The Question of Origins

[~The_Chosen~]

hmm

Originally posted by overdoze
Actually, I argue the idea makes no sense within any model past, current or future. Time cannot have a beginning, because beginning itself can only take place in a context of time.

Not necessarily. The word beginning grasps connotations of originating, starting. So beginning itself is not always held within the context of time.

Quite possibly, the word "time" is an identification of certain states/changes of matter/energy. Without change anywhere, there can be no "time."

Time is a non-spatial continuum; a duration. Like length and mass, time is one of the fundamental quantities of the physical world. So one can argue length and mass always did exist, thus one can also argue time also always did exist. Maybe that is why there are constant rates of change everywhere in the universe.

Is not time a reaction of energy?

Words are made for a certain exactness of thought, as tears are for a certain degree of pain. What is least distinct cannot be named; what is clearest is unutterable.

René Daumal (1908-44)

 

[Cris]

Overdoze,

I argue the idea makes no sense within any model past, current or future. Time cannot have a beginning, because beginning itself can only take place in a context of time.

Well said.

Chosen,

Not necessarily. The word beginning grasps connotations of originating, starting. So beginning itself is not always held within the context of time.

Quite possibly, the word "time" is an identification of certain states/changes of matter/energy. Without change anywhere, there can be no "time."

OK but a beginning cannot simply be a freeze frame. The term means motion, and in this context a change of state, which requires time.

What I think you mean here is a ‘start point’, e.g. the beginning of a line. In this sense we are using ‘beginning’ as a noun. In the context of a beginning of time or the universe we are using ‘beginning’ as a verb.

So with that understanding a beginning must involve a change of state (i.e. the first change of state) and that requires time. And that leads us back to the statement made by Overdoze that time cannot have a beginning..

Cris

 

[Cris]

James,

Since no events are possible without time then it is not possible that anything could have caused time to begin. Hence time must have always existed.

Your conclusion does not follow from the previous sentence. The only conclusion which follows is that no "events" could happen "outside" time - "before" time began.

I agree up to the point where you introduce the concept of ‘before’ time.

The term "event" incorporates a notion of time. For an event to exist we need time.

We agree.

However, that in no way precludes the possibility of a beginning to time itself, or a first event.

I disagree since as we have already agreed that an event requires time then time cannot be started by an event. Time must exist BEFORE an event can occur. And a ‘beginning’ infers an event, i.e. a change in state.

From this we should be able to conclude that time cannot be started by an event, not even a ‘first event’.

Since the term ‘event’ covers all possibilities then the only way that time could have a beginning is if it was started by a non-event, i.e. nothing.

This brings us back to the requirement that time either came from nothing or has always existed. Since there is no precedent for anything starting from nothing then I’d say that is a strong inductive conclusion for time being infinite.

Cris

 

[Angelus]

Asking what came before the big bang is like asking what a pile of carbon ash was before it was burned to ash when no one had seen it's previous state.

Supposing energy is infinite I assume that it most likely is constantly in motion and that something like the singularity could only have existed for a moment, before that moment is something we'll never know, though perhaps the collapse of a universe very like our own, and after is our universe as we know it. To suppose that time did not exist in the moment of the singularity is odd as there were events leading up to and immediately following it, therefore a "time"-line. To say otherwise is to suppose you could take any instant in time and just remove time and that instant would stay frozen. Not sure I explained that last part well, but oh well.

 

[James R]

<b>overdoze:</b>:

<i>I shouldn't need to tell you that first, they are only models and second, they are merely the current best. Models are computational devices; interpretation of them is a semantic process quite independent from the math. To have any hope of ever properly interpreting a model, one must delve deeper into the underlying meaning of its components and how they fit together.</i>

I agree with all this, but would like to add that all scientific theories are "only" models. You seem to use the word "only" in a pejorative sense.

<i>I argue the idea makes no sense within any model past, current or future. Time cannot have a beginning, because beginning itself can only take place in a context of time.</i>

We can assign a time co-ordinate to each event in our universe. An event can have any time co-ordinate from 0 until any future possible ending of the universe (if it has one). I use the term "beginning of time" to mean time co-ordinate zero.

<i>... time is an integral aspect of existence and existence cannot be finite (or else, you have creation ex nihilo.)</i>

This is the pivotal idea in your argument. So far as I can see, it is unsupported.


<b>Cris:</b>

See above for my definition of "beginning of time" as "time co-ordinate zero".

<i>Time must exist BEFORE an event can occur. And a ‘beginning’ infers an event, i.e. a change in state.</i>

An event can occur at any time from time zero onwards. The existence of time zero, in itself, implies no event or change of state, as far as I am aware. Could you explain what you mean by change in state?

<i>From this we should be able to conclude that time cannot be started by an event, not even a ‘first event’.</i>

I agree with that.

<i>Since the term ‘event’ covers all possibilities...</i>

Does it? Why?

<i>...then the only way that time could have a beginning is if it was started by a non-event, i.e. nothing.</i>

Your statement above doesn't make sense to me. How can "nothing" or a "non-event" do anything? The concept is self-contradictory and therefore meaningless, in my opinion.

