Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?

[SimpleGuy]

In fact many causes concerning the distribution of masses according to astronomy as well as the dynamics of general relativity hold it for a good perspective to think about a beginning : " The big bang". However if this was the case , the case that the universe ceases to exist as a cause of a global collapse is possible too. This is has an implication for the big Question ever imposed: "The reason for life and living". If it had a beginning, then it is possible that it has an ending. This implies that life itself could have never have a reason a sequential proceeded postulate, but that life itself can be only asserted a local time dependent reason to exist.

[Thinking critical]

1) That doesn't seem like a reasoned response. Clearly even if not the same (I only said it was "like" in the first place) there are similarities, so deeming it not remotely the same is disingenuous.

You are creating a strawman argument, you are insinuating that I am claiming to have possession of $100.00 (a complete picture of the Universe) however only providing $99.00 (99% of knowledge) an then arguing that $99.00 is as good as $100.00.
This is not the case nor even remotely close.
I am simply saying, that based on the data there is overwhelming evidence that suggests the Universe has a beginning/origin. To carry on with your example/analogy the $100.00 represents a complete theory of the Universe, my statement pointed out the fact that we have discovered $99.00 of the $100.00 and we only have $1.00 to go.

2) What did I say that made you think that the race represented anything other than the entire universe? I mean, that is what we're talking about.

I didn't think that?

Also, nothing I said would warrant you requesting a metaphysical cause from me.

I was simply asking the question]

If I refute YOUR ABILITY TO PROVE A BEGINNING, if anything, you could assume I am denying a cause altogether. That said, I'm really just refuting your knowing of one, not making my own case so defend yourself but don't switch the burden of proof. You got 99 dollars, I want to see the the 100th.

There is a difference between proving the Universe has a beginning and explaining how it may have begun. Just as our understanding of biology and evolution points to an origin of life, just because we can't explain it, it doesn't mean that life never began.
The BBT provides definitive evidence which is consistent with a finite Universe, from expansion, the observations of the formation of galaxies, the CMB to the ability to calculate the age of distant galaxies.

Now, in your last point.."Any attempt to postulate a coherent hypothesis in regards to the origins question, must align with the data which has taken our knowledge back thus far. So yes, prior to the existence of Spacetime there was nothing" Why do you assume that once you reach the limits of your knowledge, anything beyond it is non existent/"there was nothing"?

I have made no such assumption, the OP suggests an infinite Universe, I have stated that this idea is contrary to the evidence which suggests our Universe came into existence almost 14 billion years ago. I have not concluded that any state that lays beyond the scope of our current knowledge is non existent, I have advocated that based on the current understanding of physics, the Universe is not eternal therefore has a beginning. If everything than can possibly exist is contained within the Universe, then it makes no sense to ask what could have existed before it.
Now of course, we can hypothesis the various possibilities of multiverses, a cycle of bangs and crunches or even a quantum abnomaly caused by the warping of spacetime causing a series of mini bangs before successfully getting the right recipie for this Universe....there are multiple possibilities. However the fact remains, all evidence points to a finite Universe, the fact that the model is not complete does not give credence to the possibility that other models are just as likely to be be true.

Off topic: "This cocky little cognitive contortionist will straighten you right out" << douche chills.

I'm sorry...douche chills? what is it exactly that you are trying to say?

[mr533473]

You are creating a strawman argument, you are insinuating that I am claiming to have possession of $100.00 (a complete picture of the Universe) however only providing $99.00 (99% of knowledge) an then arguing that $99.00 is as good as $100.00.
This is not the case nor even remotely close.
I am simply saying, that based on the data there is overwhelming evidence that suggests the Universe has a beginning/origin. To carry on with your example/analogy the $100.00 represents a complete theory of the Universe, my statement pointed out the fact that we have discovered $99.00 of the $100.00 and we only have $1.00 to go.

"we only have $1.00 to go"... before you can make the claim "Our Universe has a beginning". What might happen is you (using "you" loosely) find more than the $1 you anticipated finding and have to re-think the $100 (the entire universe) or is that not possible? I only ask because you didn't say it's highly likely or probable that our universe has a beginning, you said "Our Universe has a beginning" and that ought to be prefaced by something like "I believe" unless of course you know it.

I didn't think that?

I may have misinterpreted when you said "one more specific to the problem would be as follows; If the race track represented the entire Universe.." I read it as saying the race track representing the entire universe was something new you were adding, you may have just confirmed this aspect and added the rest. My bad.

