Did the universe pop out of nowhere and nothing?

[Stranger]

Did the universe pop out of nothing?

Assuming you mean literally nothing, then no.

The idea isn't even logically self-consistent. There can't possibly have been a time at which nothing existed for anything to have popped out of it because time (space-time) is a something.

This is simplistic Newtonian thinking anyway. The best theory we have of the universe as a whole is general relativity and that gives us the picture of a "block universe". The whole space-time manifold just exists and time is a (observer-dependent) direction through it and hence entirely internal to it. The manifold just exists. Looking at the past time-like direction through it to find out why it exists doesn't make any sense.

There are other hypotheses (of quantum gravity) but the very existence of this one picture illustrates perfectly how daft trying to argue for a god from a "first cause" or "cosmological" type arguments is.

Even if we were to ignore that (and all the other fallacies they are riddled with), we clearly don't understand everything about the physical world and that is all these arguments could possible tell us.

We may never know why the universe exists but its existence is no less unexplained and mysterious that the existence of some sort of god that we might posit to "explain" it. It just replaces one mystery with a bigger one.

[SteveH]

Who cares, ffs?

[Sriram]

At the risk of doing Vlad's work for him, my understanding is that whilst the majority opinion is currently that the universe probably had a finite origin, there are some hypotheses that the singular condensed point of energy/matter that was in place prior to the Big Bang may - because time only came into existence during the early stages - have functionally been eternal as time was not passing then.

That's enough to twist my head, to be frank, trying to conceive of existence outside of a time reference, it's just fundamentally undermines every conception of physics that I have, and I struggle to really grasp the implications, but it's a possibility.

O.

That's probably because Time doesn't  exist at all. Only change exists. When change is measured by an observer, Time comes into existence....because then there is automatically a past, present and a future. 

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2017/06/24/time/

[Outrider]

That's probably because Time doesn't  exist at all. Only change exists. When change is measured by an observer, Time comes into existence....because then there is automatically a past, present and a future. 

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2017/06/24/time/

The differential behaviour of atomic clocks at varying speeds shows that time both exists and our rate of movement through it can be varied.  Mathematically it's well established that it's part of four-dimensional space-time - to say that time doesn't exist is akin to saying that reality doesn't have any depth, that we all live on a flat plane and imagine height.

A point of note in your article; you suggest that Einstein's theory of special relativity suggest that time is relative to the observer, and that's not quite the case.  The rate at which time passes - that is to say the rate at which we move through time - is relative to speed of the observer, but time itself is simply time.

O.

[Stranger]

That's probably because Time doesn't  exist at all. Only change exists. When change is measured by an observer, Time comes into existence....because then there is automatically a past, present and a future. 

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2017/06/24/time/

   Simplistic, ill-thought out drivel that goes against the plentiful evidence we have that time cannot be separated from space and what actually exists is space-time.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

  Simplistic, ill-thought out drivel....

Yes, but apart from that what did you think of his argument? ; - )

[Walter]

  Simplistic, ill-thought out drivel that goes against the plentiful evidence we have that time cannot be separated from space and what actually exists is space-time.

c'mon , give him some credit. At least he got his name right .

[Sriram]

The differential behaviour of atomic clocks at varying speeds shows that time both exists and our rate of movement through it can be varied.  Mathematically it's well established that it's part of four-dimensional space-time - to say that time doesn't exist is akin to saying that reality doesn't have any depth, that we all live on a flat plane and imagine height.

A point of note in your article; you suggest that Einstein's theory of special relativity suggest that time is relative to the observer, and that's not quite the case.  The rate at which time passes - that is to say the rate at which we move through time - is relative to speed of the observer, but time itself is simply time.

O.

Time exists because change exists. Space and change cannot be separated. Time is merely rate of change in space.

If space exists, change exists and therefore time exists.

[Stranger]

A point of note in your article; you suggest that Einstein's theory of special relativity suggest that time is relative to the observer, and that's not quite the case.  The rate at which time passes - that is to say the rate at which we move through time - is relative to speed of the observer, but time itself is simply time.

