How was the Universe created?

[sphenisc]

Draw a dot on it with a pen. That's the top. The globe analogy is not perfect because time appears to have directionality. If you impose directionality on the globe then you have a much closer example.

So if the analogy between time and north isn't exact in terms of directionality, what makes you think it is in terms of having a starting point?

 

[Cuddles]

So if the analogy between time and north isn't exact in terms of directionality, what makes you think it is in terms of having a starting point?

You what? The analogy is pretty much exact. The only problem with the sphere is that, as you said, it doesn't have a top. If you give it one then the whole thing works. Or, even better, use a shape that is not spherically symmetric, like an egg. Time is along the surface in the direction of the major axis, space is perpendicular to this.

Of course, I have realised that when I mentioned x and y, I really only meant x. The surface of a sphere is two dimensional. Consider me suitably told off.

 

[sphenisc]

You what? The analogy is pretty much exact. The only problem with the sphere is that, as you said, it doesn't have a top. If you give it one then the whole thing works. Or, even better, use a shape that is not spherically symmetric, like an egg. Time is along the surface in the direction of the major axis, space is perpendicular to this.

Of course, I have realised that when I mentioned x and y, I really only meant x. The surface of a sphere is two dimensional. Consider me suitably told off.

Yes, but I'm asking why you believe the analogy is exact. How do you know time started at the beginning of the universe? Why is there a 'northernmost' point? How do you know there isn't another globe sitting on 'top' of this globe on which I can continue by northward progression?

 

[Cuddles]

Yes, but I'm asking why you believe the analogy is exact. How do you know time started at the beginning of the universe? Why is there a 'northernmost' point? How do you know there isn't another globe sitting on 'top' of this globe on which I can continue by northward progression?

That is what current theories tell us. They may be wrong of course, but this would require a new theory to replace them. While we are working within the bounds of current theory, the question of what was before the big bang is meaningless. It is entirely possible to speculate about what would happen if other things were true, and there is much theoretical physics devoted to this, but without any good theory to support it, it is just that, speculation.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Very Good! I like humility!

No, it was "keep your hands off me you stinking apes"!

Thanks. I would call it common sense more than humility. Most of the people, even in this forum, is simply pride of their "knowledge" about what the universe is and how it started. IMO, they fail to realize that everything they think is limited by the concepts we can draw, and that this limits are biologically impossed.

It has been said that some questions are meaningless. Like asking what was "before" the universe (assuming the big bang is accurate, which I think is not). Well, of course some questions are meaningless, but the real question is WHY? How can we utter a meaningless question? This should bring the attention to the language and its limits. What we can conceptualize is related to what we call "the universe" but this does not guarantee that our maps are accurate at all.

I understand the need to know, but I cant embrace what I know are limited concepts to explain the cosmos. So, back to what I said in the first place.

Every answer is wrong, and will be always wrong.

 

[davidsmith73]

There's alot of talk about the question of what was before the BB as being meaningless. But is there necessarily a temporal component implied in the question "How was the universe created?" I've mentioned the physicist Julian Barbour before, who has suggested that time itself does not exist. He explains the BB as just one particular physical state of the universe that isn't at the "beginning" at all. Nothing is at the beginning because time does not exist. If this kind of theory is correct then it would seem to me that the question of the creation of the univserse becomes one of - how did something come from nothing?

 

[wollery]

Originally Posted by Cuddles



Then you must believe in spontaneous generation?

How did all that energy come to be?

Just as a minor point, all what energy? The net total of all the energy in the Universe is zero. Gravity is a potential energy, and as such has a negative value which balances out the positive energies.

 

[Cuddles]

There's alot of talk about the question of what was before the BB as being meaningless. But is there necessarily a temporal component implied in the question "How was the universe created?" I've mentioned the physicist Julian Barbour before, who has suggested that time itself does not exist. He explains the BB as just one particular physical state of the universe that isn't at the "beginning" at all. Nothing is at the beginning because time does not exist. If this kind of theory is correct then it would seem to me that the question of the creation of the univserse becomes one of - how did something come from nothing?

But this still has exactly the same problem. If there is no such thing as time, then there can be no such thing as "comes from". To answer your question, yes, any question of creation always implies a temporal component, because there is always the assumption that first there wasn't anything, then there was. If there is no time, there is no chain of causality, and you simply cannot say that one event happened before another (assuming that you can talk about events happening at all).

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

"Time exists"

"Time does not exist"

What is the basis for such assertions?

We are accustomed to think in causality as an inherent part of the universe. But supose for a moment that we only see causal relations because they are useful for survive (as an organism). I believe some animals are incapable of perceiving "time", which would be only a linguistic construction that is useful for some purposes (certainly not to "explain" what we call the universe).

 

[KingMerv00]

...(assuming the big bang is accurate, which I think is not).

Why is the big bang inaccurate?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Obviosuly not in the sense of biology, of course, but in the general sense of how did it evolve.

