@Christologist i really don't know what to believe

@Christologist I also exist and enjoy doing things.
wasting time speculating about what might or might not have happened millions of years ago is of no consequence to me.

Will knowing what kickstarted the universe make any discernable difference to my life?

Excellent answer.

That makes my brain hurt

@Christologist I am puzzled by you definition of the universe. If it's only the physical things it means that all the space around the physical things are not part of the universe. So the space beyond the star furthest from the earth is not part of the universe even though the star is moving into it. Also the space between the sun and the earth is not part of it. So the light that originates from the sun leaves the universe and the comes back into it.....

@Christologist without thinking too much into it, I would say that your list of possibilities would encompass every possible condition about the existance of this Universe. it is a bit of ambiguity though, because "universe" usually refers to a single continuum, so to say "by universe I include whatever was here before this universe" doesn't really match the words very well. but yes, either arose from whatever "nothing" is, was caused by something happening in the previous framework, was a timeless condition which expanded in such a way as to create time (non-synchronous state change), or was created.

we can eliminate the last one, since if there were such an entity, the rest of it still covers any creation event: either that being created it through manipulating a natural process, created it out of nothing, or created it by starting non-synchronous state change in a timeless space.

what I mean by "eliminate" it is that we can consider it a separate question from "how did the universe arise". the mechanics of the process can be separated from the entity causing it, in the same way you would say that the cue ball moved because it was struck by the cue stick, separating the mechanism by which the cue stick was swung from the actual physical process.

@Christologist That makes more sense.

if you cannot understand the mechanics, you cannot conjecture on the cause. without knowing how the 8 ball got in the pocket, you cannot start looking for the initial action. you be looking for a pool player when all along it was the night shift guy cleaning off the table before closing up.

but most of that is meaningless. we cannot at the present moment see past the expansion event. there is no evidence left of that. quantum fluctuation, physical event from a previous state, singularity expansion, all unknowable. Unless and until we get a way to measure any of that information, it will all be conjecture. Math and Cosmology give us some models, and those models help us eliminate impossible scenarios, but they do not eliminate any possible one.

@Christologist “We must learn to think of the world not as something that changes in time, but in some other way. Things change only in relation to one another. At a fundamental level there is no time. Our sense of the passage of time is only an approximation that is valid for our macroscopic scale. It derives from the fact that we perceive the world in a coarse-grained fashion.”

Carlo Rovelli
“Reality is not What it Seems”

Sounds like what you are saying I think. But saying that things happen in order, one after the other, isn’t that the same thing as time? I’m confused.

I understand also that on the quantum level weird things happen with time that challenges the normal notion of time.

I am way beyond my range of knowledge.

@Christologist I do not have an advanced degree in physics. I have quoted a noted physicist. Take it up with him.

@Christologist do you really think that physicists have no observable, repeatable, testable evidence for their theories? I have no compunctions about quoting professionals. There is nothing shameful or deficient in doing so.

It became known over a hundred years ago through Einstein that time as we experience it is an illusion in that there is no universal time standard. But in quantum field theory it has been discovered that time is simply not needed.

The way I think of it is like a book of trigonometric tables. In that book are many fluctuations and changes, and those changes are real and can be tested. But trigonometry has nothing to do with time. Another analogy is a novel. The pages of a novel are ordered in sequence—one page follows another. A person reading that book creates her own sense of time. Time is a function of awareness. The actual book is timeless.

There is getting to be a credibility gap here. You are claiming to have answers to the deep questions of existence, yet I don’t see you putting forth any of those answers. Surely a person of your great knowledge would have published books by now and achieved great fame. Can you point to any such books?

If your answer is that God did it, you have no answer at all. You are merely substituting one mystery for another.

@Christologist Wow, fifteen. When I was your age I was too shy to carry on a conversation, and I certainly was not ready to talk about metaphysics. It appears that you have hit the ground running.

I have said all that I know about time and so will withdraw. I wish for you the very best in the years ahead.

@Christologist As long as you exchange messages here there is reason to think that you exist. A definition of knowledge and how to know something takes you to epistemology where you can investigate the methodologies of positivism, phenomenology and more. To my knowledge none of the declares something as absolute knowledge but as the best model of reality that has not been disproven.

@Christologist That sand is irritating when it gets between your toes?

@Christologist Spacial metaphors don't make sense prior to the exitence of space. It may be that only with the big bang that space came into being.

@Christologist It leaves us with nothing based on our limited grasp of what could have been prior to the big bang. Krauss

@Christologist yeah you know i had a philosophy teacher who said "god exists because the word god implies existence and therefore god exists." i thought he was an idiot. i still do. grammar is not science.

g

@Christologist
Krauss talks about a universe of things in and out of existence. I think he says somewhere that his nothing is not as stable as existing things Just because we currently don't understand what or how such things could be prior to the big bang that does not mean there could not be things prior to it, in fact that is my best guess.

The question is valid and is not moot.

For me it is not possible to shrug off the question so easily. Your answer is a non-answer.

@WilliamFleming @Lop-Eared-Mule It is an answer you simple do not agree with it, or you don't understand it.
Asking "Where Did the Universe Come From?" if (Repeat IF) the universe did not come from anywhere, is a moot question.
However if as I postulate existence simply is, one can legitimately ask how did the universe get organised in the state we observe today, THAT is a good question and the one quantum physics is attempting to answer.