Actually a frame of reference that is traveling relative to another actually regards different directions through space-time to be their space and time. It's like a rotation of axes but the geometry isn't Euclidean, so their space and time both move towards the light cone.

Here is an image: special relativity frames of reference.

It just shows one dimension of space - and the red ct' and x' axes are the moving frame's version of space and time compared to the blue (ct and x axes). The black lines are the light cone (the path light would take).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram (Reply 227): “That's probably because Time doesn't  exist at all.”

Sriram (reply 232): “If space exists, change exists and therefore time exists.”

So apparently time both doesn’t exist and does exist. Schrödinger’s time maybe?
 
Hmmm…

[Stranger]

Time exists because change exists. Space and change cannot be separated. Time is merely rate of change in space.

If space exists, change exists and therefore time exists.

On the one had we have the vast amounts of evidence that support the theories of space-time, and on the other we have your scientifically illiterate assertions.

Tricky.

... err, oh, no it isn't, I was right, you're still talking simplistic, ill-thought out drivel...

[Outrider]

Time exists because change exists. Space and change cannot be separated. Time is merely rate of change in space.

If space exists, change exists and therefore time exists.

Change exists because time exists - without time in which change could happen, change would not exist. You could (theoretically) have a static universe with nothing changing, but time would still exist - indeed, that's the heat-death of the universe scenario.  You can have time without change, but you can't have change without the time for that change to happen in - you've got these round the wrong way.

O.

[Sriram]

Change exists because time exists - without time in which change could happen, change would not exist. You could (theoretically) have a static universe with nothing changing, but time would still exist - indeed, that's the heat-death of the universe scenario.  You can have time without change, but you can't have change without the time for that change to happen in - you've got these round the wrong way.

O.

That is what we usually think, intuitively. That is because we have evolved to observe change and measure it. We are time dependent.

However, if nothing changes...where is time?  It doesn't exist at all.  Only when change happens do past, present and future come into existence.

Space exists and change is inherent in space.  When this change is observed and measured, time comes into existence.

[Stranger]

That is what we usually think, intuitively. That is because we have evolved to observe change and measure it. We are time dependent.

However, if nothing changes...where is time?  It doesn't exist at all.  Only when change happens do past, present and future come into existence.

Space exists and change is inherent in space.  When this change is observed and measured, time comes into existence.

Still evidence- and reasoning-free, scientifically illiterate assertions. Why do you think anybody should take your baseless assertions seriously? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,


You’ve got to be joking right? Hilbert’s Hotel is a semantic game. It conflates a non-numerical conceptual term (“infinity”) with numerical terms (numbers of rooms, guests etc) as if they were the same category of idea. They’re not though

That just shows that although infinities are OK in maths they do not translate to the real world.

Of course they don’t. It’s precisely because they ARE logically plausible that they stand as hypotheses.

Any hypothesis starting with the universe or starting with physics is irrelevant in an explanation for where physics came from. 


If you think there’s a more robust version of the Kalam than the standard tissue paper version then tell us what it is and we’ll look at it. As things stand though, you’ve been hit out of the park.

Since theories about the physical universe(nature) start with nature are not relevant to the question from whence nature came from the only challenge to the Kalam is another Cosmological argument.

Theism has Cosmological arguments Science it seems has none.

[Stranger]

That just shows that although infinities are OK in maths they do not translate to the real world.

Utter nonsense. Infinities are entirely self-consistent (otherwise you couldn't deal with them mathematically), so there is no reason to conclude that they cannot exist in reality. In fact, the possibilities that the universe may be infinite in spacial extent and have an infinite future time-like extent are fairly standard, as is the idea of a space-time being a continuum, which involves another sort of infinity (actually a bigger infinity than the kind needed for the Hilbert Hotel).

Since theories about the physical universe(nature) start with nature are not relevant to the question from whence nature came from...

