Paradox of the beginning

[Greta]

The universe did not burst into being from nothing. It only burst into being from what we would perceive to be nothing, but it wasn't true nothingness. Something must have been present to induce the big bang, which could be thought of as a state change rather than a beginning. There is neither evidence nor logic to suggest that reality ever had an absolute beginning, and that view leads to unsolvable regression issues.

Note that when cosmologists like Lawrence Krauss speak of a "universe from nothing", it's only a slogan. His entire point was that there was something beforehand that precipitated the big bang - pre-existing conditions, and whether such conditions can validly be measured by time that we measure against physical change is moot.

[HexHammer]

I have been struggling with this problem for a while. It is difficult for me to even explain it to you. Lets assume that universe has a beginning whether it is created or it is result of big bang. There is however no before before beginning which means we cannot possibly define any reference point to measure the beginning from. This means that the age of universe can be anything which is paradoxical.

I will give a paradoxical critique, this is pure nonsense and at the same time right.

The eggheads can calculate backwards and arrive that the universe is about 13.5 billions years old, caused by "Big Bang Theory", but that's only a theory which I disagree with.
There's a lot BBT doesn't explain.

No one can for sure say how old the universe is.

[Hobbes' Choice]

The universe did not burst into being from nothing. It only burst into being from what we would perceive to be nothing, but it wasn't true nothingness. Something must have been present to induce the big bang, which could be thought of as a state change rather than a beginning. There is neither evidence nor logic to suggest that reality ever had an absolute beginning, and that view leads to unsolvable regression issues.

Note that when cosmologists like Lawrence Krauss speak of a "universe from nothing", it's only a slogan. His entire point was that there was something beforehand that precipitated the big bang - pre-existing conditions, and whether such conditions can validly be measured by time that we measure against physical change is moot.

Actually we simply cannot say one way or another. The BB might simply have been a major cataclysm into a preexisting massive universe, ejecting deep into space all that existed before it, and we would never know. Who knows, but a theory of pre-exiting matter might be used to formulate an answer to the anomalies such as dark matter, that plague the BBT.

The trouble with cosmologists is that their job is to pick a solution and argue for it. Reputations have always been made and lost on scientists pinning their colours to masts, over the centuries, all of which have been proven flags of convenience, which, designed to save the appearances, fail to stand the test of time with new discoveries and theories.

But even when all the possible evidence is gathered in, we have no particular reason to believe that the last theory, the best one, is in fact the true one. It will only ever be the theory that best fits the evidence (hopefully).

[Londoner]

I have been struggling with this problem for a while. It is difficult for me to even explain it to you. Lets assume that universe has a beginning whether it is created or it is result of big bang. There is however no before before beginning which means we cannot possibly define any reference point to measure the beginning from. This means that the age of universe can be anything which is paradoxical.

Why doesn't the same problem arise with 'Saturday'?

Saturday had a beginning. There cannot be a 'before beginning', so we have no reference point to measure the beginning of Saturday from. That means Saturday could have started at any time!

I think we would argue this is wrong because 'Saturday' is not like an object, it is more like 'a kilometer'. It is a name we have given to a measurement. We don't think of 'a kilometer' as starting anywhere in particular, except perhaps 'at the end of the previous kilometer'. So we are happy to say that Saturday started 'when the previous day ended'.

This isn't so obvious with 'universe' since that does seem to be the name of a thing, in fact of 'all things'. But it isn't. If something term covers 'all things' then it isn't the name of any-thing. (Just as 'infinity' is not the name of a number.) If we were asked instead when any particular thing was created we have no problem answering it (or, if we do, it is only because we have a technical difficulty).

If we were asked 'When did the sun start?' we would first have to establish what form of matter counts as being 'the sun', then we could answer. But if we were asked 'When did the universe start?' we couldn't take that first step. When asked 'What do you mean by 'the universe?' you would just get the reply: 'Everything?' 'And what do you mean by 'everything?' Answer: 'The universe!'.

And if we take that answer, that the universe is 'everything', then that includes the measurements of 'all-things', which cannot be any particular figure. So just it makes no sense to ask 'When did the universe begin?' It is like asking 'how far is distance?' or 'how long has time lasted?'

[Impenitent]

But an intelligent individual consciousness will infer that time (and space) existed before the flowering of their consciousness.

leaps of faith are still leaps of faith

-Imp

This is not a leap of faith.
It is evident.

evident? have fun disproving solipsism...

