I will break this down into two obvious categories:

Finite Universe
Infinite Universe


I will argue for a finite universe. But read carefully at what I am exactly arguing for. Origin in this thread would mean at the point from which something derives. Existence would be an argument of semantics, and atheists (such as Teg) would fall back onto the "everything is relative" argument and avoid the direct question. Then it would lead to excoriation from such debate, which is pestiferous.

First of all, what do you atheists (especially you Cris) believe your infinite universe warrants? :)

I believe in a finite universe because at some point the stars, planets, galaxies, superclusters, to great walls all formed or originated from an earlier derived point.
The "infinite universe" argument is a failure to answer a simple question. How did things originate? How did things come to be? How would they argue for the formation of stars and galaxies? They would fall into the pit of creationism if they were to assume that stars, galaxies, and everthing else was "just there." They had to be formed, they had to be derived from something.
Cris, argues that the universe must be infinite, because if it were not, there would be no point of existence.

However, I can conclude that something must be infinite since if there was a time when nothing existed then there could never have been a cause for something more to exist. We know the universe exists but we don’t know if anything else exists that might have caused it to be created. In which case the most reasonable hypothesis at the moment is that the universe is infinite, i.e. has no beginning and no end.

Cris (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8848&perpage=40&pagenumber=2)
Now this is where what I say needs to be read carefully. Cris and I could be arguing for the same idea/concept, that existence is always infinite, energy always did exist. But what formed the matter/energy together to create what we call the "universe"? This is indeed a very perplexing scenario. So the definition of finite universe here means at some point the universe was derived, came to be (arguing from a standpoint of "existence" would be a case of semantics, and that is what I want to avoid, I do not want another "Teg argument" - that was indeed frivolous and laborious). You can argue all you want about how energy is infinite, but how does that explain the formation of the universe? How? Is the question to be asked and not why.
Thus, I am arguing that at some point, a beginning point, the universe could be derived from to its current formation. For all I care, it's highly unlikely that the stars and galaxies were "just there" to begin with. :cool:
Lastly, sorry if I am recondite anywhere in my post. Please do not assume and ask me rhetorical questions to clarify.

Thank You.

The current scientific answer to this question is that the universe appears to be finite in extent. It is most likely closed but will expand forever due to the presence of a cosmological constant.

The question of whether the universe is infinite in extent or finite has little to do with the question of its origin, however. The big bang theory allows for universes which are either finite or infinite. Either way, there is a beginning in time.

Originally posted by James R
The question of whether the universe is infinite in extent or finite has little to do with the question of its origin, however. The big bang theory allows for universes which are either finite or infinite. Either way, there is a beginning in time.

I am speaking in terms of formation. Everything we have known so far is formed one way or another (notice I avoided the term "came into existence" since some people have problems about being direct).

If there is a beginning to time, there is a begining to formation. So where does infinite apply? On the concept that energy is infinite, it cannot be created nor destroyed...but how would things form? What is the origin of formation into what we call the "universe"?

I postulate that the universe cannot simply exist "as is" in its current state.

Chosen,
I will argue for a finite universe.
I would really like this to not get into another arguement about definitions so I am going to have to ask you what your definition of 'universe' is for this thread.
Here is my definition of 'universe' (snipped from dictionary.com) as I use the term in the rest of this thread-
u·ni·verse Pronunciation Key (yn-vûrs)
n.

1.All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a
whole.

I believe in a finite universe because at some point the stars, planets, galaxies, superclusters, to great walls all formed or originated from an earlier derived point
I agree that the universe in its current state originated from an earlier point. However, the entitties you described all formed from other states of matter and energy, they did not pop into the universe from nothingness.
The "infinite universe" argument is a failure to answer a simple question. How did things originate? How did things come to be? How would they argue for the formation of stars and galaxies? They would fall into the pit of creationism if they were to assume that stars, galaxies, and everthing else was "just there." They had to be formed, they had to be derived from something.
The 'infinite universe' does answer the simple question. Things did not 'originate' or 'come to be' as you are describing if the universe is infinite. They are simply the results of transformations of energy that has always existed. You may ask 'How did the energy come to be?'. The answer is that it did not. As for the formation of stars and galaxies, it is pretty simple. They are only the universe in its current state. I happen to believe in big bang theory. Therefore, I believe that the big bang is the cause for the universe in its current state. Keep in mind that the big bang tells us nothing of what may have come before the bang. Perhaps energy was suspended in a timeless state, or there are muliple big bangs.
Thus, I am arguing that at some point, a beginning point, the universe could be derived from to its current formation. For all I care, it's highly unlikely that the stars and galaxies were "just there" to begin with.
You seem to miss a crucial point. One can believe in the big bang and also believe the universe is infinite. The big bang does not tell us that the universe is finite.

