The Beginning of the Universe

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by quantum_wave, Aug 4, 2016.

  1. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    I don't think "always existed" fits in the category of a causeless universe. No beginning differs from a causeless beginning, in my estimation.
    They do to the extent that I subscribe to a set of invariant natural laws, some of which we have discovered, and presumably many are as yet unknown. Who knows what features lie in the "as yet" unknown? It is just that I try to separate my cosmology into the mechanics that I describe out in the Fringe threads, and the philosophy which I derive from the mechanistic model. I call the philosophy associated with my model Eternal Intent, and that intent has always existed along with the invariant natural laws. We just don't know the mechanisms of that intent yet, but as science evolves, the mechanisms of intent would gradually become part of the known natural laws.
    I don't fault you for any of that. Much is yet to unfold, but as it becomes understood, it is added to the body of knowledge. There will always remain that portion of natural law that is as yet unknown known. I simply separate my speculations between the mechanistic, and the philosophical.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    Do I understand you correctly that the quantum fluctuation that gives rise to the existence of the physical universe is without cause in your view?
    I do depart from the mainstream, but perhaps not as radically as you do with LQG and quantum fluctuations. I guess that is where we both inject our own preferences. My model features big bangs instead of the one Big Bang of the mainstream theory. Actually multiple big bangs takes the mainstream concept of Big Bang Therory and speculates about preconditions; each of the multiple big bangs in the landscape of the greater universe are the product of expanding Big Bang arenas that intersect and overlap. Philosophically, that is really only a small step away from the mainstream, but once you take that step, it provides mechanistic explanations for things that the mainstream does not address; but those speculative mechanics are more for AltTheory threads, out in the fringe.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    If, as I have philosophized, there is sound logic for a universe that has "always existed", which brings with it the "time" infinity, and if the above logical case for the second infinity, space, is accepted, then the third infinity, energy that fills all space, remains to be addressed here.

    Energy, in this situation, is defined as a foundational wave energy, both light and gravity waves, that fills all space. The philosophy is that any volume of space contains wave energy and everything the occupies space is composed of wave energy. Therefore, given infinite space, we would have an infinite amount of energy.

    Certainly the logic behind the Three Infinities, as I have offered it, is imperfect. Therefore, I always remain open to competing logic or arguments regarding limits on any one of the three.

    It is on the basis of the Three Infinities addressed here that I then begin to address the model of cosmology that I describe out in the Fringe forums, in the Alternative Theories sub-forum threads. I call that model the Infinite Spongy Universe Model of Cosmology. Out there, I begin to put known observations and physics together with mechanistic speculations to explain those observations, to describe the invariant natural laws that work together within the framework of the Three Infinities.

    My thanks for the participation in this thread, and please object with opposing arguments that make your case for logical limits to any of the thee infinities.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,659
    The phrase "nothingness existing" presents a problem right out of the gate.

    Nothingness "giving rise to something by a single Quantum fluctuation" is even more problematic. How can there possibly be "quantum fluctuations" in absolute non-existence? The idea seems to suggest first, that 'nothingness' is some kind of quantum vacuum, which isn't nothing in the stronger sense. It also assumes the existence and applicability of quantum mechanical principles, including 'quantum fluctuations', which obviously aren't nothing either.

    If we are going to imagine the preexistence of the 'laws' of physics and quantum vacuums, out of which everything else emerged, then we seem to be covertly opting for the 'always existed' alternative.

    If we aren't imagining the preexistence of the 'laws' of physics and quantum vacuums, then appealing to physics as an explanation of why there is something rather than nothing would seem to me to be circular.
     
  8. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,364
    If we define ''nothing'' as consisting of no space at all, no time, no particles, no fields, no laws of nature - is that at all possible? (in the context of this topic) If that is possible, then how could ''something'' come from ''nothing?'' (that nothing)
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,512
  10. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,659
    It's probably true that 'nonexistence doesn't exist'. If it did, it would be a contradiction in terms. The nonexistence of everything that exists probably shouldn't be imagined as a cosmic void, a dark and mysterious kind of existence in its own right. It would be a limit, a boundary where everything just terminates and where there is no beyond. (Perhaps the 'big bang' is such a boundary, perhaps not.) Such an ultimate boundary can only be imagined from the point of view of being, from a perspective like ours.

    If the laws of physics or some kind of quantum vacuum enjoying 'quantum fluctuations' existed prior to a hypothetical origin event, then we would seem to be opting for 'always existed', albeit in a physically different form. The ostensible origin wouldn't be an origin at all, it would become a transformation of reality from one state into another. The question then would be where did the preexisting laws of physics, the quantum vacuum and its ceaseless fluctuations come from. What accounts for them?

    Perhaps facts and physical entities can just pop into existence with no proceeding history and no explanation of their appearance possible even in principle. If we believe that can happen, then we seem to be abandoning one of the fundamental heuristic presuppositions of science - that every physical event has a cause or a physical explanation of some sort.

    My own tendency is to consider the 'why does existence exist' question to most likely be unanswerable. It's the ultimate mystery.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2016
    wegs likes this.
  11. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    Well said.
     
