The Beginning of the Universe

[quantum_wave]

Most of my threads are in the Fringe, because while looking for explanations about the cosmology of the universe, I soon found that there are many gaps in our knowledge. My Fringe threads contain mostly speculations and hypotheses about what I propose might fill those gaps. I've been around so long now that I get very little participation out in the Fringe.

It occurred to me that much of my material is philosophical. My whole model begins philosophically, and the gaps that I fill between generally accepted cosmology, physics, and the ideas put forth in my model are often philosophical. So let me try some here.

There is what I call the Triangle of Cosmological Explanations:

It is about the beginning of the universe.

Some models of cosmology fail to address the beginning ... but logically, there are three major possible explanations for the existence of the universe.

They are depicted on the sides of the Triangle of Cosmological Explanations, with the imperative, "Pick One".

Are you willing to choose one of the sides, and discuss why you chose it?

 

[paddoboy]

Some models of cosmology fail to address the beginning ... but logically, there are three major possible explanations for the existence of the universe.

The current generally accepted model, the BB/Inflationary model certainly fails to address the beginning: Although the hypothetical eternal Inflation model could be said to address that.

Are you willing to choose one of the sides, and discuss why you chose it?

Sure! I'm with the "Something from Nothing" side.

 

[PhysBang]

I'm not willing to pick one because there is just not enough evidence.

 

[quantum_wave]

The current generally accepted model, the BB/Inflationary model certainly fails to address the beginning: Although the hypothetical eternal Inflation model could be said to address that.



Sure! I'm with the "Something from Nothing" side.

Thanks Paddoboy. If the universe has always existed, or if God did it, you don't have to have any further explanation to explain the beginning.


Why not take one of the the simple choices? Why pick the only one that requires a further explanation?

 

[quantum_wave]

I'm not willing to pick one because there is just not enough evidence.

There is no physical evidence. It is a philosophical question. Logic comes into play.

 

[Yazata]

I'll say that the "God did it' side might reduce to one of the other two, either 'always existed' if God is supposed to exist necessarily or be eternal (or whatever it is), or 'something from nothing' otherwise.

I don't believe in God. As for the other two, I lean towards 'always existed' since 'something from nothing' kind of offends my sensibilities. (ex nihilo, nihil fit, out of nothing, nothing comes.)

I'm inclined to favor what Leibniz called the 'principle of sufficient reason':

For every fact F, there must be an explanation why F is the case.

It's mostly just a metaphysical intuition and I happily admit that it might be wrong. There may indeed be feral facts, anomalies that have no cause and no explanation but nevertheless exist. But science seems to assume (most of the time) that explanations exist for everything.

Perhaps it's more of a heuristic principle.

 

[paddoboy]

Thanks Paddoboy. If the universe has always existed, or if God did it, you don't have to have any further explanation to explain the beginning.

The god did it argument invokes an infinite being, something which I find hard to comprehend...
The Universe from nothing argument is much easier to accept.
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/
or.......
http://fisica.ciencias.uchile.cl/~gonzalo/cursos/termo_II-04/seminarios/EJP_Stenger-bigbang_90.pdf
extract:
Starting the Universe from nothing So can we understand how the Universe could have started from nothing? First we must free ourselves from the instinct of looking for a causal explanation for everything. If we extrapolate back in time to the Planck time, tpL = S, the Universe was within the Planck radius, RpL = cm. We have seen that this was required to be a situation of maximum chaos. As such, it could not have been the result of any causal process; or if it was, all the memory of that causal process would have been wiped out and the situation would be indistinguishable from one that is purely spontaneous. So the Universe had to have begun as a random fluctuation at the Planck time. The alternative theory is that it was created with a grand design after the Planck time, but this is adhoc and can be ruled out by the law of parsimony: the supernatural creation of the Universe is a hypothesis not required by the data.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Although I freely admit, the that the meaning of “nothing” is also in that "infinite" category: Is it as mentioned in the first link, the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, [I don't believe so] or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself, which is what the BB entails.....

 

[PhysBang]

There is no physical evidence. It is a philosophical question. Logic comes into play.

Sometimes, the smart philosophical thing to do is look for evidence. Heck, every time the smart philosophical thing to do is consider the evidence.

It is incredibly bad to take some hypothesis without evidence and then use that choice as a steadfast foundation for deciding physics.

 

[DaveC426913]

Thanks Paddoboy. If the universe has always existed, or if God did it, you don't have to have any further explanation to explain the beginning.


Why not take one of the the simple choices? Why pick the only one that requires a further explanation?

All three of those still require explanation. Saying God did it or it was always there just pushes back the boundary of unexplained without being explanatory.

There is a fallacy that loosely applies here - Homunculus fallacy – where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this sometimes leads to regressive middle-men.