James,
The current scientific answer to this question is that the universe appears to be finite in extent. No. The scientific answer is that energy is infinite and therefore so is the universe.
The big bang theory allows for universes which are either finite or infinite. Either way, there is a beginning in time.
Righto James. There is a beginning in time if you believe in big bang theory. But that doesn't mean the universe also began at that point.

Hope I cleared some things up.
:p

Chosen,

Very briefly for the moment.

Cris, argues that the universe must be infinite, because if it were not, there would be no point of existence.No, that is not my argument at all.

Whether there is any point to existence is irrelevant.

My argument is entirely concerned with an origin, which I suggest is impossible.

The only alternative I see to an infinite status is that everything was derived from nothing, i.e. everything spontaneously appeared. And I am including the origination of any potential supernatural beings in this.

For the moment I don’t believe that something can come from nothing. I know the argument for quantum events but that doesn’t prove something from nothing only that something appears to come from nothing. That isn’t a proof. Magicians are good at that.

In all our experiences everything has a cause. That appears to argue for a finite universe but it doesn’t since then one must answer the question of a cause of the cause, which results in an infinite series.

My argument rests on an assertion that something infinite must exist. If a god created the so-called material universe then he must be infinite or the result of an infinite series. If no such beings exist then the material universe must be infinite.

When one talks of an origin or of an originating derivation then that inevitably leads to what caused that origin.

The choice is either something from nothing or infinity.

The stars and the galaxies clearly formed from what looks like a big bang. Alan Guth at MIT argues that our big bang is most probably just one of an infinite number of big bangs (bubble universes). Again the big bang does not explain an origin since one must then explain the origin of the big bang.

Thus, I am arguing that at some point, a beginning point, the universe could be derived from to its current formation. For all I care, it's highly unlikely that the stars and galaxies were "just there" to begin with. Ok so my objection would be what caused the beginning point? Your only answer can be that it came from nothing and for the moment I find that an entirely unsatisfactory answer

However, you might be arguing for the beginning of a material universe created by a supernatural force or entity. OK, but that still doesn’t explain an origin since now you must explain the origin of such a force or creator.

Chosen – nice thread.

Cris

<b>Chosen</b>:

<i>If there is a beginning to time, there is a begining to formation. So where does infinite apply?</i>

Infinite in space and infinite in time are different. You can have one without the other. And it is possible that both are infinite. Perhaps time is infinite in the future direction, though it most probably is not in the past direction.

<i>On the concept that energy is infinite, it cannot be created nor destroyed...but how would things form? What is the origin of formation into what we call the "universe"?</i>

Who said energy was infinite? There is a finite amount of available energy in our universe.

<i>I postulate that the universe cannot simply exist "as is" in its current state.</i>

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The universe is not static - it is expanding. But I'm not sure that that's what you're getting at.


<b>Cris</b>:

It is important to bear in mind that things such as bubble universes are unobservable. Our universe might be one "bubble", but even if it is it must be causally disconnected from any other bubble universe. There is a discontinuity of time at the big bang. Since there was no time "before", there is no "before" for a prior cause to exist in.

Asking "What caused the big bang?" is a category error similar to asking "What is north of the North pole?"

James,

It is important to bear in mind that things such as bubble universes are unobservable.Yes I agree this is speculation.

Our universe might be one "bubble", but even if it is it must be causally disconnected from any other bubble universe.Why must that be so? Guth describes how one bubble will spawn others, in that sense there could be infinite continuity.

There is a discontinuity of time at the big bang. Since there was no time "before", there is no "before" for a prior cause to exist in.I don’t believe this can be true for the same reason as there can be no origins.

Time is simply a change in state of existence. If there was a point when time didn’t exist then time could never have started since no events could occur to cause time to begin. From this we must conclude that time has always existed. In which case it is perfectly acceptable to speak of causes of big bangs.

Cris

Cris, I could apply your argument to anything. For example:

<i>If there was a point when Cris didn’t exist then Cris could never have come into existence since no events could occur to cause Cris to exist. From this we must conclude that Cris has always existed. In which case it is perfectly acceptable to speak of causes of big bangs.</i>

See the flaw?

James,

Cris, I could apply your argument to anything. For example:

If there was a point when Cris didn’t exist then Cris could never have come into existence since no events could occur to cause Cris to exist. From this we must conclude that Cris has always existed. In which case it is perfectly acceptable to speak of causes of big bangs.

See the flaw?James, I am surprised at you, that is definitely not like you. You must know that is a complete non sequitur. Actually it reads like sheer gibberish. I hope you simply missed the point. Perhaps I didn’t explain it well enough.

Unlike time my non-existence wouldn’t prevent other events from occurring. I don’t see how you can make a comparison.

If time didn’t exist then nothing could ever begin, even a big bang. Since it seems that a big bang did occur then time must have existed before the big bang to allow the big bang to begin.

But as to time itself: Since no events are possible without time then it is not possible that anything could have caused time to begin. Hence time must have always existed.

