Philosophy Discussion Forums

Thinking critical wrote: ↑April 16th, 2018, 7:09 am 1) Our Universe has a beginning, it can be traced back to roughly less than 1 to 10th of a second from its origins.

2)Spacetime is intrinsic to the Universe, there is no before the beginning or we couldn't call it the beginning.

Well this isn't quite true. Cosmology can only trace back theinflation of the observable universe that began approx 13.7 billion years ago but that doesn't mean the whole universe as everything that exists ever had a beginning. We could exist in a multiverse for instance.

...and that's through combining relativity and quantum mechanics using observational data gathered from cMBR and WMAP. The doppler effect is used to calculate the waveshift of quasars which tells us how fast they are going away from each other and from this we can extrapolate backwards to an initial expansion event where all the matter was a singularity. Some are even expanding away from us at faster than the speed of light due to stuff like dark energy and possibly antimatter or tachyons. In any case it doesn't exclude the possibility of other universes or higher dimensions or even the many-worlds hypothesis.

...or even modal realism, or a cyclic universe of eternal recurrence, or anything of that sort.

The only way for a spatiotemporally finite universe to overcome any of this is if there is all the other worlds are simply higher dimensions of our one real 13.7 billon year old one.

because of quantum indeterminacy, its not just the position of each particle that can vary, but the very laws and constants which govern our universe, which implies that there are 10 spatial dimensions plus time if you accept M-theory (as I do).

ReasonMadeFlesh wrote: ↑June 6th, 2018, 10:40 pm

Thinking critical wrote: ↑April 16th, 2018, 7:09 am 1) Our Universe has a beginning, it can be traced back to roughly less than 1 to 10th of a second from its origins.

2)Spacetime is intrinsic to the Universe, there is no before the beginning or we couldn't call it the beginning.

Well this isn't quite true. Cosmology can only trace back theinflation of the observable universe that began approx 13.7 billion years ago but that doesn't mean the whole universe as everything that exists ever had a beginning. We could exist in a multiverse for instance.

The observable Universe, the Universe and the Multiverse are three diiifefent things.
The observable Universe refers to the part of the Unverse we can currently observe, 93 billion light years. It may be bigger but we have no way of knowing.
The Universe encompasses all that we can currently account for, the entire Cosmos and the beginning of spacetime. This is litterally the entire Uni(one)verse.
The multiverse is simply a hypothesis, there is no point in even speculating wether or not they have beginnings or not as their is no way of proving if they even exist.

There are various theories. A number of people here write as if there is consensus that the Big Bang was the beginning, period. But among cosmologists, there are a variety of opinions and possibilities: that there are big crunches and bands in a cycle, that the universe popped through from another universe, that tthere was something not very universe AS WE KNOW IT before. And besides we can only go back to a certain moment that is not quite what was the first moment, even for those who say it was. We need to black box the issue, for now. I get the whole, time began then thingie, but I don't think it helps to write as if we know.

There is a common misconception that the origin of the Universe is encompassed in the Big Bang Theory, this is simply not the case.
The theory itself makes no reference or claim to the origin of the Universe, it simply concludes that there was a beginning.
After the moment where we struggle to apply our understanding of quantum gravity to the equation is where the individual theoretical and astro physicists strart to propose their own hypothesis such as multiverses, crunches and cyclic fluctuations e.c.t.

Thinking critical wrote: ↑June 7th, 2018, 3:37 pm There is a common misconception that the origin of the Universe is encompassed in the Big Bang Theory, this is simply not the case.

Exactly!

And I am not postulating a multiverse I am merely proposing it, but it seems an unnecessary hypothesis. It's also different from Everett's many-worlds interpretation of QM.

It really is just speculation at this point tbh.

Nobody knows if the universe had a beginning, although we can trace back it's expansion 13 7 billion years.

The evidence offered up as prof of the Big Bang is the Theory of an Expanding Universe.

If you do not believe in the Theory of a BIg Bang, then you should not use the evidence of an Expanding Universe, as prof of a BIg Bang.

Red shift is evidence of what existed prior to the beginning of The Creative Process.

Wayne92587 wrote: ↑June 17th, 2018, 1:02 pm The evidence offered up as prof of the Big Bang is the Theory of an Expanding Universe.

If you do not believe in the Theory of a BIg Bang, then you should not use the evidence of an Expanding Universe, as prof of a BIg Bang.

Red shift is evidence of what existed prior to the beginning of The Creative Process.

Red shifts matched predictions of the expanding Universe, meaning Hubbles observations were consistent with the Big Bang model.

What does Red shift is evidence of what existed prior to the beginning even me mean?

I do not deny that Red Shift exists, could Red Shift be evidence of what existed prior to the so called Big Bang.

In the beginning there was only Darkness upon the Deep, Reality, existence itself being a Big Black Whole.

Wayne92587 wrote: ↑June 19th, 2018, 1:27 am I do not deny that Red Shift exists, could Red Shift be evidence of what existed prior to the so called Big Bang.

In the beginning there was only Darkness upon the Deep, Reality, existence itself being a Big Black Whole.

I don't see how redshifts could be evidence of what existed prior to the first event, it logically doesn't follow. "Redshifts" are simply recognising the way light behaves as its source is moving away from us, so when astronomers witnessed distant galaxies demonstrating these characteristics through the Hubble they concluded that this was sufficient evidence to prove the Universe was in fact expanding. So redshifts are evidence that the Universe is expanding, nothing else.

Red Shift is evidence of what existed prior to the beginning of the Creative Process, of that which existed without substance, nothingness, the building blocks of the Heavens and the earth, the God Particle, the Higgs Boson.

You seem to be stuck on the Big Bang, the Expanding Universe.

I am not.

In the Beginning, there was only Darkness, a Big Black Whole, upon the Deep.

In the beginning, nothingness existed as a field of Infinitely Finite indivisible Singularities having no relative, numerical, no value, having no displacement, no angular momentum, no velocity of speed and direction, as an omniscient field of everpresent Singularities each having a numerical value of Zero-0.

Wayne92587 wrote: ↑June 28th, 2018, 6:16 am Red Shift is evidence of what existed prior to the beginning of the Creative Process, of that which existed without substance, nothingness, the building blocks of the Heavens and the earth, the God Particle, the Higgs Boson.

Again, how are redshifts connected to the process which was present during the origin of the Universe? This makes no sense whatsoever.

You seem to be stuck on the Big Bang, the Expanding Universe.

I am not stuck on it, I understand it. The BBT has overwhelming evidence to support it and is one of the most highly researched and supported theories in modern science.
The redshifts you are referring to are direct evidence of an expanding Universe, predicted by the BBT before they were discovered.

In the Beginning, there was only Darkness, a Big Black Whole, upon the Deep.

In the beginning there was no Spacetime and now there is.