The possibilities appear like a pack of cards, shuffle them and take just one, any one and that is the one, all are feasible, all are impossible.
All we know is it appeared from no where and by this we have this anomaly that we can measure its age but then have to say we cant say when it started. We cant say when it started because that admits it came from nothing and nothing can not exist...but it has age..:perplexed:
The universe can be different from what it is. Whatever facts about the universe, and it`s laws are concern could be different from what is in fact the case. There is nothing logically necessary about those facts.
The universe did not come out of "nothing". This "nothing" is filled with virtual particles coming in, and out of existence described by quantum mechanical laws.
There need not be an "age" to the universe. Our universe could be part of a mother universe which is eternal.
Surely these are all propositions not facts. If there was anything preceding this universe we have no evidence of it. This is what makes it so intriguing, there is no before, none that we know of.
There is nothing contradictory if our universe come from a mother universe that happens to be eternal. From our universe, it began at time=0( ie big bang), but at a non-zero time from the mother universe that spring our universe. There is no before time=0 for our universe, but there is "before" in the mother universe.
Well I would ask give me the proof ? tell me what makes you believe we had a mother universe and why is there no evidence of its existance.
Does that matter? It is regular practice in physics/scienc of postulating unobservable entities to explain observation. In this case, the observation is the big bang, and the unobservable entity is the mother universe. What you are asking is very naive.
Does it matter? I think it does. If you make a proposal that this universe was born from a mother universe , you should at least give me your reason why and what evidence you have. You should also be able to tell me why we have no evidence of this mother universe. Or is this a statement of blind faith?
If thats naive, then science in general,nay the whole of academia, is naive
The Big Bang was an explosion. An explosion is potential triggered.
Now, we know with the luxury of looking back that that potential was life, knowledge, material existence, etc.
The only thing that is a mystery is what set it off. My guess is that God saw a topless Godess in a G-string.
Did you not understand what i said? Let me say this one more time for you. It is common in science to postulate unobservable entities to explain observable observations. The observable observation in this case is the big bang, and the mother universe is the unobservable entities. The mother universe is an unobservable, so, there is no " direct evidence" for it. The technical name for this is "inference to the best explanation".
Yes, you are naive. From the looks of it, you have zero knowledge of philosophy of science. The naive view is that science is about "evidence". This is not entirely true. A lot of physics is postulation of unobservables to explain observation. There is no "direct evidence" for the unobservables.
From the look of your replies you are very arogant and very self deceptive. You may wish to believe what your ignorance demands but science needs more evidence. Unobserved , with no evidence , with only blind faith, is not scientific or philosophically valid.
There is nothing contentious about what i said. observables. unobservables. inference to the best explanations are all something you learn from philosophy of science. It is daily part of scientists to postulate entities to explain observation, but those entities need not be directly observable.
postulate all you please but with no foundation for your musing, its pure mambo jumbo. Just like your imagination of a god having to sperm a new universe, , no value and rather silly.