 

[Beaconator]

I'm with the "pick one" side. our big bang side should be included on the always existed side. And the greyest of another area could include God did it. As long as always existed comes first. God has to take time to understand that he is himself.

Consciousness was not first in our universe... that is just shear statistics of mass.

Unless you consider all mass conscious.

Then side with something from nothing because you believe an insignificant detail represents a plausible whole which sides you with has always existed.

Then there is the whole circular logic works because circular logic works... and you realize you were wrong from the start. The universe has always existed because existence is defined by time and it is impossible to say time never existed in the first place.

And something from nothing only exists if consciousness is allowed to violate some unspoken rule about " something from nothing"... because if everything has always existed and at one point in time it became a conscious God then that in and of itself is something from two equal unconscious parts that together created an equal conscious would constitute something from nothing.

Therefore God, something from nothing, and consciousness (philosophy) all exist simultaneously. None of the three explain origin. Incumbent on the none in and of itself is the aspect of something from nothing principal.

Which brings myself to believe in the pick one side because it is inside the triangle and not a part of the outskirts. And I can not explain any of the three.

But I can explain why I just picked one. It wasn't one of the more obvious disillusions.

Does this mean I always pick disillusion? No. It means I think about which disillusions I pick.

 

[DaveC426913]

The universe has always existed because existence is defined by time and it is impossible to say time never existed in the first place.

Not really true.

If both time and the universe were created at the same time, then there is a moment in the universe where there was no history. That is not the same thing as always existed.



I didn't think this way until I read a book that compared it to Conway's Game of Life. There can exist states in tGoL where the current instantaneous configuration of the grid cannot have had a previous state. In other words, it is possible to be in a state such that no other state of the game, no matter how many iterations, could result in the one currently frozen.

The only way this state can possibly come about then, is if it was created from whole cloth as-is. i.e the first iteration.

The upshot, and its implications to the universe at-large, is that it possible, for some configurations, to deduce that a given moment of a system is, indeed, the first moment ever for that system.

It is, euphamistically, called a Garden of Eden state.

(BTW, it's not about God, or God creating the universe, or any such thing; it is simply an observation that one might, in principle, be able to know that one is in a system that had a beginning - i.e. the beginning of time/space).

Mind blown.

 

[quantum_wave]

I think that the "God did it' side reduces to one of the other two, either 'always existed' if God is supposed to exist necessarily or be eternal (or whatever it is), or 'something from nothing' otherwise.

I don't believe in God. As for the other two, I lean towards 'always existed' since 'something from nothing' kind of offends my sensibilities. (ex nihilo, nihil fit, out of nothing, nothing comes.)

I too end up with the 'always existed' explanation, after disregarding the 'God did it' choice; if you choose 'God did it', it seems the Supernatural would have to be considered as an influence on all choices down the line. I don't categorize myself as an atheist, but instead, I proceed on the premise that there is a set of invariant natural laws that govern the infinite and eternal universe.

I'm inclined to favor what Leibniz called the 'principle of sufficient reason':

For every fact F, there must be an explanation why F is the case.

It's mostly just a metaphysical intuition and I happily admit that it might be wrong. There may indeed be feral facts that have no cause and no explanation. But science seems to assume (most of the time) that explanations exist for everything.

You and Leibniz might be right; the Principle of Sufficient Reason plays well with the science of logic. 'Fact follows fact' is a good way to put it.

Perhaps it's more of a heuristic principle.

Perhaps. We have to start somewhere, and if I want a personal view of cosmology, my personal choice of the explanation for the existence of the universe is a first step.

 

[quantum_wave]

The god did it argument invokes an infinite being, something which I find hard to comprehend...
The Universe from nothing argument is much easier to accept.
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/
or.......
http://fisica.ciencias.uchile.cl/~gonzalo/cursos/termo_II-04/seminarios/EJP_Stenger-bigbang_90.pdf
extract:
Starting the Universe from nothing So can we understand how the Universe could have started from nothing? First we must free ourselves from the instinct of looking for a causal explanation for everything. If we extrapolate back in time to the Planck time, tpL = S, the Universe was within the Planck radius, RpL = cm. We have seen that this was required to be a situation of maximum chaos. As such, it could not have been the result of any causal process; or if it was, all the memory of that causal process would have been wiped out and the situation would be indistinguishable from one that is purely spontaneous. So the Universe had to have begun as a random fluctuation at the Planck time. The alternative theory is that it was created with a grand design after the Planck time, but this is adhoc and can be ruled out by the law of parsimony: the supernatural creation of the Universe is a hypothesis not required by the data.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Although I freely admit, the that the meaning of “nothing” is also in that "infinite" category: Is it as mentioned in the first link, the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, [I don't believe so] or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself, which is what the BB entails.....

