Existence began with no pre-existing cause

[ronjanec]

if we assume that it is in fact true that existence did have a beginning in the first place

Must we assume this?

So I had to choose between two completely ridiculous and illogical conclusions, and I of course chose the one that was not as completely ridiculous and illogical as the other one. Or the one that Lomax again said may be correct.

But there is a third possible conclusion, i.e. that existence did not have a beginning. This also may have its problems, but it needs at least to be considered.

While it again must be true that there cannot possibly be a pre-existing cause of any kind existing before the beginning of all existence, there at least must still be a reason or why the same existence began at least in retrospect, despite the fact that there can again be no possible pre-existing cause of any kind existing before for any of this(or again, after the fact)

Can you elaborate on the above, please?

Which, if any, of the following statements would you agree with?
1. There is no such thing as "before existence".
2. There has been existence for the whole of past time (i.e. for any past instant or duration t, there was existence at t).
3. There has always been existence.
4. Existence began.
Is (2) tantamount to (3)? Are (3) and (4) contradictory or not? (Does "always" mean "for all time", or specifically "for all infinite time"?)


I would also be grateful if K.R. could give a concise summary of his position.

Positor,

No, I am not saying that existence must have had a beginning: I was just trying to eliminate this possibility in the op, so I could then discuss "if this is true(or the universe had a beginning), then this may or must also be true"

Yes I also agree, there definitely could be a third conclusion, or again the possibility "that existence did not have a beginning"

Existence actually begins with no pre-existing cause(God, the Big Bang event, or whatever): Despite the fact that the same existence again began with no possible existing cause, if you really really think about this awhile, you will come to understand that there still must be a reason or why the same existence began at least in retrospect or after the beginning.

Or in other words, someone can ask a question today "Why did existence begin?" and there can still be(or again must be) a reason or why the same existence began at least after the fact(or again in retrospect), despite the fact that there could have been no pre-existing cause for this: The same reason or why still cannot exist in any possible way before the beginning of all existence.

Yeah I know, this is a really hard one to comprehend.

[BadgerJelly]

PRIOR EXISTENCE

I am not say time was the cause or the reason for anything. Time is a significant factor in our perception of existence and the concept is openly used in your OP in reference to "before" and "after".

Anyway I've got something down here someone may find of interest but probably most will not.

My obsession is origins. If you are asking about the origins of existence then I would start by asking about the origins of the word existence and tracing it back conceptually to a point beyond organic life. Or if that is too far for you to stretch then maybe ask where the existence of the locomotive came from or the written word.

I guess in your concept of existence you are saying neither nothing or something existed and then something/nothing did. When I say "nothing" here it is something in itself so, "before" existence as you have said, it is unnamed and unknowable so how, if this is the case, can we hope to comprehend a causation in something so alien to us? I believe through metaphor and analogy of the finite and infinite extremes of what we call existence. We cannot experience the "beginning" of existence of the universe but we can look at and investigate more tangible entities I believe to a degree where we can work towards the brink of reality even if it is beyond us at present much like graphing polynomials.

Taking this line of inquiry what we perceive of reality ,and therefore existence, is that time plays a key role in how we interpret and understand; and in fact how we be.

Where to start? ANYWHERE is good in my opinion.

I will start with words. Meaning SPOKEN words first and foremost being the precursor to the written word.

1) Why do words exist?
2) Where did they come from and to what end?

1- Words exist as a communicative device between humans. What they do is express an ideological (internal) expression of the ego's interpretation of reality but they do not express actual reality completely but paradoxically are part of it (Unless you are of a Dualism mind-set in this broad sense of "reality").

Now comes the question why are we communicating? I would say that we communicate not out of choice but out of cause and effect through basic interaction of object in relation to object and energy in relation to energy and time in relation to time. The last remark is probably the hardest for us to conceptualise though but I hope you follow.

From this Deterministic track of thought I see us now as being like a ship in the ocean only able to sail the seas and rivers and lagoons that surround actual reality as well as being of it. In this sense the water is reality but we are within it and of it yet unable to grasp it. (apologies for this vague metaphor! Best I can think of at this moment).

2) Now I have tried to state that communication is the effect of the cause and the communion of entities and the diversification and complexity of a given system gives rise to more avenues of communication. I think from here the problem becomes the reckoning of decomposition or composition*.