  12. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    I consider your questions, and the thinking that they imply, to be examples of right reason. Using our intellect allows us to pose such questions and suppose our own answers to what can be considered the workings of the "as yet" unknown invariant natural laws of the universe.
     
    wegs likes this.
  13. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    I've seen this article a few times, and each time I read it I am left with the same conclusion. Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff have not made a convincing case for the Free Lunch

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . Nothingness seems to be better defined as Wegs puts it:
    Those might be rhetorical questions, but I would answer them by saying such "nothingness" is not possible, and something from such "nothingness" is equally not possible.
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,512
    Why? Sure, a difficult concept to get one's mind around, but so to is any "infinite" Universe...
     
  15. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    It is a fair statement when qualified by "perhaps", though I would also say I think it requires some of the "God did it" explanation to accept the "popping into existence" of something physical.
    That question is likely to be unanswerable, but probably is frequently contemplated by we humans, and by any and all intelligent life forms, if others should exist across the universe

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . The answer is an individual one, and I respect the thinking of anyone who ventures an answer on their own as to why there is existence, or what, if any purpose there is to it.

    My own thinking is that the set of invariant natural laws has some parts that I would characterize as eternal intent; intent that would have always been there just as the laws themselves would have always existed. That intent then would show up on a personal level, in that we find purpose in our interactions with others.

    Certainly there are natural questions that people contemplate when they take the time to be thoughtful, and those questions lead us to form our own opinions and take individual action; one of the free benefits of being self aware, free willed individuals. Of course we can get ourselves in trouble if we aren't careful, lol.
     
  16. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    Yes sir.
     
  17. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,293
    If you have limitless love in any way you must capacitate or you forget by nature things your content with. Infinity is un pleasing, which makes sense because its has a no to its nature.
     
  18. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,241
    Quantum Wave let me ask you a few questions if I may.

    What is it about the existing science from the Big Bang on that you disagree with and why? What data and the conclusions based on that data do you disagree with?

    Regarding trying to figure out what happened before the Big Bang, what does this change for you? Why the interest in (as you call it) a "personal cosmological view"? Do you have a personal creation view as well?

    I can't help but get the impression that you are just trying to reinvent the wheel by taking existing knowledge, changing the names a bit, repeating "invariant natural laws" a lot and calling it a new theory? Where am I wrong?

    I have no evidence for what came before the Big Bang and therefore no real opinion on that. We have all read at least something about the many worlds view as well as about universes just popping into and out of existence which just pushes certain questions further back.

    Infinity isn't very satisfying to me nor is always existed nor is something from nothing and certainly not God did it. What ever really happened is what happened however regardless of whether I would find it to be satisfying.
     
  19. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    Let's look at science as a method of growing our understanding of the universe. As we discover, the body of known science expands, which you refer to as existing science. To me, that still leaves many things to discover and many questions "as yet" unanswered.

    The first thing about the existing science from the Big Bang on, is that it doesn't address the question of the beginning.
    There is no conclusion about the beginning in Big Bang Theory, so it isn't that I start out disagreeing with it. I start out wondering about the beginning, and that leads me to philosophize about the Triangle of Cosmological Explanations.

    Having thought about the beginning and discussed it over the years, I sorted the possibilities down to what I think are the three major candidates: God did it, something from nothing, and always existed.
    It changes things to the extent that in place of not having any answer about the beginning, I have a choice of three, and my personal choice is "always existed". I still respect those who are religious, and those who can't abide the Three Infinities because my view is that it is a personal choice until the time that the scientific community gives us the answer.

    It is my nature to want to have an opinion of the "beginning" or lack of a beginning, and so I speculate that there was no beginning.

    My personal view of creation is two fold; it isn't scientific to invoke the Supernatural, and the question immediately comes up, where did God come from, which leads to infinite regression.
    I have always resisted calling my ideas a theory, and instead I acknowledge them as speculations and hypotheses that have a basis in known science, but that go beyond known science by acknowledging that there is a portion of the natural laws of the universe that are "as yet" unknown, and my hobby is to play around with the unknown in order to have my own personal view of a "more complete" cosmology.
    I have opinions about each of the popular alternative views of cosmology, and my model resolves the discrepancies between them to my satisfaction. I defeat infinite regression in my model by invoking the "always existed" solution.

    As for evidence of "always existed", vs. "God did" it or "something from nothing"; that is addressed in this thread where I acknowledge that there is no new evidence that I have to work with, but that I have a stream of logic that satisfies me that "always existed" is right for me. It is not right for everyone, and I respect that.
    I like to say that the universe is as it should be, and could be no other way.
     
  20. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,241
    OK, thanks. I just wanted to be clear where you were coming from. Your "Triangle of Cosmological Explanations" is just another way of saying (in your case) "I think the universe has always existed" and the rest of your viewpoint is the same as mainstream science from the Big Bang on.
     
  21. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    Pretty much, but I would like to restate that once you come up with a cosmology that has specific preconditions to our Big Bang event, the particulars of Big Bang Theory come into question as to certain details and explanations of scientific observations. However, those kinds of specifics are appropriately discussed in my threads in the Alternate Theories sub-forum. This thread is just a place to discuss the "beginning" from a philosophical perspective.
     
  22. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,241
    If that's the case then it doesn't need the "alternate theories" language just to discuss what might have come before the Big Bang. Why bring the woo into it when it's not needed?
     
  23. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    I'm not sure what you mean. Forum rules say that I can't present science related speculations and hypotheses that differ from the current generally accepted views, unless I do so in the Fringe forums. Preconditions to the Big Bang are speculative and have no standing in the hard science forums. Members tend to report me when I venture into the science forums and the moderators generally agree that I have performed a violation of the rules. I think what you call woo is what I call alternative theories.
     

Share This Page