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

[Thinking critical]

I agree with your assessment of current physics which is describing the physical world. However, I believe the current physical world had a beginning for other reasons which I have proposed. As such there was a part of existence in which this universe did not exist. And therefore its current physical laws also did not exist since there was nothing upon which they could act. You can't have Maxwells' laws if there are no electrons. These laws could not have existed prior to the beginning and therefore could not be the cause of anything until they came into existence with the physical world. They are part of the physical world and therefore cannot be the cause of themselves.

My perception of the fundamental laws appear to vary from your own. The laws of physics themselves are simply descriptions of nature which explain underlying causes for the behaviour of particles. We have detected patterns and algorithms and found we can make predictions based on the understanding of these patterns.
The laws themselves are contingent on the same conditions which gave rise to elementary particles, from what I understand theoretical physicists have already established that the fundamental laws we know today were not present at the origin of the Universe, this is supported by data from the CMB. As far as I'm aware no cosmologists or physicists these days attempt to explain the origin of the a Universe with the fundamental laws.

I assume you know that based on the positions of the objects in the universe, the universe expanded at a rate much faster than the speed of light. Or so it appears. Call it a bang or not. Also the objects are expanding at an increasing rate. That is their speed is accelerating. Given the mass and energy that is calculated to exist, this shouldn't be happening. Using your balloon analogy it is like someone blowing more air into the balloon faster and faster compared to when they started. Neither of these phenomenon are completely explained by current theories. My theory is that they are evidence of laws that existed before our universe's laws. Of course I must concede, that they could very well be phenomenon that are the results of physical laws which have not yet been discovered.

The reason the rate of expansion is increasing is clear, it is a matter of consequence. The distance of space between objects continues to expand from every point in space, the more space that exists, the more space there is which expands.
As for the cause of expansion, this is currently explained as a consequence of dark energy, whatever dark energy is. How can dark energy be said to be evidence of some type of unknown/untested/unheard of law if dark energy itself can't be explained?

[Wayne92587]

Thinking critical;

Whatever dark energy is. How can dark energy be said to be evidence of some type of unknown/untested/unheard of law if dark energy itself can't be explained?

Ask a simple question and you get a simple answer!

Find a proper definition of Dark Matter, but you will have to start with the discovery a proper definition for matter, Reality, existence.

Is it possible for something to exist before you have knowledge of its existence?

Of course not, Hell No!

Wait a second, better rethink that.

Yes and No,

The Knowledge of Reality is not Reality itself.

Reason, the Rational Mind, is created to be Mankind's Helpmate, not God.

The existence or non-existence of Knowledge existing as a Reality, being factual, is Uncertain.

As Mankind’s Helpmate, it is the job of the Rational Mind to use reason in an attempt to qualify Mankind’s, his and her, Knowledge of Reality.

The subjects of the rational mind are something, the existence or non-existence of which is uncertain.

Matter, substance, God, Soul, a Void; forget the Great Void; no, maybe we should include the Great Void.

An omniscient, Great, Void; best describes the location where The Reality of the Heavens and; the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of
Everything that exists in the Material sense if the word, exists, being Space.

The only thing in existence prior to Creation being the Singularities of Time, Space and Motion.

The Rational Mind being created in the Image of God, an Omniscient, Great Void, to exist as your mystical mirror, which must be highly polished, unblemished, so as not to project any false images of Reality upon the Material World of Reality.

The most important factor in the Evolution of the Rational Mind, the Psychic, is to, while acquiring the Knowledge of Reality learned of through experience, is not to become God Like, All Knowing, is not to become a Know-it-all.

If mankind becomes all Know-it-all, God Like, he and she become the creators of his or her own World of Reality.

His and her ability to discern a differentiation between absolutely Good Knowledge and Absolutely Bad Knowledge, Knowledge having Dual Quality, the Knowledge of Good and Evil; the existence or non-existence of Knowledge being Absolutely Good or Absolutely Bad becomes uncertain.

Absolutely Bad Knowledge being partially Good Knowledge is easily mistaken to be Absolutely Good Knowledge.

Think of the Rational Mind as being your Mystical Mirror.

The Rational Mind exists not as single mirror but as a quantity of mirrors arranged in a specific manner.