I was simply asking the question[/quote]

You said, "what exists before the start line? There would of course be no logically valid answer. Unless of course you are inclined to present a metaphysical cause, if so, please enlighten me." This is not "simply asking a question", it insinuates that unless I can give you a logically valid answer, there isn't one. This is not true and to be fair if there is something before the "start line" (beginning) then it's possible there be no "start line" (beginning), at least the idea of one would be pushed back beyond your final dollar.

There is a difference between proving the Universe has a beginning and explaining how it may have begun.

Exactly, just as there is a difference between saying "Our Universe has a beginning" which would fit the former (not the case) and "Our Universe may have a beginning" which fits the latter (is the case). You said the first option and while we have a lot of words here, this really is the crux of it.

I have not concluded that any state that lays beyond the scope of our current knowledge is non existent

but you said

So yes, prior to the existence of Spacetime there was nothing, matter has mass which equates to energy and requires space to exist, thermodynamics means etropy is enevidable creating change and the arrow of time. So, the only state that could have existed is one of zero energy OR nothing.

which seems an awful lot like you did conclude that which you say you didn't. If spacetime, matter, energy, thermodynamics etc. are the scope of our knowledge, it's exactly what you concluded.

Now of course, we can hypothesis the various possibilities of multiverses, a cycle of bangs and crunches or even a quantum abnomaly caused by the warping of spacetime causing a series of mini bangs before successfully getting the right recipie for this Universe....there are multiple possibilities. However the fact remains, all evidence points to a finite Universe, the fact that the model is not complete does not give credence to the possibility that other models are just as likely to be be true.

No problems here although the "fact that the model is not complete" was never said to "give credence to the possibility that other models are just as likely to be be true" Either this bit is for someone else or you have mistaken this as a point I've made.

Off topic: "This cocky little cognitive contortionist will straighten you right out" << douche chills.

I'm sorry...douche chills? what is it exactly that you are trying to say?
[/quote]

Oh here, you know when someone does or says something that makes you cringe and feel embarrassed for them? It might not have the same effect on everyone but when I read that it was like biting into a lemon. I mean, the alliteration and hubris, I found really gross. I feel awful saying this but no more awful than when I read that. Haha, You seem like you're mature and clever enough not to care anyway, hopefully you don't take offense, rather find it amusing that someone might have such a strong reaction to something so trivial. Still, if you ask me if you should keep it.... nahhhguess it's up to you.

[Thinking critical]

"we only have $1.00 to go"... before you can make the claim "Our Universe has a beginning". What might happen is you (using "you" loosely) find more than the $1 you anticipated finding and have to re-think the $100 (the entire universe) or is that not possible? I only ask because you didn't say it's highly likely or probable that our universe has a beginning, you said "Our Universe has a beginning" and that ought to be prefaced by something like "I believe" unless of course you know it.

Well now this becomes an epistemological problem, in the sense of a justified true belief then yes science has accumulated knowledge that the universe is finite and had a beginning.

You said, "what exists before the start line? There would of course be no logically valid answer. Unless of course you are inclined to present a metaphysical cause, if so, please enlighten me." This is not "simply asking a question", it insinuates that unless I can give you a logically valid answer, there isn't one. This is not true and to be fair if there is something before the "start line" (beginning) then it's possible there be no "start line" (beginning), at least the idea of one would be pushed back beyond your final dollar.

Until there is evidence to support an infinite Universe and evidence debunking the finite model I will continue to support the BB model, meaning the Universe has an origin and there was no before the Universe.
The other point that needs to be made clear is that if an unknown infinite state (multiverse) exists it doesn't change the argument I am making.....our Univese is finite. Of course this seemingly raises another problem, the Multiverse must naturally exist before the Universe did. However before is the wrong language to be using, to say something existed prior to the existence of time is to say time existed before time, therefore creating a paradox making the statement logically false. If another state or system exists outside of this Universe, it cannot also exist prior to this universe because time is a measurement of change (entropy) governed the fundamental laws of physics within this Universe. An external state or system (if one exists) by definition exists independently from this one, it does not exist in a different place and time. Place(up, down, side to side e.c.t) and points in time (future, past, present) are dimensions of Spacetime which are innate properties of this Universe, so unless time can exist independent of itself, I will say it again "nothing existed before the universe existed".

I have not concluded that any state that lays beyond the scope of our current knowledge is non existent

but you said

So yes, prior to the existence of Spacetime there was nothing, matter has mass which equates to energy and requires space to exist, thermodynamics means etropy is enevidable creating change and the arrow of time. So, the only state that could have existed is one of zero energy OR nothing.

which seems an awful lot like you did conclude that which you say you didn't. If spacetime, matter, energy, thermodynamics etc. are the scope of our knowledge, it's exactly what you concluded.

