Did the universe begin to exist?

[notachance]

Imagine you believed the earth was flat (I'm not being silly, this is a serious point).

If the earth was flat, then there would be only two possible options:

Either

1) The earth has an edge, much like a pizza has an edge

or

2) The earth stretches out for an infinite amount in every direction

If you believed the earth was flat, you would laugh at me if I told you that the earth neither has an edge, nor does it continue forever.

From the prospective of a person who believes the earth is flat, the statement "the earth neither has an edge, nor does it continue forever" is paradoxical and nonsensical.

BUT, if you upgrade your understanding of the earth from flat to globe, then the statement "the earth neither has an edge, nor does it continue forever" makes perfect sense.

Now, imagine you believed that space-time was flat, that space had no effect on time and that time was completely linear (I'm not being silly, this is a serious point).

If time was not affected by space, and was therefore completely linear there would only be two possible options:

Either

1) Space-time has a beginning, much like a year has a beginning

or

2) Space-time stretches out for an infinite amount in every direction

If you believed that space-time was flat, you would laugh at me if I told you that space time neither had a beginning nor did it exist forever.

From the prospective of one with a Newtonian understanding of physics who believes space-time is flat, and time is therefore linear and unaffected by space, the statement "Space-time neither has a beginning nor did it exist forever" is paradoxical and nonsensical.

BUT if you upgrade from Newtonian physics to Einstenian physics and understand that space-time is one continuum, that space-time is warped by mass, that time is affected by space and space is affected by time, and that time is not constant and linear but subjective and multidimensional, then the statement that "space-time neither has a beginning nor has it existed for ever" makes perfect sense.

It wasn't just space that came into existence at the Big Bang. Time came into existence then too.

A concept such as "three seconds before the big bang" is as nonsensical as a concept such as "three feet past the edge of the earth".

The concept of something beginning to exist requires that there was a time when it didn't exist followed by a time when it existed. This does not apply to the universe, because time didn't exist before the universe existed. Time is an internal property of the universe.

For the same reason it can't be said that the universe existed forever, because "forever" didn't exist before the Big Bang.

So it can be argued that the universe never began to exist, and hasn't existed forever.

Your thoughts?

[Ionian_Tradition]

Imagine you believed the earth was flat (I'm not being silly, this is a serious point).

If the earth was flat, then there would be only two possible options:

Either

1) The earth has an edge, much like a pizza has an edge

or

2) The earth stretches out for an infinite amount in every direction

If you believed the earth was flat, you would laugh at me if I told you that the earth neither has an edge, nor does it continue forever.

From the prospective of a person who believes the earth is flat, the statement "the earth neither has an edge, nor does it continue forever" is paradoxical and nonsensical.

BUT, if you upgrade your understanding of the earth from flat to globe, then the statement "the earth neither has an edge, nor does it continue forever" makes perfect sense.

Now, imagine you believed that space-time was flat, that space had no effect on time and that time was completely linear (I'm not being silly, this is a serious point).

If time was not affected by space, and was therefore completely linear there would only be two possible options:

Either

1) Space-time has a beginning, much like a year has a beginning

or

2) Space-time stretches out for an infinite amount in every direction

If you believed that space-time was flat, you would laugh at me if I told you that space time neither had a beginning nor did it exist forever.

From the prospective of one with a Newtonian understanding of physics who believes space-time is flat, and time is therefore linear and unaffected by space, the statement "Space-time neither has a beginning nor did it exist forever" is paradoxical and nonsensical.

BUT if you upgrade from Newtonian physics to Einstenian physics and understand that space-time is one continuum, that space-time is warped by mass, that time is affected by space and space is affected by time, and that time is not constant and linear but subjective and multidimensional, then the statement that "space-time neither has a beginning nor has it existed for ever" makes perfect sense.

It wasn't just space that came into existence at the Big Bang. Time came into existence then too.

A concept such as "three seconds before the big bang" is as nonsensical as a concept such as "three feet past the edge of the earth".

The concept of something beginning to exist requires that there was a time when it didn't exist followed by a time when it existed. This does not apply to the universe, because time didn't exist before the universe existed. Time is an internal property of the universe.