*I think neither term is important as a stand alone concept but together they are of greater import. Much like the black is useless without the term white. I choose black and white in this analogy as opposed to hot and cold because with hot and cold one could merely say that hot is more than cold and cold is less than hot; where as not white does not mean more black it could mean more green.

In reference to this I find that the act of communication/interaction between ANY given entity gives rise to communion/connection and a composition into seeming greater or lesser forms of complexity and therefore diversity. As diversity increases of combined entities then so does the variety of communication and interaction to the point of equilibrium and then comes the digression away from complexity and the beginning of a new composition of entities.

As in this part I am trying to talk only of words it is easily possible to see that the entity of a word can come and go only to return under the guise of what seems a new concept. The ones that reappear are those that have a form of greater diversity and complexity from those word entities it has been formed.

to sum up

Words came into existence through the cognitive and physical abilities of speech through the drive of complex entities to further interacts to the end of connecting and eventually bringing into existence more complexity through a process of diversity driven by decomposition and re-composition of entities.

If this can be taken to be a reasonable line of inquiry (?) then would this analysis of the properties and mechanism of existence apply to everything else comprehensible?

I believe this works for every possibly entity we can imagine. The crux is does existence work for the conceptual entity of existence? Or to be more precise with my wording what is the original entity of the term existence?

The concept of prior existence

If you have followed me up to now then it will be realised that the concept of prior existence is an entity of an entity or entities. An actual handle on prior existence may be something we can touch on but not experience directly in any state of non-paradoxical reasoning.

A very prominent aspect of this investigation is that with the concept of "prior existence" time cannot exist but it is facilitated into being with, of and as existence. The metaphor I used in an earlier post of an absolute plenum to describe the universe could be said to say that there is another temporal dimension ... in which case everything is possible and unknown. For us to try and use a state of singular temporal reasoning and apply it to another temporal dimension is bordering on insanity and frankly pointless (Just thought I'd mention it though).

So "prior existence" exists as a concept just as the concept of a dragon exists, or more appropriately a Jabberwocky! Where does our seemingly paradoxical concept come from? It seems it comes from the answer which is the question. Meaning that the form of interactions present in the universe cause a divergence of set patterns from which temporal new questions are composed every instant in existence/time. To what end? To question intuitively to investigate intuitively without will, chance or happenstance. TO BE to become of naught.

The difficulty I find is to comprehend not how object is related to object or how energy is related to energy, but how time relates to time as stand alone entities.

Anyway I can go on but I will stop here and see what people have to say ... thank you if you have bothered to read any of this and I hope it does something for or against you.

[Watson]

Well, that same premise, was also a very important part of the op Watson. And by the way, you really should use the words NO BEFORE versus NOTHINGNESS in this kind of discussion or situation: That is the actually the proper terminology here.

ronjanec,
Your OP severed the purpose of stimulating a conversation, so jod job there. But why be so anal about insisting we adhere to the premise of the OP, in which case there is nothing to say of informational value or particular interest to most any of us.

NO BEFORE, actually almost asks the question, "no before what?" where as NOTHINGNESS is pretty clear so I'm not sure what terminalogy you are thinking of.

[owleye]

Owleye,

I actually used the word 'existence' in this particular case, to try to represent and include any kind of existence that was absolutely the first to actually begin anywhere(or possibly God, energy, light, the first particle, a singularity, aliens, or possibly even a different universe besides our own)

Did this make it a little clearer James?

You seem to have missed the point I was making about the structure of the sentence. The term 'existence', when used in the way you intend, means, in part, the totality of existing things. Thus, to say that "existence began" implies that the totality of existing things began at some time, which, on the surface seems fine, if you think about it, doesn't make sense. True, like the universe itself, it is a word that merely covers everything that exists or everything that existed or will exist at some particular time. However, unlike, the universe, 'existence' in the way you make it out to be by its use in the sentence, standing alone, isn't something that can be the subject of itself, which is to say that you can't say that existence exists, and it is this sort of thing that is wrong with the "existence began", and is why we use the term 'universe' or 'world' instead. You might be able to see this if you replaced 'existence' with 'time' and used it in the sentence: "Time began...." 'Time', as used here, merely is a covering word that represents a particular temporal relation that events have, so that there is a before and after to them. Thus, 'time began' doesn't make sense since the structure implies that time is some object that is itself temporal.