You may need to re-read what I wrote and think about it. It logically follows that in the absence of Spacetime (which according relativity is fundamentally energy/mass) we are left with state of zero energy or "nothing".
If there is a state which exists and lays beyond the scope of our current knowledge I have not stated, concluded or insuated that it doesn't or can't exist. I am simply saying that in the absence of such knowledge there is no good reason to accept the premise as plausible based on our current understanding of the Universe.

.

[Wayne92587]

Unknown :[/quote] once you reach the limits of your knowledge, anything beyond it is non-existent/"there was nothing"? [/quote]

No, what is missing is not existence, it is the Knowledge of Existence

Hidden Knowledge!!!!

Time Space and Motion being the only thing Present.

The point being is that Nothing is something, Something that has no mass, is a Field, the State of Singularity in which nothing exists, as the Darkness upon the upon the Deep.

Meaning that there was no Light in the beginning.
The motion of the Individual Singularity was meaningless, was not readily apparent, simply because a Singularity has no displacement, no angular momentum, no velocity of speed and direction, meaning that the Reality of Everything existed as Big Black, as Empty Space.

In the Beginning, there was nothing more than a Great Void, with Time existing as the Zero-0 Hour, with motion existing as an insignificant innate, internal Motion; Motion existing as the inner activity of each Individual Singularity, within a Sea of, within a field, an unspoken quantity, number of Singularities, existing as the State of Singularity, as a transcendental(Metaphysical) fully random State of singularity.

Time existed as the Reality of the moment, the Here and Now; Now is the Time.
Space existing as a Great Void.

Motion existing as the motion of Nothingness, as Motionless Motion, a Singularity has no displacement, no angular momentum, no velocity of speed and direction,
Motionless Motion existing as the Insnificante motion, as the everlasting Innate, Internal, motion of each of the Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularities within a State of SIngularity.

Time, Space, and Motion having no Relative, Numerical Value, each having a Numerical Value of Zero-0, was meaningless.

Motion existing as a vibration, an oscillation stay is meaningless.

[Wayne92587]

In the Beginning, the Universe was a Hum, OHM

[Wayne92587]

"what exists before the start line? There would, of course, be no logically valid answer. Unless of course you are inclined to present a metaphysical cause, if so, please enlighten me."

He, she or it, those, whom, what, ever is going to participate in the race.
A racer is not a racer until after the start of the race.

An Entity having a relative, a numerical value of One-1, a Singularity of One-1 being the First in a series of events.

A Singularity having a dual Quality 0\1.

A Singularity of One-1 being a creation, the Reality of First Cause.

The Reality of First Cause, the First Singularity of Zero-0 to be converted into a Singularity of One-1.

A Singularity of One-1, the Reality of First Cause, the First Singularity of Zero-0 to be Transfigured, Converted be reborn a Singularity of One-1, being the Single Direct material cause of the Heavens and the Earth, of the Universe, of everything that exists in the material sense of the word.

The equation 0/1 gives explanation, as to both existence and non-existence
0/1

[Jerrygg38]

The big problem we have is whether time exists. Forever early man had conceived of time as a beginning and an end. Each day the sun rises and sets and we have a day. Einstein had space time. Once we eliminate time, There is no beginning nor end. Thus the universe had no beginning. It always existed. It merely goes from one configuration to another.
Man exists and man will always exist. You exist today and you will always exist forever. There is no escape from existence for man. Likewise you will always exist as a clone of yourself forever. Often you will repeat your exact life as you have done an infinity amount of time in the past. The probability of an exact life is small compared to the many lives. Yet you will do both forever and forever.

[Wayne92587]

SimpleGuy;

If it had a beginning, then it is possible that it has an ending.

Don't worry about it, not going to happen.

[Wayne92587]

The beginning was not a single event.
A Single uncaused Event began the Process of Creation.

The Beginning was the start not of a single event but of a series of Events.

[RJG]

The big problem we have is whether time exists… … ...Once we eliminate time, There is no beginning nor end. Thus the universe had no beginning. It always existed.

Although I agree the universe has always existed (as this is the only logical possibility), it seems absurd to suggest that time does not exist.

Without time, NOTHING would/could happen! (...including the posting of these comments). Without time, there could be no movements; no happenings; no events; no before and after's.

I see no logical incompatibility with an infinitely existing universe and with time.

[Thinking critical]

The big problem we have is whether time exists… … ...Once we eliminate time, There is no beginning nor end. Thus the universe had no beginning. It always existed.

Although I agree the universe has always existed (as this is the only logical possibility), it seems absurd to suggest that time does not exist.

