What did it all started with?

[renniks]

And finally, scientists have just proved that there was another universe that existed before the big bang.

That's a big claim. Pretty sure " proved," is an exaggeration, and it's still up for debate.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes, and scientists have just proved through observation that there was something before the big bang. Look up Roger Penrose and conformal cyclic cosmology.

To be fair, nothing is proven in science, and Conformal Cyclic Cosmology is one of the fringe ideas among cyclic universe hypotheses. But there are plenty of others that are derived from, and consistent with, current fundamental physics, so the point stands that the beginning of the universe as we know it is now generally thought to be a new phase of a prior system.

 

[SelfSim]

... so the point stands that the beginning of the universe as we know it is now generally thought to be a new phase of a prior system.

.. even though such 'systems' would have been causally disconnected from the present universe by inflation.

 

[Strathos]

To be fair, nothing is proven in science, and Conformal Cyclic Cosmology is one of the fringe ideas among cyclic universe hypotheses. But there are plenty of others that are derived from, and consistent with, current fundamental physics, so the point stands that the beginning of the universe as we know it is now generally thought to be a new phase of a prior system.

Yeah, I've heard that before. The previous universe collapsed, and the one guy caught in the middle of it became Galactus, the Devourer of Worlds.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

.. even though such 'systems' would have been causally disconnected from the present universe by inflation.

Well, that's not clear; the prior state would be the cause of the new state, and if conservation of information held across the divide (which would be the default assumption), then in principle that information would not be lost. But, for all practical purposes, its causal utility would be lost - like the information contents of a black hole emitted as Hawking radiation.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

To be fair, nothing is proven in science, and Conformal Cyclic Cosmology is one of the fringe ideas among cyclic universe hypotheses. But there are plenty of others that are derived from, and consistent with, current fundamental physics, so the point stands that the beginning of the universe as we know it is now generally thought to be a new phase of a prior system.

Yes there are many hypotheses and conformal cosmology might be completely bonkers but I agree with you that whatever theory prevails will have to be something coming from something. But we don't need any specialized knowledge to know that the universe is eternal. All we need to know is basic philosophy. Causality presupposes existence. There is no way around this. Now I think the reason people have a problem with starting with existence is that they hold an improper view of causality. If one holds a Humean view of causality, an events-based view, then one will keep on looking for some prior event that caused everything to come into existence. But I think this is the wrong way to look at causality. The necessary connection that Hume and others looked for and despaired of finding is not between events but between an entity and its actions. Nothing can perform no actions because it does not have a nature or identity. The type of action an entity can perform is determined by its nature. Therefore causality begins with an entity possessing nature. It can not exist in nothingness since nothing has no nature and is just a concept that denotes a negation.

If the universe was once much hotter and denser and then expanded, well it could not have done this unless it was a part of its nature to do so.

Perhaps as we improve our ability to detect gravitational waves we will detect Penrose's erebon particle decay into gravity waves.

What I know is that starting with nothing and then seeking a cause of everything is a dead end philosophically and so it must also be a dead end scientifically.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

That's a big claim. Pretty sure " proved," is an exaggeration, and it's still up for debate.

You're right, I shouldn't have said proved.

 

[SelfSim]

But there are plenty of others that are derived from, and consistent with, current fundamental physics, so the point stands that the beginning of the universe as we know it is now generally thought to be a new phase of a prior system.

.. even though such 'systems' would have been causally disconnected from the present universe by inflation.

Well, that's not clear; the prior state would be the cause of the new state, and if conservation of information held across the divide (which would be the default assumption), then in principle that information would not be lost. But, for all practical purposes, its causal utility would be lost - like the information contents of a black hole emitted as Hawking radiation.

What is clear is that the initial conditions of the early universe 'derived from, and consistent with, current fundamental physics', is that it was hot, dense, smooth and rapidly expanding .. that's it!

Any notion of 'an arrow of causality' extending backward from that initial state, is pure speculation based on 'the arrow of time' we perceive in our everyday lives .. which may, or may not be applicable at that phase - we just don't know.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes there are many hypotheses and conformal cosmology might be completely bonkers but I agree with you that whatever theory prevails will have to be something coming from something. But we don't need any specialized knowledge to know that the universe is eternal. All we need to know is basic philosophy. Causality presupposes existence. There is no way around this. Now I think the reason people have a problem with starting with existence is that they hold an improper view of causality. If one holds a Humean view of causality, an events-based view, then one will keep on looking for some prior event that caused everything to come into existence. But I think this is the wrong way to look at causality. The necessary connection that Hume and others looked for and despaired of finding is not between events but between an entity and its actions. Nothing can perform no actions because it does not have a nature or identity. The type of action an entity can perform is determined by its nature. Therefore causality begins with an entity possessing nature. It can not exist in nothingness since nothing has no nature and is just a concept that denotes a negation.

