Does cosmology answer why the universe exist?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
Each cosmologist, like every other person on the planet will decide for themselves the meaning of their lives, that is, if they decide to even think about it.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
This question has nothing to do with science and should not be asked in the hard science areas of the forum.
No.
What makes you think there's an answer?
It depends on the cosmologist. You'll have to ask each one individually.
Obviously not. You resemble your parents, for instance. Do you think that's just a random accident?
As a mathematician I have to say yes. Your mother had periods about once a month. During intercourse your father produced millions of sperm. The combination of particular egg and sperm was random.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
IMO, all the above can be summed up as "we exist as a matter of mathematical probability".
It was possible.....
Cosmology necessarily includes chronology and more generally metrology.
The greek word logos is meant to be taken to mean knowledge, understanding (of certain implications of that knowledge), i.e. science and its attendant technology.
Technology is getting humans closer to finding a more general explanation of why the universe is how it is; according to some that's because the reasons, the history, and the future development of all closed, timelike surfaces already exist, in the cosmological sense of time. Or something (but see e.g. Hawking or t'Hooft)
The greek word logos is meant to be taken to mean knowledge, understanding (of certain implications of that knowledge), i.e. science and its attendant technology.
Technology is getting humans closer to finding a more general explanation of why the universe is how it is; according to some that's because the reasons, the history, and the future development of all closed, timelike surfaces already exist, in the cosmological sense of time. Or something (but see e.g. Hawking or t'Hooft)
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
But is that not talking about spacetime after the BB? That issue is not in question.
If I understand the question as asking if time existed prior to the BB. IMO the answer to that question is; "No"
How can"timelike surfaces" exist prior to the existence of any "surfaces"?
I would submit that prior to any "surfaces" (prior to the BB), there existed a "timeless surfaceless permittive condition", and the emergence of space and it's associated measurable duration of "timelike surfaces" was a result of mathematical probability.
Probability rests on the concept of "possibility".
Evidence suggests it was possible, that's why it happened as a matter of probability.
In the absence of time, eternity and a quantum instant have the same mathematical value, and a probability is the instant it occurs without any necessity for calculation of "when".
The answer to that calculation is "Now" (as the beginning of time)....
Questions about "Time" in reference to any "timelike surfaces" , start after the "Beginning", not before..!
Time is not causal to change, it's is a measurement of change.
IMO any suggestion that orbits, etc. are examples of time being causal to regular occurrences is getting the order of occurrence backwards. Time does not establish physical order.
Physical Order establishes Time! NOT the other way around.
If there is flaw in this logic, please enlighten me. I am personally convinced my logic is defensible on all accounts, but if I am wrong on any point I beg to be instructed in clear logical terms where my logic fails.
Last edited:
Ok, but there must have been the potential for time to emerge, because it did. It must have been physically possible since, here we are.
They exist now, so you need to explain how they didn't. Again, here we are trying to do something like that. As they say, results may vary.
Right, time is a passive thing that doesn't interact with anything. But for observers in relative motion, time is like a relation between them which is velocity/momentum dependent.
Saying time is itself casual is like saying a distance can cause an event; which means a distance has to be an event and it just isn't.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I agree, but time has nothing to do with the occurrence of physical events. Time is a result of the occurrence and duration of physical events. Physical events only need mathematical permission. A timeless permittive condition is sufficient for physical events to occur as a "probability" given a timeless a priory permittive condition?
AFAIK, I am quoting mainstream science that Time began directly after the unrestricted chaotic physical 3D inflationary epoch, until sufficient internal physical mathematics of timelike surfaces allowed for emerge of time as a reliable form of measurement of duration in accordance with emergent natural physical laws. But all that is after the BB and inside the ever expanding spacetime.
Why should time be necessary in a physically permittive condition? Time does not exist independent of physics.
There is no Father Time.
There was a permittive Nothing, then there was a physical Something, and then there emerged an observer-independent accounting of Duration of physical events. We, as human- observers symbolized this accounting as measurable Time.
IMO, this is as fundamental as it can get, in view of the lack of evidence to the contrary.
Last edited:
Many people on this forum believe stupid things. I have had one claim there has been an atomic war on Mars between Alien species.
According to our best theory the BB, space and time evolved together...or time [as we know it] started when space [as we know it] evolved. And as has been shown many times, space and time are inexorably connected and interchangeable.
If we have space, we also have time. If there was nothing else, there would simply be no one to measure the passing or flow of time.
And you know this how?