Does that help?
Cris

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
u·ni·verse Pronunciation Key (yn-vûrs) n.
1.All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

Agreed fadingCaptian, thanks for being concerned with it. :)

I agree that the universe in its current state originated from an earlier point. However, the entitties you described all formed from other states of matter and energy, they did not pop into the universe from nothingness.

Exactly, and that is what I am arguing for. The universe is actually finite in formation. Energy on the otherhand is eternal in existence (most likely).

Notice, I never did state they came from nothingness.

The 'infinite universe' does answer the simple question. Things did not 'originate' or 'come to be' as you are describing if the universe is infinite.

All things come to be or form into what they currently are. Name and give me an example of a system in the physical realm that did not "come to be."

They are simply the results of transformations of energy that has always existed.

Yes, energy has always existed. But what about those transformations? Are there an infinite series? That is the question I pose for my finite universe.

You may ask 'How did the energy come to be?'. The answer is that it did not.

I will not ask that, I have already questioned that and formed my conclusion which concurs with yours. You are tackling the wrong idea.

As for the formation of stars and galaxies, it is pretty simple. They are only the universe in its current state. I happen to believe in big bang theory. Therefore, I believe that the big bang is the cause for the universe in its current state. Keep in mind that the big bang tells us nothing of what may have come before the bang. Perhaps energy was suspended in a timeless state, or there are muliple big bangs.

Yes, time is finite, formation/transformations are finite. Energy is eternal.

You seem to miss a crucial point. One can believe in the big bang and also believe the universe is infinite. The big bang does not tell us that the universe is finite.

Read my argument again please.

Chosen says: Cris and I could be arguing for the same idea/concept, that existence is always infinite, energy always did exist. - You didn't read carefully there :)

Originally posted by Cris
No, that is not my argument at all.

Whether there is any point to existence is irrelevant.

Sorry, I quoted you wrongly. Thanks for clarifying your position.

My argument is entirely concerned with an origin, which I suggest is impossible.

My argument is concerned with an origin, I suggest it is possible. Things are formed through the energy that existed, but I conclude that there is a beginning to this formation of energy.

The only alternative I see to an infinite status is that everything was derived from nothing, i.e. everything spontaneously appeared. And I am including the origination of any potential supernatural beings in this.

I see, we both agree on that idea that energy is eternal, but I am arguing about the origins, how things came to be. The galaxies cannot simply appear, it must have evolved and proceed through a process to reach its current formation.

For the moment I don’t believe that something can come from nothing.

I don't believe that something can come from nothing either.

In all our experiences everything has a cause. That appears to argue for a finite universe but it doesn’t since then one must answer the question of a cause of the cause, which results in an infinite series.

My argument rests on an assertion that something infinite must exist. If a god created the so-called material universe then he must be infinite or the result of an infinite series. If no such beings exist then the material universe must be infinite.

Yes, agreed. *Something* must have always existed.

When one talks of an origin or of an originating derivation then that inevitably leads to what caused that origin.

What caused the formation? Could energy construct itself into our known universe's formation today?

It is a dilemma, we cannot observe our origins, so we must deductively conclude this and that off basic equations. Pure thought is beginning to rule over empirical evidence and that could mean many errors in our logic.

Let's say energy did always exist. At what state is it's "eternal state" in? You cannot apply cycles to an infinite concept. You would result in a chicken and egg scenario. What caused energy to form into what it is now? All the matter and galaxies?

That is the question of "origins" I am tackling.

Originally posted by James R
Infinite in space and infinite in time are different. You can have one without the other. And it is possible that both are infinite. Perhaps time is infinite in the future direction, though it most probably is not in the past direction.

Understood. I believe in infinite.

Who said energy was infinite? There is a finite amount of available energy in our universe.

You knew what I meant though, right? Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. And yes, it is not infinite in amount but it is infinite in existence.

But then another dilemma enters the issue, what is infinite then? If time is finite, would that not limit existence as well?

So what do we mean by "energy always existed"? Could someone analytically elaborate on the concept. I feel I could, but there are brighter minds here.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The universe is not static - it is expanding. But I'm not sure that that's what you're getting at.

What I meant was, the universe cannot exist always in it's present state. It must have formed somehow. The galaxies and stars all did not just "poof" into existence.

Exactly, and that is what I am arguing for. The universe is actually finite in formation. Energy on the otherhand is eternal in existence (most likely).
Sorry Chosen, I didn't see your position clearly. We agree that formation = finite and existance = infinite.
All things come to be or form into what they currently are. Name and give me an example of a system in the physical realm that did not "come to be."
And I think we would agree that things 'came to be' by transformation of energy, not creation from nothing.
Yes, energy has always existed. But what about those transformations? Are there an infinite series? That is the question I pose for my finite universe.
Hmmm... ok, I see the crux of your argument now (sorry I am a little slow :)) This is how I see it:
The origins of the formation of the known universe, whether finite or infinite, do not determine whether the universe itself is finite or infinite. I postulate that all energy, which by definition is the universe, has always existed regardless of its formation or transformations. Whether energy existed in a timeless state prior to the big bang or has an infinite cycle of transformations does not change the fact that it is infinite in existance. Since we agree that existance is infinite, the only question is whether formation is infinite. I know this is what you want to get into, but right now I have to simply offer up a feeble 'Nobody knows'. Whether formation is finite or not is not as important to me as the question of existance. Why is it so important to you? What do you think would be the implications of a finite or infinite transformation of energy?