If the universe was once much hotter and denser and then expanded, well it could not have done this unless it was a part of its nature to do so.

Perhaps as we improve our ability to detect gravitational waves we will detect Penrose's erebon particle decay into gravity waves.

What I know is that starting with nothing and then seeking a cause of everything is a dead end philosophically and so it must also be a dead end scientifically.

Yes, I'm sympathetic to that view - with reservations about how far we can apply concepts like time and causality beyond the emergent spacetime we're familiar with; for example, models of universes that are closed in time (encapsulate time), so just 'exist' atemporally, with time being an internal property.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What is clear is that the initial conditions of the early universe 'derived from, and consistent with, current fundamental physics', is that it was hot, dense, smooth and rapidly expanding .. that's it!

Any notion of 'an arrow of causality' extending backward from that initial state, is pure speculation based on 'the arrow of time' we perceive in our everyday lives .. which may, or may not be applicable at that phase - we just don't know.

Sure; but if we're going to speculate, we need some grounds to speculate from, so it seems reasonable to extrapolate from the known.

As I understand it, the 'arrow of time' is generally taken to be an emergent feature of the Past Hypothesis (a low-entropy past), so models of states prior to the big bang might have arrows of time in different directions on their timeline. Not having an arrow of time would imply some kind of equilibrium condition where nothing was happening, but there might nevertheless be a non-zero probability of something like vacuum decay that would propagate a bubble or 'pocket' universe.

This is only my limited understanding of what I've gleaned from non-technical articles.

 

[SelfSim]

Sure; but if we're going to speculate, we need some grounds to speculate from, so it seems reasonable to extrapolate from the known.

Of course, the other alternative there, is for us to not speculate.

Speculation is only made useful by coming up with testable ideas.
Speculation which abandons that purpose, also admits unconstrained beliefs.

Reasons based on what we already know, can only, at best, point back to reinforcing what we already know and usually ends up with not much more representing anthropocentric bias.
(It may help to educate and update, I suppose .. A purpose which usually fails, apparently, around these parts .. ).

As I understand it, the 'arrow of time' is generally taken to be an emergent feature of the Past Hypothesis (a low-entropy past), so models of states prior to the big bang might have arrows of time in different directions on their timeline. Not having an arrow of time would imply some kind of equilibrium condition where nothing was happening, but there might nevertheless be a non-zero probability of something like vacuum decay that would propagate a bubble or 'pocket' universe.

This is only my limited understanding of what I've gleaned from non-technical articles.

.. and is based on the already known laws of Thermodynamics which have been derived from the behaviours of our observable universe .. (with nothing new there).

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Yes, I'm sympathetic to that view - with reservations about how far we can apply concepts like time and causality beyond the emergent spacetime we're familiar with; for example, models of universes that are closed in time (encapsulate time), so just 'exist' atemporally, with time being an internal property.

That's my view, that time is inside the universe not outside. So too with causality. Causality can only exist where identity exists and there's no identity outside of the universe.

 

[SelfSim]

That's my view, that time is inside the universe not outside. So too with causality. Causality can only exist where identity exists and there's no identity outside of the universe.

Ok .. so why not: 'Time can only exist where identity exists and there's no identity outside of the universe', then? (Or have I just read that not as you intended? .. Curious ..)

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Ok .. so why not: 'Time can only exist where identity exists and there's no identity outside of the universe', then? (Or have I just read that not as you intended? .. Curious ..)

SelfSim, I'm not quite sure what you are asking. Why is there no identity outside of the Universe? I'm guessing here that that is what you are asking. To answer I need to define the concept universe. The Universe is the sum total of what exists. That's What the concept is meant to denote. The word universe means turning into one or whole. It comes from the Latin uni meaning one and versus meaning turning. Obviously, there can be nothing that exists outside the total and to exist is to possess identity.

We have a cognitive need for a concept denoting the whole so this is not an arbitrary definition. By dividing existence into different realms you are not turning into one or a whole. to ask what lies outside of existence makes no sense. Existence is a concept that subsumes everything that exists. If something exists then it is part of existence and part of the whole of existence. The concept nothing does not denote a thing, it denotes a negation. You can not speak about it without using the concept existence. Nothing means no thing and to be something is to possess identity and to possess identity is to exist.

Time is something, it has identity. Time is time and not a ham sandwich or a shovel. It is something and so it only has meaning inside the totality of what exists and there is no rational justification for saying there was a time when nothing existed. Do you see the contradiction?

 

[SelfSim]

SelfSim, I'm not quite sure what you are asking. Why is there no identity outside of the Universe? I'm guessing here that that is what you are asking. To answer I need to define the concept universe. The Universe is the sum total of what exists. That's What the concept is meant to denote. The word universe means turning into one or whole. It comes from the Latin uni meaning one and versus meaning turning. Obviously, there can be nothing that exists outside the total and to exist is to possess identity.