If you can prove to me that total non existence is, actual, possible or even viable then "Where Did the Universe Come From?" will be a legitimate question, until you can do that then my hypothesis that existence simply is the natural state, is probably the best answer that can be given.

@Christologist
If a tree falls in a forest, and there is nobody around to hear it, did it make a sound? According to science, we have every reason to believe that it would, and no reason to believe it wouldn't.

Of course it would, however it would not be interpreted as a sound unless there was an ear or listening device to receive the sound wave and interpret it.
What is you point in relation to either my answer of the question asked?

WHY is the universe here, as opposed to not here?

That was not the question I was answering

What caused it to be here?

Neither is that

When thought about, only a few options appear.

If you can only come up with a few options you are not thinking very hard, it would seem to me, or you have very little imagination and limited thought processes

@Christologist There is a physical meter though. You can go see it in Louvre in Paris.

@Christologist good luck with that. and you said you would consider any answers objectively but all i see is you being slightly rude telling people they're wrong or that they should not have answered. this is a good way to get people to give up responding to your posts, isn't it?

g

SCIENCE!

No, is there any theory that anybody has evidence for? The only thing we could say objectively is that it wasn’t magic.

@Christologist Actually what I was doing was remembering an idea that was put forth by Neil Degrasse Tyson making me consider that just as there are many solar systems and many galaxies there could be many universes... I’m not claiming it as truth or fact but simply suggesting it as an interesting idea… Perhaps it would be fun in a science-fiction film?

That is a non-reply..

read my profile. We're not gonna make it.

@Christologist It's no different that discussing whether gods do or do not exist. Sorry. I'm done.

@Christologist you did say "or whoever", inviting anyone to voice their feelings ... so no answer is truly a waste of time, is it ? While I find the different ideas interesting - we may never know for certain, and I'm fine with that.

@Christologist as @evergreen said, you said whoever.

Also, it would appear that you have decided that you have your own theory as to where the universe came from as you have made a number of assertions and frame many of your responses with a number of presuppositions that would support an external cause. Your use of 'belief' rather than understanding also implies that this is more of a philosophical question rather than a scientific one.

I responded to several of your comments because despite the fact that I do not know where our universe came from or even that it came from anywhere, I do enjoy debate and a good discussion around the facts that are available.

As I said, it's a curiosity, but in the grand scheme of things has no bearing or effect on my life whatsoever - unless, of course, you know different!

@Uncorrugated an enthusiastic here, here, and cheerio !

@Christologist Infinity is a mathmatical concept. Nothing to do with a staircase and more akin to parallel lines.. And remember, the same concept you preach also applies to your deity.

@Christologist No. I wouldn't agree.

I'm not a physicist or cosmologist so only understand infinity as a mathematical concept. 'Beginning' and 'end' are social constructs to explain events relative to our current existence and may not be applicable outside of our current known universe.

Bravo Bobby9 !

@Christologist In your infinite staircase analogy, you start with misconceptions in order to prove yourself right. If you are on an infinite staircase, you can't start at the top as there is no top. If you have an infinite staircase, you don't have to wait for them to be grown as they'd already be there. No matter what step you are on, there would be an infinite amount of steps below and above.. never able to climb down to a beginning nor able to climb up to a top. That would be a truly infinite staircase, not a staircase that isn't infinite that you want to say is infinite so you can deny the concept of being infinite.

@Christologist Please enlighten me with how many universes we have observed the start and end of.
As far as I am aware, we have only one universe to study and with our current understanding of it, can only hypothesise about how this particular presentation of it may have come about.

Prior to that, we have insufficient evidence to speculate with any confidence what may have been before this or even if there was a before.

@Bobby9 I know, it amazes me how blind the scientific community is. They like this Big Bang Theory - except when you ask them what was here before the big bang - they'll say kind of a pre-time and pre-space something. These "scientists" don't understand space - you can not create or destroy space, and space does not expand. Honestly, I laugh at how ridiculous some theories are.

@Christologist " Thus, we know that everything physical must have had a beginning, and that past history can only be finite, and your theory cannot be."
I think there is a logical fallacy there but will have to think about it before replying.

What happened to his replies?

@Christologist none lol

@Christologist quick response.. the evidence you yourself suggested about things must be finite. But when you change states you start a new dimension.. (a new set of stairs)

1. The technology to (time travel? Analyze the distant past?) won't be available to the human race ever, since we'll all be dead in 10 or so years. ( www.guymcpherson.com )

@Christologist Of the universe expansion... I have no evidence. of the 4 dimensions I give you height, width, length and passage through time. Seems like evidence to me.

@Christologist Ultimately there are only a few possibilities that you can think of. And it's very possible that none of them are correct.

Please cite your evidene for your assertions.

@Christologist your two replies above are in direct conflict. If those four possibilities are observable, testable and repeatable then they must all be correct, If you (or others) have have done this, please show me the evidence of this.

As far as I am aware (I'm not a cosmologist, so if tyou are looking for scientific discussion on this I suggest you post on a cosmologists site) there are a number of hypotheses about how our current universe began, the big bang theory appears to be the most likely explanation given the evidence we currently have. What happened before the big bang is pure speculation at this time.

@Christologist I do not agree that those are the ONLY explanations for the origin of the universe.

Philosophy is mostly word salad and only of any use once the premises have been confirmed and agreed upon. We currently do not have enough information or any other universes to compare against or even speculate what was before the event that resulted in this current presentation of our universe. So to say there are only 4 possible explanations - none of which have been confirmed as possible - is in error.