[mikeh]

jdonn, on Feb 15 2009, 04:18 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 15 2009, 01:10 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Feb 15 2009, 11:07 AM, said:

1. the universe has always existed or
2. the universe has not always existed.

very well, let's take this one

I don't know why everyone is complaining about this question, it's just asking what people think with the understanding it's a total guess based on feelings and that no one has anything to back up their guess. I would say it has always existed.

He was right of course that your original post was not an 'or' type question. It's like asking am I good at bridge or bad at chess? Hmm, maybe both, maybe neither.

what does 'always' mean?

If time is a dimension, as it appears to be, and if reality comprises of 11 dimensions, of which 3 expanded spatially in the big bang and some 7 remain tightly constrained, I am not sure what happened to the dimension we call 'time' at the big bang.. nor whether it means anything to write the words 'before time began'... the very concept of 'before', in this context, refers to time.

My guess is that the concepts to which we refer in this thread are noises we can form with our speech organs, or words we can form with our keyboards, but that they don't relate to or describe anything that we can really grasp. But, having written this, I am not going to allow myself to be sucked into further comment on this thread.. (and the reference to being 'sucked in' is not a criticism of anyone: it refers to my tendency to get involved in futile discussions)

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Feb 15 2009, 01:10 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Feb 15 2009, 11:07 AM, said:

1. the universe has always existed or
2. the universe has not always existed.

very well, let's take this one

Before the big bang, no information is available. Fun to speculate about, maybe, but what does it really matter?

[jdonn]

mikeh, on Feb 15 2009, 05:22 PM, said:

what does 'always' mean?

I have no idea. So what?

PassedOut, on Feb 15 2009, 06:01 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 15 2009, 01:10 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Feb 15 2009, 11:07 AM, said:

1. the universe has always existed or
2. the universe has not always existed.

very well, let's take this one

Before the big bang, no information is available. Fun to speculate about, maybe, but what does it really matter?

Exactly. I'm having fun speculating even though it doesn't really matter, that's all.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Exactly. I'm having fun speculating even though it doesn't really matter, that's all

I had fun 'til daddy took the T-Bird away.

[babalu1997]

luke warm, on Feb 15 2009, 09:52 AM, said:

the universe had a cause, or

the universe has always existed

Beavis: Bridge is a game people played before there as Tv.

Butthead: there's always been tv, only now they have more channels.

[Elianna]

jdonn, on Feb 15 2009, 01:18 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 15 2009, 01:10 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Feb 15 2009, 11:07 AM, said:

1. the universe has always existed or
2. the universe has not always existed.

very well, let's take this one

I don't know why everyone is complaining about this question, it's just asking what people think with the understanding it's a total guess based on feelings and that no one has anything to back up their guess. I would say it has always existed.

He was right of course that your original post was not an 'or' type question. It's like asking am I good at bridge or bad at chess? Hmm, maybe both, maybe neither.

I understood it as a strangely worded 'or' type question. Helene basically already said it, but I think that "cause" was meant as "start", not "reason". Therefore, he's asking "did the universe have a beginning or did it always exist", which makes sense.

This is just my guess.

And so we're on the first page and we're having a debate about the meaning of the word "cause".

[jdonn]

Elianna, on Feb 16 2009, 02:15 AM, said:

And so we're on the first page and we're having a debate about the meaning of the word "cause".