-Imp

[Hobbes' Choice]

leaps of faith are still leaps of faith

-Imp

This is not a leap of faith.
It is evident.

evident? have fun disproving solipsism...

-Imp

I don't need to. All I have to is show what is evident. If you want to take a solipsistic position then good luck to you. But you must remember that should you do so, I have every right to ignore you, as by your own admission I do not even exist.

The simple fact remains that the position of stating that the universe existed before our individual consciousness, has the distinction of being a position which enjoys more evidential support, and forms the basis of all we think and do, more than any other position.

TO refute it would not only involve you in cheap solipsism, but would involve the dismissal of all evidence; evidence itself.

[Impenitent]

This is not a leap of faith.
It is evident.

evident? have fun disproving solipsism...

-Imp

I don't need to. All I have to is show what is evident. If you want to take a solipsistic position then good luck to you. But you must remember that should you do so, I have every right to ignore you, as by your own admission I do not even exist.

I never claimed to be a solipsist ... but think about your claim... all you (who doesn't exist) have to show is that which is evident (exclusively in your perception) to an external mind (which you cannot prove to exist)... several leaps of faith there...

The simple fact remains that the position of stating that the universe existed before our individual consciousness, has the distinction of being a position which enjoys more evidential support, and forms the basis of all we think and do, more than any other position.

the lure of cause and effect is tempting, yet there is no first cause (outside of individual consciousness) without taking a leap of faith... and that is all I have ever said.

TO refute it would not only involve you in cheap solipsism, but would involve the dismissal of all evidence; evidence itself.

what evidence? that "evidence" which you claim exists in your perceptions somehow must exist (leap of faith) in the perceptions of every other perceiver (exactly as you perceive it?)

-Imp

[bahman]

Ok. Lets attack the problem in another way because I have trouble to explain my thought in plain words: Think of beginning as a point on starting of real axis, zero. The universe exists along the real axis and the age of universe is related to the position of universe on real axis. There is however a problem here related to beginning of universe which indicates that there is no before before beginning which this means that we have to deal with a half of real number (from zero to infinity) which this is not close under subtract operation. So we are having a problem with the beginning.

[Greta]

The universe did not burst into being from nothing. It only burst into being from what we would perceive to be nothing, but it wasn't true nothingness. Something must have been present to induce the big bang, which could be thought of as a state change rather than a beginning. There is neither evidence nor logic to suggest that reality ever had an absolute beginning, and that view leads to unsolvable regression issues.

Note that when cosmologists like Lawrence Krauss speak of a "universe from nothing", it's only a slogan. His entire point was that there was something beforehand that precipitated the big bang - pre-existing conditions, and whether such conditions can validly be measured by time that we measure against physical change is moot.

Actually we simply cannot say one way or another. The BB might simply have been a major cataclysm into a preexisting massive universe, ejecting deep into space all that existed before it, and we would never know. Who knows, but a theory of pre-exiting matter might be used to formulate an answer to the anomalies such as dark matter, that plague the BBT.

... But even when all the possible evidence is gathered in, we have no particular reason to believe that the last theory, the best one, is in fact the true one. It will only ever be the theory that best fits the evidence (hopefully).

As long as we generally head in the direction of "less wrong than before" ...

I am not one to believe that "something" suddenly burst out of absolutely nothing (unless "absolutely nothing" is not what we assume). Everything we know about the universe suggests a constant process of thresholds being reached, subsequent emergence, development, another threshold, and so forth. So I figure that some natural threshold was reached to precipitate inflation. I use "natural" broadly, because it will pertain to phenomena not yet included in our definition of nature.

Just relying on logic and what the preeminent talking heads in the area have said, I am undecided on whether the universe operates in serial or whether there's a multiverse of parallel universes. I'm also unsure as to whether, in a sense, they are one and the same. After all, a "universe" by definition has everything in it, and all we really know is that it is bigger, and has more stuff in it, than we can ever hope to access.

What if another inflationary event has also occurred a quintillion light years away? We wouldn't even know. By the time the light of one reached the other, each universe would be long gone by the time the light from the other became accessible. Maybe what we call "the universe" is just one supercluster of galactic superclusters amongst many?

