What caused the Big Bang?

[sayak83]

Science may have well thought out theories, but evidence is require. Where is the evidence, not the math, for eternity in the universe? I admit to a bias, I know for certain God exists. Knowing God is the only eternal being in existence, it is easy for me to say, where is the evidence? Even if you saw God, no one would believe you. They would require empirical evidence. I know the argument, given time science will have the answer. What if, however, there is no scientific answer? How can you prove God?

Assuming God created the universe, there would be no scientific explanation. Until the end of time science will spin it's wheels to no avail, there is no way science can explain it. In the meantime, it is amusing to watch science attempt an explanation. It's better than a science fiction movie.

I feel slightly amused at your certainties based on dreams and visions. All actual observations show that events are always preceded by earlier events and succeeded by later events, and thus all time points are preceded by a past time point and succeeded by a future time point. Thus the default theory is all time points have a past and a future and hence time and the physical reality is eternal. It is you, who is going against all observable evidence in support of this and saying that there was once a time point preceded by no previous time point! Since you are going against observations, the onus is on you to marshall evidence for such an extreme deviation from observations made so far by humans. Dreams are not going to cut it.

Meanwhile evidence continues to mount that the universe is infinite in space.

Astrophysicists create the first accurate map of the universe: It's very flat, and probably infinite - ExtremeTech

 

[Repox]

I feel slightly amused at your certainties based on dreams and visions. All actual observations show that events are always preceded by earlier events and succeeded by later events, and thus all time points are preceded by a past time point and succeeded by a future time point. Thus the default theory is all time points have a past and a future and hence time and the physical reality is eternal. It is you, who is going against all observable evidence in support of this and saying that there was once a time point preceded by no previous time point! Since you are going against observations, the onus is on you to marshall evidence for such an extreme deviation from observations made so far by humans. Dreams are not going to cut it.

Meanwhile evidence continues to mount that the universe is infinite in space.

Astrophysicists create the first accurate map of the universe: It's very flat, and probably infinite - ExtremeTech

I am using my analytical skills not dreams to make statements about matter and energy. I regret bringing up my dreams. I don't like being ridiculed. You stated, "Thus the default theory is all time points have a past and a future and hence time and the physical reality is eternal." By the definition of eternity, your statement is false. You have not made an argument for eternity, you have made an argument for time points on a time line, which is not eternity. Eternity has no beginning and no ending. Your time points only exist on a time line, and your time line has a beginning. If it where not so, you would have no reference point for comparing points, you would have a circle of points on a line, which negates points because there is no relative measure.

I am surprised that you attempted to prove eternity with such a crude example. If it were eternal, there would be no beginning or ending, and therefore no points for comparison. Moreover, if it were eternal, you could not be in a temporal world because the two worlds are incompatible, they cannot exist in the universe. There is no eternity in our universe. Just because you or others don't understand it doesn't mean it is not true.

Based on your statement, I assume you think my statement about the direction of change is nonsense. Here it is again.

I would like to make a proposal, one which cannot be refuted by science. From the beginning of the universe when time began, all matter and energy, regardless of form (VPs), has been in a constant state of change. Furthermore, all matter and energy moves forward, not backward. These propositions refute the idea for the universe being eternal. The way to visualize these propositions is to draw a line. If you notice, the line has a beginning. It is the same for time, whatever the measure (situation, event, or universe), it always has a beginning.

Critique the statement.

 

[sayak83]

I am using my analytical skills not dreams to make statements about matter and energy. I regret bringing up my dreams. I don't like being ridiculed. You stated, "Thus the default theory is all time points have a past and a future and hence time and the physical reality is eternal." By the definition of eternity, your statement is false. You have not made an argument for eternity, you have made an argument for time points on a time line, which is not eternity. Eternity has no beginning and no ending. Your time points only exist on a time line, and your time line has a beginning. If it where not so, you would have no reference point for comparing points, you would have a circle of points on a line, which negates points because there is no relative measure.

I am surprised that you attempted to prove eternity with such a crude example. If it were eternal, there would be no beginning or ending, and therefore no points for comparison. Moreover, if it were eternal, you could not be in a temporal world because the two worlds are incompatible, they cannot exist in the universe. There is no eternity in our universe. Just because you or others don't understand it doesn't mean it is not true.

