The origins of the universe

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Either 'at some point something came from nothing', or 'the universe has always existed'

Two imposssible ideas.

Generally the one youfind the most comfortuble with is the one you support, but how can we distinguish which one is better, if indeed one is?

Discuss.

xxx pq xxx

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 4,430 • Replies: 92

No top replies

Point one.

"Thingness" requires a "thinger" to set its boundaries. Unless like Berkeley you evoke "God" as an ultimate "thinger" then the existence of "the universe" depends on the existence of an ourselves as observers.

Point two

The concept of "time" is itself a psychological construct hence the meaning of "always existed" is an oxymoron unless WE have always existed.

Together these points imply that the question as put is meaningless but that such a conclusion requires a re-focussing of attention on the word "existence" with respect to the status of the observer.

0 Replies

More homework pq? I would toss a coin.

0 Replies

more freakin' dualism, will Plato never die?

0 Replies

I think the universe began when my father did a jelly-knee one Easter weekend.

I think that's what fresco means.

0 Replies

Re: The origins of the universe

The Pentacle Queen wrote:

Either 'at some point something came from nothing', or 'the universe has always existed'

Or, Time itself didn't exist before our local Universe. In which case the very concepts of "came from", and "always existed", are completely meaningless.

(Fresco points this out from a psychological perspective but I note it from within our realm of understanding: From a scientific perspective, Space-Time, as we currently understand it, did NOT exist before the Big Bang. Therefor, asking what happened before the BB is meaningless, as is asking questions which depend on the flow of time.)

0 Replies

Re: The origins of the universe

rosborne979 wrote:

Or, Time itself didn't exist before our local Universe. In which case the very concepts of "came from", and "always existed", are completely meaningless.

and would not the concept of "before" (our local Universe) also be meaningless? Laughing

0 Replies

Re: The origins of the universe

The Pentacle Queen wrote:

Either 'at some point something came from nothing', or 'the universe has always existed'

Two imposssible ideas.

Generally the one youfind the most comfortuble with is the one you support, but how can we distinguish which one is better, if indeed one is?

Discuss.

xxx pq xxx

Humm are you convinced that those are the only two options?

What if 'the universe' 'came' from somewhere else?

What if time itself isn't linear, but circular?

What if there are crazy mechanics of the universe we are still just to primitive to understand, and we are comparatively ants debating airplane mechanics?

What if 'the universe' is something entirely different from what our 5 evolved senses can tell us?

I don't see it so simply as big bang vs steady state...

0 Replies

Quote:

What if 'the universe' 'came' from somewhere else?

That means that the universe has always existed, but not in the same position relative to some sort of coordinate.

Quote:

What if time itself isn't linear, but circular?

That means that there is no such thing as the beginning nor the end, thus the universe has always existed.

Quote:

What if there are crazy mechanics of the universe we are still just to primitive to understand, and we are comparatively ants debating airplane mechanics?

What if there isn't?

Quote:

What if 'the universe' is something entirely different from what our 5 evolved senses can tell us?

What if the 'universe' is something entirely like what we sense?

What if... :wink:

0 Replies

Ray,

Dr S states a superior position.

Your negation of alternatives to "big bang" or "steady state" is opposed by evidence from physics which suggests that "negative time" and "multidimensionality" are already explanatory requirements for what we call "observation".

Although the current favoured model for "this universe" is generally conceived as "big bang", it would be naive to think of this as anything more than an "origin for the start of measurement". The point is that "measurement" is a cognitive activity involving "conceptualization" (nominal, ordinal, interval....) and that such activity is utimately bounded by our perceptual/neural apparatus.

As Heisenberg said "we do not observe the world - only the results of our actions on the world". The implication is that "the universe" is the union of "self + world" and there may be no vantage point from which to observe both.

0 Replies

How can we say that the universe is "entirely different" from what we sense without having an observer observe the universe?

What "is" the universe really like?

When we say that the universe always existed, it basically means that there is always something there, regardless of time, form, or position. That was my argument...

0 Replies

Good post, fresco. Damn.
I was gonna post something intelligent, but now I think I'll just mark, instead. Very interesting thread, so far.

0 Replies

Re: The origins of the universe

yitwail wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Or, Time itself didn't exist before our local Universe. In which case the very concepts of "came from", and "always existed", are completely meaningless.

and would not the concept of "before" (our local Universe) also be meaningless?

Yes, it would.

I'm not sure the human mind has the capacity for dealing with a framework in which time doesn't exist.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Although the current favoured model for "this universe" is generally conceived as "big bang", it would be naive to think of this as anything more than an "origin for the start of measurement". The point is that "measurement" is a cognitive activity involving "conceptualization" (nominal, ordinal, interval....) and that such activity is utimately bounded by our perceptual/neural apparatus.

As Heisenberg said "we do not observe the world - only the results of our actions on the world". The implication is that "the universe" is the union of "self + world" and there may be no vantage point from which to observe both.

I agree. Nice post.

0 Replies

What other options would there be? I know many are possible, but not all of the concievable.

0 Replies

a metaphysical answer, in the tradition of Heraclitus perhaps, is that it's always existed but is always in flux, and therefore continuously re-creates itself. Smile

0 Replies

Flux indeed.
Suggested reading "Dancing Wu Li Masters"

0 Replies

read it when i was a young fella, dys. at the subatomic level, there's all these virtual particles flashing in & out of existence like fireflies. Smile

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

read it when i was a young fella, dys. at the subatomic level, there's all these virtual particles flashing in & out of existence like fireflies.

and at the macro level there's all these people (self-aware beings) flashing in & out of existence like fireflies.

(don't ask me were I'm going with that... I don't know)

0 Replies

I wonder why we get hung up on the idea of "origin" or "creation". Is it more satisfying, really, to believe that there is some ultimate source? Or do we just have restless minds?
Right now, I'm thinking it's the "restless mind" syndrome. Whether we find an ultimate source or not, we are still left with some concept that we must accept as just being.
Where does "consciousness" come from? Would it be irrational to accept that it just "is"?

0 Replies

The origins of the universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know