However, since the real point of your question is to target the universe (defined here to be everything that exists, or has ever existed, or will exist), then the question amounts to did the universe have a beginning or has it existed forever. You will note that in this form, the question has a long history within philosophy, with Immanuel Kant making one of the definitive responses, which became a linch-pin into our faculty of reason, which he was critiquing, and established an opening for him to make a case for a limiting it in certain applications. Basically he argued that one can, using reason, prove that there can be no beginning, and, using another argument, prove that there has to be a beginning. This was one of his famous antinomies.

Though I haven't seen anything in the way of a refutation to his argument, it should be noted that our common understanding of time (and space, for that matter), are at the heart of the problem with using reason to get at these questions. Indeed, this "common understanding", which can be said to be a presumption, is the reason that Kant established both space and time as pre-established forms of intuition within our mind, from which all our understanding of the universe can be established.

Notwithstanding this limiting feature of our mind, scientific advances have shown that the universe in its global aspect is not limited by the local environment in which humans have successfully adapted and we must essentially go outside of that limitation to find a language that allows us to answer these questions. Many scientists take this for granted when they apply their mathematics to describe the universe attempting to assuage the public by admitting that they might be unable to intuitively visualize this universe (or avoid making use of certain language that would confuse the reader, say by describing the universe as flat, or being of such and such an age -- similar problems occur at the opposite end of the scale as well), but this is what the mathematics tells them. It is the language of mathematics that is providing scientists with the greatest insights into what's going on. And it is that language of mathematics that I suppose we all will have to learn if we want to be able to answer the questions of the sort you are asking. Using an ordinary common language will, if Kant is right, for ever get us into a logical muddle.

James

[sponge]

Anyway I've got something down here someone may find of interest but probably most will not.

Hi Badger,
I’m willing to put in some time to ‘deeply consider’ your long-promised insight which you have now shared with us but first I need to know that I have some sort of a grasp on your deep and complex ideas.

If I’ve misunderstood the essence of it can you please guide me back on track.

Are you suggesting that a possible end reason or underlying reason for existence is to enable and facilitate creation (by permutation and diversification) through the communication and interaction between conceptual entities to the point of equilibrium (or every possible permutation realised) which then becomes the tipping point of existence back towards and into non-existence?

I usually manage to misinterpret what you are saying so it would be good to think I may have got close to it this time (but I’m not holding my breath) :)
sponge

[swingtrade2]

what 'exists' has to be prior to the thought. therefore not an object and only objects are subject to time. jesus said i am not god, but of god. and so it is, what can come before me?

[ronjanec]

Owleye,

I actually used the word 'existence' in this particular case, to try to represent and include any kind of existence that was absolutely the first to actually begin anywhere(or possibly God, energy, light, the first particle, a singularity, aliens, or possibly even a different universe besides our own)

Did this make it a little clearer James?

You seem to have missed the point I was making about the structure of the sentence. The term 'existence', when used in the way you intend, means, in part, the totality of existing things. Thus, to say that "existence began" implies that the totality of existing things began at some time, which, on the surface seems fine, if you think about it, doesn't make sense. True, like the universe itself, it is a word that merely covers everything that exists or everything that existed or will exist at some particular time. However, unlike, the universe, 'existence' in the way you make it out to be by its use in the sentence, standing alone, isn't something that can be the subject of itself, which is to say that you can't say that existence exists, and it is this sort of thing that is wrong with the "existence began", and is why we use the term 'universe' or 'world' instead. You might be able to see this if you replaced 'existence' with 'time' and used it in the sentence: "Time began...." 'Time', as used here, merely is a covering word that represents a particular temporal relation that events have, so that there is a before and after to them. Thus, 'time began' doesn't make sense since the structure implies that time is some object that is itself temporal.

However, since the real point of your question is to target the universe (defined here to be everything that exists, or has ever existed, or will exist), then the question amounts to did the universe have a beginning or has it existed forever. You will note that in this form, the question has a long history within philosophy, with Immanuel Kant making one of the definitive responses, which became a linch-pin into our faculty of reason, which he was critiquing, and established an opening for him to make a case for a limiting it in certain applications. Basically he argued that one can, using reason, prove that there can be no beginning, and, using another argument, prove that there has to be a beginning. This was one of his famous antinomies.

Though I haven't seen anything in the way of a refutation to his argument, it should be noted that our common understanding of time (and space, for that matter), are at the heart of the problem with using reason to get at these questions. Indeed, this "common understanding", which can be said to be a presumption, is the reason that Kant established both space and time as pre-established forms of intuition within our mind, from which all our understanding of the universe can be established.

