Nonsense...Space and time [as we know them] evolved together at t+10-43 seconds. If there was no time, we have no space...no space, no time.
Does cosmology answer why the universe exist?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
No scientific theory is proven [other then the theory of evolution]
The overwhelming evidence supports what I said, and actually invalidates your own nonsensical claim/s.
There was no observer when space and time evolved at the BB.
Space was expanding though, as time flowed.
POVphysics2
Registered Member
And, what answers have those wise men provided?
POVphysics2
Registered Member
That's it? That's all you got? Does that mean you found a place with no fools considering how much you're arguing here?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
All of science is based on that assumption. That does not mean it needs to be exact. It only needs to be approximate. i.e. close enough to be functional.
Well said.
Why is there a sudden rush of people here wanting us all to know what they believe, but not why?
Really: who cares what you believe? Tell me why you believe it, then we might be able to have an interesting discussion.
Prove it.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I don't believe that it can even explain 'how'. (There are hypotheses though.)
'Why' is something else. It seems to suggest that the universe exists as the result of a human-style act and that the act needs a motive, purpose or goal.
That idea comes about through our very human tendency to understand events as if they were part of a larger narrative. It's the tendency to interpret reality as if it was a literary story. Reality receives a plot.
So we get religious stories about the act of creation and about the purpose and ultimate end of creation. People like to think that way because they can plug the seemingly meaningless events of their own lives into the plot of the cosmic story so as to give the events meaning.
It's how we understand social life and the actions of others, after all. (And that might be part of why humans evolved to think that way.)
Physical science is similar in that it plugs particular events into a larger narrative which allows scientists to make sense of the event. But now the narrative is the narrative of a textbook and not a novel. So a physical event is plugged into the narrative of there being 'laws of physics' which explain what happened and make it more comprehensible. Facts about lifeforms are plugged into the evolution narrative (like I did up above).
But the narratives of science are far more impersonal and abstract than the narratives of social life, literary novels or religion. They are the plot device patterns of physical reality kind of reduced to pure mathematical form (in theoretical physics' case at least).
So to answer the question, in the eyes of the cosmologist meaning is replaced by mechanism, so to speak. The cosmologist explains an astronomical discovery by plugging it into his principles of cosmology that tell him how it might have come about and what kind of initial conditions might have led to it. The cosmologist doesn't interpret the events by relating them to some more humanistic cosmic story about goals and purposes that the astronomical events might have illustrated in the heavens.
Last edited:
No, it can explain how, but not the why.
Couldn't agree more.
Don't be like 99.9999% of the people on this planet and treat the idea of cause as more fundamental than the idea of existence. Just_stop_doing_that. Get the hierarchy straight.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
That sounds suspiciously like an explanation of pre-Big Bang condition.
An timeless infinite absolute vacuum => a zero size singularity traveling at FTL (infinite energy) => a mega-quantum event where everything happened at the same time in the same place => an inflationary epoch at FTL until cooled => spacetime.