Check this website out. Best one out there dealing with origins IMO.

http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/index.shtml


-Mike

Cris,

Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly enough. You argue:

<i>Since no events are possible without time then it is not possible that anything could have caused time to begin. Hence time must have always existed.</i>

Your conclusion does not follow from the previous sentence. The only conclusion which follows is that no "events" could happen "outside" time - "before" time began. That's the most you can say. The term "event" incorporates a notion of time. For an event to exist we need time. However, that in no way precludes the possibility of a beginning to time itself, or a first event.

<i>If time didn’t exist then nothing could ever begin, even a big bang.</i>

No. The most you can say is that nothing could begin <b>in time</b> if time didn't exist.

I hope you get the point. It's a somewhat subtle one.

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
Sorry Chosen, I didn't see your position clearly. We agree that formation = finite and existance = infinite.

Yes. :)

The origins of the formation of the known universe, whether finite or infinite, do not determine whether the universe itself is finite or infinite.

The point I am trying to make is, if the formation of the universe is finite, why call the universe infinite?

Do you get my argument?

I postulate that all energy, which by definition is the universe, has always existed regardless of its formation or transformations.

Agreed.

Whether energy existed in a timeless state prior to the big bang or has an infinite cycle of transformations does not change the fact that it is infinite in existance.

Partial agreement..."has an infinite cycle of transformations"? Is that possible?

Since you say energy is infinite, what is its eternal state or condition?

Cycles poses one major problem to the idea of infinite. Cycles = changing. Could an infinite series be in constant rates of change? If so could it possibly be recognized as a paradox (ie, chicken and egg scenario) which constitutes it to be unsolvable - and I believe, everything in this universe is solvable.

Since we agree that existance is infinite, the only question is whether formation is infinite. I know this is what you want to get into, but right now I have to simply offer up a feeble 'Nobody knows'. Whether formation is finite or not is not as important to me as the question of existance. Why is it so important to you? What do you think would be the implications of a finite or infinite transformation of energy?

Formations = constant change.

Infinity cannot contain rates of change. Energy must be in a eternal state, from that single state, formations and transformations may occur to create the universe we know now.

It's important, because I am arguing for a finite universe. If the universe was formed through some sort of "eternal energy" it would mean that the universe is finite.

I must also note semantics...if those who fall upon the "everything is relative" argument, will most likely claim: universe = energy

If so, then technically, everything is energy.

I may be imperspicuous here, but this is what I mean, I will give a brief example from my argument with Teg.

Dinosaurs = energy = always existed

Therefore, dinosaurs always existed.

Everyone sees the error in that right?

Thanks :cool:

To summarize to this point.

Energy is finite in amount but infinite in span of existance.

Two views of time are up for debate:
1. Time began at some point.
2. Time is infinite in span the same as energy.

I will note before beginning that I am for 2 based on Cris's explanation, an event cannot occur outside of time, but an event would have to occur to bring about time's existance, this event would have to come before time, since no events can occur outside of time, time must be infinite to explain it's existance.

The formation of the current universe can be explained by the big bang, all matter exploding out from a single point, known as a singularity. Steven Hawkings postulates that the universe will once again collapse into this single point, though currently we are still in the expanding phase. A cycle would not be paradox, as multiple big bangs happening infinitely into the future as well as the past is entirely possible, and this I believe is the process of the universe, however because of the nature of the singularity we have no way of knowing what the state of energy was before it and hence for all intents and purposes time as we know it began at the big bang.

Chosen,
Good points.

If the universe was formed through some sort of "eternal energy" it would mean that the universe is finite.
I think this is where we disagree. We simply do not agree on what we consider the 'universe'. The eternal energy you speak of - I consider that the universe. The formation we now witness as the universe is only a formation. We could call it 'space-time' or 'outer and inner space' or whatever. But, to me, the actual universe is the energy itself. Here I will try to illustrate:

Dinosaurs = energy = always existed
No, Dinosaurs = particular formation of energy = not always existed.
Space-time = particular formation of energy = not always existed.
Universe = energy = always existed.

Angelus,
I am going to have to take some time (no pun intended) to think about this one. I actually currently think it is entirely possible that time did not exist before the big bang. How then an 'event' occured to cause a big bang...I have no idea. But the state of energy as a singularity...I do not see how time as we know it could occur.

I'm late to this discussion (have been off the 'net for a few days), but can't resist jumping in at this point (btw, I share your position.)