Causation breaks down at time zero. There is no need for an event to start time, and we agree that the idea of such an event doesn't make sense. But similarly, there is no need for a "non-event" either.

<i>This brings us back to the requirement that time either came from nothing or has always existed.</i>

No. We don't know anything about "nothing", so we can't draw conclusions about it or how time (or anything else) might come from it.

IMO, you have failed to show any reason why I should believe the idea that time has always existed over the idea that time had a definite beginning at co-ordinate zero. Can you provide such a reason?

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Good points James R

Originally posted by James R
An event can occur at any time from time zero onwards. The existence of time zero, in itself, implies no event or change of state, as far as I am aware. Could you explain what you mean by change in state?

For anything to "occur" there must be change. So I argue that the beginning of such "change" would be the beginning of time.

Your statement above doesn't make sense to me. How can "nothing" or a "non-event" do anything? The concept is self-contradictory and therefore meaningless, in my opinion.

I don't even believe there is such a thing as "nothing." The term "nothing" is an identification of where there can't be "someting." And without "something" one cannot measure, observe, or detect "nothing." Therefore I reason that there is no such thing as a "nothing." Nothing would produce nothing.

No. We don't know anything about "nothing", so we can't draw conclusions about it or how time (or anything else) might come from it.

I don't even think "nothing" exists, the term itself symbolizes non-existence. And we can't draw any conclusions from nothing.

IMO, you have failed to show any reason why I should believe the idea that time has always existed over the idea that time had a definite beginning at co-ordinate zero. Can you provide such a reason?

Agreed, time is most likely a 4th dimension, who's to say that these "dimensions" were not created or formed?

 

[overdoze]

Originally posted by James R
<i>I shouldn't need to tell you that first, they are only models and second, they are merely the current best. Models are computational devices; interpretation of them is a semantic process quite independent from the math...</i>

I agree with all this, but would like to add that all scientific theories are "only" models. You seem to use the word "only" in a pejorative sense.

No no no. I thought the immediately following sentence would have explained what I meant by "only". IOW there are formulae (a.k.a. models) and then there is semantic meaning (a.k.a. interpretation.) Formulae are only formulae; they have no underlying meaning to them. Any meaning comes from humans imbuing components of formulae with relationships to observable physical entities. How we construct and evolve these relationships is what matters in the task of comprehension.

We can assign a time co-ordinate to each event in our universe. An event can have any time co-ordinate from 0 until any future possible ending of the universe (if it has one). I use the term "beginning of time" to mean time co-ordinate zero.

This is a bit misleading, as it ignores the continuity of the universe. For example, you can assign an index to each frame on a spool of film. This describes the way frames relate to each other, but it looses the concept of a spool. IOW, the very reason why the frames are related in such a way is because they are sub-sections of the spool in the first place.

So you take what is in effect an apriori relationship, and convert it into an aposteriori relationship. This looses information, since the former is, of course, more fundamental.

<i>... time is an integral aspect of existence and existence cannot be finite (or else, you have creation ex nihilo.)</i>

This is the pivotal idea in your argument. So far as I can see, it is unsupported.

There are two parts you might have considered unsupported, and I'm not sure which one you are addressing. You may object to the idea that time is an integral aspect of existence. You may also object to the idea that creation ex nihilo is paradoxical.

With respect to the latter, you've stated in your reply to Cris that by your definition causality breaks down at time 0. This is the same a claiming that the emergence of the present universe is acausal, or that the present universe popped into existence out of nothing. You are free to believe this, but to most of us it doesn't make sense. If you assume (as I do) that only nothingness can come out of nothingness, then given the presense of "something" (i.e. our universe) there must be a state leading to every other state, which implies infinite time in both directions.

As for the former, one would have to define existence in absense of time. I wonder what it would mean, "to exist", in such a context. If that means absense of any sort of change, then as we've all been saying, there's no way something like that could give rise to time. After all, that change to touch off time would have to come from somewhere, and given prior lack of any change you once again get something from nothing.

 

[James R]

overdoze:

<i>[Y]ou've stated in your reply to Cris that by your definition causality breaks down at time 0. This is the same a claiming that the emergence of the present universe is acausal, or that the present universe popped into existence out of nothing. You are free to believe this, but to most of us it doesn't make sense.</i>

Yes, that's essentially what I am saying - the emergence of the present universe <b>may</b> be acausal, barring some kind of bizarre twisting of the notion of time (e.g. see Hawking's "imaginary time").

I know enough quantum field theory to readily accept that things can pop into existence out of nothing. I have no trouble accepting that the universe may be one of those things.

 

[overdoze]

Originally posted by James R
I know enough quantum field theory to readily accept that things can pop into existence out of nothing. I have no trouble accepting that the universe may be one of those things.

Hmm? Including the quantum field itself? As far as I'm aware, quantum field theory deals with various types of "vacuum". While phenomena may "pop" into existence within such a vacuum with a certain probability, the vacuum itself is assumed to always exist. Or am I wrong? And if not, is the vacuum not in fact the universe?

