In a multiverse, is there a universe that started first?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Assume in my OP that a multiverse exists. Then the question is inevitable whether a particular universe has precedent over another, timewise?

This is really a trick question. Why? because each universe has its own set of laws. One universe can be running slower than another as is well known for our own universe under certain circumstances. So there is no standard of time in a multiverse.

Anybody think otherwise? Why?

PhilX

[BigWhit]

Time inside each universe wouldn't matter. A "first" universe would require a time scale outside those universes amd a beginning to it as well, which would only push the genesis problem one step further.

[Skip]

... each universe has its own set of laws...


PhilX

Who says? If you can live, observe and record events in only one universe, how could you know anything about the laws governing a universe to which you have no access? You can't even make that statement about any one other universe, let alone a blanket assertion regarding an unknown number of unknowable universes.

[Philosophy Explorer]

... each universe has its own set of laws...


PhilX

Who says? If you can live, observe and record events in only one universe, how could you know anything about the laws governing a universe to which you have no access? You can't even make that statement about any one other universe, let alone a blanket assertion regarding an unknown number of unknowable universes.

It's by definition Skip, not by evidence.

PhilX

[Skip]

If you can have a definition that's valid for an unknowable number of unknowable entities, you can append anything you like to that definition, including : "...which all came out of the first universe" and/or "... which all originate at unknown times and places".
Both/either presumption would be equally correct, equally absurd and equally spurious.

[Philosophy Explorer]

If you can have a definition that's valid for an unknowable number of unknowable entities, you can append anything you like to that definition, including : "...which all came out of the first universe" and/or "... which all originate at unknown times and places".
Both/either presumption would be equally correct, equally absurd and equally spurious.

Skip,

It's a start and what you've said can be applied to any number of "whacko" ideas that were later shown to have validity (e.g. Dr. Louis Pasteur was initially ridiculed by his colleagues for his inoculation idea).

With this thread, time would be a tricky concept to handle in the multiverse. So it seems that time can only have meaning within each universe, but not with respect to the multiverse.

PhilX

[Lacewing]

Just a thought... if you compare the multiverse concept to what we think we know about cells... every living thing starts with one cell which continually divides such that the "first" cell no longer remains distinct, right? And even though the cells may evolve for various purposes, they are indistinguishable from "the one". There is no longer a "first"... as the one is ALL.

Using that logic, universes could potentially divide into more universes which are all interrelated even if evolving on many different levels and in many different ways... and there is no "first" or "better".

I think the concept of hierarchical placement/value is a way that humans try to explain things and "establish our position" amongst those things, when actually everything in nature (including us) is all of the same stuff. The "divisions" are simply to create variety and to expand functioning.

That's my guess.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Just a thought... if you compare the multiverse concept to what we think we know about cells... every living thing starts with one cell which continually divides such that the "first" cell no longer remains distinct, right? And even though the cells may evolve for various purposes, they are indistinguishable from "the one". There is no longer a "first"... as the one is ALL.

Using that logic, universes could potentially divide into more universes which are all interrelated even if evolving on many different levels and in many different ways... and there is no "first" or "better".

I think the concept of hierarchical placement/value is a way that humans try to explain things and "establish our position" amongst those things, when actually everything in nature (including us) is all of the same stuff. The "divisions" are simply to create variety and to expand functioning.

That's my guess.

Let me ask you this Lacewing.

Does time erase all memories and records? If it does, then that first cell wouldn't exist. But if it doesn't, welllll.

PhilX

[Dubious]

Perhaps each universe in a multiverse begins with the same initializing time stem cell just prior to inflation which then determines the differences and the outcome...which Lacewing already hinted at.

[Lacewing]

Let me ask you this Lacewing.

Does time erase all memories and records? If it does, then that first cell wouldn't exist. But if it doesn't, welllll.

I don't know... my mind is still blown from my last post.

In general, I think time is an illusion. And anything that we might consider memories and records are totally insignificant on a cosmic scale. I don't think any of it really matters one way or another. We're just having an experience in this moment... which will pass on to a new moment again and again.

We are sort of like a water drop falling into a calm pool, creating ripples which we experience, but then the ripples fade and are gone (and so are we when we settle back into the great cosmic ocean at some point). It doesn't matter... it just is... and we can love it or hate it or fight it or flow with it.

That's how it seems to me.

That was probably more (or different) than you were asking for.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Lacewing said:

"In general, I think time is an illusion. And anything that we might consider memories and records are totally insignificant on a cosmic scale. I don't think any of it really matters one way or another. We're just having an experience in this moment... which will pass on to a new moment again and again."

I think Stephen Hawking may take issue with this, considering his black hole theories and what he said about the event horizon. Now going from moment to moment is possible as some scientists say time is discrete and others feel it is continuous. Just some more food for thought.

PhilX

[Skip]

Skip,

It's a start and what you've said can be applied to any number of "whacko" ideas that were later shown to have validity (e.g. Dr. Louis Pasteur was initially ridiculed by his colleagues for his inoculation idea).

That is not a valid comparison. Pasteur was talking about things in this , real world. There is no reason why everything within this realm, operating by the same rules, should not be observable and testable at some time, with some instrument, by some intelligence that inhabits this realm. It is all potentially knowable.
What you are talking about is literally and permanently unknowable.

With this thread, time would be a tricky concept to handle in the multiverse. So it seems that time can only have meaning within each universe, but not with respect to the multiverse.

PhilX

So would everything else. No concept and no cognition is transferable from one realm to another. So, everything anybody speculates on the subject is equally valid: you simply have to make up your own definition. Just as, everything I tell you about the Wumblekoonie is absolutely true, because if at any time, a statement of mine is challenged in any plausible way, I change the Wumbelcloony.

[Obvious Leo]

You're about the only one making any sense in this thread, skip. Talking about anything which is assumed to exist external to the universe is just god-bollocks by another name. No meaningful statements can be made about it.

[Obvious Leo]

By the way, Phil. Hawking has gone off the event horizon idea, and not before time, in my opinion. He now prefers to call it a "virtual" horizon. You've gotta love it, don't you?

[Philosophy Explorer]

By the way, Phil. Hawking has gone off the event horizon idea, and not before time, in my opinion. He now prefers to call it a "virtual" horizon. You've gotta love it, don't you?

He gets a good press.

PhilX