But you are still welcome to give a compleyely detailed Darwinian account of any biological thing. Maybe I could get a clue by you clueing me in on some of these accounts?

Things that don't reproduce don't evolve. Your obsession with destroying evolution makes you look like a fool.

 

[drkitten]

Yes, but I'm asking why you believe the analogy is exact.

Because there are no other available analogies or theories that do as good a job of explaining the evidence. Perhaps someday we'll find different evidence or invent a new analogy. For now, we work with what we have.

 

[sphenisc]

Because there are no other available analogies or theories that do as good a job of explaining the evidence. Perhaps someday we'll find different evidence or invent a new analogy. For now, we work with what we have.

I was really hoping for something resembling evidence, rather than a comment saying it matches the evidence. I'd got that far on my own.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Why is the big bang inaccurate?

Its inaccurate simply because there are holes in the theory (Im not implying that we know anything better). I will just name what is, apparently, its biggest problem: The acceleration of the rate of expansion.

 

[Darth Rotor]

the question of how can never even be asked

It can be, and has been, but your follow on about the difficulty of an answer rings true.

Well stated. As I've said a few times before: There is no "before" the universe.

Aye, a sticky thing to get one's brain around.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

There's alot of talk about the question of what was before the BB as being meaningless. But is there necessarily a temporal component implied in the question "How was the universe created?" I've mentioned the physicist Julian Barbour before, who has suggested that time itself does not exist. He explains the BB as just one particular physical state of the universe that isn't at the "beginning" at all. Nothing is at the beginning because time does not exist. If this kind of theory is correct then it would seem to me that the question of the creation of the univserse becomes one of - how did something come from nothing?

If time doesn't exist, then all the stuff in the universe is and always was, so there was never nothing, there was only a matter of whatever is, and was, changing form.

Why is the big bang inaccurate?

Its inaccurate simply because there are holes in the theory (Im not implying that we know anything better).

Yeah: big black holes.

I will just name what is, apparently, its biggest problem: The acceleration of the rate of expansion.

The problem of a complete picture would seem to be difficult, if not impossible, to overcome.

DR

 

[I less than three logic]

Its inaccurate simply because there are holes in the theory (Im not implying that we know anything better). I will just name what is, apparently, its biggest problem: The acceleration of the rate of expansion.

How is that a problem for the theory? The Big Bang Theory explains the observed evidence, and has accurately predicted newly discovered evidence like the CMB. I don't see how the acceleration of the rate of expansion provides evidence against the BBT. In fact, I would think a discovery of what governs why/how space-time expands at all could show this acceleration in the rate of expansion of space-time is further evidence supporting the BBT as well. Of course, such a discovery could also contradict the BBT, but the new theory would also need to explain all the previously discovered evidence as well as the BBT currently does.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

How is that a problem for the theory? The Big Bang Theory explains the observed evidence, and has accurately predicted newly discovered evidence like the CMB. I don't see how the acceleration of the rate of expansion provides evidence against the BBT. In fact, I would think a discovery of what governs why/how space-time expands at all could show this acceleration in the rate of expansion of space-time is further evidence supporting the BBT as well. Of course, such a discovery could also contradict the BBT, but the new theory would also need to explain all the previously discovered evidence as well as the BBT currently does.

Because it enters a completely new variable. But nevermind. I agree with our conclusion. And we are far from that. Still, every theory that mankind has sustained regarding the "final question" has been replaced when a better theory is created. I dont see why (or how) we could reach a possition safe enough to be considered as final. Never. The very same methodology we use to "understand" (our language) is clearly not as transparent as we would wish. I do not believe we are able to draw accurate maps, merely functional ones.

Sorry if Im unable to explain this better, english is not my first language and dealing with complex subjects (like this one) puts me in disadvantage

 

[Merko]

I think it does not really hold to state for a fact that we can never know what happened 'before' the big bang. Of course, according to the prevalent interpretation of the big bang theory, the notion of time loses its meaning at the start of big bang, but it is hardly possible to prove this, even though it may be mathematically elegant. Personally I have, philosophically, a very strong preference for a continued chain of causality. I can imagine infinite space and an infinite chain of events, but a chain of causality started by nothing at all is unfathomable to me.

If indeed something did cause the Big Bang, then, unlikely as it seems, we might one day be able to find out what. For example by finding patterns in current observations of matter and energy that according to some future theory would have transcended the Big Bang event.

 

[Jekyll]

I agree; this is the reason I decided to switch from a lifetime of atheism to being a Christian.

Since "before spacetime" is totally off limits and outside anything we can possibly relate to saying "I see no proof God set things in motion; therefore I am an atheist" makes no more sense than saying "God created everything". There is an area that is beyond science; and I suspect always will be.

That is why arguments about religion that are based on logic or observation in our space time make no sense to me.

Whoa now. Back up a bit. I can understand people who say we can't know what's outside space-time, so we can't disprove god and therefore they are free to be a deist even if I don't agree with the argument.

But how did you go from there to Jesus died for our sins?
And why is god illogical?