 

[James R]

Particle-antiparticle pairs are due to fluctuations of the quantum vacuum, which exists inside the universe. Perhaps the universe is due to a quantum fluctuation in whatever kind of quantum foam produces universes...

 

[overdoze]

Well fine, although I'm not exactly comfortable with your concept of the quantum vacuum being "inside" the universe. As far as I can see, quantum vacuum and the universe are indistinguishable at this point in modern theory. IOW, both encompass everything that is observable.

Now, if you want to postulate a "quantum foam" that produces "universes", then the real universe is that quantum foam and our little quantum vacuum is just a subset of the real universe. Not to say I find such a hypothesis unpalatable; in fact Cris and I and others have been arguing along the same lines. The observable universe (and the Big Bang that marks its birth) had to come from somewhere -- which might as well have been a "quantum foam". Point is, it pre-existed (and in the case of multiple universes, still encompasses) the observable "universe". It is the underlying reality of all existence. And through that "quantum foam", existence (and time, and causality) stretches into the past beyond the "singularity" of the Big Bang. Call it "imaginary time" if it makes you more comfortable.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Quantum Foam

Baby universes?

According to Hawking, at the scale of 10^-33 cm, less than one-milliion-trillionth of a proton's diameter, space itself is, according to this idea, a sort of quantum force foam, randomly shaping and unshaping itself (change is infinite/always constant?); from this, tiny bubbles of space-time form, connected to the rest by narrow umbilicial cords called "worm-holes." These bubbles, once formed, then undergo their own Big Bangs, producing complete universes, connected to out own only by worm-holes 10^-33 cm across. Thus from every cubic centimeter of our space, some 10^143 universes come into existence every second, all connected to ours by tiny worm-holes, and all in their turn giving birth to myriad new universes. As our own universe itself emerged from a parent universe.

It sounds to me like a vision that seems to beg for some cosmic birth control...

But you do know what this theory signifies, right? "Our universe" would be finite in its own time.

 

[overdoze]

Re: Quantum Foam

Originally posted by ~The_Chosen~
According to Hawking...

I wish people stopped crediting Hawking with these things. He is not the one who thought this up. He probably gives reference to the original author(s) in his book, and if he doesn't then he sucks. In fact most of his popular books are not original thought but merely popular exposes of current cosmology.

Thus from every cubic centimeter of our space, some 10^143 universes come into existence every second, all connected to ours by tiny worm-holes, and all in their turn giving birth to myriad new universes. As our own universe itself emerged from a parent universe.

It sounds to me like a vision that seems to beg for some cosmic birth control...

Indeed. Not to mention that such a notion completely trashes any vestiges of conservation of any kind. And, talk about something from nothing...

But you do know what this theory signifies, right? "Our universe" would be finite in its own time.

If you choose such limited notions of "universe" and "time", yes. However, I would say that you're artificially limiting your own discourse where no such limits are inherently warranted.

 

[James R]

<i>The observable universe (and the Big Bang that marks its birth) had to come from somewhere -- which might as well have been a "quantum foam". Point is, it pre-existed ...</i>

No. In this picture, time begins along with everything else in the universe. There is no notion of "pre-existence" in the sense that we understand time, since time wasn't around until the universe started.

(The lack of language available makes this a very hard concept to discuss. One keeps falling back on time-ordered language, which is actually not appropriate here.)

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Another subtle point I was trying to make...

Finite universes in formation offer one important thing. The need to figure out how the universe, galaxies, stars, all "came to be."

The infinite universe of formations is a cop out to try not to explain "how did things come to be."

If we were to start tracing the formations of the universe, we find that superclusters are formed by galaxies, galaxies are formed by solar systems, then we can keep going, do you think there would be an end to such a vestige?

How did it all come to be?

Now the debate stands on the point that, is the formation of the universe finite or infinite?

Could there be "infinite cycles" of formations? Is that possible?

If we were to keep tracing back the formations would we end up seeing an endless cycle? Or would we reach an origin to solve how it all began?

Are "infinite cyles" even possible? Imagine the chicken and egg scenario, if something didn't come first, they both eternally exist?

 

[enton]

The current scientific answer to this question is that the universe appears to be finite in extent. It is most likely closed but will expand forever due to the presence of a cosmological constant.

The question of whether the universe is infinite in extent or finite has little to do with the question of its origin, however. The big bang theory allows for universes which are either finite or infinite. Either way, there is a beginning in time.

Hello. The universe is not extending, biblically speaking. While others imaginatively think that the universe is expanding, the Bible plainly declared that the universe is right now as it was.

Psalms 68:33 To him that rideth upon the heavens of heavens, which were of old; lo, he doth send out his voice, and that a mighty voice

Proverbs 8:22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

It cannot be denied that there is a roof top which is of course the earth of God. Kindly analyze:

Proverbs 8:23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

Proverbs 8:31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

*Chosen* "Imagine the chicken and egg scenario, if something didn't come first, they both eternally exist?"
---------------------
I'm going to answer, yes. The answer must be yes, in either case.