Inevitable.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Feb 15 2009, 06:01 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 15 2009, 01:10 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Feb 15 2009, 11:07 AM, said:

1. the universe has always existed or
2. the universe has not always existed.

very well, let's take this one

Before the big bang, no information is available. Fun to speculate about, maybe, but what does it really matter?

it's a philosophical/logical question, more than anything else, but even people in other disciplines (hawking as an example) think on it

[kenberg]

luke warm, on Feb 16 2009, 06:14 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Feb 15 2009, 06:01 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 15 2009, 01:10 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Feb 15 2009, 11:07 AM, said:

1. the universe has always existed or
2. the universe has not always existed.

very well, let's take this one

Before the big bang, no information is available. Fun to speculate about, maybe, but what does it really matter?

it's a philosophical/logical question, more than anything else, but even people in other disciplines (hawking as an example) think on it

IN this revised formulation I take it to be a scientific question. Fifty some years ago when I first started reading about such things there were scientists, for example, George Gamow who thought the universe had begun with a big bang and others, for example Fred Hoyle who thought it had existed forever. Gamow's view was, I think, always the one with the strongest support but now, as I understand it, the big bang view is pretty much universally accepted, with the time being some 13 billion years. This time estimate has also changed over the years. That's the way with science.

There is a scientific way to interpret the (reformulated) question and a scientific way to come to agreement on the answer.

The original formulation asked if there was a cause. Whatever sense can be made out of that version of the question, it seems completely impossible to ever offer any evidence or argument to support any view. The discussion goes: There must have been a cause and so there is a God. No, there is no God and there was no cause. Oh yes there is. Oh no there isn't. My mother told me there is. Your mother is an idiot.
The arguments can be polite or not, sophisticated or not, but they will all end, or not end, without anyone changing his mind.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Feb 16 2009, 06:14 AM, said:

it's a philosophical/logical question, more than anything else, but even people in other disciplines (hawking as an example) think on it

No doubt someday physicists will work out a model or two that can explain the big bang, as it is indeed interesting. The question is one of physical reality, not of logic or philosophy.

My personal "worldview" accounts for the fact that many questions have not yet been answered and that some may never be answered. It can be fun to speculate about them and even daydream about them, as we all do, but speculation and daydreams are not answers.

[blackshoe]

kenberg, on Feb 16 2009, 08:20 AM, said:

as I understand it, the big bang view is pretty much universally accepted, with the time being some 13 billion years.

True. Although... if you listen to the little ditty at the beginning of the sitcom The Big Bang Theory you'll hear "nearly 14 million years ago...". If Sheldon, one of the characters on the show, a severely OCD theoretical physicist, heard that, he'd have a fit.

[helene_t]

kenberg, on Feb 16 2009, 02:20 PM, said:

Fifty some years ago when I first started reading about such things there were scientists, for example, George Gamow who thought the universe had begun with a big bang and others, for example Fred Hoyle who thought it had existed forever.

How can those two be alternative viewpoints, given, as Wackojack explains, that time began with the big bang? Was the question if the age of the universe is finite or infinite?

[kenberg]

helene_t, on Feb 16 2009, 10:38 AM, said:

kenberg, on Feb 16 2009, 02:20 PM, said:

Fifty some years ago when I first started reading about such things there were scientists, for example, George Gamow who thought the universe had begun with a big bang and others, for example Fred Hoyle who thought it had existed forever.

How can those two be alternative viewpoints, given, as Wackojack explains, that time began with the big bang? Was the question if the age of the universe is finite or infinite?

Yes, that's what I meant: Finite or infinite age. Hoyle's steady state envisioned a universe that was here x years ago where x is any number you like. Or so I understood it.


I suppose one could still try for some sort of framework where time before the Big Bang might be meaningful. For example, suppose we could see that eventually, in some number of years, there will be a Big Collapse. We could speculate that there is some sort of cyclic occurrence and number the cycles forwards and backwards. We could speak of, say, three and a half BCs ago, where a BC is the time from Bang to Collapse. I am NOT suggesting anyone spend time on this but I suppose that it is not completely out of the question that one could make some sense of such a statement. I don't know the current thinking about eventual collapse but that's a science issue. Whether a collapse would be followed by a new bang is somewhat more iffy as a scientific question it seems to me but perhaps something could be said. Running the experiment would be challenging.

I don't see that one can do much more than this, and even this is pushing the limits.