Based on your statement, I assume you think my statement about the direction of change is nonsense. Here it is again.

I would like to make a proposal, one which cannot be refuted by science. From the beginning of the universe when time began, all matter and energy, regardless of form (VPs), has been in a constant state of change. Furthermore, all matter and energy moves forward, not backward. These propositions refute the idea for the universe being eternal. The way to visualize these propositions is to draw a line. If you notice, the line has a beginning. It is the same for time, whatever the measure (situation, event, or universe), it always has a beginning.

Critique the statement.

Umm no. Time has no need to have a beginning or and end. Consider a line, extending infinitely in both directions. Each point on that line has a point preceding it and a point succeeding, and so on without a beginning or and end. Such is , quite logically, the nature of time. Each time instant is a point on this infinitely extending timeline. All very logical and consistent. The physical reality, described as the set of events in each of the time points extending beginninglessly and endlessly, will be eternally existing. This is the most obvious and natural description of both time and the physical reality as per observation.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

...but if particles or waves can indeed "get around those limits" then "beyond those limits" lies a physical, material reality that we have yet to observe or explain - not a timeless and immaterial 'realm' of unreality that we can never hope to understand.

???? Just because we can't explain it (yet), that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The EPR paradox exists, but we can't explain it....yet--and the Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (TIQM) offers a possible, nay likely, explanation for the EPR and other quantum weirdness, especially when it comes to the dimension of time.

Until we do figure out how to observe (if it is even possible - for us - to do so), anything we say about them is speculation and the further it deviates from what we already know about the reality we can observe, the wilder the speculation becomes.

How does (what) deviate from what we already "know"? Your gotta be very careful about what we claim to know.

I have some pretty wild speculations about what might be 'out there' beyond the limits of (currently) observable reality - but I make no 'truth' claims for these. What I do know is this: actual singularities are physically impossible, so whilst theists and deists alike are apt to latch on to the notion of creatio ex nihilo that the Big Bang model seems (at least to them) to support, the idea is preposterous in terms of everything else we know about reality. The universe (that we observe) simply could not have emerged from nothing - it emerged from something. If that something is "God" then "God" is physical.

Not if the universe that (God?) created was extrapolated from the aforementioned Ether--which would be essentially a supernatural (for us) reality, "external" to our 4-D reality./

 

[Repox]

Umm no. Time has no need to have a beginning or and end. Consider a line, extending infinitely in both directions. Each point on that line has a point preceding it and a point succeeding, and so on without a beginning or and end. Such is , quite logically, the nature of time. Each time instant is a point on this infinitely extending timeline. All very logical and consistent. The physical reality, described as the set of events in each of the time points extending beginninglessly and endlessly, will be eternally existing. This is the most obvious and natural description of both time and the physical reality as per observation.

You state, "Time has no need to have a beginning or and end." Where in the real world, or the universe do you find such a possibility? It doesn't exist! In every situation, in every event, there is a beginning of time. Provide and example in the real world for time without a beginning. As for the ending, depending on the situation or event, it happens, if not in the immediate future, then, eventually it will happen.

You are proposing a hypothetical situation for which there is no possibility or evidence. It is possible, of course, to stretch one's imagination to preposterous ends. It reminders me of one of those fairy tale college classes in the humanities. It's fun, but it is not real.

As for eternity, you state, "The physical reality, described as the set of events in each of the time points extending beginninglessly and endlessly, will be eternally existing." That is totally incorrect. There are no examples of eternity in the universe. Every situation and event in the universe has a time line, and none of those time lines are eternal.

 

[sayak83]

You state, "Time has no need to have a beginning or and end." Where in the real world, or the universe do you find such a possibility? It doesn't exist! In every situation, in every event, there is a beginning of time. Provide and example in the real world for time without a beginning. As for the ending, depending on the situation or event, it happens, if not in the immediate future, then, eventually it will happen.

You are proposing a hypothetical situation for which there is no possibility or evidence. It is possible, of course, to stretch one's imagination to preposterous ends. It reminders me of one of those fairy tale college class in the humanities. It's fun, but it is not real.

