Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?

[Wayne92587]

Thinking critical; I am truly impressed with your post this morning at 4:04 am this morning.

As an analogy, a stationary object is measured at 0 kph then 1 kph once it starts to accelerate, however we don't use language like speed didn't exist prior to 1 kph we simply say it was stationary or 0 kph. So to say time didn't exist prior to t1 maybe true by definition however logically it runs into problems when asking how t0 leads to t1. If we except that inflation started at t0 and once matter formed so to did Spacetime allowing the measurement of change to create t1, the equation is logically consistent.
t0 then t1 NOT t0 + 1 = t1

0/1; these two being of the same source, a Singularity, are the same.

As a Singularity of Zero-0 issues forth from the Darkness, it is instantaneously reborn, issues forth as a Singularity of
One-1 a Planck moment latter, this moment being referred to as the Arrow of Time, this transition encompassing the Past and the present but not the Future.

[Sy Borg]

The Deep is an action movie, a TV series and a British aquarium but Wayne appears to be referring to other dimensions where there is no time or space (?) and thus there's no light in those dimensions for the idea of "darkness" to be relevant (?).

[Wayne92587]

In the beginning there was only Darkness upon the Deep.

Greta;

Many have postulated that the universe exists within a black hole.

Thomas Hobbs; [/quote] empirically incomprehensible. What the hell is The Deep, anyhow? [/quote]

And there was darkness upon the Deep, extending far down from the top to the surface, very intense, The Earth was without form and void and the darkness was upon the face of the deep.

Deep is a generic word used to refer to many thing, the abyss is very deep.
In Star Track there was something referred as being Deep Space, deep sleep.

A person that is deep is very intense, extreme.

Darkness making reference non-existence, a Black Whole, the Nothingness from which the Universe was born.

The Great Void.

[Thinking critical]

Many have postulated that the universe exists within a black hole.

It's interesting that you mention black holes, as they provide allot of insight into the sort of conditions we could expect at the dawn of time.
Penrose demonstrated that a star which collapsed under its own gravitational force woud result in its mass being compressed infinitely small leaving a volume of zero AKA a singularity. It was Stephen Hawking who then reversed that mathematical formula of a black hole and applied it to Friedmanns model of inflation from a singularity using the general theory of relativity to prove that the idea of the Uninverse expanding from a infinitely small singularity with zero mass is mathematically accurate.

If the Universe requires a symmetry in order to remain in blalance, we could certainly imagine a parallel Universe on the other side of a black hole, the idea of this is by no means illogical.

[Wayne92587]

The thought behind my post saying there was only Darkness upon the Deep.

I do not care that so many do not believe that there was a Beginning, a First Time, a Time before Space-Time.

I believe that in the beginning the only thing, Nothingness, the darkness upon the deep was an omniscient State of Singularity was a Black Whole, the Great Void.

I am surprised that no one has criticized me for my Spelling of Black "Whole."

Singularity exists as an omnipresent Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity that exists as an unspoken of number, quantity within an Omniscient State of Singularity, in which Time, Space and Motion existed without meaning, were not Relative.

Your premise, If we except that inflation started at t0 and once matter formed so to did Spacetime allowing the measurement of change to create t1, the equation is logically consistent.
t0 then t1 NOT t0 + 1 = t1

The solution is easy to understand, has been around for eons, however the words have never been presented in their proper order.

I substitute my equation of 0/1 for your's, although your premise is correct.

I found this primes after being stuck on Chapter One of Tao Te Ching for 30 years.

0/1; These two Singularities issuing forth from the same Source are the same yet
different, the value of Zero-0 is less than the value of One-1.

As a Singularity of Zero-0 issues forth from the Darkness of the Great Void (from the
Fully Random Quantum State of Singularity) a Random Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity of Zero-0 is transformed into a Singularity of One-1; a Singularity of Zero-0 being reborn a Singularity of One-1.

A singularity having no relative, numerical, value, having a numerical value of Zero-0, nada, zip, zilch, was converted into a Singularity having relative, a numerical value of One-1 by becoming the First is a series, the beginning of a process such as the Evolutionary Process, by becoming the first in a continuum such as Space-Time.

The first Singularity of Zero-0 that was converted, transfigured, that morphed, into a Singularity of One-1 became the Reality of First Cause.

Being an affect, without caused the First Singularity of One-1, the Reality of Cause, became the Single Direct Material cause of the System of Chaos that has made manifest the Reality of the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything that exists in the material sense of the word.

Motion relative to a Singularity of Zero-0, having no angular momentum, no velocity of Speed and Direction, is not relative, is Meaningless.