Notwithstanding this limiting feature of our mind, scientific advances have shown that the universe in its global aspect is not limited by the local environment in which humans have successfully adapted and we must essentially go outside of that limitation to find a language that allows us to answer these questions. Many scientists take this for granted when they apply their mathematics to describe the universe attempting to assuage the public by admitting that they might be unable to intuitively visualize this universe (or avoid making use of certain language that would confuse the reader, say by describing the universe as flat, or being of such and such an age -- similar problems occur at the opposite end of the scale as well), but this is what the mathematics tells them. It is the language of mathematics that is providing scientists with the greatest insights into what's going on. And it is that language of mathematics that I suppose we all will have to learn if we want to be able to answer the questions of the sort you are asking. Using an ordinary common language will, if Kant is right, for ever get us into a logical muddle.

James

Everyone,

I am as usual falling hopelessly behind in my responses to everyone, and I will try to repond everyone else in the morning(except for of course owleye here: his original post was from yesterday)

Owleye,

The word 'existence' can also have a different meaning in the exact same context, not only one meaning like your response to me implies;

In this particular context, I used the same word to actually represent a state of existence here, versus a different meaning of the same word, or the totality of all existing things like you mentioned(Or for example: Her state of existence ended when she no longer existed anywhere)

Or again in this particular context, the word existence instead refers to an undefined someone or something beginning to exist somewhere(or a particular type of state applying in regards to an undefined someone or something's existence), versus no one or no thing existing anywhere before.

Actually owleye, the real point of my question in the op was whether or not existence(or the universe for some) could have possibly began with no possible pre-existing cause of any kind. Whether or not the universe actually had a beginning in the first place was not the issue here. So Kant and I were actually talking about two completely different things.

[charon]

sponge

the best discoveries that I’ve found this way stay with me and become part of my basic thinking

these insights are, by and large, non-transferrable. Everyone, it seems, has to discover their own truth for themselves

Absolutely.

[Positor]

ronjanec,

I appreciate that, for the purposes of this thread, you wish to leave aside the possibility that existence (i.e. the universe) had no beginning. The problem, I think, is that you then assume that one of the following statements must logically be true:

1. Existence began with a pre-existing cause.
2. Existence began with no pre-existing cause.

You state:

I had to choose between two completely ridiculous and illogical conclusions, and I of course chose the one that was not as completely ridiculous and illogical as the other one.

Well, there are no degrees of illogicality; something is either illogical or it is not. So I presume you mean that, on reflection, you decided that one of the two conclusions was not really illogical.

However, it could be the case that (a) existence had no beginning, and that (b) it is logically necessary for this to be so. In that case, you would not have to choose between two seemingly illogical conclusions (i.e. (1) and (2) above) and decide that one of them must really be logical. Because, if (a) and (b) are true, both (1) and (2) are really illogical.

So (1) and (2) could both be false. If so, one of them cannot be preferred to the other.

[charon]

ronjanec

the real point of my question in the op was whether or not existence...could have possibly began with no possible pre-existing cause of any kind. Whether or not the universe actually had a beginning in the first place was not the issue here

What do you mean 'in the first place'? Either it began or it didn't!

As I said before, something that begins must be caused. Beginnings, and therefore endings, are caused. If you wish to deny a pre-existing cause then it cannot have begun.

If you then wish to ask 'how the hell did it get here then!' the answer, if there's no cause, is that it always existed in some form or another and evolved.

I'm not attacking you, ron, I'm trying to help you!

[BadgerJelly]

I think I will step in for ron here and say something (apologies if I am wrong ron!)

Basically ron seems to be saying NOT that there is a beginning but he is assuming there is for the sake of petty argument.

I had much the same trouble trying to get people to assume Free Will is not possible and then seeing how it seemingly contradicted itself.

then we must conclude that existence must have began without a possible pre-existing cause of any kind right?(if we assume that it is in fact true that existence did have a beginning in the first place).

The problem here is this can only be intuitively understood by this wording.

I interpret this as saying "Lets assume there is a precursor to existence EVEN though this is a contradictory term."
If you are unwilling to grasp at this obtuse line of thought then you are unwilling. If you are unable then you are unable.

Anyway ron if what I say here is way off the mark then I apologise and ask you to clean up this misunderstanding if you have time.

[BadgerJelly]

If I’ve misunderstood the essence of it can you please guide me back on track.