Without time, NOTHING would/could happen! (...including the posting of these comments). Without time, there could be no movements; no happenings; no events; no before and after's.

I see no logical incompatibility with an infinitely existing universe and with time.

How can you deduce a logically valid conclusion that the Universe is infinite? What is the line of reasoning?
Furthermore, how can you logically explain why the Universe is expanding?

[Jerrygg38]

RJG wrote
Although I agree the universe has always existed (as this is the only logical possibility), it seems absurd to suggest that time does not exist.
Without time, NOTHING would/could happen! (...including the posting of these comments). Without time, there could be no movements; no happenings; no events; no before and after's.
I see no logical incompatibility with an infinitely existing universe and with time.
Jerrygg (Gerald Grushow) responded
I am an independent researcher studying the physics of the universe part time for almost 40 years. I study the constants of the universe and the variability of them over the expansion of the universe. The last year I have studied the “Dual light speed Universe”. Some scientists have come to the possibility that time is not a dimension. Einstein said it was and his special relativity equations have worked quite well.
If we eliminate time as a dimension, we still have a time clock. However what is time?
Time = seconds
Time is the ticks on a pieces of mechanical equipment or the oscillation of an atom. Likewise
Time = Distance/Lightspeed = Distance/(meters/second) = seconds
Therefore as long as you use light speed and a ruler you do not need a clock. Time is how far light has traveled divided by light speed.
Einstein has noted correctly that space appears shortened and the clock slows as a particle moves faster and faster toward the speed of light C. Einstein had the time dimension and that works well. Yet we get the same result with a dual light speed solution. An object moving faster spends more distance traveling at the higher light speed dimension.
Which is correct? Einstein or Dual light speed? The problem with Einstein is Quantum Entanglement in which information is transmitted in the universe at a rate greater than 10,000C. This is measured fact by the Quantum Scientists. Over and over again experiments have proven this. I believe it. The net conclusion is that Einstein is wrong and the Quantum and String physicists portray a more complex universe than conceived by Einstein.
I am an electrical Engineer and I study the universe from a practical nuts and bolts level of simple equations. I have been doing this since 1981 at age 42. This year I will be 80.
The philosophy question posed by physicists and myself is once we eliminate the time dimension, yesterday does not exist except in photonic memory. The universe has no beginning nor end since time is meaningless. The big bang was merely a transition point where energy flowed into a point and no creator was necessary. At some time the oscillating universe existed in pure chaos and at other times stars and galaxies were created.
If we search for a possible God, we must move upward toward light speed infinity. Yet such a God is still subject to the same problems as here. God at light speed infinity will be born and later die over and over again.
A God of this Earth is possible because of the higher light speed dimension. If that is so, then the Darwinian process was the crude process and the spiritual process was caused by the feedback effect as the mind of the Earth grows. The dual light speed universe is very interesting and I believe it is true.

[Jerrygg38]

Thinking Critical wrote to RJG
How can you deduce a logically valid conclusion that the Universe is infinite? What is the line of reasoning?
Furthermore, how can you logically explain why the Universe is expanding?
GG: For the simple case where only one level of universe exists (other possible levels reach toward light speed infinity), At the time of big bang Energy from the light speed Cs/Co dimension flowed toward a wormhole into the Co/Cs dimension. Co/Cs means that the primary light speed is Co whereas the higher light speed is Cs where Cs= 18,833Co according to my calculations.
At the big bang there was light speed Cs energy flowing into our forming universe and beyond the pinpoint there was nothing. The universe formed and expanded. Again outside a spherical surface there was nothing. The universe expanded at a rapid rate greater than Co=2.99792E8 meters per second. It was most likely at a speed near the geometric mean of Co and Cs.
What is expanding are the gravitational and electromagnetic fields. They are composed of dot-waves which oscillate between the Co and Cs dimensions.
At the present time the universe is not infinite but is moving outward toward a maximum radius. I calculate a normalized cycle time of 1088 billion years. Yet since over time the ruler expands, this is close to infinite time which is actually infinite distance over light speed. What should be noted is that as the universe expands at Co in the light speed Co dimension, it expands at 18,833 times as much in the Cs dimension.
The reason it expands is that everything is composed of dot-waves which radiate away. A neutron today has 8.508E43 dot-waves within it. As the dot-waves are slowly radiated, the universe expands.

[RJG]

Hi Jerrygg38, so as to help make your comments more readable there is an HTML trick on this forum. For instance, when quoting someone, place the following in front of their words that you wish to quote: quote="person" surrounded by brackets [ ], and then end the quoted words with: /quote surrounded by brackets [ ].