First cause of the universe.

[Polymath257]

Why? And how? No one has answered the real questions.

Why do you think those are real questions?

They are questions that assume things not in evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@RestlessSoul says "..any point at which the universe did not exist, would be a point beyond or without time and space"

I'm not responsible for what other users are saying. Having said that, how is any of this relevant to the quote you are responding to?

I don't agree. This is a conclusion deriving from a mathematical extrapolation, that says that 'time' can only exist [or make sense] within the universe.

Math that describes physical reality. Like Einstein's field equations.
Not some arbitrary definition. Instead, models of physics that are the result of scientific inquiry.

If you have a better description of time / space-time that accounts for the facts and can make even better and more accurate testable predictions, go right ahead and share it.

But clearly you do not. All you seem to have is "na-huh!!!" and a repeat of bare claims.

..so does the concept of time only exist within the universe?

Time is inherent to the universe. So is space. Which is why the universe is also referred to as space-time.
I'm unaware of any models of physics that posit that there's also a time "dimension" outside or beyond the space-time bubble we reside in. Whatever "outside or beyond" even means in that context.

Shut your eyes .. do you cease to exist because you cannot detect motion?

I fail to see the relevance of this statement.

The existence of the fabric of space-time isn't dependent on ones eyes being open or shut.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have not seen any such explanation given. More universes isn't an explanation.

There's a bit more to it then just that.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Time is inherent to the universe. So is space. Which is why the universe is also referred to as space-time.

I am more than aware that this universe is a space-time continuum.

I'm unaware of any models of physics that posit that there's also a time "dimension" outside or beyond the space-time bubble we reside in..

Physicists can only observe phenomena within this universe, as far as I'm aware.
We can only make educated guesses about multiverses etc.

Whatever "outside or beyond" even means in that context..

It means exactly what it says: "not in this universe".

I fail to see the relevance of this statement.

The existence of the fabric of space-time isn't dependent on ones eyes being open or shut.

The existence of things in an alternative universe is not dependent on observations in this one.
Hence one cannot make deductions about concepts such as time and space not being able to exist "outside" or "before" this universe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am more than aware that this universe is a space-time continuum.

It doesn't sound like it, since you keep arguing the opposite.

Physicists can only observe phenomena within this universe, as far as I'm aware.

So are you. So what are you talking about?

We can only make educated guesses about multiverses etc.

To call predictions that naturally flow from theories "educated guesses" is a mischaracterization imo.

Consider black holes. Einstein "discovered" them. But not by observing them.
Instead, the existence of black holes was a prediction that naturally flowed from his equations concerning relativity. Black holes weren't some "guess" - educated or otherwise.

Instead, it was an implication from the equations he came up with to describe gravity etc.
In fact, Einstein actually assumed that his theory and equations had to be in error, because he thought the very idea of black holes was ridiculous. Yet they were implied by his theory.

IF his equations that describe gravity and time etc were accurate, THEN black holes had to exist. He didn't "want" them to exist, nor did he set out to develop his equations with "black holes exist" in mind. It was just a consequence of the model he had developed.


The multi-verse is the same. Several hypothesis that address phenomenon IN the universe, have as implication that a multi-verse exists. It's a prediction that flows from these hypothesis - not something that physicists had in mind when developing those models.

Exactly like black holes were a consequence of Einstein's models concerning gravity / time.

So no, not a "guess". Instead, a prediction from models addressing real phenomenon in the universe.

It means exactly what it says: "not in this universe".

Again: whatever that means.
It implies that there is an "outside of the universe". I don't know what that means. I don't even know if it even makes any sense at all. It could very well be that there is no "there" there.

The existence of things in an alternative universe is not dependent on observations in this one.
Hence one cannot make deductions about concepts such as time and space not being able to exist "outside" or "before" this universe.

Another space-time bubble would have its own time dimension separate from the time dimension of the space-time bubble we reside in. Time in this universe would still be inherent to this universe.

 

[Wildswanderer]

What are the "real questions". If you mean "is there a God or not" that is unanswered. But one would have to add, there does not appear to be a good reason for that belief.

Good grief. The real questions are "why" and "how"?
If you can't answer those you can understand why most people choose God over nothingness.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Why do you think those are real questions?

They are questions that assume things not in evidence.

Those are the ones asked by humans with souls.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Amazing you can use your computer, cell phone, or other services that rely on our understanding.

Funny how those are created things with design but you can believe everything including those are actually the result of chance. The universe playing dice, apparently.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Explaining something by claiming there are no rules for something else is no explanation.