[mike777]

If this doesn't blow your socks off, then Hogan, who has just been appointed director of Fermilab's Center for Particle Astrophysics, has an even bigger shock in store: "If the GEO600 result is what I suspect it is, then we are all living in a giant cosmic hologram."

The idea that we live in a hologram probably sounds absurd, but it is a natural extension of our best understanding of black holes, and something with a pretty firm theoretical footing. It has also been surprisingly helpful for physicists wrestling with theories of how the universe works at its most fundamental level.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2012....html?full=true

[TimG]

helene_t, on Feb 16 2009, 10:38 AM, said:

kenberg, on Feb 16 2009, 02:20 PM, said:

Fifty some years ago when I first started reading about such things there were scientists, for example, George Gamow who thought the universe had begun with a big bang and others, for example Fred Hoyle who thought it had existed forever.

How can those two be alternative viewpoints, given, as Wackojack explains, that time began with the big bang? Was the question if the age of the universe is finite or infinite?

Can't "the age of the universe is finite" and "the universe existed before time began" both be true?

[helene_t]

"Before time began" lol.

[jdonn]

TimG, on Feb 16 2009, 11:34 AM, said:

helene_t, on Feb 16 2009, 10:38 AM, said:

kenberg, on Feb 16 2009, 02:20 PM, said:

Fifty some years ago when I first started reading about such things there were scientists, for example, George Gamow who thought the universe had begun with a big bang and others, for example Fred Hoyle who thought it had existed forever.

How can those two be alternative viewpoints, given, as Wackojack explains, that time began with the big bang? Was the question if the age of the universe is finite or infinite?

Can't "the age of the universe is finite" and "the universe existed before time began" both be true?

The second one can't be true or false, since it is meaningless.

[jdonn]

TimG, on Feb 16 2009, 11:34 AM, said:

helene_t, on Feb 16 2009, 10:38 AM, said:

kenberg, on Feb 16 2009, 02:20 PM, said:

Fifty some years ago when I first started reading about such things there were scientists, for example, George Gamow who thought the universe had begun with a big bang and others, for example Fred Hoyle who thought it had existed forever.

How can those two be alternative viewpoints, given, as Wackojack explains, that time began with the big bang? Was the question if the age of the universe is finite or infinite?

Can't "the age of the universe is finite" and "the universe existed before time began" both be true?

The second one can neither be true nor false, since it is meaningless. There's a sense in which the first is meaningless too, come to think of it.

[helene_t]

jdonn, on Feb 16 2009, 05:54 PM, said:

TimG, on Feb 16 2009, 11:34 AM, said:

[....]Can't "the age of the universe is finite" and "the universe existed before time began" both be true?

The second one can neither be true nor false, since it is meaningless. There's a sense in which the first is meaningless too, come to think of it.

In what sense is "the age of the universe is finite" meaningless?

I think it could be meaningless if one could choose to scale time such that it could be either finite or infinite, depending on the scaling. Intuitively, we think of our time scale as non-arbitrary (up to a multiplicative constant) but that is just because intuitively we require the physical constants to be, well, constant. As I understand it, some cosmological models involve changing physical constants. Which makes me wonder if we can choose which constants to allow to be non-constant and thereby which time-scale to use.

[jdonn]

helene_t, on Feb 16 2009, 12:05 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 16 2009, 05:54 PM, said:

TimG, on Feb 16 2009, 11:34 AM, said:

[....]Can't "the age of the universe is finite" and "the universe existed before time began" both be true?

The second one can neither be true nor false, since it is meaningless. There's a sense in which the first is meaningless too, come to think of it.

In what sense is "the age of the universe is finite" meaningless?

It involves accepting the idea of existence outside the universe. I think of the universe as the 'area' (for lack of a better word') inside which there is all existence. But I'm not saying that means the question must be meaningless, just that someone can reasonably think it is.

I'm quite sure I agree with your lol that something 'existing before time began' truly is meaningless.