QWC is constructed on the very basis that the universe exists and did not come from nothing, therefore it has always existed.
QW said:
Well, over 2 million links so let’s pick the first one for now:
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Where universe from.htm
Low and behold we have an excellent link to discuss. If you want to read it and comment about it, fine. If not, I'll read it through again and make some notes for discussion.
From the link: “Where did the universe come from?"
“The Big Bang theory is an attempt to describe the creation and evolution of the universe. The theory appears to match observations, and the theoretical physics appear to hold back through time to within a tiny fraction of a second after the creation of the Big Bang. Beyond that the theory cannot explain how the Big Bang singularity came into existence. See The Big Bang Theory Indeed, it is really pointless to attempt to go back beyond the Big Bang, it is meaningless to ask what came 'before' because there is no 'before'. Time itself came into existence with the Big Bang.”
QW’s notes: It is interesting that this description of BBT points out that if you accept it, it is meaningless to discuss “before or beyond” because according to the theory space and time began with the Big Bang. Quite a bit like in QWC in the respect that if you insist it is like fairy dust you can’t play the game because the prime objective requires liberties be taken. The end result is assured but the details that describe QWC are continually changing as it evolves. The Google.doc is changed when necessary to reflect the evolution. What will the end result be? My personal cosmology that contains the best I can do using the methodology that I have explained.
My comment is that I still want to talk about “before and beyond” the Big Bang even though BBT says I can't. I just don’t see where BBT explains how something can come from nothing.
The link goes on to that very question and points out that there are theories of how something can come from nothing and the author set out to describe a theory of nothing that could contain the universe.
He then defines Nothing
Definition of nothing.
"The use of the word 'nothing' has a very special meaning in this context, unlike our every day use of the word. It means here quite literally nothing, the complete absence of everything. By definition then nothing must be an infinite void. If nothing exists it would HAVE to be infinite. This is a result of it not being allowed any boundaries, as a boundary would place a limit on nothing's size and furthermore would also indicate that there was something existing on the 'other ' side of the boundary, apart from the boundary itself existing. This would be contrary to our definition of both infinite and of nothing. This also, it should be noted, excludes anything existing in any other dimension, or dimensions, as a dimension would then be a boundary. Nothing then, when described as an infinite void, excludes all possibility of anything else existing, anywhere."
That sounds good to me. Are you OK with it?
His conclusion is: “I hope I have made this point absolutely clear, this is what having nothing would mean, absolutely nothing anywhere. The only conclusion I can draw from that is nothing cannot exist, because we do.”
He then adds to his definition of nothing that it contains our universe and address the impact of that change. From his point of view:
“What does it mean to say the universe was always there? We believe it started with the Big Bang, but can we say the Big Bang was always there? This doesn't seem logical to me, it needed to have actually come into existence at some point, even the very term 'big bang', suggests a beginning.”
He as arrived at the concept of a beginning but he defers that discussion for a minute saying: “Let's now look at the implications of an infinite nothing containing an expanding universe, ignoring for now the actual creation. We will consider two possible problems, expansion and infinity.”
“1) Expansion. Can the universe be described as expanding? From our viewpoint within the universe, yes. From our 'perfect observer's' viewpoint in nothing, no. Why not? because a) as stated above our observer can have no knowledge of the universe, and b) what is it expanding in relation to? Nothing does not contain anything, other than the universe, so there is no possible way to determine either the size, or the expansion of the universe, as both can only be measured in relation to something else. Size or expansion are meaningless terms here. This would appear to suggest that from within the universe things are as they appear to be, but from the point of view of our perfect observer in nothing, the universe does not exist! Furthermore with the absence of time in nothing the fact that it contains an aging expanding universe is meaningless from the perspective of nothing. So far so good, our nothing is still intact, from the point of view of our infinite nothing- it still contains nothing! (The creation event, if it actually happened, still needs explaining however).”
“2) Infinity. We now have a picture of nothing as being an infinite void, containing an expanding universe that it has no knowledge of, but is it still infinite? We have not put any restrictions on nothing's 'size' it is still infinite, but it contains a universe so surely that puts restrictions on its 'completeness', nothing is 'barred' from the area containing the universe! I think we are still okay here, to contain the universe is within our definition, but as to whether or not we have somehow a little less infinity is open to question, but it does not contradict our definition. I can see no reason why an infinite nothing can not contain a finite universe. For a fuller argument on Infinity. See Can anything 'real' be infinite?”
“How is our new definition of nothing holding up? An infinite void, nothing else can exist except for the universe that is contained within it. I would suggest that so far its holding up pretty well. I have not been able to overturn it on the grounds of logical argument. It could exist providing that the Big Bang took place within it. However, there is still a major hurdle to overcome, what caused the Big Bang and how could it form out of nothing? Without introducing a mysterious source of energy into the equation, as a magician might pull a rabbit out of a hat, it simply can't be done, it's as simple as that. It's logically and scientifically impossible to produce something from nothing. I realise that in Quantum Mechanics? it is (arguably) possible but that is in an already existing universe, not in nothing. Having said it's impossible we are left with a paradox, it has happened, we ARE here. There are only three logical conclusion to be drawn from this, assuming of course that our definition of nothing is valid.”
Summarizing, 1) The universe did not come from nothing, it came from something.
2) We have to introduce a mysterious source of energy. I am forced to employ this highly undesirable tactic to make the creation of the universe possible. No matter how much I dislike the idea of using it I MUST, the unalterable truth is that we do exist, so the universe needed to be created out of nothing!
3) The universe did NOT have a creation event, it always existed.
In QWC I do not invoke the supernatural so I agree with #1, the universe did not come from nothing, it came from something. I reject #2, the creation of the universe from nothing on the basis that it implies a supernatural event. And I accept #3, “The universe did not have a creation event, it has always existed.
He offers this: “According to our definition of nothing as being timeless, then in order to contain the universe, the universe MUST have always existed within it. It is not possible for it to have been CREATED within it for that would require a moment in time. It is not a matter of convenience to suggest this idea, it is the way it simply has to be.”
He goes on: “If however you are uncomfortable with the concept of anything having always existed then I see no solution at all, because you will simply have to accept that at some point something came from nothing, and personally I find that prospect totally unacceptable. Either that or you have to conclude that the universe does not exist! …”
He does wrap up the model discussion with the three options of the shape of the universe and that if he were to stay within BBT what he would conclude. “Within the description of the Big Bang there are three main cosmological models. The open universe that will expand forever, the flat model that will come to a halt, or the closed model that will recollapse, possibly 'bouncing' back into another cycle of expansion. If the universe is closed it is possible that it will 'bounce' back cycle after cycle, forever. This idea of an eternal universe expanding and collapsing and re-expanding for ever is my preferred choice, but purely on aesthetic grounds. I realize of course that the arguments are still swinging back and forth as to which cosmological model is correct.”
But then he goes on to say what he really thinks: “ … to answer the original question 'Where did the universe come from?' I believe that it didn't come from anything, it always existed. To say that I am unhappy with this concept is an understatement, but I am stuck with it because at this time I am unable to think of a viable alternative.”
“Of course my suggestion is just a model, created for the purpose of argument and discussion only and I do not pretend for one minute that it is anything like the real thing, that, I am sure, will be much more surprising. It may be that it all exists just in our minds!”
QWC is constructed on the very basis that the universe exists and did not come from nothing, therefore it has always existed.