First cause

[King Phenomenon]

I'll be honest I'm a little confused about your first cause thing. Anyway ideas that I can't explain don't bother me or make me feel devalued.

Oh I get it now I guess there doesn't have to be a first cause, so I guess in a way I did understand it. I thought I may have.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'll be honest I'm a little confused about your first cause thing. Anyway ideas that I can't explain don't bother me or make me feel devalued.

The idea of a limited human mind is devaluing ourselves in light of something much smarter or great. It's not meant to target anyone. I don't see a first cause in the universe because everything works off and forms into existence by combination of preexisting things. I wish I knew more physics, though. I could probably explain it better if I had the knowledge.

 

[King Phenomenon]

The idea of a limited human mind is devaluing ourselves in light of something much smarter or great. It's not meant to target anyone. I don't see a first cause in the universe because everything works off and forms into existence by combination of preexisting things. I wish I knew more physics, though. I could probably explain it better if I had the knowledge.

Oh I agree with you on the first cause thing. Well if I offended you that's not what I wanted but I recognize that my mind is limited which is OK for me. I guess me and you are different kinds of people which is cool

 

[Polymath257]

I believe that there are some things that cannot be understood by the human mind

And there are a great many that can. We won't know the difference unless we try to learn and understand.

 

[King Phenomenon]

And there are a great many that can. We won't know the difference unless we try to learn and understand.

I agree

 

[McBell]

I believe that there are some things that cannot be understood by the human mind

I agree.
Infinity being one of them.

 

[Polymath257]

I agree.
Infinity being one of them.

What does it mean to understand infinity? Mathematicians regularly deal with infinite sets, including infinite sets of different sizes.

Yes, it takes some time to get used to, but logic helps a lot if you do it right.

 

[McBell]

What does it mean to understand infinity? Mathematicians regularly deal with infinite sets, including infinite sets of different sizes.

Yes, it takes some time to get used to, but logic helps a lot if you do it right.

For a great number of people, infinity is not something they understand.
Most people cannot fathom it.
It took me a while and even now, i am not sure I understand the depth of it.

So most people dont think about it.
Most people avoid it other than to say it isn't.

I am not saying it can not be understood.
I am saying that most people avoid it rather than trying to understand it.
So for most people it is not understood beyond the briefest of understanding.

Ask someone how many numbers are between 1 and 2.
There are an infinite number of numbers between them.
But that is beyond the point of understanding infinity for most people.

 

[Polymath257]

Ask someone how many numbers are between 1 and 2.
There are an infinite number of numbers between them.
But that is beyond the point of understanding infinity for most people.

Not only that, but an *uncountably* infinite number of them! Here, the collection of counting numbers is said to be 'countably' infinite.

 

[nPeace]

It may be infinite in extent even if it is finite temporally.

And, we would say that *our* universe is the age dated from the start of the expansion even if time and some sort of physical processes happen prior to that. But that isn't the sense we are talking about here.



As with everything in science, we cannot absolutely prove it is correct in every situation. It is a very good model. But we also know that it need modification when it comes to quantum gravity.



Evolution doesn't address the question of the origin of life. It works incredibly well after that point. General relativity cannot deal with the *origin* of the universe. For that, we need a quantum theory of gravity.

Why is this so difficult for you? In the question you are asking: the origin of the universe, we know that GR does not apply before a certain point because it doesn't address issues related to quantum gravity. And, yes, it is similar to evolution not dealing with the origin of life. Both models work very well *after* some point. Prior to that point, we don't know what happened because there are untested models for those times that give different answers.
However, GR works incredibly well for times *after* about a Planck time after the start of the expansion. In other words, once we get past the time of quantum gravity.

What do you find is difficult for me. I am having no difficulty at all. However, it seems you are having difficulty with some scientists.

Lemaître.
"If the world has begun with a single quantum, the notions of space and time would altogether fail to have any meaning at the beginning; they would only begin to have a sensible meaning when the original quantum had been divided into a sufficient number of quanta. If this suggestion is correct, the beginning of the world happened a little before the beginning of space and time."

 

[Polymath257]

What do you find is difficult for me. I am having no difficulty at all. However, it seems you are having difficulty with some scientists.

Lemaître.
"If the world has begun with a single quantum, the notions of space and time would altogether fail to have any meaning at the beginning; they would only begin to have a sensible meaning when the original quantum had been divided into a sufficient number of quanta. If this suggestion is correct, the beginning of the world happened a little before the beginning of space and time."

Once again, I acknowledge that the Big Bang model is incredibly good back to the point of the inflationary epoch. In that model, the beginning of space and time was *simultaneous* with the beginning of matter and energy (not a little before).

But can you acknowledge it is incomplete because it doesn't address quantum mechanics? And that it is *necessary* for a complete theory to do so?

And can you acknowledge, as scientists do, that different models of quantum gravity give different answers for the question of whether there is a beginning?

