Our universe began

[halfarock]

I may be going out on a limb here but after reading through the thread on the Kalam Cosmological argument, I found myself agreeing more and more with the Christian design side.

The Kalam argument fails because it treats infinities as finite entities. It is deceptively designed to make the concept of infinity appear absurd. It is a non-argument.

Still, we cannot escape the fact that our universe has progressed, evolved from some point in the past until now. During that time it has gone from a more dense state to a less dense state and the trend shows no sign of changing.

Also, we cannot escape the fact that our universe is not continuous but that ultimately it proceeds in discrete steps.

Thus our universe, as we know it, is not infinite either in time nor in division, and it began.

[HelpingHand]

Still, we cannot escape the fact that our universe has progressed, evolved from some point in the past until now. During that time it has gone from a more dense state to a less dense state and the trend shows no sign of changing.

Also, we cannot escape the fact that our universe is not continuous but that ultimately it proceeds in discrete steps.

Thus our universe, as we know it, is not infinite either in time nor in division, and it began.

I think almost everybody will agree with that,but this could prove, at most, that our universe is not the only thing that has ever existed, that indeed it could be part of something else. But what that "something" else might be or might look like is anybody's guess.

Greetings

Walter

[Sven]

Also, we cannot escape the fact that our universe is not continuous but that ultimately it proceeds in discrete steps.
Does it? :confused:

[Alf]

Also, we cannot escape the fact that our universe is not continuous but that ultimately it proceeds in discrete steps.
Does it? :confused:

He might be thinking of quantum steps. However, this is misunderstanding I guess.

Quanties are quantisized as a result of being limited. If you put a hard "wall" on both sides of where a particle can move, then it can only appear at certain spots within that "well". However, the quantas are a result of the limits, move those walls further and further apart and the number of possible positions comes closer and closer to each other approaching continuity.

So - if you do assume that the universe is infinite it is also continuous. If you assume the universe is finite there may be a smallest step and things can only be in discrete positions and never between those positions.

It is also kinda pointless to argue either way though, once the step size is smaller than the uncertainty provided by HUP it doesn't make much difference.

Alf

[SophistiCat]

Still, we cannot escape the fact that our universe has progressed, evolved from some point in the past until now. During that time it has gone from a more dense state to a less dense state and the trend shows no sign of changing.

The universe has changed. OK. I can't see how this can have any bearing on the question of whether the universe had a beginning.

Also, we cannot escape the fact that our universe is not continuous but that ultimately it proceeds in discrete steps.

Huh? Says who?

Thus our universe, as we know it, is not infinite either in time nor in division, and it began.

The last conclusion doesn't follow even if bother premises are accepted.

[Iacchus]

I think almost everybody will agree with that,but this could prove, at most, that our universe is not the only thing that has ever existed, that indeed it could be part of something else. But what that "something" else might be or might look like is anybody's guess.Anybody's guess? You make it sound as if it's "nobody's" guess or, that nobody has guessed it so far.

[ModernHeretic]

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't the standard inflationary theory of the Big Bang as well as some of the more contemporary cyclic universe theories posit that the Universe began? I don't think the physicists are saying that the Universe is eternal, I think they're saying that the energy of which the Universe is made is eternal (i.e. the "stuff" of the Universe).

So, even if the Universe had a beginning, I don't see how that would qualify as evidence for a God.

[wiploc]

Still, we cannot escape the fact that our universe has progressed, evolved from some point in the past until now. During that time it has gone from a more dense state to a less dense state and the trend shows no sign of changing.


If you look at a half burnt cigarette, you may age the universe at a few minutes. If you look at a half-ebbed tide, you may age the universe at a few hours. And if you look at the time since the big bang, you may age the universe at a few billion years. In each case, there is the question of whether that's really all there is to the universe.