Interestingly, there's some doubt being cast on both dark matter and dark energy of late. After being discredited, the idea of gravity behaving differently at galactic scales (like it does at subatomic scales) is back on the table. Further, now that it's been found that "standard candles" of Type 1A supernovas are not quite so standard, it casts some doubt as to the rate of the universe's expansion.

[Throng]

It isn't a paradox, but a problem-in-question, for this query basically asks: when was the beginning of the beginning?

[Londoner]

Ok. Lets attack the problem in another way because I have trouble to explain my thought in plain words: Think of beginning as a point on starting of real axis, zero.

And that is what a 'beginning' is. Something you set, for your purpose, relating to some particular event that you have chosen to distinguish.

The universe exists along the real axis and the age of universe is related to the position of universe on real axis.

No, it doesn't. 'The universe' does not exist, only particular things exist. If you are going to select 'the beginning' then you are going to have to select some particular thing within the universe.

The confusion is created because we can also use 'the universe' to mean a particular configuration of energy and matter. If you do that, if you specified (say) that 'the universe' meant 'things as they were at the Big Bang' then we can say when the universe began. But you are mixing this up with 'the universe' as meaning 'everything'. We cannot say when the beginning of 'everything' was.

So the problem is not with 'beginning' but with 'universe'. You need to make up your mind what that means. Until you do, we cannot say when it had its beginning.

[Hobbes' Choice]

what evidence? that "evidence" which you claim exists in your perceptions somehow must exist (leap of faith) in the perceptions of every other perceiver (exactly as you perceive it?)

-Imp

You are taking up a ridiculous position.
The evidence is your entire life, your memories, the accounts of your parents, historical records; photos of your youth, and babyhood. The undeniable fact of others exactly like yourself that you have personally witnessed coming into the world.

Calling this faith is an abuse of language. You do that at your own peril.

[Hobbes' Choice]

The universe did not burst into being from nothing. It only burst into being from what we would perceive to be nothing, but it wasn't true nothingness. Something must have been present to induce the big bang, which could be thought of as a state change rather than a beginning. There is neither evidence nor logic to suggest that reality ever had an absolute beginning, and that view leads to unsolvable regression issues.

Note that when cosmologists like Lawrence Krauss speak of a "universe from nothing", it's only a slogan. His entire point was that there was something beforehand that precipitated the big bang - pre-existing conditions, and whether such conditions can validly be measured by time that we measure against physical change is moot.

Actually we simply cannot say one way or another. The BB might simply have been a major cataclysm into a preexisting massive universe, ejecting deep into space all that existed before it, and we would never know. Who knows, but a theory of pre-exiting matter might be used to formulate an answer to the anomalies such as dark matter, that plague the BBT.

... But even when all the possible evidence is gathered in, we have no particular reason to believe that the last theory, the best one, is in fact the true one. It will only ever be the theory that best fits the evidence (hopefully).

As long as we generally head in the direction of "less wrong than before" ...

I am not one to believe that "something" suddenly burst out of absolutely nothing (unless "absolutely nothing" is not what we assume). Everything we know about the universe suggests a constant process of thresholds being reached, subsequent emergence, development, another threshold, and so forth. So I figure that some natural threshold was reached to precipitate inflation. I use "natural" broadly, because it will pertain to phenomena not yet included in our definition of nature.

Just relying on logic and what the preeminent talking heads in the area have said, I am undecided on whether the universe operates in serial or whether there's a multiverse of parallel universes. I'm also unsure as to whether, in a sense, they are one and the same. After all, a "universe" by definition has everything in it, and all we really know is that it is bigger, and has more stuff in it, than we can ever hope to access.

What if another inflationary event has also occurred a quintillion light years away? We wouldn't even know. By the time the light of one reached the other, each universe would be long gone by the time the light from the other became accessible. Maybe what we call "the universe" is just one supercluster of galactic superclusters amongst many?

Interestingly, there's some doubt being cast on both dark matter and dark energy of late. After being discredited, the idea of gravity behaving differently at galactic scales (like it does at subatomic scales) is back on the table. Further, now that it's been found that "standard candles" of Type 1A supernovas are not quite so standard, it casts some doubt as to the rate of the universe's expansion.

Cosmologies evolve and die. The story is far from done.

[thedoc]

The Universe is everything that we can observe and infer from what we can observe, the Universe is approximately 3.8 billion years old. Anything else that may have existed is merely speculation not definite.