The creation of the Universe.

[Rodion Romanovich]

In my limited understanding of the mathematics, the assumed logic that there must be something to give rise to something is a fallacy. The question of what was there 'before' is redundant, because time was created along with the big bang.

Counter-intuitive, I know, but then much of what we know about physics is.

No wait! I meant that assuming the cause-and-effect system is true, every state is a result of the previous state. If the state just before big bang was "nothing", and "nothing" causally gives rise to "something", then "nothing" would have caused "something" immediately after it started existing. Which means if "nothing" was the state before big bang, then time can't have existed before big bang, and the state "nothing" only existed in an infinitesimal time period, which could be the same as saying it never existed. However, if "nothing" existed for a longer period of time, then the "nothing" must have been of different kinds all the time, otherwise the special "nothing" state that caused the "something" state would have caused the "something" state earlier. All this is assuming cause and effect principles are true, which I believe also the big bang theory assumes, and God theory also assumes.

The problem as I see it is that the big bang theory assumes that time didn't exist before big bang, without proving it. Big bang theory only has supporting arguments for the creation of exergy, and I don't think it has anything supporting creation of matter and energy, let alone time and dimensions.

[InsaneApache]

Try and look at it like this. Where do your thoughts come from and what are they made of? Before you had the thought what was there before it. The thought only started to exist when you had it.

[Rodion Romanovich]

No, every thought comes from a combination of outer impressions, memories, and the way my brain looked when I was born. No thought comes out of nothing.

[InsaneApache]

No, every thought comes from a combination of outer impressions, memories, and the way my brain looked when I was born. No thought comes out of nothing.

That's not true.

Einsteins' theories weren't from memories or outer impressions nor was he born with them. The brain is a very complex thing and only now are we beginning to understand it.

Also, where does the thought go once you've had it?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Einsteins' theories weren't from memories or outer impressions nor was he born with them.

Of course they were! To simplify things a lot, the system is very much equivalent to a module where you process data, and one module where you store it, and one module for receiving impressions (data) through senses. His theories stemmed from his fantasy, his prior knowledge in the subject, and his abilities to compare the memories he had to each other, drawing new conclusions. Then he had to store these new insights as memories, from which he could deduce new theories. His prior knowledge came from processing and storing the impressions from the outside. His processing ability came from earlier experiences (from the outside) and earlier thoughts.

Essentially the brain is actually built up much like a computer, the only difference is that it's a computer that is a million/billion/trillion times more complex than a normal computer, and that it can rewire its own hardware when needed, and that most of the constant wiring is part of a billions of years long evolutionary process. Can you really give example of a single thought that isn't built on memories, impressions and processing of those impressions and memories?

Also, where does the thought go once you've had it?

Either to the memory, or it reaches a dead end and is discarded, or it is transformed into output in the form of say a movement, something you say, or something else.

[Banquo's Ghost]

The problem as I see it is that the big bang theory assumes that time didn't exist before big bang, without proving it. Big bang theory only has supporting arguments for the creation of exergy, and I don't think it has anything supporting creation of matter and energy, let alone time and dimensions.

Time is a property of this universe. There is nothing to say it is an essential property of any other universe. For this universe, it was created at the Big Bang. Therefore there is no concept of before in relation to the creation of this universe.

Matter and energy are inter-dependent. Time as a dimension is a property of this universe, as are length and breadth. The Big Bang deals neatly with them all, insofar as the creation of the universe goes. It currently has nothing to say about before, because there is no before.

If you apply your own assumptions as detailed, of course the Big Bang doesn't seem to fit the observations. But your assumptions need to be changed if you want to understand - which is what cosmologists are finding right now. The maths is very hard to follow, but interesting when explained, even if counter-intuitive.

I'm a biologist by training, so physics makes my brain hurt.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Yes, but apparently if you look far enough away, you'll see light sent out as early as from the time when big bang was supposed to happen. If you look further away, you're supposed to see... what? Will there be an edge there?

