The Question of Origins

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?

  Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Cris, argues that the universe must be infinite, because if it were not, there would be no point of existence.
   
   
4. 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.
5. 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.

   Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

6. Lastly, sorry if I am recondite anywhere in my post. Please do not assume and ask me rhetorical questions to clarify.

Thank You.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks James R

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Chosen,

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 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' 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.

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,

No. The scientific answer is that energy is infinite and therefore so is the universe.

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Chosen,

Very briefly for the moment.

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.

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

 

James,

Yes I agree this is speculation.

Why must that be so? Guth describes how one bubble will spawn others, in that sense there could be infinite continuity.

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

 

James,

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

 

Agreed fadingCaptian, thanks for being concerned with it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

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."

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.

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

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

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Understood. I believe in infinite.

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.

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.

 

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

And I think we would agree that things 'came to be' by transformation of energy, not creation from nothing.

Hmmm... ok, I see the crux of your argument now (sorry I am a little slow

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) 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

 

Great

Yes.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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?

Agreed.

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.

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

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:

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.

 

Sorry, Cris

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.)

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 fear it's too subtle for its own good.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Our language limits us

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.

Good, you saw the flaw in that logic.

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Interesting points though.

 

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.

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.

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 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.