You just can't imagine an infinite being because you are bound by imagination that has to fit into " scientific" parameters. Nevermind that science cannot even tell us why the universe is here.

 

[Polymath257]

Those are the ones asked by humans with souls.

What I have found is that such questions are usually pointless.

They have no answers because they *can* have no answers. usually, they are based on hidden false premises. So there is never any resolution of the questions. Instead, what happens is that people enter into endless debate about things that can't even be tested. That leads to conflict and rigidity of thought.

I have yet to see a demonstration that there is a thing corresponding to the word 'soul'.

 

[Polymath257]

Good grief. The real questions are "why" and "how"?
If you can't answer those you can understand why most people choose God over nothingness.

Both 'why' and 'how' assume that there is a deeper explanation than the phenomenon in question. They can be answered when there are known laws of physics that show how things come about.

But they simply don't apply to the laws themselves. That is because any answer to 'why' or 'how' has to involve descriptive laws that put the 'how' or 'why' into effect.

By decreeing the answer is some unknowable and untestable God, all that happens is that we have given a name to our ignorance. It doesn't actually answer the questions.

 

[Polymath257]

Funny how those are created things with design but you can believe everything including those are actually the result of chance. The universe playing dice, apparently.

We understand the natural laws enough to know that those things don't arise spontaneously (among other reasons, they are mostly inert chemically). This is in contrast to the many situations where we know the laws *dictate* that things will happen spontaneously (like star and planet formation).

The two situations are not similar. In fact, they are diametrically opposite.

But, once again, the fact that we can make such instruments and that they work shows that we *do* know how at least part of the universe works. It is NOT just guesswork.

You just can't imagine an infinite being because you are bound by imagination that has to fit into " scientific" parameters. Nevermind that science cannot even tell us why the universe is here.

I have no trouble at all imagining an infinite being. I deal with infinite quantities every day as part of my profession.

But imagination doesn't imply existence. I can imagine high dimensional beings capable of making universes, but that doesn't mean I believe such beings actually exist.

I have no trouble imagining a designer of the universe. I just find no evidence that there was one.

I don't see religion as answering the question of why there is something rather than nothing. Even religion needs to assume the existence of something: it's deity. of course, no further details are ever given about *how* or *why* that deity made the universe, so even those 'important' questions are left unanswered.

 

[rational experiences]

The singularity (an entity of infinite density and zero mass) was under intense pressure from what?

The eternal held a portion of its body still in a fixed holding many of O. Mass. Surround thinned surrounding O and it blew.

Loss of origin flow and pressure. Change. Blasting. Burning. Cooling. New form as energy. First human psychic memory explained why.

Only because humans came out of eternal afterwards.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good grief. The real questions are "why" and "how"?
If you can't answer those you can understand why most people choose God over nothingness.

You can't even say what the questions are. The how can anyone take you seriously? And much of the" how" has been answered. Lastly "why" is a poorly asked question. Do you understand why this is so?

 

[Wildswanderer]

You can't even say what the questions are. The how can anyone take you seriously? And much of the" how" has been answered. Lastly "why" is a poorly asked question. Do you understand why this is so?

No, it's the only question that really matters to the human soul. Why are we here? Why is anything here?
And if you can't answer the first cause question, the how of things functioning is irrelevant.

 

[Wildswanderer]

of course, no further details are ever given about *how* or *why* that deity made the universe, so even those 'important' questions are left unanswered.

That's incorrect. We are told how and why God created.

 

[Wildswanderer]

But they simply don't apply to the laws themselves. That is because any answer to 'why' or 'how' has to involve descriptive laws that put the 'how' or 'why' into effect.

Circular reasoning leading nowhere.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it's the only question that really matters to the human soul. Why are we here? Why is anything here?
And if you can't answer the first cause question, the how of things functioning is irrelevant.

Ooh! You are only digging the hole deeper.

Prove that you have a soul.

 

[Wildswanderer]

They have no answers because they *can* have no answers.

As long as you believe that you will be restricted by your religion of secular thinking which is a form of willful ignorance.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Ooh! You are only digging the hole deeper.

Prove that you have a soul.

You require proof from deists but not from science, which by it's nature cannot prove anything?

Doesn't seem logical.
Compassion and love and friendship are evidence for the soul. None of these are necessary for function and survival of the human race.
Prove you exist. Proof really isn't a thing, it's wishful thinking... anything can be debatable.