Motion relative to a Singularity of One-1, having angular momentum, velocity of speed and direction, a Singularity of One-1 has relative value.

A Singularity of One-1 attaining its numerical vale of One-1 by being the First in a series, the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, the beginning of a process such as the Evolutionary Process.

The morphing of a Random Singularity of Zero-0 began with a Bump in the Night.

Hermes Trismegistus; Lord of the Ring, Keeper of the Holy Grail--->0 0/1

[Sy Borg]

Many have postulated that the universe exists within a black hole.

It's interesting that you mention black holes, as they provide allot of insight into the sort of conditions we could expect at the dawn of time.
Penrose demonstrated that a star which collapsed under its own gravitational force would result in its mass being compressed infinitely small leaving a volume of zero AKA a singularity. It was Stephen Hawking who then reversed that mathematical formula of a black hole and applied it to Friedmanns model of inflation from a singularity using the general theory of relativity to prove that the idea of the Universe expanding from a infinitely small singularity with zero mass is mathematically accurate.

If the Universe requires a symmetry in order to remain in balance, we could certainly imagine a parallel Universe on the other side of a black hole, the idea of this is by no means illogical.

At the time I was making a bad pun on all the anus banter but it is an interesting notion, especially in context with the idea of the holographic universe, since a black hole's even horizon is effectively a holographic projection of the quasi-singularity within.

[ThomasHobbes]

Darkness making reference non-existence, a Black Whole, the Nothingness from which the Universe was born.

The Great Void.

Rhetorical questions do not require literal answers.

[Thinking critical]

At the time I was making a bad pun on all the anus banter.

I thought that might have been the case. I was going to play on your words an change postulated to prostated and see if anyone noticed.......I wish I had now .

[Sy Borg]

I was going to play on your words an change postulated to prostated and see if anyone noticed.......

Ha! You probably feel a bit bummed out about missing that pun now.

Seriously, the universe seems as if it started from a supernova - that we are simply the leading edge of its debris that we call "now" that is ever changing as it hurtles into The Great Unknown.

However, there's no way with the observations made and current known physics to conceive of how such a huge object capable of triggering such a blast could emerge. Meanwhile dark energy seems to have put paid to the big crunch. String theory appears to be a little more undermined with each new discovery of the LHC or in the math. Cosmic inflation of virtual particles via dark energy has its critics and some (disputed) math against it too.

I like the multiverse theory, personally, of the kind that posits our universe to be enormously larger than we realise and even more enormously distant from other "island universes" in a much larger arena. Trouble is, no matter which way you look at it there's a regression problem - either it's "turtles all the way down" or reality has always existed and always will. The latter seems inconceivable based on our human experience of causes and effects.

That's why many thinkers posit a "prime mover", a deity (or whatever). However, that again begs the question about what came beforehand. It just leads us back to an eternal reality, with a seemingly pointlessly added, highly speculative and probably archaic, layer.

[tommarcus]

Now let's factor in that it has been discovered that the universe is not only expanding but expanding at a faster rate. In addition, Stephan Hawking was able to show before his death that in fact certain radiation can escape from a Black Hole. Both beg some serious questions regarding the Big BangTheory.

These are great discussions about the physics of the universe but we are like two dimensional beings using linear equations to try to understand a three dimensional world. Mathematical topology can help us theorize abnout n-dimensional space but true understanding requires that we somehow transcend our physical universe.

The next great leap in mathematical will require a system of reasoning which more closely mirrors the totality of existence and not just lower dimensions of it.

[Thinking critical]

I was going to play on your words an change postulated to prostated and see if anyone noticed.......

Ha! You probably feel a bit bummed out about missing that pun now.

Seriously, the universe seems as if it started from a supernova - that we are simply the leading edge of its debris that we call "now" that is ever changing as it hurtles into The Great Unknown.

However, there's no way with the observations made and current known physics to conceive of how such a huge object capable of triggering such a blast could emerge. Meanwhile dark energy seems to have put paid to the big crunch. String theory appears to be a little more undermined with each new discovery of the LHC or in the math. Cosmic inflation of virtual particles via dark energy has its critics and some (disputed) math against it too.

I like the multiverse theory, personally, of the kind that posits our universe to be enormously larger than we realise and even more enormously distant from other "island universes" in a much larger arena. Trouble is, no matter which way you look at it there's a regression problem - either it's "turtles all the way down" or reality has always existed and always will. The latter seems inconceivable based on our human experience of causes and effects.