You have exactly the same problem with any god(s) you may dream up to "explain" it. As I said before, the existence of a universe for no known reason is no more mysterious and unexplained than the existence of a god who created a universe who just happens to exist for no known reason. The difference being that we know that physics and the universe do actually exist and no reason at all to think that any gods exist.

...the only challenge to the Kalam is another Cosmological argument.

Theism has Cosmological arguments Science it seems has none.

Did this make some sense to you before you actually typed it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Utter nonsense. Infinities are entirely self-consistent (otherwise you couldn't deal with them mathematically), so there is no reason to conclude that they cannot exist in reality. In fact, the possibilities that the universe may be infinite in spacial extent and have an infinite future time-like extent are fairly standard, as is the idea of a space-time being a continuum, which involves another sort of infinity.

You have exactly the same problem with any god(s) you may dream up to "explain" it. As I said before, the existence of a universe for no known reason is no more mysterious and unexplained than the existence of a god who created a universe who just happens to exist for no known reason. The difference being that we know that physics and the universe do actually exist and no reason at all to think that any gods exist.

Did this make some sense to you before you actually typed it?

There is a difference between infinity of being and an infinity of events in a spatio temporal setting if time goes back infinitely it would never arrive as it were. There is just also heat death which would have occurred by now if a universe were limitless.

[Nearly Sane]

There is a difference between infinity of being and an infinity of events in a spatio temporal setting if time goes back infinitely it would never arrive as it were. There is just also heat death which would have occurred by now if a universe were limitless.

Drivel

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Utter nonsense. Infinities are entirely self-consistent (otherwise you couldn't deal with them mathematically), so there is no reason to conclude that they cannot exist in reality. In fact, the possibilities that the universe may be infinite in spacial extent and have an infinite future time-like extent are fairly standard

Surely the latter is an infinity with a beginning though. What about the paradox of Tristram Shandy?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Drivel

Alright supposing I asked you for a Fiver and you said you can't have it until I get it from Hillside who has to wait until Gordon gets a fiver from Sassy who....you get the picture.

Would you get your fiver if it was an infinite wait?

[Stranger]

There is a difference between infinity of being and an infinity of events in a spatio temporal setting if time goes back infinitely it would never arrive as it were. There is just also heat death which would have occurred by now if a universe were limitless.

More nonsense. For one thing, you're mistaking an infinite series of events going back forever, with no start, with a start an infinite time ago. There is absolutely nothing logically inconsistent with an infinite past.

In fact, in physics there really is no idea of the "present" - "now" has no more significance than "here". As I also said before, general relativity, suggests a "block universe" that just is - there is really no difference logically with its past time-like dimension being infinite and its future one.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

More nonsense. For one thing, you're mistaking an infinite series of events going back forever, with no start, with a start an infinite time ago. There is absolutely nothing logically inconsistent with an infinite past.

Did you just say start there?

[Nearly Sane]

Alright supposing I asked you for a Fiver and you said you can't have it until I get it from Hillside who has to wait until Gordon gets a fiver from Sassy who....you get the picture.

Would you get your fiver if it was an infinite wait?

More drivel.

[Stranger]

Did you just say start there?

It was your implication that the universe would somehow have to run through all of its past, from an infinite time ago: "if time goes back infinitely it would never arrive as it were".

Fascinating as infinities are, they really aren't very relevant because, as I've already explained, whether the universe has an infinite past or not is of little relevance to thinking about why it exists or any arguments for any god (that's just Newtonian thinking).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You’ll never admit it, but it should by now be apparent to you that WLC’s validation of the Kalam cosmological arguments is in tatters. There is though another, perhaps deeper problem even with the attempt when you claim that “Theism has Cosmological arguments Science it seems has none”. Aside from being a gross inversion of the facts (cosmology IS science, theism/theology is faith), that would mean that WLC (and you) should have no need of faith because the science does the work for you.

Why not then just have the argument peer reviewed by people versed in science, and then publish the "WLC-Vlad god theorem" in the relevant scientific journal? What need then would you have for faith?