What or how did everything start?

[RestlessSoul]

So, why do you even try, since it was obvious from the beginning that you can only retreat with your tails between your legs?

Ciao

- viole

Why did I try what? To have a conversation with you? God knows.

 

[Polymath257]

While the B theory of time has apparently found favour with some theoretical physicists, the emphasis must be very much on theoretical, not physical. Tenseless existence is a philosophical concept, which is seemingly helpful in providing an ontology for special relativity. But, as @mikkel_the_dane would say, this is not purely science, this is philosophy.

Not just *some* theoretical physicist, pretty much *all* of them.

In fact, the notion of a spacetime geometry is at the very heart of the best description of gravity we have. So, no, it is NOT purely theoretical: it has very practical consequences, like GPS.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Not just *some* theoretical physicist, pretty much *all* of them.

In fact, the notion of a spacetime geometry is at the very heart of the best description of gravity we have. So, no, it is NOT purely theoretical: it has very practical consequences, like GPS.

The notion of spacetime geometry is not necessarily synonymous with or dependent on the B theory of time though, is it?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Can anyone explain to me what or how this universe come to existence, and i do not accept answers like.

It was the big bang...
It just happend.
It has always been there.
It is a string of universes (tell about the first one then)

What triggered the existence of the universe?

Big bang. There's the cosmic microwave radiation background that serves as evidence and is already mapped.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Big bang. There's the cosmic microwave radiation background that serves as evidence and is already mapped.

And what was before big bang?

 

[Orbit]

Can anyone explain to me what or how this universe come to existence, and i do not accept answers like.

It was the big bang...
It just happend.
It has always been there.
It is a string of universes (tell about the first one then)

What triggered the existence of the universe?

There is a very good book by Laurence Krauss entitled "A Universe from Nothing" that gives a physicists' view of how the universe started that you might like.

 

[Nakosis]

Can anyone explain to me what or how this universe come to existence, and i do not accept answers like.

It was the big bang...
It just happend.
It has always been there.
It is a string of universes (tell about the first one then)

What triggered the existence of the universe?

I see no reason to presume a start to the universe. So I suspect the most likely answer is that the universe has always been there.

 

[Heyo]

And what was before big bang?

According to one view there is no "before". Spacetime started with the BB. And because there is no before, there can be no cause that preceded the BB.
That goes against our experience since for all of our memories and all of our history there was always a "before".
The other view is that time is eternal - and so is the universe.
That goes against our experience since for all of our memories and all of our history there never was anything eternal or infinite. We can't imagine such a thing.

 

[viole]

Why did I try what? To have a conversation with you? God knows.

I have no problem to have conversations with people. I actually like people, mostly. And I always help anyone with genuine questions or doubts, if I have an answer to them. As I would expect them to help me when I have doubts on my side, since I am ignorant almost everywhere.

What I do not like is conversations with people who challenge without having made their homework first. Because that always translates in a waste of time of both sides,

In your case it was obvious you had just googled around to see what people (philosophers, theoretical physicists, whatever) think, instead of actually trying to understand what the ontology entails. You also delegated to my Danish friend here as additional proof that you could not defend your case alone. With all due respect, you have been intellectually lazy.

So, in such cases I am ruthless, sorry, as you would probably be ruthless with anyone trying to pontificate in your area of competence without having a clue. Simple human nature.

Now, we have two possibilities, which are valid for any theist:

1) You believe in your tenet, independently of anything else
2) You try to justify your beliefs by including evidence like cosmological arguments, philosophy, teleology, etc.

My personal recommendation is to stick to 1). For you can only expect misery, frustration and disappointment, if you try, by any ways or means, to justify your beliefs rationally by using 2). Unless you like some heat, and you are ready to take it, of course.

Ciao

- viole

 

[nPeace]

Can anyone explain to me what or how this universe come to existence, and i do not accept answers like.

It was the big bang...
It just happend.
It has always been there.
It is a string of universes (tell about the first one then)

What triggered the existence of the universe?

The Bible says God, by his awesome power, and dynamic energy..
The two footed experts say, "We don't know."

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible says God, by his awesome power, and dynamic energy..
The two footed experts say, "We don't know."

Great a book of myths says that a god did it. The experts say "we know up to this point right now, We may know more in the future". I would go with the honest ones that can support their claims.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I have no problem to have conversations with people. I actually like people, mostly. And I always help anyone with genuine questions or doubts, if I have an answer to them. As I would expect them to help me when I have doubts on my side, since I am ignorant almost everywhere.

What I do not like is conversations with people who challenge without having made their homework first. Because that always translates in a waste of time of both sides,

In your case it was obvious you had just googled around to see what people (philosophers, theoretical physicists, whatever) think, instead of actually trying to understand what the ontology entails. You also delegated to my Danish friend here as additional proof that you could not defend your case alone. With all due respect, you have been intellectually lazy.

So, in such cases I am ruthless, sorry, as you would probably be ruthless with anyone trying to pontificate in your area of competence without having a clue. Simple human nature.