Are you suggesting that a possible end reason or underlying reason for existence is to enable and facilitate creation (by permutation and diversification) through the communication and interaction between conceptual entities to the point of equilibrium (or every possible permutation realised) which then becomes the tipping point of existence back towards and into non-existence?

I am not suggesting anything just trying to help carve out the tools of thinking needed to understand what I want to say.

I have issues with the use of the word permutation at this point. To be honest diversity itself is not the correct word either but it is the best I have to use that I can think of.

Also when I say entities I mean entities NOT just conceptual entities. I am an entity and a rock is an entity ... that said due to language the term "I" and "rock" are conceptual entities. An entity can be a thought, a physical object or energy or time or something "other" maybe? The trouble I have is using language to communicate something that is beyond language. Much like in the sense we all know what a square is but none exist anywhere in physical "reality".

Also the word "possible" is not something correctly in place for what I am saying here. Possibility gives way to impossibility so I am not willing to go down that road yet either.

All this said you have almost got what I am trying to express and if you have I can guess you can see the difficulty in trying to express it without getting bogged down by words! :P

Owleye - I know you blocked me before but if you have unblocked me then I would like to say something about this :

Using an ordinary common language will, if Kant is right, for ever get us into a logical muddle.

He is close to being right but he was an eccentric close-minded fool for the most part who couldn't see beyond the horizons of his own stupidity or even get close to an intuitive way of thinking due to his anal time keeping. IMO :)

[Dave_Oblad]

Hi all,

There was an initial Cause to the Universe. That Cause is no more complicated than just a fairly simple Question. The great thing about a Question is that no one needs to actually ask it.. for an Answer to Exist.

And when the question is purely mathematical, the answer will be purely mathematical. If one poses a question regarding the game of Tic-Tac-Toe as given the defined rules and setup, then all possible games immediately Exist. And that is precisely what it means to Exist.

Next time you're watching TV and see a commercial for what looks like a new movie.. just to realize you're seeing a video game.. try to appreciate the mathematical reality you are witnessing. Next.. realize the math of the Universe is much more simple, but on a far grander and higher resolution scale. But that is all our Universe is.. Just pure math and nothing more.

Perhaps it's because I'm a computer programmer and have created such games, that I have this unusual sort of insight. In fact, I could build a whole Universe on just the rules of Tic-Tac-Toe. I can't predict if it will ever evolve into a Universe that supports self-aware life.. but you never know.

I do know I will never see it evolve self-aware life simply because that with the biggest most powerful computer I can get, the most I will be able to simulate and explore will be trillions of times smaller than the Top Quark and if the simulation ran for 10 years, wouldn't cover a Nano-Second of it's potential Timescape.

But I promise that after you have exhausted all avenues of debate due to paradoxes and conundrums.. that you will eventually find that all roads lead right back to this solution of what it means to Exist and what was the first Cause.

Anyway.. I'm sure everyone has heard me say this stuff already, but I grow weary of not being understood.

Getting late so off to bed...
Best wishes,
Dave :^)

[sponge]

All this said you have almost got what I am trying to express and if you have I can guess you can see the difficulty in trying to express it without getting bogged down by words! :P

Hi Badger,
You’re not wrong about the shortcomings of words! I found the same difficulty trying to sum up your post into my synopsis– every seemingly simple expression seems capable of holding a dozen meanings depending on who’s reading it. I guess we all tend to place our own preferred interpretation onto the slightest ambiguity but, as you guessed, I can see past the few that you have pointed out and I’m glad that I seem to have got a handle on your thinking now.

I’ll take some time with it and may come back for more clarification as I go along and I expect there will be some questions too so I hope you’re patient. The main problem at the moment seems to be (ironically) communication :) Is the following statement an acceptable premise for part of your thinking?

The tipping point for existence is reached when the expression of everything, on every level – physical-form, mental-form and energy-form – has been achieved.

[newyear]

But that is all our Universe is.. Just pure math and nothing more.

I hope you are not forgetting, Dave, that maths is a description, a form of communication, that may fit that being described, or not. I don't need to remind you that the 'pure' maths about the universe have been changed according to the model used. (Newton/Einstein) And with the Higgs boson announced today, it may be changed again. No one knows if existence began with no pre-existing cause, however, in order for material to be formed it is necessary a 'few' steps beforehand. It is these steps that would lead to a necessary cause.