For the same reason it can't be said that the universe existed forever, because "forever" didn't exist before the Big Bang.

So it can be argued that the universe never began to exist, and hasn't existed forever.

Your thoughts?

While this line or reasoning intrigues me, it seems as though the necessity still exists for some sort of timeless causal agent to actually CAUSE the emergence of the Big Bang, and time itself, in the first place....given that neither effects nor causes have been demonstrated to cause themselves. Paradoxically, such causal activity would necessarily require time in order to occur. Beyond that, the state from which the Big Bang emerged must also be addressed. Are you positing a universe from nothing? Set aside the inadequacy of our language to effectively navigate this semantic minefield regarding notions of timelessness and tell me, does "nothingness" produce a Big Bang? Or did the universe produce the Big Bang...If "Nothingness" produced the Big Bang, how do you resolve the logical dilemma which results from a notion that the absence of everything can, in fact, produce something. If, however, the universe produced the Big Bang, how was this done in the absence of time?

[Cain]

Imagine you believed the earth was flat (I'm not being silly, this is a serious point).

If the earth was flat, then there would be only two possible options:

Either

1) The earth has an edge, much like a pizza has an edge

or

2) The earth stretches out for an infinite amount in every direction

If you believed the earth was flat, you would laugh at me if I told you that the earth neither has an edge, nor does it continue forever.

From the prospective of a person who believes the earth is flat, the statement "the earth neither has an edge, nor does it continue forever" is paradoxical and nonsensical.

BUT, if you upgrade your understanding of the earth from flat to globe, then the statement "the earth neither has an edge, nor does it continue forever" makes perfect sense.

Now, imagine you believed that space-time was flat, that space had no effect on time and that time was completely linear (I'm not being silly, this is a serious point).

If time was not affected by space, and was therefore completely linear there would only be two possible options:

Either

1) Space-time has a beginning, much like a year has a beginning

or

2) Space-time stretches out for an infinite amount in every direction

If you believed that space-time was flat, you would laugh at me if I told you that space time neither had a beginning nor did it exist forever.

From the prospective of one with a Newtonian understanding of physics who believes space-time is flat, and time is therefore linear and unaffected by space, the statement "Space-time neither has a beginning nor did it exist forever" is paradoxical and nonsensical.

BUT if you upgrade from Newtonian physics to Einstenian physics and understand that space-time is one continuum, that space-time is warped by mass, that time is affected by space and space is affected by time, and that time is not constant and linear but subjective and multidimensional, then the statement that "space-time neither has a beginning nor has it existed for ever" makes perfect sense.

It wasn't just space that came into existence at the Big Bang. Time came into existence then too.

A concept such as "three seconds before the big bang" is as nonsensical as a concept such as "three feet past the edge of the earth".

The concept of something beginning to exist requires that there was a time when it didn't exist followed by a time when it existed. This does not apply to the universe, because time didn't exist before the universe existed. Time is an internal property of the universe.

For the same reason it can't be said that the universe existed forever, because "forever" didn't exist before the Big Bang.

So it can be argued that the universe never began to exist, and hasn't existed forever.

Your thoughts?

before I reply to the entire post, I believe there is a third option to your Earth is Flat theory.

3) You have no empirical evidence that the earth is flat or round, unless you have looked at it from outer-space you can only go on 'faith' from what others have said.

[notachance]

Imagine you believed the earth was flat (I'm not being silly, this is a serious point).

If the earth was flat, then there would be only two possible options:

Either

1) The earth has an edge, much like a pizza has an edge

or

2) The earth stretches out for an infinite amount in every direction

If you believed the earth was flat, you would laugh at me if I told you that the earth neither has an edge, nor does it continue forever.

From the prospective of a person who believes the earth is flat, the statement "the earth neither has an edge, nor does it continue forever" is paradoxical and nonsensical.

BUT, if you upgrade your understanding of the earth from flat to globe, then the statement "the earth neither has an edge, nor does it continue forever" makes perfect sense.

Now, imagine you believed that space-time was flat, that space had no effect on time and that time was completely linear (I'm not being silly, this is a serious point).