Originally posted by James R
The term "event" incorporates a notion of time. For an event to exist we need time. However, that in no way precludes the possibility of a beginning to time itself, or a first event.


If time has a beginning, then it literally comes from nothing. There's nothing, and then there's time. No, but even that's wrong since such a description still defines a sequence thus presupposing time. But if there's something "prior to" time (note: "prior" is a time-loaded word too) then you have a frame of reference with respect to which you can define time's origin and then you end up having a "time before time."

Do you accept the notion of something coming from nothing? Did time just come into existence from nowhere, or rather did existence (since the very notion thereof embeds the notion of time) come from nowhere? Then again, "come from" implies a time context, so language and thought itself fails trying to discuss these things. Perhaps it is altogether impossible for us to even conceive an origin for time in a self-consistent, verbally expressible and analytic way -- and perhaps because the very notion is itself paradoxical so that the only way we could "swallow" it is through a subliminal cognitive error, a sleight of mind.


I hope you get the point. It's a somewhat subtle one.


I fear it's too subtle for its own good. ;)

overdoze,

As a physicist, I look at the best models we have of such things -general relativistic cosmologies. Those models tell us that time had a beginning. They say nothing about any "cause" for the beginning of time, and in fact such an idea doesn't make any sense within the model.

As I said previously, asking what happened before the big bang is like asking what is north of the north pole, or what colour fear is. It's a category error.

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
I think this is where we disagree. We simply do not agree on what we consider the 'universe'. The eternal energy you speak of - I consider that the universe. The formation we now witness as the universe is only a formation. We could call it 'space-time' or 'outer and inner space' or whatever. But, to me, the actual universe is the energy itself. Here I will try to illustrate:

Then it would be an argument of semantics, really. But let me digress and show you my viewpoint.

universe (y¡´ne-vûrs´) noun
1. All matter and energy, including Earth, the galaxies and all therein, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

Universe = all matter and energy--> which leads to all matter and evergy, galaxies, etc.

We named the universe, "universe" to describe everything around us, in the present state that we view it as such, stars, galaxies, planets, etc.

But there is nothing wrong with how you view it, we are both technicially correct.

3. The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.

In order for things to "exist or take place" - time must be of essence.

And if time is finite, the universe is finite. It's existence begins, when time begins.

overdoze makes an excellent point, our language limits us.

eternal means without beginning or end; existing outside of time, continuing without interruption; perpetual, forever true; changeless.

Energy could very well be eternal, it exists outside of time, therefore it is possible to "create" time. Picture this:

If nothing ever moved, would you consider time to be of essence? Everything is still, no reactions or movements, but the "energy" is there, time is not. There is no change. When movements/change start occuring, our brain starts registering "time." That is inherent in our logic to undergo such procession. Change results in time.

This is where my other point comes across, if you could change something, would you consider it to be eternal? Energy decribes everything. Matter is a form of energy, but can you say energy is a form of matter? Water is a form of energy, but is energy a form of water? No.

I hypothesize this also, it may seem farfetched, but I think time is a form of energy, but can you say energy is a form of time?

That is why I believe in an "origin." Everything can be derived back to an origin, a constant eternal energy.

The big question is, how did we all get from such to now? It is one question we may never hope to answer.

No, Dinosaurs = particular formation of energy = not always existed.
Space-time = particular formation of energy = not always existed.
Universe = energy = always existed.

Good, you saw the flaw in that logic.

I call these types of flaws in logic, "loopholing." Many people do it also. :)

Interesting points though.

Originally posted by James R
As a physicist, I look at the best models we have of such things -general relativistic cosmologies.


I shouldn't need to tell you that first, they are only models and second, they are merely the current best. Models are computational devices; interpretation of them is a semantic process quite independent from the math. To have any hope of ever properly interpreting a model, one must delve deeper into the underlying meaning of its components and how they fit together.


Those models tell us that time had a beginning.


Perhaps, as measurable by matter/energy in observable existence. However, time existed even before I finished building a watch. Sure, the watch couldn't measure time until I completed it, but it doesn't mean time didn't already exist. After all, if time didn't already exist then the watch couldn't be assembled in the first place.


They say nothing about any "cause" for the beginning of time, and in fact such an idea doesn't make any sense within the model.


Actually, I argue the idea makes no sense within any model past, current or future. Time cannot have a beginning, because beginning itself can only take place in a context of time.


As I said previously, asking what happened before the big bang is like asking what is north of the north pole, or what colour fear is. It's a category error.


Not quite. North pole denotes a closed geometry and so a closed coordinate system. This cannot apply to time, as time is an integral aspect of existence and existence cannot be finite (or else, you have creation ex nihilo.) IOW, asking what happened before the big bang is like asking about the presence of a context within which the north pole is defined in the first place.

Originally posted by overdoze
Actually, I argue the idea makes no sense within any model past, current or future. Time cannot have a beginning, because beginning itself can only take place in a context of time.