[charon]

Dave_Oblad

There was an initial Cause to the Universe

Ah, I see you were there when it happened!

Cause and effect are not two separate phenomena. Causes are also effects and effects are causes. If there was a cause to the universe then that cause was itself the effect of a cause... and so on back and back.

That means there's no starting point.

[ronjanec]

I think I will step in for ron here and say something (apologies if I am wrong ron!)

Basically ron seems to be saying NOT that there is a beginning but he is assuming there is for the sake of petty argument.

I had much the same trouble trying to get people to assume Free Will is not possible and then seeing how it seemingly contradicted itself.

then we must conclude that existence must have began without a possible pre-existing cause of any kind right?(if we assume that it is in fact true that existence did have a beginning in the first place).

The problem here is this can only be intuitively understood by this wording.

I interpret this as saying "Lets assume there is a precursor to existence EVEN though this is a contradictory term."
If you are unwilling to grasp at this obtuse line of thought then you are unwilling. If you are unable then you are unable.

Anyway ron if what I say here is way off the mark then I apologise and ask you to clean up this misunderstanding if you have time.

BadgerJelly,

That is exactly what I was trying to say BJ. Thank you for the help while I was away.

[charon]

ronjanec

That is exactly what I was trying to say BJ.

That's not quite all he said, ron!

The problem here is this can only be intuitively understood by this wording.

I interpret this as saying "Lets assume there is a precursor to existence EVEN though this is a contradictory term."
If you are unwilling to grasp at this obtuse line of thought then you are unwilling. If you are unable then you are unable.

Anyway ron if what I say here is way off the mark then I apologise and ask you to clean up this misunderstanding if you have time.

[sponge]

There was an initial Cause to the Universe. That Cause is no more complicated than just a fairly simple Question. The great thing about a Question is that no one needs to actually ask it.. for an Answer to Exist.

Hi Dave,
I am probably the least mathematically-minded person you are ever likely to come into contact with and yet I find your description of existence as math both elegant and strangely appealing – especially when you equate it to computer games. I have read several of your posts on this same point and they certainly seem to work – at least on the level of diversity of creation and the allowance within the math for random decisions and actions by ‘the players’.

For me, though, yours is a neat explanation of the ‘how’ of existence – giving a rationale for the mechanical working of it.

You say it can all come from ‘a question’ because, once the question exists then the answers exist also. But you don’t explain where the question comes from and, to continue the computer game analogy, you don’t explain what pushes the ‘run’ button to bring this potential answer into physical existence.

Maybe this is all covered by the math but, if it is, you need to find a way to explain it in a way that minds like mine can understand :)
sponge

[ronjanec]

Positor,

I have actually given a great deal of thought to the possibility that existence never had a beginning in the first place, to try to eliminate and then avoid having to deal with the same paradox that I have tried to discuss here, but I eventually came to the conclusion that this other option appeared to be even more illogical than the what at first appeared to be illogical 'existence had no pre-existing cause' option;

Positor, can you actually comprehend how long a period of time one centillion years represents?(!) How about the same number to the same power?(!!) How about if we take this same number and then multiply it by itself?(!!!) What if we then take this much larger number and then also multiply it by itself?(!!!!)

What if it were possible for someone to do exactly what I just did here(or always taking the new larger number and then multiplying it by itself) non stop for one centillion years and then stop after finally arriving at the last larger(largest) number?

The same last larger(largest) number in the example, can barely even begin to describe the incomprehensible infinite quantity of time that some form of existence would have had to have existed if it were actually true that existence had no beginning.

So because of the same example here, I cannot believe the 'existence never had a beginning in the first place option' for what this would also have to imply.

[moranity]

Ronjanec,
if the universe was cyclical, time can "restart" at certain stages, have a look at Roger Penrose's cyclical universe theory, he's an amazingly respected guy, so your problem with time extending back would not be a problem.
if i understand what he is saying then time becomes "spacelike" at the point where all blackholes evaporate, or space/distance becomes meaningless when all things are the same, i may have misinterpretted, but he's done a few lectures on it etc
Conformal_Cyclic_Cosmology

theres a link to lectures at the bottom

[ronjanec]

ronjanec

That is exactly what I was trying to say BJ.

That's not quite all he said, ron!

The problem here is this can only be intuitively understood by this wording.

I interpret this as saying "Lets assume there is a precursor to existence EVEN though this is a contradictory term."
If you are unwilling to grasp at this obtuse line of thought then you are unwilling. If you are unable then you are unable.

