Existence

[Undesired Walrus]

Consider that the model of the cosmos one day matches up with Hawkings' thoughts on the topic:

The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without a boundary...has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe.... So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end. What place, then, for a creator?

Would this realisation put into serious doubt the question 'Why anything?'?

Our notions of a 'nothing' will be shattered, as there would be no 'something', nor no 'nothing', it would simply be. 'No something' -as in the present day- would be an idea lacking a definition.

[triadboy]

Our notions of a 'nothing' will be shattered, as there would be no 'something', nor no 'nothing', it would simply be. 'No something' -as in the present day- would be an idea lacking a definition.

What about Billy Ray Cyrus?

[Chris Connelly]

Logically, the universe had to have a beginning. If it did not, an infinite amount of time would have had to pass for us to arrive at the present, which is, of course, impossible. That being said, the universe could have no end, but even so, only a finite amount of time would have passed since the beginning at any given point on the timeline.

[Beerina]

Why anything suggests there was a time when there was nothing, and bam! Something started be-ing.


Another possibility is that there was something all along, and that all that's happened are transformations of it in one way or another. The question "well, why does that exist then", would technically be nonsensical. Why would a state of absolute nothingness be the "standard" from which we must start?

[triadboy]

Logically, the universe had to have a beginning. If it did not, an infinite amount of time would have had to pass for us to arrive at the present, which is, of course, impossible.

A universe that constantly contracts and expands could go on forever.

That being said, the universe could have no end, but even so, only a finite amount of time would have passed since the beginning at any given point on the timeline.

You could be wrong here - space/time acts differently at the singularity.

[Chris Connelly]

Triadboy,

I'm not quite sure I understand your post. My main point was that the universe had to have a beginning - having an end or not is not relevant to the creation discussed in the original post. An expanding and contracting universe could be endless, but would have to begin at some time. What do you mean by "space/time acts differently at the singularity?" Would the contraction/expansion somehow affect the timeline?

[Theophage]

Logically, the universe had to have a beginning. If it did not, an infinite amount of time would have had to pass for us to arrive at the present, which is, of course, impossible. That being said, the universe could have no end, but even so, only a finite amount of time would have passed since the beginning at any given point on the timeline.

False. The universe could be a closed causal loop, of the form A->B, B->C, C->A. Don't fall into the trap of the false dichotomy.

I personally have no problem with an atheistic uncaused cause, but then that's just me. As for Hawking, he does not believe in a beginning or an infinite amount of time, though I'm not sure if what he means by a "closed surface without a boundary" is the same as the closed causal loop that I mentioned above.

[Theophage]

Why anything suggests there was a time when there was nothing, and bam! Something started be-ing.


Another possibility is that there was something all along, and that all that's happened are transformations of it in one way or another. The question "well, why does that exist then", would technically be nonsensical. Why would a state of absolute nothingness be the "standard" from which we must start?

I completely agree with you here. I believe the universe began a finite time ago, but I do not believe that there was "nothing" at any point in time. "Something" has always (at every point in time) existed. I would further go on to say that "nothing" cannot exist...

[Civilized Worm]

Isn't the whole point of nothing that it doesn't exist? :confused:

[Theophage]

I certainly can't find any nothing... :D

[triadboy]

Triadboy,

I'm not quite sure I understand your post. My main point was that the universe had to have a beginning...

It doesn't need a beginnning. An eternal contracting and expanding bubble doesn't 'begin'.

What do you mean by "space/time acts differently at the singularity?" Would the contraction/expansion somehow affect the timeline?


YES! :-D There is no "time" at the singularity. And no space.

[Undesired Walrus]

But even if there is no cosmological loop (A>B B>C C>A), that cannot grant the notion that there is such a thing as a 'nothing'. Even though the Universe appears to be expanding forever, and this Universe is all there is, the phrase 'a beginning' or a phrase 'the end' is invalid. It simply is. We still fail to define 'nothing'.

[nexalacer]

Nothing is easy to define. Start with defining existence:

Something "exists" when it is measurable as matter, energy, or an effect of those (e.g. gravity).

Nothing is that which doesn't exist, or that which is not measurable.

Or, simply, -"exist."

[westprog]

Consider that the model of the cosmos one day matches up with Hawkings' thoughts on the topic:



Would this realisation put into serious doubt the question 'Why anything?'?

Our notions of a 'nothing' will be shattered, as there would be no 'something', nor no 'nothing', it would simply be. 'No something' -as in the present day- would be an idea lacking a definition.

Either the question "why anything" is one that interests you, or it isn't. I doubt if anyone will be swayed by Hawkings' hypothetical closed loop universe. It doesn't remove or add the need for a creator. If you didn't need one before, you won't need one for a closed loop universe, and vice versa.

[Undesired Walrus]

Nothing is that which doesn't exist, or that which is not measurable.


Yet by describing it as 'that', it is still a something.

[Mark Felt]

Yet by describing it as 'that', it is still a something.

No, it's just demonstrating the inadequacies of language, that came about to better be able to communicate the location of the good berries.