Plus there's the ambiguousness of the word "universe." When you say that "our universe" has progressed, you seem to be suggesting that "our universe" is just part of the whole universe, and that "our universe" is progressing even if the whole universe isn't. The KCA hangs entirely on this confusion. The KCA makes the point that part of the universe began, and then purports to conclude that therefore the whole thing must have begun.




Thus our universe, as we know it, is not infinite either in time nor in division, and it began.


How do you figure? If I can see only a mile of highway, am I justified in saying, "This highway, as I know it, is only a mile long"? That statement trades on the confusion between two meanings. It can mean that the part of the highway that I know is only a mile long, which is true. Or it can mean that I know that the highway is only a mile long, which is false. The KCA does exactly that, making true statements, and then acting like the words meant something else, something untrue.

crc

[Iacchus]

So, even if the Universe had a beginning, I don't see how that would qualify as evidence for a God.Unless of course God "were" energy.

[ThorsHammer]

So, even if the Universe had a beginning, I don't see how that would qualify as evidence for a God.Unless of course God "were" energy.

Then why do you need to call IT god?

[DNAReplicator]

I found myself agreeing more and more with the Christian design side. (empahsis added)

....our universe, as we know it, is not infinite either in time nor in division, and it began.

OK - The universe may well not be infinite in time (although what you mean by not infinite in division is unclear, but if you mean you cannot keep cutting things in half to make smaller things then OK). And I agree, it appears to have begun around about 13.7 billion years ago.

So..... how is this evidence of design?

[HelpingHand]

I think almost everybody will agree with that,but this could prove, at most, that our universe is not the only thing that has ever existed, that indeed it could be part of something else. But what that "something" else might be or might look like is anybody's guess.Anybody's guess? You make it sound as if it's "nobody's" guess or, that nobody has guessed it so far.

With "anybody's guess", I mean that the only thing anybody can do is guess. And I do know that a whole lot of people have guessed so far,both theists and atheists by the way. What I do not know, however, is whether any of the guesses is right, and I think at this moment, nobody does.

As I said in the other thread, though, as far as I'm concerned, everybody may guess or speculate as much as he wants. But if you say you can prove something, you should prove it.

Greetings


Walter

[show_no_mercy]

How do you figure? If I can see only a mile of highway, am I justified in saying, "This highway, as I know it, is only a mile long"? That statement trades on the confusion between two meanings. It can mean that the part of the highway that I know is only a mile long, which is true. Or it can mean that I know that the highway is only a mile long, which is false. The KCA does exactly that, making true statements, and then acting like the words meant something else, something untrue.

crc

I kinda like the highway analogy. If you look down a highway, you can only see part of it until it converges into a singularity. It's pretty much the same thing with the Big Bang. We can only see up until general relativity predicts the singularity. This doesn't mean that the Universe began at this singularity, we just can't see past it.

[cognac]

I kinda like the highway analogy. If you look down a highway, you can only see part of it until it converges into a singularity. It's pretty much the same thing with the Big Bang. We can only see up until general relativity predicts the singularity. This doesn't mean that the Universe began at this singularity, we just can't see past it.

I thought we could only "see" back as far as the CMB, which in my understanding post dates the BB by about 300,000 years.

[show_no_mercy]

I kinda like the highway analogy. If you look down a highway, you can only see part of it until it converges into a singularity. It's pretty much the same thing with the Big Bang. We can only see up until general relativity predicts the singularity. This doesn't mean that the Universe began at this singularity, we just can't see past it.

I thought we could only "see" back as far as the CMB, which in my understanding post dates the BB by about 300,000 years.

From what I learned in my astonomy class about 2 years ago, we can see up to 10^-43 seconds after the BB, the point where GR breaks down and QM takes effect - which is why we need a Quantum Theory of Gravity (and gravitons!).

[cognac]

I thought we could only "see" back as far as the CMB, which in my understanding post dates the BB by about 300,000 years.

From what I learned in my astonomy class about 2 years ago, we can see up to 10^-43 seconds after the BB, the point where GR breaks down and QM takes effect - which is why we need a Quantum Theory of Gravity (and gravitons!).