What I'm inferring there is that there's always a direct correlation between a human presence and the concept of time .. We cannot rule out that the concept of time is a creation of our own minds .. Without it, we are unable to makes sense of any of our perceptions.
Every single thought experiment, model, story, theory, speculation, belief etc we describe, seems to always rely on some element of the concept of time. Even our languages are virtually inseparable from the concept.
There's no need to conceive time as existing independently from the human mind .. yet we almost never stop to recognise this obvious fact. Why is that, I wonder(?)
(Please note I'm not saying that you are saying any of this here, either .. yet).

The notion that 'time is inside the universe' but not further constrain(able) to 'time is inside our minds', is just avoiding accepting the objective evidence and choosing a belief over science.

We have a cognitive need for a concept denoting the whole so this is not an arbitrary definition. By dividing existence into different realms you are not turning into one or a whole. to ask what lies outside of exisence makes no sense. Existence is a concept that subsumes everything that exists. If something exists then it is part of existence and part of the whole of existence. The concept nothing does not denote a thing, it denotes a negation. You can not speak about it without using the concept existence. Nothing means no thing and to be something is to possess identity and to possess identity is to exist.

'Existence' is whatever we decide it means. The notion of the concept of existence standing independent of our mind's perceptions, is just a belief.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

What I'm inferring there is that there's always a direct correlation between a human presence and the concept of time .. We cannot rule out that the concept of time is a creation of our own minds .. Without it, we are unable to makes sense of any of our perceptions.
Every single thought experiment, model, story, theory, speculation, belief etc we describe, seems to always rely on some element of the concept of time. Even our languages are virtually inseparable from the concept.
There's no need to conceive time as existing independently from the human mind .. yet we almost never stop to recognise this obvious fact. Why is that, I wonder(?)
(Please note I'm not saying that you are saying any of this here, either .. yet).

The notion that 'time is inside the universe' but not further constrain(able) to 'time is inside our minds', is just avoiding accepting the objective evidence and choosing a belief over science.

Well yes of course there is a direct correlation between a human and the concept of time. Concepts are a product of the human mind but to be valid they must identity something in reality.
But I do think that time exists independently of the human mind. If it's one O'clock in the afternoon then it's one O'clock in the afternoon whether I want it to be or not. And that time represents something objective. It measures the rotation of the Earth on its axis. It is real. It is something that can be warped. Time is flowing faster at my head than it is at my feet. This is just a fact. The concept of time is a creation of the human mind as all concepts are. It's important to distinguish the how from the what. The concept time is the form in which we identify and integrate the thing in reality we call time. Time is a dimension. We measure it by the motion of objects in relation to each other, i.e., the Earth's rotation around the sun.

'Existence' is whatever we decide it means. The notion of the concept of existence standing independent of our mind's perceptions is just a belief.

Well I have to completely disagree with you. If the concept 'existence' means whatever we decide, then it means the concept 'existence' has no objective meaning. I don't think that the concept of existence stands independent of our minds since as an abstraction it is a product of our mind. The things which the concept 'existence' identifies do exist independent of the mind. If they didn't then that would mean that consciousness is something other than a faculty of perception. Consciousness requires an object to be conscious of (consciousness of what?).

 

[SelfSim]

Well yes of course there is a direct correlation between a human and the concept of time. Concepts are a product of the human mind but to be valid they must identity something in reality.
But I do think that time exists independently of the human mind. If it's one O'clock in the afternoon then it's one O'clock in the afternoon whether I want it to be or not. And that time represents something objective. It measures the rotation of the Earth on its axis. It is real. It is something that can be warped. Time is flowing faster at my head than it is at my feet. This is just a fact. The concept of time is a creation of the human mind as all concepts are. It's important to distinguish the how from the what. The concept time is the form in which we identify and integrate the thing in reality we call time. Time is a dimension. We measure it by the motion of objects in relation to each other, i.e., the Earth's rotation around the sun.

Try on that: 'which we identify and integrate the thing in reality', is nothing more than a concept.
- Try on that 'time is a dimension' is also nothing more than a concept.
- Try on that: 'the motion of objects in relation to each other, i.e., the Earth's rotation around the sun', is also nothing more than a concept.
and then;
- Try on that: 'something in reality', for some untestably odd reason, then relies on your belief-in, that: 'something' miraculously exists independently from all the other concepts you refer to there. Your ultimate test for 'validity' therefore, for some strange reason, is based on nothing more than a belief which you have assumed as being objectively real (ie: stands independent from all other human minds).. I'm saying it doesn't .. unless you can give me an objective means of verifying your claim there. (Good luck in doing that).
This should be a surprise to someone who refers to themselves as 'The happy Objectivist' too, no?