If time was not affected by space, and was therefore completely linear there would only be two possible options:

Either

1) Space-time has a beginning, much like a year has a beginning

or

2) Space-time stretches out for an infinite amount in every direction

If you believed that space-time was flat, you would laugh at me if I told you that space time neither had a beginning nor did it exist forever.

From the prospective of one with a Newtonian understanding of physics who believes space-time is flat, and time is therefore linear and unaffected by space, the statement "Space-time neither has a beginning nor did it exist forever" is paradoxical and nonsensical.

BUT if you upgrade from Newtonian physics to Einstenian physics and understand that space-time is one continuum, that space-time is warped by mass, that time is affected by space and space is affected by time, and that time is not constant and linear but subjective and multidimensional, then the statement that "space-time neither has a beginning nor has it existed for ever" makes perfect sense.

It wasn't just space that came into existence at the Big Bang. Time came into existence then too.

A concept such as "three seconds before the big bang" is as nonsensical as a concept such as "three feet past the edge of the earth".

The concept of something beginning to exist requires that there was a time when it didn't exist followed by a time when it existed. This does not apply to the universe, because time didn't exist before the universe existed. Time is an internal property of the universe.

For the same reason it can't be said that the universe existed forever, because "forever" didn't exist before the Big Bang.

So it can be argued that the universe never began to exist, and hasn't existed forever.

Your thoughts?

While this line or reasoning intrigues me, it seems as though the necessity still exists for some sort of timeless causal agent to actually CAUSE the emergence of the Big Bang, and time itself, in the first place....given that neither effects nor causes have been demonstrated to cause themselves. Paradoxically, such causal activity would necessarily require time in order to occur. Beyond that, the state from which the Big Bang emerged must also be addressed. Are you positing a universe from nothing? Set aside the inadequacy of our language to effectively navigate this semantic minefield regarding notions of timelessness and tell me, does "nothingness" produce a Big Bang? Or did the universe produce the Big Bang...If "Nothingness" produced the Big Bang, how do you resolve the logical dilemma which results from a notion that the absence of everything can, in fact, produce something. If, however, the universe produced the Big Bang, how was this done in the absence of time?

Hey, good questions. Well if the universe emerged from "something" like for example the Big Crunch of a previous universe, then it's all pretty straight forward.

If we assume that the universe came from nothing, then the best answer today is "Inflation Theory".

I'll give you the highlights in laymen's terms, but please check out a more eloquent explanation if you aren't already familiar.

Mass and energy have a positive energy value.

Gravity has negative energy value (this might sound weird, but it's a basic principle of Newtonian physics - I can get into more detail if you like)

The total value of the positive energy of mass and energy in the universe is equal to the total value of the negative energy of gravity, so the two cancel out, meaning that the total energy of the universe is ZERO.

So the question is NOT how did something come out of nothing, but how did "nothing" )a universe with zero energy/mass value) come from nothing.

The answer: Random quantum fluctuation. Whatever that means

[Cain]

What if everything has always existed? Why does the theory of the universe (objective universe) have to abide by what We can understand?

[notachance]

Imagine you believed the earth was flat (I'm not being silly, this is a serious point).

If the earth was flat, then there would be only two possible options:

Either

1) The earth has an edge, much like a pizza has an edge

or

2) The earth stretches out for an infinite amount in every direction

If you believed the earth was flat, you would laugh at me if I told you that the earth neither has an edge, nor does it continue forever.

From the prospective of a person who believes the earth is flat, the statement "the earth neither has an edge, nor does it continue forever" is paradoxical and nonsensical.

BUT, if you upgrade your understanding of the earth from flat to globe, then the statement "the earth neither has an edge, nor does it continue forever" makes perfect sense.

Now, imagine you believed that space-time was flat, that space had no effect on time and that time was completely linear (I'm not being silly, this is a serious point).

If time was not affected by space, and was therefore completely linear there would only be two possible options:

Either

1) Space-time has a beginning, much like a year has a beginning

or

2) Space-time stretches out for an infinite amount in every direction

If you believed that space-time was flat, you would laugh at me if I told you that space time neither had a beginning nor did it exist forever.