Anyway ron if what I say here is way off the mark then I apologise and ask you to clean up this misunderstanding if you have time.

I know charon.

[ronjanec]

Ronjanec,
if the universe was cyclical, time can "restart" at certain stages, have a look at Roger Penrose's cyclical universe theory, he's an amazingly respected guy, so your problem with time extending back would not be a problem.
if i understand what he is saying then time becomes "spacelike" at the point where all blackholes evaporate, or space/distance becomes meaningless when all things are the same, i may have misinterpretted, but he's done a few lectures on it etc
Conformal_Cyclic_Cosmology

theres a link to lectures at the bottom

moranity,

Thanks, maybe I can look at this when I have a little more time(like what could exist in the meantime, or between stages?)

[moranity]

from my faulty understanding, space and time fall apart in the between "universes"

[ronjanec]

Hi all,

There was an initial Cause to the Universe. That Cause is no more complicated than just a fairly simple Question. The great thing about a Question is that no one needs to actually ask it.. for an Answer to Exist.

And when the question is purely mathematical, the answer will be purely mathematical. If one poses a question regarding the game of Tic-Tac-Toe as given the defined rules and setup, then all possible games immediately Exist. And that is precisely what it means to Exist.

Next time you're watching TV and see a commercial for what looks like a new movie.. just to realize you're seeing a video game.. try to appreciate the mathematical reality you are witnessing. Next.. realize the math of the Universe is much more simple, but on a far grander and higher resolution scale. But that is all our Universe is.. Just pure math and nothing more.

Perhaps it's because I'm a computer programmer and have created such games, that I have this unusual sort of insight. In fact, I could build a whole Universe on just the rules of Tic-Tac-Toe. I can't predict if it will ever evolve into a Universe that supports self-aware life.. but you never know.

I do know I will never see it evolve self-aware life simply because that with the biggest most powerful computer I can get, the most I will be able to simulate and explore will be trillions of times smaller than the Top Quark and if the simulation ran for 10 years, wouldn't cover a Nano-Second of it's potential Timescape.

But I promise that after you have exhausted all avenues of debate due to paradoxes and conundrums.. that you will eventually find that all roads lead right back to this solution of what it means to Exist and what was the first Cause.

Anyway.. I'm sure everyone has heard me say this stuff already, but I grow weary of not being understood.

Getting late so off to bed...
Best wishes,
Dave :^)

Dave,

I believe that there could be a cause to the universe like you said, as long as our universe was not the actual beginning of existence.

[ronjanec]

But that is all our Universe is.. Just pure math and nothing more.

I hope you are not forgetting, Dave, that maths is a description, a form of communication, that may fit that being described, or not. I don't need to remind you that the 'pure' maths about the universe have been changed according to the model used. (Newton/Einstein) And with the Higgs boson announced today, it may be changed again. No one knows if existence began with no pre-existing cause, however, in order for material to be formed it is necessary a 'few' steps beforehand. It is these steps that would lead to a necessary cause.

newyear,

What you are talking about here with Dave is a really interesting discussion in and of itself: Or does the same(math) exist in any way independent of man?

[charon]

ronjanec

The same last larger(largest) number in the example, can barely even begin to describe the incomprehensible infinite quantity of time that some form of existence would have had to have existed if it were actually true that existence had no beginning

No, ron, this is why you're not getting it. Don't put up a wall, listen to what I'm saying. You're thinking in terms of time, physical time, and seeing a vast, unimaginably long continuity.

Firstly, there's no reason why, given the utter immensity of the universe, that such longevity couldn't be the case.

But, more importantly, we can't properly apply those terms to something which has no beginning or end. Time implies a beginning and an end - a start, a duration, and a stop. Something which has no start or stop has no duration either. Do you see that? This is the meaning of creation. Life is exploding all the time, there's birth and death all the time. That is the universe.

If you see the truth, the reality of that, then you'll see that there's no question of ending. There's ending, if you like, every moment and new things appear. That process is timeless, it's not a long continuity; it's new all the time. That is creation, isn't it, the ending of a thing and something totally new appearing.

Don't, if I can suggest it, think in terms of continuity and duration, which is time. Think in terms of constant ending and beginning - which is a process that has no end or beginning. In other words change is infinite.

That, I promise you, is the nature of reality. It sounds right and feels right, and it is right.