Not necessarily. The word beginning grasps connotations of originating, starting. So beginning itself is not always held within the context of time.

Quite possibly, the word "time" is an identification of certain states/changes of matter/energy. Without change anywhere, there can be no "time."

Time is a non-spatial continuum; a duration. Like length and mass, time is one of the fundamental quantities of the physical world. So one can argue length and mass always did exist, thus one can also argue time also always did exist. Maybe that is why there are constant rates of change everywhere in the universe.

Is not time a reaction of energy? :)

Words are made for a certain exactness of thought, as tears are for a certain degree of pain. What is least distinct cannot be named; what is clearest is unutterable.

René Daumal (1908-44)

Overdoze,

I argue the idea makes no sense within any model past, current or future. Time cannot have a beginning, because beginning itself can only take place in a context of time.Well said.

Chosen,

Not necessarily. The word beginning grasps connotations of originating, starting. So beginning itself is not always held within the context of time.

Quite possibly, the word "time" is an identification of certain states/changes of matter/energy. Without change anywhere, there can be no "time."OK but a beginning cannot simply be a freeze frame. The term means motion, and in this context a change of state, which requires time.

What I think you mean here is a ‘start point’, e.g. the beginning of a line. In this sense we are using ‘beginning’ as a noun. In the context of a beginning of time or the universe we are using ‘beginning’ as a verb.

So with that understanding a beginning must involve a change of state (i.e. the first change of state) and that requires time. And that leads us back to the statement made by Overdoze that time cannot have a beginning..

Cris

James,

Since no events are possible without time then it is not possible that anything could have caused time to begin. Hence time must have always existed.

Your conclusion does not follow from the previous sentence. The only conclusion which follows is that no "events" could happen "outside" time - "before" time began. I agree up to the point where you introduce the concept of ‘before’ time.

The term "event" incorporates a notion of time. For an event to exist we need time. We agree.

However, that in no way precludes the possibility of a beginning to time itself, or a first event.I disagree since as we have already agreed that an event requires time then time cannot be started by an event. Time must exist BEFORE an event can occur. And a ‘beginning’ infers an event, i.e. a change in state.

From this we should be able to conclude that time cannot be started by an event, not even a ‘first event’.

Since the term ‘event’ covers all possibilities then the only way that time could have a beginning is if it was started by a non-event, i.e. nothing.

This brings us back to the requirement that time either came from nothing or has always existed. Since there is no precedent for anything starting from nothing then I’d say that is a strong inductive conclusion for time being infinite.

Cris

Asking what came before the big bang is like asking what a pile of carbon ash was before it was burned to ash when no one had seen it's previous state.

Supposing energy is infinite I assume that it most likely is constantly in motion and that something like the singularity could only have existed for a moment, before that moment is something we'll never know, though perhaps the collapse of a universe very like our own, and after is our universe as we know it. To suppose that time did not exist in the moment of the singularity is odd as there were events leading up to and immediately following it, therefore a "time"-line. To say otherwise is to suppose you could take any instant in time and just remove time and that instant would stay frozen. Not sure I explained that last part well, but oh well.

<b>overdoze:</b>:

<i>I shouldn't need to tell you that first, they are only models and second, they are merely the current best. Models are computational devices; interpretation of them is a semantic process quite independent from the math. To have any hope of ever properly interpreting a model, one must delve deeper into the underlying meaning of its components and how they fit together.</i>

I agree with all this, but would like to add that all scientific theories are "only" models. You seem to use the word "only" in a pejorative sense.

<i>I argue the idea makes no sense within any model past, current or future. Time cannot have a beginning, because beginning itself can only take place in a context of time.</i>

We can assign a time co-ordinate to each event in our universe. An event can have any time co-ordinate from 0 until any future possible ending of the universe (if it has one). I use the term "beginning of time" to mean time co-ordinate zero.

<i>... time is an integral aspect of existence and existence cannot be finite (or else, you have creation ex nihilo.)</i>

This is the pivotal idea in your argument. So far as I can see, it is unsupported.


<b>Cris:</b>

See above for my definition of "beginning of time" as "time co-ordinate zero".

<i>Time must exist BEFORE an event can occur. And a ‘beginning’ infers an event, i.e. a change in state.</i>

An event can occur at any time from time zero onwards. The existence of time zero, in itself, implies no event or change of state, as far as I am aware. Could you explain what you mean by change in state?

<i>From this we should be able to conclude that time cannot be started by an event, not even a ‘first event’.</i>

I agree with that.

<i>Since the term ‘event’ covers all possibilities...</i>

Does it? Why?

<i>...then the only way that time could have a beginning is if it was started by a non-event, i.e. nothing.</i>

Your statement above doesn't make sense to me. How can "nothing" or a "non-event" do anything? The concept is self-contradictory and therefore meaningless, in my opinion.

