SammDickens
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 11:47 pm
@Serena phil,
Serena, I agree that something must have existed before our universe, but space and time could not have existed before the universe. Therefore, consider what might have existed before space and time. What manner of properties could that existence have? What manner of properties could it not have? I'm afraid you must eliminate the possibility of cycles, since those require time.

Samm
0 Replies
 
SammDickens
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 11:58 pm
@Serena phil,
No, Serena, you are absolutely right in arguing that something (that exists) cannot come from "nothing" (e..g., the absence of all existence). Whatever caused or explained the universe, the beginning of space and time, must have possessed as a property the ability or potential to cause or explain the universe--and "nothing" can have no such ability or potential. Therefore, something must have existed before the universe, something must have existed before either space or time existed.

We will find that this "something" must have existed not before time but rather as an initial condition from which both space and time could have their origin although neither space nor time would exist as a part of that initial condition.

Samm
0 Replies
 
SammDickens
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 12:05 am
@xris,
I most certainly can. There were no eyes to see. There was no light to be seen.
The initial condition from which the Big Bang expanded must be very much as you described it in your post above.

Samm
0 Replies
 
SammDickens
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 12:57 am
@hadad,
I think I have an answer, Hadad. Let us assume that something must always have existed (to explain that first singularity for example). But time and space only begin to exist with that singularity that is the universe. Therefore, whatever exists from which that singularity might have come, must exist outside of space and time. I propose that there exists an initial condition that is outside of space and time. We must call this initial condition Z=0 to indicate it exists before the first instant of time.

At the beginning of the Big Bang there is a change, which is the first instant of time, and leads to the singularity that is the first expansion of space from zero to one. We can now identify the singularity as Z=1 and the change from the initial condition to the singularity as the change/time T=1.

Now lets draw this out...
Z=0 >---(T=1)---> Z=1 >---(T=2...n)---> Z=2...n

Z=0 therefore exists before time (beginning at T=1) and space (beginning at Z=1). The properties of Z=0 cannot be properties of either space or time. It can have neither size nor shape, neither location nor motion, neither inside nor outside, etc. It can have no beginning nor end, nor may it ever change. Because it can have no beginning or end, it must either exist without possibility of non-existence or it must not exist without possibility of existence. Of course, if it didn't exist, I could not have written this nor could you read it; for we would not exist, our universe itself would not exist.

One property that Z=0 could and indeed must have is potential. It must have the potential of our entire universe, else the universe could not arise from it. In what manner that potential may exist I cannot say, but THAT it exists I am certain. What if we distribute all that potential across the "infinity" of space and time? Then we have a universe, do we not?

What do you think?

Mass and energy are equivalent, as per Einstein's equation, but mass--whatever that is--cannot be accelerated to light speed.

Samm
0 Replies
 
SammDickens
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 01:07 am
@salima,
The "Something" that is the initial condition of our universe contains all the potentials of the universe, but is not changed or diminished by the arising of the universe from its potentials. It is the universe that changes while the initial condition remains unchanged and unchangeable, undiminished and undiminishable. "Something" is outside of time and space and doesn't operate by the rules of time and space.

Samm
0 Replies
 
SammDickens
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 01:09 am
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

well, that's one explanation among many.

Hi, dizzy. Glad I'm not here alone.

Samm
0 Replies
 
manored
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 07:54 am
I think its important to remember that the concepts of space and time are important for our mind to understand things, and thus, while the origin of the singularity is not located in space nor time, that doesnt means we cant imagine a meta-space and a meta-time to situate it on.

Again, like the example of the computer simulation. What started the simulation is not included in neither the time nor the space of the simulation, but that does not mean they dont subscribe to their own space and time.
SammDickens
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2010 12:06 pm
@manored,
But any potential existence in a space-time framework, whether that of our universe or the space-time of something outside our universe is (1) distinct and unrelated to our universe, and (2) bound by the same principles of existence in our universe; that is, that existence must be distributed across space-time in a causal manner that allows each moment to arise from the potentials of the moment immediately previous to it.

Stating it more simply, as long as there is space and time, we must have some causal explanation the sequence of which can only extend back to the beginning of time and whatever initial condition from which time has proceeded. Therefore, we must always come back to some initial condition in which time does not exist but from which time may originate, a condition with no before but only an after.

This is similar to the edge of space which has an inside but no outside. Space is ever expanding and the edge is ever growing wider and wider, but only on the inside; for there is no outside into which space may expand.

SammDickens
manored
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2010 03:20 pm
@SammDickens,
That is true, the existance of a "meta-time" does not eliminate the fact that our time had a point of beggining.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2010 03:32 pm
Strictly speaking, the "Big Bang" is cosmogony, not cosmology.

You boys carry on, though.
north
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2010 07:52 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Strictly speaking, the "Big Bang" is cosmogony, not cosmology.

You boys carry on, though.


why ?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2010 09:13 pm
Cosmology is the study of the totality of the cosmos in time and space--so the "Big Bang" is a part of cosmology, but it is not cosmology itself. The "Big Bang" however, is cosmogony, which is the study of comic origins.
north
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2010 09:35 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Cosmology is the study of the totality of the cosmos in time and space--so the "Big Bang" is a part of cosmology, but it is not cosmology itself. The "Big Bang" however, is cosmogony, which is the study of comic origins.


true
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 12:28 pm

what always has been and will be, is plasmic energy and matter
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Big bang cosmology
  3. » Page 8
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/24/2019 at 03:54:15