[logical muse]

Isn't the whole point of nothing that it doesn't exist? :confused:

No, it's real enough.

Here, let me quote:

Nothing is real.
That's from The Beatles.

[quarky]

Nothingness will be easier to imagine when we're gone.

[CurtC]

My main point was that the universe had to have a beginning - having an end or not is not relevant to the creation discussed in the original post.
So you're saying that there had to be a beginning of time, but not necessarily and end to time? Wouldn't whatever argument you use to show that time must have a beginning, apply equally to show that it must have an end?

And I don't buy your argument anyway. Here's what you said:If it did not, an infinite amount of time would have had to pass for us to arrive at the present, which is, of course, impossible.If an infinite amount of time would have had to pass, my question is "since when?" You're assuming a beginning to time, and showing that this beginning couldn't have happened an infinite amount of time ago. Sure, but you have not ruled out the very core of the infinite-time idea: that time had no beginning.

Maybe it will help to apply the same argument to spatial dimensions. Saying "space can't be infinite because if it were, there would be an infinite distance between us and its edge." That doesn't make any more sense than your statement about time. The very idea is that IF space is infinite, it has no edge.

[Chris Connelly]

Curt,

The argument I am making is that time must have had a beginning, but not an end. The logic by which I reach the conclusion that time began in the past does not necessarily imply that it will end in the future.

The comparison you make between time and space is inaccurate. A better comparison would be trying to imagine how long it would take to travel from the "edge" of space to your present location. If space is infinite, this would be impossible no matter how fast or how long you traveled. We know, however, that we have traveled through time to arrive at the present. Just as you could never arrive at your present location traveling from the "edge" of infinite space, you could never arrive at the present time unless time had a beginning.

[Undesired Walrus]

If space is infinite, this would be impossible no matter how fast or how long you traveled. We know, however, that we have traveled through time to arrive at the present. Just as you could never arrive at your present location traveling from the "edge" of infinite space, you could never arrive at the present time unless time had a beginning.

Interesting thoughts. However, Is this not through seeing 'infinite' in a linear setting? If the universe turns out to be A>B B>C C>A, there is surely neither beginning nor end. You therefore cannot start from the "edge" of the infinite, as there is none.

[CurtC]

Just as you could never arrive at your present location traveling from the "edge" of infinite space, you could never arrive at the present time unless time had a beginning.

I still think your idea of time infinitely long ago, is that you're starting with the premise there was a beginning ("edge"), just that it was infinitely long ago, and then figuring that nothing could get from there to here. That seems like a logical tautology - your premise is that it had a beginning, and then you conclude that it had a beginning.

But infinite-time doesn't say that, it simply says there was NO beginning.

[Chris Connelly]

Undesired Walrus,

What you said about not being able to start from the "edge" of the infinite was exactly my point. In order to get anywhere, in space or time, you need a starting point. That is why I have come to the conclusion that time had to have a beginning. A cycle of A>B>C>A... could go on endlessly, but something outside the cycle had to set it into motion to avoid the problem of infinite regression.

Curt,

I still think that infinite-time is impossible. It would require an infinite amount of time to have passed in order to arrive at the present. It's like trying to jump out of a bottomless pit - you would never get anywhere without a bottom (space) or a beginning (time).

[Undesired Walrus]

Undesired Walrus,

What you said about not being able to start from the "edge" of the infinite was exactly my point. In order to get anywhere, in space or time, you need a starting point. That is why I have come to the conclusion that time had to have a beginning. A cycle of A>B>C>A... could go on endlessly, but something outside the cycle had to set it into motion to avoid the problem of infinite regression.

But each hypothetical "universe" does have a starting point. Universe A has one, as does Universe B, then C, then A. Then the loop starts again.

[Dr. Trintignant]

I think you just need to look at logical muse's avatar for the answer. It is a tiny universe with its own rules and physical laws. It is bounded in space and time, but also cyclic and in that sense infinite. It most certainly had a creator, but it's impossible to tell what the beginning was--it could be any point in its cycle, or even a completely different universe that evolved into that state. Why couldn't our own universe be the same at a grander scale?

I don't think for a minute that this line of argument implies a god, but I also don't think Hawking's argument is valid.

- Dr. Trintignant

[Beerina]

False. The universe could be a closed causal loop, of the form A->B, B->C, C->A. Don't fall into the trap of the false dichotomy.

I personally have no problem with an atheistic uncaused cause, but then that's just me. As for Hawking, he does not believe in a beginning or an infinite amount of time, though I'm not sure if what he means by a "closed surface without a boundary" is the same as the closed causal loop that I mentioned above.

Hawking himself also suggested the time axis of the 4-D space-time continuum could rotate around into a physical dimension as you approach T=0 going backwards. Hence there could really be a first second, so to speak.

[Theophage]

Heh, "first second" :)

[Robin]

Hawking himself also suggested the time axis of the 4-D space-time continuum could rotate around into a physical dimension as you approach T=0 going backwards. Hence there could really be a first second, so to speak.
Didn't he abandon this idea?

Maybe it is a question for the Science and Mathematics forum.