You are relying on popular accounts. And, because of that, you get some of the specifics wrong. That happens in most popular accounts: things are simplified and the full story, which is much more nuanced, is not discussed (mostly because most people don't have the math background to do it seriously).

We are looking at various *models* of the early universe. The main model we use is the LCDM model based on general relativity and having cold dark matter and also dark energy. That model doesn't work earlier than the era of inflation.

Most of cosmology deals with the time after the BB because that is the time when all of the data we have currently is from. We can't even effectively probe the time of inflation as yet.

In other words, all bets are off prior to inflation.

 

[night912]

As far as we can tell, the universe is finite. It has a beginning. It won't have an end
but there will be the "heat death" and receding horizons. That's current cosmology
which most likely will be something different in 10 years.
A universe which has always been here avoids the question of how it came to be
here. Nor does it address the question of WHY it is here.

No it doesn't. It answers the question of how it always was here and never "came to be." The universe doesn't need a reason for it being here.

"Why something rather than nothing."

And the explanation answers your question. That "something," being the universe, was always here, that's why there was never "nothing" there.

 

[night912]

If.
I don't believe that addresses the first cause, nonetheless, since intelligence seems to be very much a part of the initial processes... but that's another ball game.

Ok. The universe is infinite. Now that addressed the first cause.

"Seems."
So intelligence is not a part of the initial process, you just think that it is.

 

[night912]

Except I have no problem saying that I do not know.

Same here. But when I know the explanation for something, I tend to explain it. And the explanation answers the question, "Why something rather than nothing."

Except I am not looking for a gap for I have nothing to put in said gap.

There's no need to look when one has the answer.

Except I am not making any claims as to how it "MUST" be.

Logic dictates it.

 

[nPeace]

Once again, I acknowledge that the Big Bang model is incredibly good back to the point of the inflationary epoch. In that model, the beginning of space and time was *simultaneous* with the beginning of matter and energy (not a little before).

What is the universe?

But can you acknowledge it is incomplete because it doesn't address quantum mechanics? And that it is *necessary* for a complete theory to do so?

If you acknowledge that all models are incomplete because they do not address all factors - including the unknown, we can be friends.

And can you acknowledge, as scientists do, that different models of quantum gravity give different answers for the question of whether there is a beginning?

That's your job. Not mine.

You are relying on popular accounts. And, because of that, you get some of the specifics wrong. That happens in most popular accounts: things are simplified and the full story, which is much more nuanced, is not discussed (mostly because most people don't have the math background to do it seriously).

What specifics exactly do you think I got wrong?

We are looking at various *models* of the early universe. The main model we use is the LCDM model based on general relativity and having cold dark matter and also dark energy. That model doesn't work earlier than the era of inflation.

Exactly!

Most of cosmology deals with the time after the BB because that is the time when all of the data we have currently is from. We can't even effectively probe the time of inflation as yet.

Exactly!

In other words, all bets are off prior to inflation.

In other words, speculation is the order of the day, but... we know from the data, aside from the speculation and the mays, and mays have not, that there was a beginning.

 

[nPeace]

Ok. The universe is infinite. Now that addressed the first cause.

Really? Haven't seen that in writing.

"Seems."
So intelligence is not a part of the initial process, you just think that it is.

Not really.

 

[night912]

Really? Haven't seen that in writing.

So apparently, you didn't read anything in this thread at all.

Not really.

Then why are you disagreeing if you don't think that intelligence is a part of the initial process, you just think that it is.

 

[rational experiences]

Human being scientists claim that infinite is the beginning, and so we are infinite.

So I suggest being a responsible human for my choice and actions, to build a metal space ship like the UFO metal radiation mass in darkness that he discusses, and take all of your followers and live on that ship in out of space and see if you remain alive for infinity.

For testing and observation is meant to be the scientists personal conscious belief of knowing in a bio life that is equal and owner of the same human natural life first before he believes in science. We live inside of a gas mass that gets used up, either by burning or by our consuming in living.

As an honest self appraisal.

 

[Polymath257]

What is the universe?


If you acknowledge that all models are incomplete because they do not address all factors - including the unknown, we can be friends.

Absolutely. ALL models are incomplete.

That's your job. Not mine.

What specifics exactly do you think I got wrong?

Exactly!

Exactly!


In other words, speculation is the order of the day, but... we know from the data, aside from the speculation and the mays, and mays have not, that there was a beginning.

And this is what you got wrong. ONE model says there was a beginning. Another, more complete model says there was not. A third, which is an alternative to the second, and also more complete than the first, says that there was. All three models are based on our current data.

So, no, we do NOT know from the data that there was a beginning.

 

[PruePhillip]

No it doesn't. It answers the question of how it always was here and never "came to be." The universe doesn't need a reason for it being here.


And the explanation answers your question. That "something," being the universe, was always here, that's why there was never "nothing" there.

So this is strange. We ask "how did the universe begin?" and someone "answers"
"It has always been here."
"Will our expanding universe have an end?"
"No, it will go on forever."
"So... did it cycle for all eternity, but THIS TIME, just expand forever?"