I follow your reasoning, but I don't see what reasoning you use to reject the always existed choice. We differ in that I reason that the first event in the 'something from nothing' choice must be without cause, and it is easier for me to accept no beginning, i.e. 'Always existed', as apposed to one without cause.

 

[quantum_wave]

Sometimes, the smart philosophical thing to do is look for evidence. Heck, every time the smart philosophical thing to do is consider the evidence.

It is incredibly bad to take some hypothesis without evidence and then use that choice as a steadfast foundation for deciding physics.

We all have the same evidence, and a cosmology that doesn't address the beginning, isn't ever complete. Philosophically, there can be a basis from which to start a personal view of cosmology, and for me, the beginning can be addressed locically at the personal level. Everything that becomes a part of the subsequent cosmology ties to that personal decision on how to address the beginning. You will end up with very different and incompatible views of cosmology between 'Always existed' and 'something from nothing'.

 

[quantum_wave]

All three of those still require explanation. Saying God did it or it was always there just pushes back the boundary of unexplained without being explanatory.

There is a fallacy that loosely applies here - Homunculus fallacy – where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this sometimes leads to regressive middle-men.

Maybe so, but I think that infinite regression is solved by the 'always existed' explanation.

 

[PhysBang]

We all have the same evidence, and a cosmology that doesn't address the beginning, isn't ever complete. Philosophically, there can be a basis from which to start a personal view of cosmology, and for me, the beginning can be addressed locically at the personal level. Everything that becomes a part of the subsequent cosmology ties to that personal decision on how to address the beginning. You will end up with very different and incompatible views of cosmology between 'Always existed' and 'something from nothing'.

OK. But why would you want to fully commit to something for which there can be no evidence? It seems foolish.

 

[quantum_wave]

I'm with the "pick one" side. our big bang side should be included on the always existed side. And the greyest of another area could include God did it. As long as always existed comes first. God has to take time to understand that he is himself.

Consciousness was not first in our universe... that is just shear statistics of mass.

Unless you consider all mass conscious.

Then side with something from nothing because you believe an insignificant detail represents a plausible whole which sides you with has always existed.

Then there is the whole circular logic works because circular logic works... and you realize you were wrong from the start. The universe has always existed because existence is defined by time and it is impossible to say time never existed in the first place.

And something from nothing only exists if consciousness is allowed to violate some unspoken rule about " something from nothing"... because if everything has always existed and at one point in time it became a conscious God then that in and of itself is something from two equal unconscious parts that together created an equal conscious would constitute something from nothing.

Therefore God, something from nothing, and consciousness (philosophy) all exist simultaneously. None of the three explain origin. Incumbent on the none in and of itself is the aspect of something from nothing principal.

Which brings myself to believe in the pick one side because it is inside the triangle and not a part of the outskirts. And I can not explain any of the three.

But I can explain why I just picked one. It wasn't one of the more obvious disillusions.

Does this mean I always pick disillusion? No. It means I think about which disillusions I pick.

All I'll say is that if we think we are never deluded, we are deludeing ourselves.

 

[The God]

The below is a curious hypo, all original..


A photon cannot see another photon traveling, no relative motion between photons (we say that photon does not have a rest frame, revise it a bit.). So if no relative motion, no sense of time. All photons traveling at c, can be state 0, the garden of eden state, no flow of time. And then we got a state wherein a particle formed and we had v < c......time perception started henceforth.

BB is full of issues, the inflation itself is inexplicable, and unanswerable question is presence of BB singularity, it could not have formed from nothing. How it was on the first place. But you can always assume photons traveling at c all around, you can designate this state as t = 0, no issues. Its a distinct t = 0 state, home state, irrespective of what was prior to that. Now weave around all the observations, I am confident everything can be explained with this hypo.

 

[quantum_wave]

OK. But why would you want to fully commit to something for which there can be no evidence? It seems foolish.

If we are talking about having science kick in at the earliest possible point in developing a cosmology, then nothing from that point on can be said to be "fully committed", if you accept that 'tentativeness' is a pillar of science.

 

[quantum_wave]

The below is a curious hypo, all original..


A photon cannot see another photon traveling, no relative motion between photons (we say that photon does not have a rest frame, revise it a bit.). So if no relative motion, no sense of time. All photons traveling at c, can be state 0, the garden of eden state, no flow of time. And then we got a state wherein a particle formed and we had v < c......time perception started henceforth.

BB is full of issues, the inflation itself is inexplicable, and unanswerable question is presence of BB singularity, it could not have formed from nothing. How it was on the first place. But you can always assume photons traveling at c all around, you can designate this state as t = 0, no issues. Its a distinct t = 0 state, home state, irrespective of what was prior to that. Now weave around all the observations, I am confident everything can be explained with this hypo.

I think everything can also be explained by the 'always existed' speculation.