As for eternity, you state, "The physical reality, described as the set of events in each of the time points extending beginninglessly and endlessly, will be eternally existing." That is totally incorrect. There are no examples of eternity in the universe. Every situation and event in the universe has a time line, and none of those time lines are eternal.

I cannot even understand what you are saying. Isn't this time instant now [x minutes, y seconds] immediately preceded by the past time instant [x minutes, y-1 seconds] and so forever in as far a past we can observe and so forth in as long a future we can envision. So where does the idea that Time, which is defined as the collection of all these time instants from the past how-so-ever remote and the future how-so-ever distant, ever be said to have a beginning or an end? Indeed what evidence is there that time had a beginning? I see NONE. The time-line is endless, and thus the physical reality, defined as the entire sequence of events in that that endless and beginingless timeline, eternal.

 

[Repox]

.

You state, "Time has no need to have a beginning or and end." Where in the real world, or the universe do you find such a possibility? It doesn't exist! In every situation, in every event, there is a beginning of time. Provide and example in the real world for time without a beginning. As for the ending, depending on the situation or event, it happens, if not in the immediate future, then, eventually it will happen.
You are proposing a hypothetical situation for which there is no possibility or evidence. It is possible, of course, to stretch one's imagination to preposterous ends. It reminders me of one of those fairy tale college classes in the humanities. It's fun, but it is not real.

As for eternity, you state, "The physical reality, described as the set of events in each of the time points extending beginninglessly and endlessly, will be eternally existing." That is totally incorrect. There are no examples of eternity in the universe. Every situation and event in the universe has a time line, and none of those time lines are eternal

This has been going on for a long time, people claiming this or that is eternal, or claiming they're eternal, all the while living in a finite world. Only God is eternal. You cannot equate a time line with eternity. You are not looking at the real world when you say time has no beginning. For situations and events, there are new time lines everyday, and they are finite, not eternal. .

 

[Repox]

I cannot even understand what you are saying. Isn't this time instant now [x minutes, y seconds] immediately preceded by the past time instant [x minutes, y-1 seconds] and so forever in as far a past we can observe and so forth in as long a future we can envision. So where does the idea that Time, which is defined as the collection of all these time instants from the past how-so-ever remote and the future how-so-ever distant, ever be said to have a beginning or an end? Indeed what evidence is there that time had a beginning? I see NONE. The time-line is endless, and thus the physical reality, defined as the entire sequence of events in that that endless and beginingless timeline, eternal.

Where is an example of a time line being endless. You are dealing with hypotheticals which don't exist, they are only possible in an utopian world.

 

[Repox]

I cannot even understand what you are saying. Isn't this time instant now [x minutes, y seconds] immediately preceded by the past time instant [x minutes, y-1 seconds] and so forever in as far a past we can observe and so forth in as long a future we can envision. So where does the idea that Time, which is defined as the collection of all these time instants from the past how-so-ever remote and the future how-so-ever distant, ever be said to have a beginning or an end? Indeed what evidence is there that time had a beginning? I see NONE. The time-line is endless, and thus the physical reality, defined as the entire sequence of events in that that endless and beginingless timeline, eternal.

You are not relating to the real world. Everyday, there are time lines for situations and events. It is absurd to say a beginning of time doesn't exist! There is no evidence in the real world for a time line being endless or beginning less. Time as well as everything else in the universe is finite, not eternal.

I think the problem you are having is you are generalizing all time (situations and events) to one time line, which is an imaginary hypothetical. We are operating in different worlds. I function best in the empirical world. A philosophy professor once yelled at me, "YOU ARE A RAW EMPIRICIST." In philosophy, that is an insult. Concepts don't really work unless they're grounded.

 

[sayak83]

Where is an example of a time line being endless. You are dealing with hypotheticals which don't exist, they are only possible in an utopian world.

Where is the example of the time line having and end. ALL the known laws of physics work with a beginningless and endless timeline. From quantum mechanics to general relativity to actual observations, where have we ever seen ANY timeline ending? There is nothing in observations or laws of physics that evendors remotel suggests that timelines can either begin or end. It is You who is hypothesizing something that has Never been observed directly or cannot inferred from physics. Events in time begin and end, but a timeline, a causally connected sequence of events, neither have a beginning nor an end.