Also, I've still not seen the proof that time couldn't exist before big bang. A bunch of matter and stuff goes boom and therefore no time could exist before...? That's an assumption if anything. I too made an assumption, but it was an assumption that the big bang theory also uses. I use but one assumption, the big bang theory uses that assumption plus at least one more. I personally think big bang is as little trustworthy as the God model. Both are after all models, there's no skilled scientists that would say big bang is the truth, only a model of truth until we can find a contradiction in it and new observations and/or thoughts require a change of model, much like the case has been in quantum physics where we've changed model at least 5 times the last century. So - if big bang doesn't in any way whatsoever motivate, theoretically or by some observation, that time couldn't exist before big bang, then it's obviously not a complete theory.

[mystic brew]

well, for proof time is a dimension, well, it's a tricky one. But i'lll try.

we move through the universe in 4 dimensions. the normal 3 plus time. though for some reason we can only move in one direction in time. when we move faster and faster in three dimensions, then we are expending less of our 'energy' by travelling in time. this is, apparantly, even measurable at the speeds humanity can travel in, though it is infinitesimal.

as we move faster and faster, getting close to the speed of light, we are expending less and less of our energy to time- hence the time dilation effect so beloved by the sci-fi writers.

So it's demonstrably true that 'time' is an artefact of the universe... 'before' isn't a word that can ever be applied to the universe, since it only came into being with it.

I think that's pretty much the flavour of it.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Yes, but apparently if you look far enough away, you'll see light sent out as early as from the time when big bang was supposed to happen. If you look further away, you're supposed to see... what? Will there be an edge there?

No, because there is nothing there. You're still trying to work with a linear model.

Also, I've still not seen the proof that time couldn't exist before big bang. A bunch of matter and stuff goes boom and therefore no time could exist before...? That's an assumption if anything. I too made an assumption, but it was an assumption that the big bang theory also uses. I use but one assumption, the big bang theory uses that assumption plus at least one more. I personally think big bang is as little trustworthy as the God model.

Time is a dimensional property of the universe. If the universe doesn't exist then neither does time. We need to agree on our language - you are taking my use of the word 'assumption' as if am using it as a bad thing.

Assumptions, alongside observations, are the basis of science. One makes an assumption to test a theory and if the assumption can be validated, it helps bolster the theory. The problem with the God model is that there are no ways to test the assumptions integral to the theory. This does not mean the God model is wrong, just that it can't be validated except through faith, and therefore it is not science.

Both are after all models, there's no skilled scientists that would say big bang is the truth, only a model of truth until we can find a contradiction in it and new observations and/or thoughts require a change of model, much like the case has been in quantum physics where we've changed model at least 5 times the last century. So - if big bang doesn't in any way whatsoever motivate, theoretically or by some observation, that time couldn't exist before big bang, then it's obviously not a complete theory.

Precisely. The Big Bang is a model that has, to date, explained most of the observations we can make of our universe. It does not consider what you call 'before'. Beyond that is the realm of pure mathematical models, to which we can try and fit new observations - which will either continue to support the consensus, or wreck it at which time we come up with a new model to be tested.

I can't argue with you about the God model because it can't be tested. There is no evidence for or against that I can validate through scientific method, and I can't replicate your observations. Thus the God model belongs to the world of faith, not to the world of science. Comparing scientific theories with faith is fruitless. Neither is necessarily 'The Truth' but they are utterly different paradigms.

[BDC]

I can't argue with you about the God model because it can't be tested. There is no evidence for or against that I can validate through scientific method, and I can't replicate your observations. Thus the God model belongs to the world of faith, not to the world of science. Comparing scientific theories with faith is fruitless. Neither is necessarily 'The Truth' but they are utterly different paradigms.

Definately. Well said.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I can't argue with you about the God model because it can't be tested. There is no evidence for or against that I can validate through scientific method, and I can't replicate your observations. Thus the God model belongs to the world of faith, not to the world of science. Comparing scientific theories with faith is fruitless. Neither is necessarily 'The Truth' but they are utterly different paradigms.