[ronjanec]

from my faulty understanding, space and time fall apart in the between "universes"

Even if this were true, we are still back to the problem that this 'on again, off again cycle' has all been going on in it's observed entirety for a uncomprehensible amount of time, or at least as an observation that someone could make today about this, and I again have big problems with that.

[Keep_Relentless]

Hello hello,
ronjanec, I hate to say it, but there is something even more mind-boggling about time. It is just like the real number line... not only have we passed an infinite number of points, we are moving through an infinite number of points in an infinitesimal time-frame. (I don't mean to use the terminology incorrectly here! I understand that saying the infinitesimal contains the infinite is like saying that infinity times zero is zero, or 0.9... isn't 1.)

BadgerJelly also made a point some time ago that may also have us acquiesce to an unlimited time-scale: Speaking of any time but the current one is self-defeating. I'm comfortable with time being infinite because I think it doesn't exist. "Time is the movement of a clock". But to accept this, we must establish that existence isn't always dependent on past existence. I don't mean that we must observe our expectations fail; we must effectively manipulate words to appear to find the truth.

We need to attempt to find sufficient justifications for one of the following:
(1) Time doesn't exist, and the present doesn't (always) depend on the past
(2) Time exists and is finite (equivalent propositions; I hope we all agree that everything must be finite)
(3) Influence can have a beginning and so can exist.

(1) - This is the one that I think is solid. The question remains: If the present doesn't depend on the past, how do we explain change, what is the mechanism for change, how does change occur? I argue that change itself is already justified, that existence is impossible without change and without consciousness (verification). This doesn't adequately explain why the change that occurs occurs as opposed to some other happening, and it perhaps doesn't seem to explain adequately how change occurs. I want to emphasise though that even if we identified a mechanism for change, we would want a mechanism for that mechanism and so on. I think, then, that change doesn't need to be justified any further, and any dissatisfaction can be quelled through "It is impossible for it to be any other way", exploring the endless "Why?" chain at our own leisure but with the understanding that a satisfactory answer to everything is almost definitely impossible.

(2) - I think this is nonsense. This states that time cannot be infinitely divided, and so that change "stops and starts". We could say, though, that simply because we cannot divide time infinitely, anything smaller than the smallest unit we identify counts for nothing.

(3) - This is the argument that existence began. I considered this one because I thought that "sufficient explanation" could be reduced to "proof of existence". Perhaps it isn't required that we explain something's existence any more thoroughly than by saying "I know it exists". If we observe an object simply appearing in front of us (as if it was teleported to you), reason would require that we assume there is a force that had it do that, and that there is something that had that force do that doing, and so on infinitely. Obviously we have to stop somewhere; maybe we can just stop as soon as we see the object and say that there doesn't have to be a "why?", "It's there and that's the end of it."

[ronjanec]

ronjanec

The same last larger(largest) number in the example, can barely even begin to describe the incomprehensible infinite quantity of time that some form of existence would have had to have existed if it were actually true that existence had no beginning

No, ron, this is why you're not getting it. Don't put up a wall, listen to what I'm saying. You're thinking in terms of time, physical time, and seeing a vast, unimaginably long continuity.

Firstly, there's no reason why, given the utter immensity of the universe, that such longevity couldn't be the case.

But, more importantly, we can't properly apply those terms to something which has no beginning or end. Time implies a beginning and an end - a start, a duration, and a stop. Something which has no start or stop has no duration either. Do you see that? This is the meaning of creation. Life is exploding all the time, there's birth and death all the time. That is the universe.

If you see the truth, the reality of that, then you'll see that there's no question of ending. There's ending, if you like, every moment and new things appear. That process is timeless, it's not a long continuity; it's new all the time. That is creation, isn't it, the ending of a thing and something totally new appearing.

Don't, if I can suggest it, think in terms of continuity and duration, which is time. Think in terms of constant ending and beginning - which is a process that has no end or beginning. In other words change is infinite.

That, I promise you, is the nature of reality. It sounds right and feels right, and it is right.

charon,

In my particular example, time does not imply a beginning or end: I took a finite chunk, out of an infinite quantity of time, and then tried to show everyone what we are actually dealing with here when we think about the possibility that existence had no beginning.

I do not personally believe that the physical universe is infinite in size: So when you imply that this is true, and then imply that the same also means that the other could be true(infinite duration), that of course does not work for me charon.

You say "there's no reason why" we can't believe this, but I obviously disagree, again because of the example I just tried to show you.