 

[sayak83]

You are not relating to the real world. Everyday, there are time lines for situations and events. It is absurd to say a beginning of time doesn't exist!

Of course it does not exist. We Arbitrarily choose a start and and endpoint for our own convenience. Just as an infinite line can be observed segment by segment, just as one can choose to look at and use a finite number sequence 0-100 out of an infinite seris of number, so too we merely look at small segments of the beginningless and endless time lines that characterize this reality merely because our minds are finite. This is obvious.

 

[Repox]

I feel slightly amused at your certainties based on dreams and visions. All actual observations show that events are always preceded by earlier events and succeeded by later events, and thus all time points are preceded by a past time point and succeeded by a future time point. Thus the default theory is all time points have a past and a future and hence time and the physical reality is eternal. It is you, who is going against all observable evidence in support of this and saying that there was once a time point preceded by no previous time point! Since you are going against observations, the onus is on you to marshall evidence for such an extreme deviation from observations made so far by humans. Dreams are not going to cut it.

Meanwhile evidence continues to mount that the universe is infinite in space.

Astrophysicists create the first accurate map of the universe: It's very flat, and probably infinite - ExtremeTech[/QU.

Here is a quote from that article about mapping the universe. "The new map provides some of the best evidence that the universe is flat, and that it’s “likely” the universe is infinite, extending forever into space and time."

nfinity, of course, means forever, or without limit. Yet, there is no evidence for that assertion. Would infinity include heaven? We don't need the supernatural if we are part of infinity. There would have to be no ending as well. How can the universe expand forever? Where does space come from? How much time is infinity? If there is no limit, the universe must be eternal. It must have created itself. We can go on and on with all the absurdities. It is what happens when people ignore God, instead they attempt to be gods in order to explain the unexplainable.

 

[Repox]

Of course it does not exist. We Arbitrarily choose a start and and endpoint for our own convenience. Just as an infinite line can be observed segment by segment, just as one can choose to look at and use a finite number sequence 0-100 out of an infinite seris of number, so too we merely look at small segments of the beginningless and endless time lines that characterize this reality merely because our minds are finite. This is obvious.

Unless we are cheating, we choose beginning points based on the reality of situations and events. Then, we observe the ending. If we don't do it empirically, we hallucinate or make it up. The best method is to get a consensus from those who are observing. In the universe, there is no such thing as a beginningless time line. It might happen in science fiction, but not in the real world.

You state, "so too we merely look at small segments of the beginningless and endless time lines that characterize this reality merely because our minds are finite." You seem to suggest the human mind is not adequate to the task. In the world in which we live, finite creatures decide. You cannot make up another reality and expect the normal world to accept it.

 

[sayak83]

You are not relating to the real world. Everyday, there are time lines for situations and events. It is absurd to say a beginning of time doesn't exist! There is no evidence in the real world for a time line being endless or beginning less. Time as well as everything else in the universe is finite, not eternal.

I think the problem you are having is you are generalizing all time (situations and events) to one time line, which is an imaginary hypothetical. We are operating in different worlds. I function best in the empirical world. A philosophy professor once yelled at me, "YOU ARE A RAW EMPIRICIST." In philosophy, that is an insult. Concepts don't really work unless they're grounded.

No, I am dealing with actual emperical reality. And no, I am talking about seperate time lines and not collapsin them to one. All beginnings we talk about are simply convenient labels we use to chop up a continuous endless and beginningless event sequence. For example this block of ice may be said to have begun at 8 pm tonight. But this is artificial. For it was transformation of what was liquid water at 7:30 pm into ice at 8pm. The timeline of events continue uninterrupted through the freezing process of water to ice. If I collected that water from rain, them once again the timeline continues uninterrupted from the condensation of steam to water in the clouds, and so on indefinitely to the formation of this water in the stars and beyond that to the formation of the protons and neutrons in that water a lititle after the Big Bang , to beyond that to original portion of energy of the onflationary field that transformed into the quarks through the Big Bang. The timeline continues through each such transformation uninterrupted forever before and foreevet after. Now do you understand?