From the prospective of one with a Newtonian understanding of physics who believes space-time is flat, and time is therefore linear and unaffected by space, the statement "Space-time neither has a beginning nor did it exist forever" is paradoxical and nonsensical.

BUT if you upgrade from Newtonian physics to Einstenian physics and understand that space-time is one continuum, that space-time is warped by mass, that time is affected by space and space is affected by time, and that time is not constant and linear but subjective and multidimensional, then the statement that "space-time neither has a beginning nor has it existed for ever" makes perfect sense.

It wasn't just space that came into existence at the Big Bang. Time came into existence then too.

A concept such as "three seconds before the big bang" is as nonsensical as a concept such as "three feet past the edge of the earth".

The concept of something beginning to exist requires that there was a time when it didn't exist followed by a time when it existed. This does not apply to the universe, because time didn't exist before the universe existed. Time is an internal property of the universe.

For the same reason it can't be said that the universe existed forever, because "forever" didn't exist before the Big Bang.

So it can be argued that the universe never began to exist, and hasn't existed forever.

Your thoughts?

before I reply to the entire post, I believe there is a third option to your Earth is Flat theory.

3) You have no empirical evidence that the earth is flat or round, unless you have looked at it from outer-space you can only go on 'faith' from what others have said.

Incorrect. If you are a cave man for example, to the best of your knowledge you DO have empirical evidence of the flatness of the earth. You most definitely observe it to be flat. It's NOT a matter of faith, it's a matter of perfectly rational conclusion drawn upon unbiased observation of tangible (though limited) evidence.

On the other hand, if you are a modern human being, you most definitely have empirical evidence of the globular shape of the planet, in the form of plane travel, direct experience of time differences across the globe, video footage of earth seen from space, etc.

By the same token, both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics are based on solidly empirical evidence and rigorous mathematics.

It;s just that Einsteinian physics is an upgrade to Newtonian, just like an iPhone 4 is an upgrade of iPhone 3.

[notachance]

What if everything has always existed? Why does the theory of the universe (objective universe) have to abide by what We can understand?

It's possible that "everything always existed".

The universe doesn't have to abide by what we understand. But FWI, by saying something as unsophisticated as "everything always existed", without considering the relativistic meaninglessness of concepts such as "everything" and "always", it seems to me that you are the one attempting to make the universe abide by your Newtonian understanding of reality.

I hope I didn't go too technical for you, there. There's a bunch of cool seminars on Relativity on youtube. Check em out my friend, they'll blow your mind!

[Cain]

Empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment. A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses.

This being the case then even modern man doesn't empirically know whether the earth is flat or not

[notachance]

Empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment. A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses.

This being the case then even modern man doesn't empirically know whether the earth is flat or not

YES WE DO.

Not only does humanity as a whole know that the earth is a globe, but YOU, the individual with username Cain, can PERSONALLY gather empirical evidence as defined above by YOU, that the earth is a globe.

Here's what you do:
You go to New York City.

You ask the person you trust the most in the world to go to Japan.

At the stroke of midnight, you call your friend in Japan and ask him/her "What time is it there?". He/She will answer "Well, my watch tells me it's noon, and this fact is confirmed by the fact that the SUN IS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SKY".

Once you hear that, you write down that when it's the middle of the night in New york, it's the Middle of the day in Japan.

Voila.

You just gathered information by means of observation, experience and experiment. That was your (correct) definition of empirical evidence.

This information you just gathered is empirical evidence in support of the hypothesis that the earth is a globe.

Want another experiment you can do to gather empirical evidence for the globular shape of the earth?

Go to the equator and rent a plane with a really really really accurate compass in it.

Fly the plane STRAIGHT EAST for about 20 hours.

If you eventually get to the EXACT SAME POINT YOU STARTED FROM, then you've thereby gathered empirical evidence in support of the hypothesis that the earth is a globe.



Please, with all due respect, if you're a member of the Flat Earth Society tell me now, so I stop wasting my time with you.

[Cain]

LOL . . . I was just about to direct you to that Society!
No, I am not a member or even interested.
My point (at least my attempted point) is that everything is Subjective, and no, if I have not personally experienced something, I cannot attest that it is true