Note that I put "see" in quotes.

[Iacchus]

Unless of course God "were" energy.Then why do you need to call IT god?I certainly would if IT were intelligent. One thing to ask, I think, would be if engery gives rise to structure? For example, are we human because of the way energy arranges itself? Or, are we human because of the way matter arranges itself? Obviously, it is much easier to study the way matter is arranged, because we are looking at the "tangible" results or the effects but, where does matter get its cue?

Of course if eneregy is what gave rise to the Big Bang, then all the structure necessary to pull it off, hence the information and whatnot, was already an inherent part of energy. Whereas once the switch has been "tripped" or whatever, why shouldn't energy continue to guide "all processes" beyond the Big Bang? In other words, did the energy "influx" stop at the Big Bang or, is this infinite amount of energy still there -- with all its "possibilities" -- guiding everything that we see before us?

[Amedeo]

I may be going out on a limb here but after reading through the thread on the Kalam Cosmological argument, I found myself agreeing more and more with the Christian design side.

The Kalam argument fails because it treats infinities as finite entities. It is deceptively designed to make the concept of infinity appear absurd. It is a non-argument.

Still, we cannot escape the fact that our universe has progressed, evolved from some point in the past until now. During that time it has gone from a more dense state to a less dense state and the trend shows no sign of changing.

Also, we cannot escape the fact that our universe is not continuous but that ultimately it proceeds in discrete steps.

Thus our universe, as we know it, is not infinite either in time nor in division, and it began.


You SAID, "Our universe began." What you said did not exist before you uttered it, I began when you started uttering it.

Your sentence is meaningfully or intelligently structured; it is not a bunch of meaningless sounds. The intelliegent structure was actualized in the process of your uttering. This means that your uttering was intelligently progessing.

So, we can speak of an intelligent or rational sentences (once it is fully out), and of an intelligent process (the uttering). Did you design the uttering? That is, did you have a plan or design in minds which you actualized a bit by bit?

Perhaps you did; that is, you formulated this sentence, "our universe began" and then you started uttering it or writing it. Well then, you were not born with that sentence in mind. It began to exist. Did you produce/invent it in your mind according to a design??? That would mens that you had to have the sentence in mindin order to produce it. And you could not choose to produce it, since, since you did not have the sentence in mind. In plain words, it is logically impossible to produce a design by a design that does not exist.

As you personally (as a conscious willing thing) are not the maker or creator of the mental sentence. The you that produces sounds, that moves arms and legs, also feels pain and heat, sees, hears sound, and thinks. Your cerebral center that empoers and coordinates the organs of the body is that agent of rational/intelligent operations. It is the same agent that forms intelligent sentences. You know those sentences upon their being formed, which means that the forming process is or can be a conscious forming process, just as others understand your sentence on the process of its being heard or read.

What exists exists intelligently. There is no such a real rrose which is also a non-rose. There is no such a thing as a living organism whose parts are not intelligently coordinated. there is no such a thing as a sentence whose parts are not meaningully put together,.

Time and Rationality are of the essence of what exists.

[Iacchus]

You SAID, "Our universe began." What you said did not exist before you uttered it, I began when you started uttering it.

Your sentence is meaningfully or intelligently structured; it is not a bunch of meaningless sounds. The intelliegent structure was actualized in the process of your uttering. This means that your uttering was intelligently progessing.It was formulated before it was uttered. This is what makes it intelligible.

[Alf]

How do you figure? If I can see only a mile of highway, am I justified in saying, "This highway, as I know it, is only a mile long"? That statement trades on the confusion between two meanings. It can mean that the part of the highway that I know is only a mile long, which is true. Or it can mean that I know that the highway is only a mile long, which is false. The KCA does exactly that, making true statements, and then acting like the words meant something else, something untrue.

crc

I kinda like the highway analogy. If you look down a highway, you can only see part of it until it converges into a singularity. It's pretty much the same thing with the Big Bang. We can only see up until general relativity predicts the singularity. This doesn't mean that the Universe began at this singularity, we just can't see past it.