That's why many thinkers posit a "prime mover", a deity (or whatever). However, that again begs the question about what came beforehand. It just leads us back to an eternal reality, with a seemingly pointlessly added, highly speculative and probably archaic, layer.

I personally haven't committed to any particular theory myself, however based on the evidence i am confident that the Universe (the Spacetime which we are apart of) has a finite beginning. Wether or not it will carry on expanding for eternity is still in the air.
As for an original uncaused cause, I am not convinced that this is the correct method of reasoning required to solve this problem.
An infinite multiverse theory certain resolves a number of problems for science in regards to the appearance of fine tuning and the origin itself, however it is not an intellectually satisfying hypothesis, it seems to convenient, not that personal opinion is relevant.

There are three factors to consider when discussing the nature of the Universe, the first is that all the energy(mass) which exists in the Universe today existed in the beginning, the second is that the Universe is expanding and the final one is entropy in that the Universe has a direction. I suspect the conditions or state which gave rise to our Universe were also intrinsically consequential to the very laws which govern it, in other words the way in which our Universe came into existence also determined the nature of it.

[Sy Borg]

I personally haven't committed to any particular theory myself, however based on the evidence i am confident that the Universe (the Spacetime which we are apart of) has a finite beginning.

... There are three factors to consider when discussing the nature of the Universe, the first is that all the energy(mass) which exists in the Universe today existed in the beginning, the second is that the Universe is expanding and the final one is entropy in that the Universe has a direction. I suspect the conditions or state which gave rise to our Universe were also intrinsically consequential to the very laws which govern it, in other words the way in which our Universe came into existence also determined the nature of it.

When I say "I like", it does not mean I have "committed" to anything. A fan of science must be akin to a hormone-driven young person, already ready to shift their attention to the next great discovery, and brutally ditch the last if need be.

I like the "large universe" idea due to observations that space is completely flat, which suggests that the actual universe may be exponentially larger than the observable universe.

Still, maybe all of the energy in the universe today is not the same as that at the beginning? If the BB was, as most think likely, an event occurring on a pre-existing reality (as opposed to bursting forth from absolute nothingness) then its energy quotient may only be a small subset of the total energy in existence.

The unidirectional nature of the universe's expansion, entropy and time has a number of physicists suspecting dark energy of being the source of these phenomena. Of course, this does nothing to explain the nature and origin of an eternal, universe-making and breaking outward driving force, which is utterly weird.

When you think about what dark energy is proposed to be at this early stage, it's not wildly different to notions of God, being eternal, omnipresent, all-powerful, mysterious, unknowable and it makes and breaks entire universes.

[tommarcus]

Interesting discussions regarding the physics of our universe. But the physics and math that are used to describe what we see are also a part if this universe including the Big Bang itself. If we accept that the universe had to have a beginning, then to describe what exists beyond our physical universe requires a system of thought whichnis also beyond our universe.

Based on the fact that we live in a world of cause and effect, it has been argued that there must be a first cause, otherwise everything in we see could not exist because we would be infinitely going back in time to arrive at a starting point. It would be like trying to build a house but infinitely trying to find the foundation. Infinitely going back in time is another way to describe the problem since you could never get to a starting point and therefore could never start anything. Time is just a measurement. Measurements don't exist unless there is something to measure.

The characterization that it "seems" like there was a Big Bang is appropriate. It may look like a giant explosion from our vantage point but that may not be what It is. I don't know how an explosion can accelerate from the initial point of the explosion. Dark matter and Dark energy are calculated solutions to the problem that the universe acts like it has much more mass than we can see. However they alone would mustbexplain this recently discovered acceleration.

Regardless as to how the universe began, if we postulate a finite beginning, something had to exist outside of the unuverse. If there was nothing then nothing itself had to exist, like the null set. That implies that existence itself existed. Existence itself is another dimension totally independent from the physics of our physical world. And that itself is our true starting point to describe our total existence.

So now we must describe what such an existence would be. First and foremost it would be totally unbounded. There is no material or time to limit it in any way or anything in it. Whatever may exist in this dimension is unbounded and without limit. If our bounded universe was created from this beginning then somehow boundaries would need to be created such as maximum speed and gravity. What appears as a big bang would actually have been a Bug Squeeze.

[tommarcus]

Correction: "Big Squeeze" not "Bug Squeeze" although some may prefer the first spelling.

[Eduk]

then to describe what exists beyond our physical universe requires a system of thought which is also beyond our universe

This bit I agree with (except pedantically I'd qualify that it 'may require'). The rest of what you say seems to contradict this statement.