Causation breaks down at time zero. There is no need for an event to start time, and we agree that the idea of such an event doesn't make sense. But similarly, there is no need for a "non-event" either.

<i>This brings us back to the requirement that time either came from nothing or has always existed.</i>

No. We don't know anything about "nothing", so we can't draw conclusions about it or how time (or anything else) might come from it.

IMO, you have failed to show any reason why I should believe the idea that time has always existed over the idea that time had a definite beginning at co-ordinate zero. Can you provide such a reason?

Originally posted by James R
An event can occur at any time from time zero onwards. The existence of time zero, in itself, implies no event or change of state, as far as I am aware. Could you explain what you mean by change in state?

For anything to "occur" there must be change. So I argue that the beginning of such "change" would be the beginning of time.

Your statement above doesn't make sense to me. How can "nothing" or a "non-event" do anything? The concept is self-contradictory and therefore meaningless, in my opinion.

I don't even believe there is such a thing as "nothing." The term "nothing" is an identification of where there can't be "someting." And without "something" one cannot measure, observe, or detect "nothing." Therefore I reason that there is no such thing as a "nothing." Nothing would produce nothing.

No. We don't know anything about "nothing", so we can't draw conclusions about it or how time (or anything else) might come from it.

I don't even think "nothing" exists, the term itself symbolizes non-existence. And we can't draw any conclusions from nothing.

IMO, you have failed to show any reason why I should believe the idea that time has always existed over the idea that time had a definite beginning at co-ordinate zero. Can you provide such a reason?

Agreed, time is most likely a 4th dimension, who's to say that these "dimensions" were not created or formed?

Originally posted by James R
<i>I shouldn't need to tell you that first, they are only models and second, they are merely the current best. Models are computational devices; interpretation of them is a semantic process quite independent from the math...</i>

I agree with all this, but would like to add that all scientific theories are "only" models. You seem to use the word "only" in a pejorative sense.


No no no. I thought the immediately following sentence would have explained what I meant by "only". IOW there are formulae (a.k.a. models) and then there is semantic meaning (a.k.a. interpretation.) Formulae are only formulae; they have no underlying meaning to them. Any meaning comes from humans imbuing components of formulae with relationships to observable physical entities. How we construct and evolve these relationships is what matters in the task of comprehension.


We can assign a time co-ordinate to each event in our universe. An event can have any time co-ordinate from 0 until any future possible ending of the universe (if it has one). I use the term "beginning of time" to mean time co-ordinate zero.


This is a bit misleading, as it ignores the continuity of the universe. For example, you can assign an index to each frame on a spool of film. This describes the way frames relate to each other, but it looses the concept of a spool. IOW, the very reason why the frames are related in such a way is because they are sub-sections of the spool in the first place.

So you take what is in effect an apriori relationship, and convert it into an aposteriori relationship. This looses information, since the former is, of course, more fundamental.


<i>... time is an integral aspect of existence and existence cannot be finite (or else, you have creation ex nihilo.)</i>

This is the pivotal idea in your argument. So far as I can see, it is unsupported.


There are two parts you might have considered unsupported, and I'm not sure which one you are addressing. You may object to the idea that time is an integral aspect of existence. You may also object to the idea that creation ex nihilo is paradoxical.

With respect to the latter, you've stated in your reply to Cris that by your definition causality breaks down at time 0. This is the same a claiming that the emergence of the present universe is acausal, or that the present universe popped into existence out of nothing. You are free to believe this, but to most of us it doesn't make sense. If you assume (as I do) that only nothingness can come out of nothingness, then given the presense of "something" (i.e. our universe) there must be a state leading to every other state, which implies infinite time in both directions.

As for the former, one would have to define existence in absense of time. I wonder what it would mean, "to exist", in such a context. If that means absense of any sort of change, then as we've all been saying, there's no way something like that could give rise to time. After all, that change to touch off time would have to come from somewhere, and given prior lack of any change you once again get something from nothing.

overdoze:

<i>[Y]ou've stated in your reply to Cris that by your definition causality breaks down at time 0. This is the same a claiming that the emergence of the present universe is acausal, or that the present universe popped into existence out of nothing. You are free to believe this, but to most of us it doesn't make sense.</i>

Yes, that's essentially what I am saying - the emergence of the present universe <b>may</b> be acausal, barring some kind of bizarre twisting of the notion of time (e.g. see Hawking's "imaginary time").

I know enough quantum field theory to readily accept that things can pop into existence out of nothing. I have no trouble accepting that the universe may be one of those things.

Originally posted by James R
I know enough quantum field theory to readily accept that things can pop into existence out of nothing. I have no trouble accepting that the universe may be one of those things.


Hmm? Including the quantum field itself? As far as I'm aware, quantum field theory deals with various types of "vacuum". While phenomena may "pop" into existence within such a vacuum with a certain probability, the vacuum itself is assumed to always exist. Or am I wrong? And if not, is the vacuum not in fact the universe?