 

[sayak83]

Unless we are cheating, we choose beginning points based on the reality of situations and events. Then, we observe the ending. If we don't do it empirically, we hallucinate or make it up. The best method is to get a consensus from those who are observing. In the universe, there is no such thing as a beginningless time line. It might happen in science fiction, but not in the real world.

No the event sequences are continuous. The choice of both the beginning and end are complerely arbitrary and based on subjective interests.

 

[psychoslice]

Probably the big crutch, and then again the big bang, on and on it goes, the cosmos breathing in and out, no beginning and no end, yes too much for our little brains lol.

 

[Repox]

Where is the example of the time line having and end. ALL the known laws of physics work with a beginningless and endless timeline. From quantum mechanics to general relativity to actual observations, where have we ever seen ANY timeline ending? There is nothing in observations or laws of physics that evendors remotel suggests that timelines can either begin or end. It is You who is hypothesizing something that has Never been observed directly or cannot inferred from physics. Events in time begin and end, but a timeline, a causally connected sequence of events, neither have a beginning nor an end.

You see

No the event sequences are continuous. The choice of both the beginning and end are complerely arbitrary and based on subjective interests.

You can't assume the real world equals mathematical formulas and computations. Most people know time has beginnings and endings.

I think I've found your error. You stated, "Events in time begin and end, but a timeline, a causally connected sequence of events, neither have a beginning nor an end." You are lumping a whole bunch of situations and events together and then claiming that to be the time line. I don't accept your messy time line. Situations and events have specific parameters which you cannot ignore, it is sloppy analysis to integrate everything together. If you are going to do that we might as well debate the time line for the universe.

 

[sayak83]

You see

You can't assume the real world equals mathematical formulas and computations. Everyone in the real world knows time has beginnings and endings.

No, you are the first person I have met who says such an odd thing. Events in time has beginnings and endings, but not the timelines of the event sequence. All of common sense, observation, science and philosophy is against you on that. What an outlandish idea!

 

[Repox]

No, I am dealing with actual emperical reality. And no, I am talking about seperate time lines and not collapsin them to one. All beginnings we talk about are simply convenient labels we use to chop up a continuous endless and beginningless event sequence. For example this block of ice may be said to have begun at 8 pm tonight. But this is artificial. For it was transformation of what was liquid water at 7:30 pm into ice at 8pm. The timeline of events continue uninterrupted through the freezing process of water to ice. If I collected that water from rain, them once again the timeline continues uninterrupted from the condensation of steam to water in the clouds, and so on indefinitely to the formation of this water in the stars and beyond that to the formation of the protons and neutrons in that water a lititle after the Big Bang , to beyond that to original portion of energy of the onflationary field that transformed into the quarks through the Big Bang. The timeline continues through each such transformation uninterrupted forever before and foreevet after. Now do you understand?

I am sorry, but I don't understand dysfunctional ideas. Well, maybe I do. I know they are dysfunctional. Your idea is based on false assumptions, or arbitrary selection of data to create time lines. You''re making up stories about what you think happens to atoms after things change, etc. It is not a time line, it is a theory about causal relationships.

I think we better quite. You stated, "If I collected that water from rain, them once again the timeline continues uninterrupted from the condensation of steam to water in the clouds, and so on indefinitely to the formation of this water in the stars and beyond that to the formation of the protons and neutrons in that water a lititle after the Big Bang , to beyond that to original portion of energy of the onflationary field that transformed into the quarks through the Big Bang. The timeline continues through each such transformation uninterrupted forever before and foreevet after. Now do you understand?" No I don't understand, and I don't think anyone else reading it understands. Your statement needs a lot of work.

 

[Repox]

No, you are the first person I have met who says such an odd thing. Events in time has beginnings and endings, but not the timelines of the event sequence. All of common sense, observation, science and philosophy is against you on that. What an outlandish idea!

You are wrong. I am doing science, you are making up weird rules for analysis, and you keep changing definitions. You can't arbitrarily select time lines based on nonscientific criteria. Who every heard of a time line based on the evaporation of water, etc.? If you are going to use that kind of criteria we might as well discuss a time line for lollipops.