First of all I'm not supporting God theory just because I don't support the Big bang theory. Plus regarding the God model, you can indeed prove it's existence through a circular proof - define God as "the creator of the universe", then the universe must have been created by God. But as I explained earlier in the thread, that God concept isn't necessarily the same concept as the concept religious people normally call God. For example, if the big bang theory would be true, then the Big Bang would be called God, and the word God would refer to Big Bang, but it wouldn't simulatenously imply that you can pray to Big Bang, and expect a response. It could also mean that the word God is defined as a classifying concept containing many concept, much like "primates" refer to all individual apes and humans. So God would then, in this example, mean "Big Bang AND some being you can pray to", without Big Bang being the same as the being you could pray to. And you wouldn't either have any proof of the being you can pray to exists, you might even have a situation where Big Bang exists and the being you can pray to doesn't, while you can still define the word "God" as both of them together. And because much religion define God as the creator of the universe, this circular proof isn't as bad as it might sound, the problem is that the religious seldom understand that God concept, and use it in a different meaning in other cases, without knowing it's a different concept in reality they are referring to. Apart from that I won't discuss the God model, except explain what I mean by this text above if it was unclear.

No, because there is nothing there. You're still trying to work with a linear model.

So what would the photographic lenses, on telescopes, if zoomed in far enough, record on them? Blackness? Can the non-existance have a color? If you could see the non-existance, it would be a paradox.

Time is a dimensional property of the universe. If the universe doesn't exist then neither does time. We need to agree on our language - you are taking my use of the word 'assumption' as if am using it as a bad thing.

But the Big Bang theory isn't about the birth of the universe, is it? It's supposed to explain why matter is moving like it does today, split up the way it is today, and why exergy exists and we don't live in a thermal death-scenario. If you can show that the Big Bang theory explains the birth of dimensions too, then I could maybe believe in it. But as it is now the concept of matter and exergy is called universe when you try to prove the theory, and when you use it, the concept of matter, exergy, energy and dimensions are also involved in the concept. I'm not trying to be cheeky, just want to know if there, within the big bang theory, is really any explanation for these things too?

Assumptions, alongside observations, are the basis of science. One makes an assumption to test a theory and if the assumption can be validated, it helps bolster the theory. The problem with the God model is that there are no ways to test the assumptions integral to the theory. This does not mean the God model is wrong, just that it can't be validated except through faith, and therefore it is not science.

A theory derived theoretically by logic etc. is based on assumptions, like all logic. The problem is, if those assumptions are incorrect, the entire theory isn't necessarily true any more. That's why every statement about reality should rely as little as possible on as few assumptions as possible.


@mystic brew: Yes, I can support the statemetn that time can be a dimension, but I can't support that time wouldn't have existed always, or that the room dimensions wouldn't have existed always, unless there's some motivation for it. Which "universe" was created by big bang? Time and space and energy and exergy, or just exergy and some movement of matter? There's still no proof that those parts of the universe (time and space) hasn't existed always, and that it would have been created. Actually there's still no proof that both matter, energy, exergy, time and space hasn't existed always.

[BDC]

So what would the photographic lenses, on telescopes, if zoomed in far enough, record on them? Blackness? Can the non-existance have a color? If you could see the non-existance, it would be a paradox.

Zoomed back far enough you just see what the universe looked like the first moment it became transparent. It's not in visible light anymore though due to shifts caused by the universe expanding (think red-shift). It's radiowave length. I could probably find dozens of images of it given a bit of searching on Google.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Zoomed back far enough you just see what the universe looked like the first moment it became transparent. It's not in visible light anymore though due to shifts caused by the universe expanding (think red-shift). It's radiowave length. I could probably find dozens of images of it given a bit of searching on Google.

So if space and time didn't exist before this big boom, what sent out this light that was infrared or has become infrared when travelling through space? This infrared stuff however explains my own private 1 minute thought up theory hehe

Edit: and supposing you'd travel to the edge, would you "fall off the edge"?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Plus regarding the God model, you can indeed prove it's existence through a circular proof - define God as "the creator of the universe", then the universe must have been created by God.

Erm... you lost me right there.

I surrender.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Erm... you lost me right there.

I surrender.

Ok, let me explain it more simply: you can make something that is formally possible to consider a correct proof (even despite that it's a circular proof, yes I know it sounds odd), but that proof in fact isn't a proof in the sense you normally mean a proof should be (just something that formally looks like a proof), so nobody has any use for that "proof" in practise. So the paragraph I wrote above really says nothing at all, but it does so in a very deep way