24 Feb 14
Could someone please explain to me the reasoning that concludes that our universe may be beginning-less and end-less, with respect to time?
I have read about this theory before, and I have had conversations with friends about it, too. In those conversations, I have in some form always asked the question, "How could it be that if in nearly every facet of our lives we observe, understand, perceive things as temporally, causally related, why wouldn't we apply that paradigm to our understanding of the existence of our own physical existence?" To which I was met with a swift retort of, "Well just because we can't fathom the concept, or just because we're not familiar with it, doesn't mean it isn't so." To which I stopped talking altogether.
I'm not trying to be small-minded, or shallow. But I genuinely don't understand on what basis I should even consider rejecting a fundamental physical premise of our (universal) existence.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
24 Feb 14
Originally posted by wittywonkagoogle on
Could someone please explain to me the reasoning that concludes that our universe may be beginning-less and end-less, with respect to time?
I have read about this theory before, and I have had conversations with friends about it, too. In those conversations, I have in some form always asked the question, "How could it be that if in nearly every facet o ...[text shortened]... is I should even consider rejecting a fundamental physical premise of our (universal) existence.
universe may be beginning-less and endless
without "s and see what you get.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
24 Feb 14
Originally posted by wittywonkaDo you mean Steady State theory or an Oscillating Universe theory of some type ?
Could someone please explain to me the reasoning that concludes that our universe may be beginning-less and end-less, with respect to time?
I have read about this theory before, and I have had conversations with friends about it, too. In those conversations, I have in some form always asked the question, "How could it be that if in nearly every facet o ...[text shortened]... is I should even consider rejecting a fundamental physical premise of our (universal) existence.
24 Feb 14
Originally posted by wittywonkaNot sure if this belongs in science forum or here. I guess you need to do some more reading, but as I understand it the Big Bang theory of the start of the universe means it had a start and therefore must have had a cause. If it had a start then it must be possible to have an end I suppose. However we must define what start and end are.
Could someone please explain to me the reasoning that concludes that our universe may be beginning-less and end-less, with respect to time?
I have read about this theory before, and I have had conversations with friends about it, too. In those conversations, I have in some form always asked the question, "How could it be that if in nearly every facet o ...[text shortened]... is I should even consider rejecting a fundamental physical premise of our (universal) existence.
24 Feb 14
Originally posted by divegeesterNot sure if this belongs in science forum or here.
Not sure if this belongs in science forum or here. I guess you need to do some more reading, but as I understand it the Big Bang theory of the start of the universe means it had a start and therefore must have had a cause. If it had a start then it must be possible to have an end I suppose. However we must define what start and end are.
By no means would it prove the existence of a supernatural ("God"-like) being, but it seems to me that a finite beginning of the universe would make the existence of such a being more likely--we're back to the old, "Well what caused the one 'beginning'--the ultimate cause itself?" But I digress.
24 Feb 14
Originally posted by wittywonkaI don't have any issue accepting the possibility of higher creative authority however likely or unlikely the various polarised parties present it. Personally I find all this philosophical hypothesising of no value whatsoever although I understand why people look at it. The questions I have are more practical such as:
[b]Not sure if this belongs in science forum or here.
By no means would it prove the existence of a supernatural ("God"-like) being, but it seems to me that a finite beginning of the universe would make the existence of such a being more likely--we're back to the old, "Well what caused the one 'beginning'--the ultimate cause itself?" But I digress.[/b]
Why is the gospel so critical for salvation and so simple, and yet the bible itself often (too me) seems so complicated and sometimes some key issues are unclear?
What is god's purpose?
What is the point of suffering?
Etc.
24 Feb 14
Originally posted by wittywonkaI believe the question can apply to either science or spirituality. One of the statements found in the kalam cosmological argument is "The universe had a beginning". This statement is backed up by some interesting reasoning that shows how it's impossible for there to have been an infinite number of past events. It seems there are a few unresolvable paradoxes associated with the idea of an eternal past.
[b]Not sure if this belongs in science forum or here.
By no means would it prove the existence of a supernatural ("God"-like) being, but it seems to me that a finite beginning of the universe would make the existence of such a being more likely--we're back to the old, "Well what caused the one 'beginning'--the ultimate cause itself?" But I digress.[/b]
Aristotle on the other hand had an argument to prove there could have been an infinite number of past events, but as I recall his argument included a patch to make it work. In other words, his theory needed the help of a mysterious outside force in order to eliminate the paradoxes.
Sorry I can't be more specific... it's been awhile since reading either one, and I've forgotten most of the details.
24 Feb 14
Originally posted by lemon limeI have never seen any reasoning to this effect that stood up to scrutiny. Would you care to try and provide any such reasoning?
This statement is backed up by some interesting reasoning that shows how it's impossible for there to have been an infinite number of past events. It seems there are a few unresolvable paradoxes associated with the idea of an eternal past.
24 Feb 14
Originally posted by wittywonkaIts quite simple, the so called 'physical premise' you are relying on is based on subsets of the universe ie it is a law/premise internal to the universe. There is no reason whatsoever to think any such law/premise applies to the universe as a whole.
I'm not trying to be small-minded, or shallow. But I genuinely don't understand on what basis I should even consider rejecting a fundamental physical premise of our (universal) existence.
Further, the so called physical premise, would seem to suggest the exact opposite of your conclusion. If everything in the universe is temporally, causally related then it follows that everything in the universe has a prior cause - also contained in the universe. If everything in the universe has a prior cause contained in the universe, then the universe necessarily has no beginning.
24 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by wittywonkaA steady state universe means the universe has always existed in its present form.
I've heard of the Oscillating Universe theory, though I don't know much about it. And I have no idea what the Steady State theory is.
An Oscillating Universe contracts but stops short of reaching a singularity before it begins expanding again. The Oscillating Universe theory was proposed to overcome a problem with trying to reverse engineer the Big Bang back to its very beginning. The theory resembles the Big Bang without actually having a beginning, so it supposedly eliminates first cause and the need to explain how something could have come from nothing. IMO it's simply a variation of the Steady State universe, except that it oscillates instead of remaining in a steady state of existence.
24 Feb 14
Originally posted by wolfgang59I have never liked that phrase as it can be incoherent. Much better would be:
Something came from nothing.
'time is finite in the past'
or
'time is infinite in the past'.
A finite past does not mean the existence of 'nothing' beyond the start. There is no beyond.
24 Feb 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadAs I said before I've forgotten most of the details, but both arguments begin with the assumption of an infinite number of past events. The Kalam systematically scrutinizes this assumption whereas Aristotles' thesis attempts to prove it. The mysterious force Aristotle inserted into his argument was to keep the chain of cause and effect events chugging along with no apparent loss or dissipation of energy.
I have never seen any reasoning to this effect that stood up to scrutiny. Would you care to try and provide any such reasoning?
In a closed system (such as the one you described) energy isn't lost, it dissipates. If it dissipates to the point where there is no longer an imbalance of forces then all physical motion ceases... and when physical motion ceases, cause and effect ceases. Aristotle recognised the need for adding energy into an infinite number of cause and effect events so as to explain a perpetual motion machine that has always chugged along (and will continue to chug along) for eternity. He didn't expect to find problems (or paradoxes) associated with a chain of past events that forever extend backwards in time, so he didn't look for any... he simply assumed it was true.
By the way, I don't want to try explaining what the paradoxes are until I've had a chance to review them again. Nevertheless, I am confident none of it will stand up to your scrutiny.