Now, we have two possibilities, which are valid for any theist:

1) You believe in your tenet, independently of anything else
2) You try to justify your beliefs by including evidence like cosmological arguments, philosophy, teleology, etc.

My personal recommendation is to stick to 1). For you can only expect misery, frustration and disappointment, if you try, by any ways or means, to justify your beliefs rationally by using 2). Unless you like some heat, and ready to take it, of course.

Ciao

- viole

Well now. What we have here is a failure to communicate.

I actually responded to one of your posts in good faith, because I am interested in the subject of time, and it’s philosophical implications. But it seems you are determined to assign the worst possible motives to everything I say, presumably on the basis that you have identified me as a theist - which is a term I particularly dislike, but there we go. And you are here to attack theists, it would seem.

I don’t mind a bit of heat btw, but I don’t particularly welcome attacks of a personal nature. I’ll take the offer of misery, frustration and disappointment as a joke, though I’m not sure if you do humour? Only the cruel kind, probably.

Anyway, I won’t waste any more of your time.

 

[nPeace]

Easy. It always existed.

Ciao

- viole

Too easy.
In the 13th century, Siger of Brabant authored the thesis The Eternity of the World, which argued that there was no first man, and no first specimen of any particular: the physical universe is thus without any first beginning, and therefore eternal. Siger's views were condemned by the pope in 1277.

The steady-state model asserts that although the universe is expanding, it nevertheless does not change its appearance over time (the perfect cosmological principle); the universe has no beginning and no end.

While the steady-state model enjoyed some minority support in the scientific mainstream until the mid-20th century, it is now rejected by the vast majority of cosmologists, astrophysicists and astronomers, as the observational evidence points to a hot Big Bang cosmology with a finite age of the universe, which the steady-state model does not predict.

 

[viole]

Too easy.
In the 13th century, Siger of Brabant authored the thesis The Eternity of the World, which argued that there was no first man, and no first specimen of any particular: the physical universe is thus without any first beginning, and therefore eternal. Siger's views were condemned by the pope in 1277.

The steady-state model asserts that although the universe is expanding, it nevertheless does not change its appearance over time (the perfect cosmological principle); the universe has no beginning and no end.

While the steady-state model enjoyed some minority support in the scientific mainstream until the mid-20th century, it is now rejected by the vast majority of cosmologists, astrophysicists and astronomers, as the observational evidence points to a hot Big Bang cosmology with a finite age of the universe, which the steady-state model does not predict.

What makes you think I am invoking the steady-state model?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Viker]

I flipped the light switch.

 

[nPeace]

What makes you think I am invoking the steady-state model?

Ciao

- viole

You were not involving this... the physical universe is thus without any first beginning, and therefore eternal?
My apologies, in that case.

 

[George-ananda]

Can anyone explain to me what or how this universe come to existence, and i do not accept answers like.

It was the big bang...
It just happend.
It has always been there.
It is a string of universes (tell about the first one then)

What triggered the existence of the universe?

Here's my best theory relying heavily on Vedic (Hindu) Advaita (non-dual = God/Brahman/Source are not-two) philosophy.

Consciousness/God/Brahman/Source is the only ultimate reality. The universe is a creative outpouring of Brahman likened to a play/drama. In Act I, He separates Himself from Himself and becomes finite beings. In Act II, He returns Himself to Himself.

Why? To experience. Why do humans create art and plays with no practical reason. To experience.

 

[Brian2]

Well, if that is the case, you are still stuck in A-theory of time. That is why asked the question. Most people think A theory, which is what our brains evolved, and it is therefore difficult to escape. Perfectly natural, but very likely illusory.

There in no "now" in B theory. Only when we fully understand that the B theory might be correct, we can understand that the Universe is eternal and unchanging. And that any questions about its origins would be pointless, since there is no origin. There is no origin of basically anything.

Despite Big Bang cosmology still being true, and this Universe still be the only one (albeit not necessarily)

Ciao

- viole

Maybe I don't understand B Theory time. There still seems to be the need for a beginning even in B theory time. Surely the whole of the history of this universe (or many universes) cannot have existed always.

 

[Brian2]

Your misunderstanding of time is irrelevant. Time can be said to be an ongoing sequence of events.

Ask professor Andrei Linde how many possible universes there may be

I don't think you can say that I have a misunderstanding of time.

 

[Brian2]

Of course you can add to an infinite set and get a larger infinite set.

And no, you don't get to an infinite set by adding finitely many things to finitely many things.

if there was an infinite regress of causes, then there was *always* an infinite regress of causes.



And the math shows there is no inconsistency. It then becomes a question for science, not philosophy.



Math is a language we use to help us understand reality.

In a mathematical sense if there was an infinite regress of causes then there was always an infinite regress of causes.
In a real sense there cannot have been an infinite regress of causes because that would mean that we are adding to infinite with every cause.
So imo mathematics is being used to obfuscate the truth/reality by going into fantasy scenarios which are logically impossible.
But of cause when speaking to a mathematician the answer I get is that I do not understand.