I have found that a grouping of eight mirrors forming an Octagon with reflective side to the inside gives a good example of a workable image of the "Mirrors of your mind, of the Rational Mind.

Place a dot, a blemish, on one of the mirrors.

Looking at the dot, blemish, from out side the Octagon and you will see an infinite number of dots, blemishes, in a single mirror within the Octagon.

Mankind’s purpose, goal, in life is to make sure that his and her Mystic Mirror is Highly Polished, being unblemished, so as to advance the Evolution of the Mind, the Rational Mind, Psychic.

[Thinking critical]

Wayne, I find it incredibly hard to make sense of your comments at times, you quoted my post "that we don't know what dark energy is", then you mentioned dark matter (which is not the same thing) then went on a tangent about the nature of reality and epistemology.....I think.

I will critique the following comment you made

Is it possible for something to exist before you have knowledge of its existence?

Of course not, Hell No!

Wait a second, better rethink that.

Yes and No,

The Knowledge of Reality is not Reality itself.

Of course it's possible for something to exist before we have knowledge of it, existence is not contingent on knowledge. I meet people everyday whom before that moment I had no knowledge of their existence, that fact does not mean that they spontaneously popped into existence the moment I had knowledge of them.

As for reality, reality is subjective. It is not a state which can exist independent of cognition. Reality us built upon the interpretation and perception of both knowledge and experience, reality is simply the minds construct of existence.

[Eduk]

Wayne, I find it incredibly hard to make sense of your comments at times

Only at times? You are a better person than me then. I started copy pasting random generated quotes from here http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/, which I didn't even sort, just pasted the first one each time. Wayne responded to each one. I can't distinguish Wayne from a bot which auto generates random sentences.

[Wayne92587]

Perhaps I have an interest in what you call random generated quotes.

How truly random were these random quotes.

How did you make your selection.

Perhaps you favored these quotes yourself.

There are numerous people on this site that believe that existence is bound by knowledge.
No knowledge, no existence.

You may not be able to understand my posts because you are stepping into the middle of a conversation.

If you can not understand one of my posts why don't you ask a question?
You must be specific in or for me to able to answer.

[Wayne92587]

Thinking critical; I find it incredibly hard to make sense of your comments at times, you quoted my post "that we don't know what dark energy is", then you mentioned dark matter (which is not the same thing) then went on a tangent about the nature of reality and epistemology.....I think.

If you do not know what dark matter is how do know that it is not the same as dark energy?

[Thinking critical]

Thinking critical; I find it incredibly hard to make sense of your comments at times, you quoted my post "that we don't know what dark energy is", then you mentioned dark matter (which is not the same thing) then went on a tangent about the nature of reality and epistemology.....I think.

If you do not know what dark matter is how do know that it is not the same as dark energy?

Well definitively, they describe two completely different effects of theoretical physics. Attractive and repulsive forces, however I accept they maybe somehow related.

[Wayne92587]

So why did the universe wait an infinity to begin, and why at that particular moment.

Accidents Happen!

Before the beginning of creation, Reality existed in a State or condition in which an accident was bound to happen!

The Realtiy of cause and effect, the Reality of First Cause, began its existence as an "Affect."

[Wayne92587]

Reality existed in a State or condition known to be the Transcendental (Metaphysical) Fully Random Omniscent, Quantum State
of omnipresent Transcendent Singularities, having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0, Nada, Zip, Nothingness, period.

[Thinking critical]

So why did the universe wait an infinity to begin, and why at that particular moment.

Accidents Happen!

Before the beginning of creation, Reality existed in a State or condition in which an accident was bound to happen!

The Realtiy of cause and effect, the Reality of First Cause, began its existence as an "Affect."

The necessity of a first cause or prime mover becomes redundant one you move away from the causal principal. Furthermore a first cause is not required if the natural state of the Universe is to expand or if energy constantly moves as is described by Newtonian physics.
Causality describes the Universe at a macro level, in other words causality confirms with the reality which we emperically observe, however at a quatum level the fundamental nature of the Universe behaves much differently.

[Wayne92587]

Thinking critical;

first cause is not required if the natural state of the Universe is to expand or if energy constantly moves as is described by Newtonian physics.

To Expand is not natural state of, anything, the Universe, before it exists.