The things which the concept 'existence' identifies do exist independent of the mind.

Cite the objective test which excludes any human mind whatsoever then (not just the individual's) .. I mean, after all, that's what 'mind independent' means, isn't it?

Consciousness requires an object to be conscious of (consciousness of what?).

Try on: 'its own perceptions' .. Ie: there doesn't need to be a mind independent 'thing' .. we only need to focus on our own (testable) perceptions to do consistent science.
The idea of 'the existence of mind independent things' is just superfluous baggage and is just something we like to believe .. perhaps for expediency, or convenience(?) .. but at the end of the day, its just spare baggage and makes no difference, whatsoever, to an objectively thinking (scientific) mind .. but its still demonstrably, a belief.

 

[sjastro]

Yes there are many hypotheses and conformal cosmology might be completely bonkers but I agree with you that whatever theory prevails will have to be something coming from something. But we don't need any specialized knowledge to know that the universe is eternal. All we need to know is basic philosophy. Causality presupposes existence. There is no way around this. Now I think the reason people have a problem with starting with existence is that they hold an improper view of causality. If one holds a Humean view of causality, an events-based view, then one will keep on looking for some prior event that caused everything to come into existence. But I think this is the wrong way to look at causality. The necessary connection that Hume and others looked for and despaired of finding is not between events but between an entity and its actions. Nothing can perform no actions because it does not have a nature or identity. The type of action an entity can perform is determined by its nature. Therefore causality begins with an entity possessing nature. It can not exist in nothingness since nothing has no nature and is just a concept that denotes a negation.

If the universe was once much hotter and denser and then expanded, well it could not have done this unless it was a part of its nature to do so.

Perhaps as we improve our ability to detect gravitational waves we will detect Penrose's erebon particle decay into gravity waves.

What I know is that starting with nothing and then seeking a cause of everything is a dead end philosophically and so it must also be a dead end scientifically.

The current scientific version of 'nothing' differs from the intuitive or even classical physics.
There is a something in nothing as supported by evidence.

 

[SelfSim]

.. Therefore causality begins with an entity possessing nature. It can not exist in nothingness since nothing has no nature and is just a concept that denotes a negation.

The current scientific version of 'nothing' differs from the intuitive or even classical physics.
There is a something in nothing as supported by evidence.

What gets me here is the seeming lack of awareness of: that as soon as anyone contemplates 'an entity' or 'nature', or 'nothingness', what is guaranteed is that we will all see, will be products of the mind doing the contemplation! This is plainly obvious.

These philosophers, (at least all of those I've read up on), never seem to recognise that they are using concepts of: 'an entity' or 'nature', or 'nothingness', and that those concepts are produced by their (or someone else's) human mind. I mean those concepts weren't just sorta floatin' around in some sort of ethereal Ether, waiting for their (or their ancestors') minds to just grab and instantly understand them, yet, this is exactly what their true posits imply! .. That is a truly miraculous method!

At least scientists leave behind objective evidence of 'the how' of they come up with what they mean when they refer to, say: 'nothing' .. (Its clearly a 'something', which they freely admit to, and leave an audit trail behind them, so that others can follow what they mean by that term).

Because philosophers haven't seen their own fundamentally flawed arguments, (eg: 'nothing has no nature and is just a concept that denotes a negation', without noticing that they even use term 'concept' there), we are left with no choice other than to accept their miraculous way of thinking therefrom!?

 

[sjastro]

What gets me here is the seeming lack of awareness of: that as soon as anyone contemplates 'an entity' or 'nature', or 'nothingness', what is guaranteed is that we will all see, will be products of the mind doing the contemplation! This is plainly obvious.

These philosophers, (at least all of those I've read up on), never seem to recognise that they are using concepts of: 'an entity' or 'nature', or 'nothingness', and that those concepts are produced by their (or someone else's) human mind. I mean those concepts weren't just sorta floatin' around in some sort of ethereal Ether, waiting for their (or their ancestors') minds to just grab and instantly understand them, yet, this is exactly what their true posits imply! .. That is a truly miraculous method!

At least scientists leave behind objective evidence of 'the how' of they come up with what they mean when they refer to, say: 'nothing' .. (Its clearly a 'something', which they freely admit to, and leave an audit trail behind them, so that others can follow what they mean by that term).

Because philosophers haven't seen their own fundamentally flawed arguments, (eg: 'nothing has no nature and is just a concept that denotes a negation', without noticing that they even use term 'concept' there), we are left with no choice other than to accept their miraculous way of thinking therefrom!?

The role of philosophy in science or whether there is a clash between the two is something that doesn't really interest me but Stephen Hawking had a strong opinion on the subject.

“Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.”