Also, you should keep in mind here that taking it all the way TO the singulary is going beyond the domain where relativity applies. QM comes into effect as you appraoch that singulary and it will essentially nullify any actual singularity. There is no division by 0 anywhere as you approach that singularity. HUP comes into play long before the actual 0 obtains.

It is ditto for black holes. Relativity predicts them to have infinite density. Yet it is not hard to see that as the volume decreases you approaches quantum distances and so QM comes into play and relativistic effects either diminishes or at least have to take quantum effects into consideration. The relativity that predicts an actual singularity (division by 0) is one that completely ignores quantum effects and that is a bad idea. The short story is that when physicists today talk about "singularity" near big bang they do not mean an actual singularity, they just mean "very high density" as opposed to "infinite density" and they mean "a very small volume" as opposed to "0 volume".

Keep that in mind when you talk about relativity and big bang.

Alf

[Alf]

Then why do you need to call IT god?I certainly would if IT were intelligent. One thing to ask, I think, would be if engery gives rise to structure? For example, are we human because of the way energy arranges itself? Or, are we human because of the way matter arranges itself? Obviously, it is much easier to study the way matter is arranged, because we are looking at the "tangible" results or the effects but, where does matter get its cue?

Of course if eneregy is what gave rise to the Big Bang, then all the structure necessary to pull it off, hence the information and whatnot, was already an inherent part of energy. Whereas once the switch has been "tripped" or whatever, why shouldn't energy continue to guide "all processes" beyond the Big Bang? In other words, did the energy "influx" stop at the Big Bang or, is this infinite amount of energy still there -- with all its "possibilities" -- guiding everything that we see before us?

At the level we are talking here the difference between matter and energy is not that great. Indeed, matter is simply a FORM of energy. Energy comes in many flavors - heat, electricity, matter, etc.

Alf

[Iacchus]

At the level we are talking here the difference between matter and energy is not that great. Indeed, matter is simply a FORM of energy. Energy comes in many flavors - heat, electricity, matter, etc.

AlfSo, what form of energy existed prior to the Big Bang?

[charley63]

I have long had an intuition that even if our universe was finite, it was part of an infinite expanse which contained multiple (possibly an infinite number of) universes. I am not talking about other dimensions or parallel universes, but about universes that are in the same physical continuum as ours, but physically outside the gravitational field that unifies our universe.

So far, I've found one astronomer who seems to think this is mathematically sound, Max Tegmark in this article http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0302/0302131v1.pdf .

If, in fact, our universe is only one of a practically uncountable set of relatively similar universes, then no intelligent cause of their existence is necessary, since the process of universe generation can be random and yet still yield a significant number of universes that support life, but that number is likely very small compared to the infinite (or near-infinite) number of universes this infinite expanse can generate.

peace! Charley

[RAFH]

At the level we are talking here the difference between matter and energy is not that great. Indeed, matter is simply a FORM of energy. Energy comes in many flavors - heat, electricity, matter, etc.

AlfSo, what form of energy existed prior to the Big Bang?

Don't know.

It is likely the event was so violent no usable information survived. Everything was stripped to simple energy of a very basic nature, at a very high temperature and in a very small volume if those terms can even apply.

We will let you know when something comes up.

Maybe as soon as a couple of weeks. LHC is still on schedule as far as I know.

[Iacchus]

Don't know.

It is likely the event was so violent no usable information survived. Everything was stripped to simple energy of a very basic nature, at a very high temperature and in a very small volume if those terms can even apply.

We will let you know when something comes up.

Maybe as soon as a couple of weeks. LHC is still on schedule as far as I know.My guess is that it still exists in the same form now as it did back then. It's just that we have something additional (an entire Universe, that is) to add to the mix.