express my thinking quite well. Just as we have divided time periods of earths past, we could give names to previous Big Bangs and big crunches of our universe if we ever can looks past the last BB in a cyclical universe.

Regards, John.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Philx.

Just how do you understand time to be? It really looks to that you mixing infinity with timelessness. Why would there be an infinite amount of time between two points on a time scale? If I pick a time in the past, say 10000 years BC and another point at 2100 AD, why does that mean it is an infinite amount of time?

The two posters previous to yours express my thinking quite well. Just as we have divided time periods of earths past, we could give names to previous Big Bangs and big crunches of our universe if we ever can looks past the last BB in a cyclical universe.

Regards, John.

To be clear, I'm saying that the universe is finite in time. Kant's paradox assumes timelessness for the universe, then goes on to show that it leads to a contradiction. Olber's paradox also indicates the universe is finite in time (see the link). To date there's no proof showing the universe is infinite in time extent.

PhilX

[Hamasen1]

(Nested quote removed.)

Absolute infinite time does not imply infinite time between two relative events within the whole of time.

An example: You can still count 5 numbers from 10 to 15 despite the fact that there are infinite numbers on a number scale.

In other words, in the case of time in reference to matter that we are familiar with, we say there has been 13 billion years since the beginning of the universe (not implying existence itself).

That, again, is in regards to relating to events in an infinite scale.

Thus there is indeed no real beginning or quantifiable period from absolute beginning to the present. But there is a quantifiable period from a 'begining' in the relative sense of matter and space in 'our' universe and the present moment (the present moment also being a relative event).

I think you misunderstand. On an potentially infinite time scale, say you pick one point at one end which represents infinite time in the negative direction. Now pick another point anywhere along the time scale (or axis). To go from the first point to the second would take an infinite amount of time, an impossibility. That's what I mean (if someone says it's impossible to pick that first point at negative infinity, that automatically makes my point that infinite time can't exist).

With your example, you're starting at 10 and counting 5 units to 15. Isn't what I'm talking about. I'm saying that the first point must be negative infinity to the left. Then you're counting to the second point to the right. And no matter what that second point is, you must go an infinite amount of time to the right (which is impossible to do. Is that clear enough for you?

Ok lets assume it was a finite amount of time since the beginning of the universe (which includes the beginning of time itself).

Then how could you say it began at time T?

Would you not arrive at the same problem I posted earlier? As the beginning of this universe would necessitate some temporal scale external to the universe, which would also imply a beginning for that scale (assuming, as you said, that time can't be infinite which is synonymous with no beginning?), and so on and so on (infinite regression of begginings) meaning 'absolute time' (external to all 'universes') had no beginning.

From what I see, all the arguments lead to an infinite regression of beginnings or no beginning (synonymous with infinite regression).

[Mechsmith]

To refute Olbers Paradox we must divide up a potentially infinite universe. This is no problem as it is quite possible to put two marks on an infinite line and measure betwixt them. The division of our universe that we live in can fairly be called the visible universe. In this visible universe the number of stars is finite. Past the visible universe can have no effect on us due to the loss of energies in the red shift and also due to the "Heat sinks" of "Black Holes".

IF the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is simply starlight that has been "red shifted" to the microwave portion of the Electromagnetic Spectrum then the "star on every sightline" requirement required by Olbers universe is pretty obvious.

I think that regarding temperature as merely a result of density is a fair assumption. As density increases the black holes work better thus being a sort of self correcting mechanism to stabilize the temperatures until such time as it blows up. When it blows up (a fanciful suggestion perhaps) it probably won't affect the rest of the universe much. Might be a little hard on humans though.

My Universe is still infinite and evolving. Perhaps I suffer from a paucity of imagination Happy thoughts, M.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Hamasen said:

"As the beginning of this universe would necessitate some temporal scale external to the universe, which would also imply a beginning for that scale (assuming, as you said, that time can't be infinite which is synonymous with no beginning?), and so on and so on (infinite regression of begginings) meaning 'absolute time' (external to all 'universes') had no beginning...."

Why would a temporal time scale be "external" to our universe? How can that be if our universe means everything?