Particle-antiparticle pairs are due to fluctuations of the quantum vacuum, which exists inside the universe. Perhaps the universe is due to a quantum fluctuation in whatever kind of quantum foam produces universes...

Well fine, although I'm not exactly comfortable with your concept of the quantum vacuum being "inside" the universe. As far as I can see, quantum vacuum and the universe are indistinguishable at this point in modern theory. IOW, both encompass everything that is observable.

Now, if you want to postulate a "quantum foam" that produces "universes", then the real universe is that quantum foam and our little quantum vacuum is just a subset of the real universe. Not to say I find such a hypothesis unpalatable; in fact Cris and I and others have been arguing along the same lines. The observable universe (and the Big Bang that marks its birth) had to come from somewhere -- which might as well have been a "quantum foam". Point is, it pre-existed (and in the case of multiple universes, still encompasses) the observable "universe". It is the underlying reality of all existence. And through that "quantum foam", existence (and time, and causality) stretches into the past beyond the "singularity" of the Big Bang. Call it "imaginary time" if it makes you more comfortable.

Baby universes?

According to Hawking, at the scale of 10^-33 cm, less than one-milliion-trillionth of a proton's diameter, space itself is, according to this idea, a sort of quantum force foam, randomly shaping and unshaping itself (change is infinite/always constant?); from this, tiny bubbles of space-time form, connected to the rest by narrow umbilicial cords called "worm-holes." These bubbles, once formed, then undergo their own Big Bangs, producing complete universes, connected to out own only by worm-holes 10^-33 cm across. Thus from every cubic centimeter of our space, some 10^143 universes come into existence every second, all connected to ours by tiny worm-holes, and all in their turn giving birth to myriad new universes. As our own universe itself emerged from a parent universe.

It sounds to me like a vision that seems to beg for some cosmic birth control...:D

But you do know what this theory signifies, right? "Our universe" would be finite in its own time.

Originally posted by ~The_Chosen~
According to Hawking...


I wish people stopped crediting Hawking with these things. He is not the one who thought this up. He probably gives reference to the original author(s) in his book, and if he doesn't then he sucks. In fact most of his popular books are not original thought but merely popular exposes of current cosmology.


Thus from every cubic centimeter of our space, some 10^143 universes come into existence every second, all connected to ours by tiny worm-holes, and all in their turn giving birth to myriad new universes. As our own universe itself emerged from a parent universe.

It sounds to me like a vision that seems to beg for some cosmic birth control...:D


Indeed. Not to mention that such a notion completely trashes any vestiges of conservation of any kind. And, talk about something from nothing... :rolleyes:


But you do know what this theory signifies, right? "Our universe" would be finite in its own time.


If you choose such limited notions of "universe" and "time", yes. However, I would say that you're artificially limiting your own discourse where no such limits are inherently warranted.

<i>The observable universe (and the Big Bang that marks its birth) had to come from somewhere -- which might as well have been a "quantum foam". Point is, it pre-existed ...</i>

No. In this picture, time begins along with everything else in the universe. There is no notion of "pre-existence" in the sense that we understand time, since time wasn't around until the universe started.

(The lack of language available makes this a very hard concept to discuss. One keeps falling back on time-ordered language, which is actually not appropriate here.)

Finite universes in formation offer one important thing. The need to figure out how the universe, galaxies, stars, all "came to be."

The infinite universe of formations is a cop out to try not to explain "how did things come to be."

If we were to start tracing the formations of the universe, we find that superclusters are formed by galaxies, galaxies are formed by solar systems, then we can keep going, do you think there would be an end to such a vestige?

How did it all come to be?

Now the debate stands on the point that, is the formation of the universe finite or infinite?

Could there be "infinite cycles" of formations? Is that possible?

If we were to keep tracing back the formations would we end up seeing an endless cycle? Or would we reach an origin to solve how it all began?

Are "infinite cyles" even possible? Imagine the chicken and egg scenario, if something didn't come first, they both eternally exist?

The current scientific answer to this question is that the universe appears to be finite in extent. It is most likely closed but will expand forever due to the presence of a cosmological constant.

The question of whether the universe is infinite in extent or finite has little to do with the question of its origin, however. The big bang theory allows for universes which are either finite or infinite. Either way, there is a beginning in time.
Hello. The universe is not extending, biblically speaking. While others imaginatively think that the universe is expanding, the Bible plainly declared that the universe is right now as it was.

Psalms 68:33 To him that rideth upon the heavens of heavens, which were of old; lo, he doth send out his voice, and that a mighty voice

Proverbs 8:22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

It cannot be denied that there is a roof top which is of course the earth of God. Kindly analyze:

Proverbs 8:23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

Proverbs 8:31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

*Chosen* "Imagine the chicken and egg scenario, if something didn't come first, they both eternally exist?"
---------------------
I'm going to answer, yes. The answer must be yes, in either case.