There is only a single first cause in a series such as cause and effect.
So of course, there is no need for a second first cause, after the series has already begun.

The necessity of a first cause or prime mover becomes redundant one you move away from the causal principal.

Redundant; But of course.

The fundamental nature Everything prior to the beginning of the creative process was at the quantum level.

Before, the beginning, was the fundamental quantum level.

[Thinking critical]

Thinking critical;

first cause is not required if the natural state of the Universe is to expand or if energy constantly moves as is described by Newtonian physics.

To Expand is not natural state of, anything, the Universe, before it exists.

Emperical observations refute this, can you supply one such example of something that is completely static? If expansion is not a natural function of the Universe, this means by matter of Consequence that our Universe currently exists in an un-natural state of expansion.

There is only a single first cause in a series such as cause and effect.
So of course, there is no need for a second first cause, after the series has already begun.

Based on the BB model, as far back as we understand the best description that we have concludes there was an initial Unknown state and then there was an event described as an expansion from a singularity.

[Wayne92587]

These last few posts have been confused so I am reposting in an attempt to straighten them out.

The first problem I have reading and writing a post is to make sure of a distinction between fact and fiction, (theory)

I believe in the creation of the Universe, beginning with the creation of the Reality of First Cause.

I believe that the Un-Caused Cause, that the Reality of First Cause was actually an Affect.

]quote]Thinking critical; first cause is not required if the natural state of the Universe is to expand or if energy constantly moves as is described by Newtonian physics. [/quote]

Wayne; To Expand is not natural state of, anything, the Universe, before it exists

Should have read, Expansion is not natural to the Universe before it existed.

To follow;

I agree that there was an initial Unknown Omniscient Fully Random State of Omnipresent Singularities having no relative, numerical, value, having a numerical value of Zero-0.

The Creation of the Reality, of the so-called First Cause, an Affect; was a Fully Random Transcendental Singularity of Zero-0, was actually the first, the beginning of a process such as the Evolutionary Process, the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, the beginning of; Cause and Effect.

A random, any and all Omnipresent Singularities existing within the Omniscience of a State of Singularity being Transcendental.

[devans99]

I was thinking about this recently too:

- Something can’t come from nothing
- So base reality must have always existed
- If base reality is permanent it must be timeless (proof: assume base reality existed forever within time - the total number of particle collisions would be infinite - reductio ad absurdum)
- So base reality must be timeless (to avoid the infinities) and permanent
- Time was created and exists within this permanent, timeless, base reality
- So time must be real, permanent and finite.

[Sy Borg]

I was thinking about this recently too:

- Something can’t come from nothing
G: Seemingly, logically, but maybe there's something we don't know?

- So base reality must have always existed
G: What if what you refer to as base reality, or Krauss would call the "quantum foam", is not the base?

- If base reality is permanent it must be timeless (proof: assume base reality existed forever within time - the total number of particle collisions would be infinite - reductio ad absurdum)
G: Seemingly so, unless there are aspects of time that we don't understand.

- So base reality must be timeless (to avoid the infinities) and permanent
- Time was created and exists within this permanent, timeless, base reality
- So time must be real, permanent and finite.
G: Again, seemingly so :)

As far as we know, time is change. In a thoroughly chaotic environment like the quantum foam, 'virtual particles' - effectively bubbles in the fabric of reality popping in and out of existence - time would exist, but not as we know it.

In the quantum foam there are no orbits or rotations, just the fleeting fluctuations that are seemingly inherent to reality. The popping in and out logically must have take some length of time (perhaps measured in Planck units). Thus, in that pre/post universe environment time itself effectively pops in and out of existence in piecemeal form. Non-useful time.

However, maybe something else is underpinning the quantum foam? It would appear from our perspective to be a realm of pure potential. Some believe that the pre-BB universe was infused with Platonic solids that manifested in phsyical form. As far as I can tell, the quantum foam would rather seem infused with the potential for Platonic solids - and numerous other forms - but forms only manifest when one of those perturbations in relatilty's fabric inflates into a new universe, and those would surely largely depend on initial conditions.

Chaos is pregnant with opportunity and possibility. Order is where those opportunities and possibilities have been largely already been exploited. Seemingly :)