PhilX

-- Updated September 12th, 2014, 9:24 am to add the following --

Mechsmith said:

"To refute Olbers Paradox we must divide up a potentially infinite universe."

Must we? Not according to the article I put up. Here's one of the possible solutions from it:

"The Universe is young. Distant light hasn't even reached us yet."

"The universe is young" implies its age is finite.

Then the same article had this to say:

"There are numerical arguments that suggest that the effect of the finite age of the Universe is the larger effect." Finite age. In fairness, the article proposed five solutions to Olber's paradox and said there were many more (but didn't bring up Mechsmith's proposed solution).

PhilX

[Mechsmith]

Refute-- The Universe is young. It is impossible for the light past a certain distance to carry enough information (heat) to affect anything past whatever threshold of information that we can use. Eventually any starlight will be scattered into the background temperature, now reputed to be about 2.8K. This will be the limit of observation. Hence my observation that the visible or observable universe is finite. But the only thing that makes it finite is the mechanical limitations of light. We have to imagine the rest

[Philosophy Explorer]

Refute-- The Universe is young. It is impossible for the light past a certain distance to carry enough information (heat) to affect anything past whatever threshold of information that we can use. Eventually any starlight will be scattered into the background temperature, now reputed to be about 2.8K. This will be the limit of observation. Hence my observation that the visible or observable universe is finite. But the only thing that makes it finite is the mechanical limitations of light. We have to imagine the rest

Refute--

Remember the article says "finite age." Plus the BBT implies the universe has a calculated finite age of 13.77 billion years.

PhilX

[Bohm2]

One may argue for philosophical reasons, etc. if universe had a "beginning" or not. But from a physics point of view, the question cannot be answered as argued previously. 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 (if such a thing even makes sense). No such theory has yet been worked out.

[Present awareness]

When did the present moment begin? Since it is already "now" it has no beginning or ending, just like the universe. "Now" doesn't come and it doesn't go, it is eternally here, it is always now. Although we may think about the past or future in abstract terms, everything that ever was and ever will be, is already contained right here in the present moment.

Everything is in constant motion, but because it is the present moment everywhere in the universe at the same time, no matter where you move to, it is impossible to leave the present moment.

[Philosophy Explorer]

When did the present moment begin? Since it is already "now" it has no beginning or ending, just like the universe. "Now" doesn't come and it doesn't go, it is eternally here, it is always now. Although we may think about the past or future in abstract terms, everything that ever was and ever will be, is already contained right here in the present moment.

Everything is in constant motion, but because it is the present moment everywhere in the universe at the same time, no matter where you move to, it is impossible to leave the present moment.

Two things. If our memories are real, as they are to many of us, this implies our past is real too. And if our past is real, then this implies the universe has a past separate from "Now."

Also when we die, don't we leave the present moment? If we don't, then where do we exist in the universe?

PhilX

[Present awareness]

When did the present moment begin? Since it is already "now" it has no beginning or ending, just like the universe. "Now" doesn't come and it doesn't go, it is eternally here, it is always now. Although we may think about the past or future in abstract terms, everything that ever was and ever will be, is already contained right here in the present moment.

Everything is in constant motion, but because it is the present moment everywhere in the universe at the same time, no matter where you move to, it is impossible to leave the present moment.

Two things. If our memories are real, as they are to many of us, this implies our past is real too. And if our past is real, then this implies the universe has a past separate from "Now."

Also when we die, don't we leave the present moment? If we don't, then where do we exist in the universe?

PhilX

When you were a baby, it was now, when you were a teen, it was now and as an adult, it is still now. If you think back to when you were a teen, you may only do so now, because now is all there ever is. You may believe that your teenage body lies somewhere in the past, but it is here and now, only in a different form. Forms are constantly changing within the now, but the now itself, remains unchanged. Even dinosaurs are here and now, in the form of fossils. What we consider the past, is not separate from now, it "IS" now.

[Philosophy Explorer]

To PA,

Now is now, but not back then. Back then are only memories and records (such as teen years and fossils e.g.) which are distinct from now. This is why dictionaries and encyclopedias have these terms defined as being distinct from one another.

You haven't responded to what I've written in my 2nd paragraph.

PhilX