7 ms·

I despise the big bounce because it's dogmatic in origin. "It makes sense that the universe just bounces instead of 'coming from nowhere'!" Every time cosmolo

I despise the big bounce because it's dogmatic in origin. "It makes sense that the universe just bounces instead of 'coming from nowhere'!" Every time cosmologists looked, the universe got bigger and suggested growth. The big bounce at no point in history ever looked right. Moreover, the big bounce kicks the bucket down the road. It ultimately has the same metaphysical issues. I find the reasoning poor as well. "I don't like inflation" != "The universe ends in contraction". Yes, it's proven difficult to explain CMB smoothness, but this doesn't mean the big bounce is a better candidate than other non-empirical ideas. I'm confident truth will be far stranger than big bounce fiction.

mytailorisrich 6y ago
The metaphysical issues are unavoidable because whatever the theory we come up with or, I think, whatever the reality is, it can only fall within 2 possibilities: - Infinity: There is no beginning and something always precedes the 'current' step (e.g. the Big Bang occurred out of something) - Discontinuity: There is a beginning. Everything suddenly started out of nothing. While both options are hard to grasp for the human mind, the second one, which is the standard Big Bang also sits very uncomfortably with Physics' concepts and is the more 'disturbing' of the two. I think that's why people have been looking for alternatives to the standard Big Bang theory. Infinity, is still unfathomable but at least it is easier to fit Maths and Physics around. Even adding God to the mix still leads to these 2 options, because if the Universe was created by 'God' it implies that the Big Bang is not the beginning and that something (God) pre-existed. The idea that we might be in a simulation is equivalent to a creator God, just more hi-tech. It really seems to me that these alternatives, infinity or discontinuity, are inescapable.
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  Yes, it’s silly to think the metaphysical issues would go away if we somehow proved the universe has been bouncing around for infinity amount of time.
  - cthonicthulu 6y ago
    You are correct. Although, I think the idea of the universe simply "bouncing around for infinity amount of time" lends a lot of otherwise unintuitive epistemological intuitions around ecological circuitry. There's a lot to be said to for how conceiving of things circuitously rather than linearly provides space for things which would otherwise end up elided.
- appstateguy 6y ago
  > Infinity, is still unfathomable but at least it is easier to fit Maths and Physics around. Arguably Maths requires this same discontinuity due to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. Consistent axiomatic systems require a Gödel sentence that is unprovable in the system; it requires a logical tautology or else your system will contain an infinite regress. I think of a logical tautology as a kind of "something from nothing", but I suppose that is debatable. The implication of this property of axiomatic systems on reality is also debatable, but wouldn't any system we come up with to describe reality need to abide by these same rules?
  - hacknat 6y ago
    We need infinity in mathematics for proofs, limits, etc. Even magnitudes of infinity have useful properties in game theory, signal theory. There is something “real” about infinity that “works” in our Universe. The axioms of infinity in math seem to “work”. Could there be a better set of axioms? Sure, but no one has come up with any.
  - falseprofit 6y ago
    Gödel's theory relates to systems of mathematical proof (epistemology), rather than mathematical models of reality (ontology). The problem comes not with fitting maths around an infinite universe (which arguably requires fewer assumptions than for a finite one), but with building maths in the first place.
  - drdeca 6y ago
    > Consistent axiomatic systems require a Gödel sentence that is unprovable in the system; it requires a logical tautology or else your system will contain an infinite regress. I don't see the connection between these two statements. Yes, in a consistent system with a finite description, a statement in that system which can be interpreted as "the system [description of the system] cannot prove [this statement]" cannot be proven (also, where "can be interpreted as" is taken to mean the sensible thing that it should mean) (though, sufficiently weak systems can have languages incapable of expressing such a statement) . But the second part of that sentence, after the semicolon, appears to be talking about something else? It seems like it is describing the Münchhausen trilemma , except applied to mathematical proofs, and giving an argument that a system needs axioms (and/or rules of inference). While a system of proof does need axioms and rules of inference in order to conclude anything, this is not because of the incompleteness theorem. The two do not seem particularly connected to me. So, I don't see why you connected the two statements with a semicolon. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by the second statement in the sentence? Also, when you say "logical tautology", are you talking about purely logical tautologies, or are you talking about axioms? The way you are using it makes it seem like you are talking about axioms, which I wouldn't call logical tautologies. But maybe you do mean what I would mean if I was to refer to "logical tautologies"? In that case, uh, I don't think logical tautologies are all that much of a foundation?
- michaelsbradley 6y ago
  Whether “adding God to the mix still leads to these options”, I suppose it depends on your philosophy/theology: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/#DiviTime https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/#DiviTime See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity_of_the_world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity_of_the_world
- simonh 6y ago
  Well, there's the Marvin Minsky answer. He believed that there is no difference between a possible universe and a real universe. Think of the difference between an algorithm that only exists in theory and running the algorithm on a computer. What do we add to the result by running it? We don't change the result, or grant it any greater validity in a metaphysical sense. The answer was always going to be the same and always will be the same. Minsky thought that our world is simply a possible world, but to suppose it is 'real' or not doesn't change anything and more than doing a calculation makes the result correct. It simply is. It's similar in some ways to the concept of block time, in which there is no progression of time. The universe simply exists and the perception of the 'present' is an illusion. Similarly for Minsky the perception of reality or existence is an illusion.
  - hacknat 6y ago
    It’s a pleasing cognitive answer, but doesn’t really fit well with math or physics. Time is an emergent property of the Universe that we can measure and compare with a more platonic mathematical model of time. Also, you could make the argument that Minsky’s argument is just a form of discontinuity.
  - paviva 6y ago
    Do you have a citation? I never heard of Minsky espousing this view. Could you be confusing him with Moravec? (https://frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/general.articles/1998/SimConEx.98.html https://frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/general.articles...)
    - simonh 6y ago
      Sure, he explains it here. All his interviews on Closer to Truth are worth watching, but then I'm a fan of the show. I don't know if the idea was original to him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUbANEalnzc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUbANEalnzc
      - Jach 6y ago
        Thanks, I'll also watch it later. It initially reminded me of Tegmark's levels of parallel universes (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302131 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302131) whose highest is one that assumes mathematical reality is the same as physical reality.
- hacknat 6y ago
  I think discontinuity also doesn’t sit well with Math. What are the odds that we happen to be in a finite set? When you look at the axioms in first order logic the requirement of negation is suggestive of the idea that “nothingness” (i.e. something preceding a finite set) is a logical fallacy. It makes more sense, mathematically, to suggest that the current iteration of the universe is one step in an infinite set.
  - drdeca 6y ago
    I don't think this makes sense. When you ask "What are the odds that we happen to be in a finite set?", what probability distribution are you talking about? It is entirely possible to describe a probability distribution over a finite set, and is, in fact, easier to do so than to describe a probability distribution over an infinite set. But, you said "happen to be in a finite set", which, seems to suggest that you are talking about a probability distribution over "what set we are in", where some of the sets are finite and some of them are infinite? If so, there is still the question of "what distribution are you talking about over sets?". If you are hoping for some kind of uniform distribution over sets, and arguing that "most" sets are infinite, then this is still fraught. Assuming ZF, there is an obvious correspondence between "Sets" and "Sets with exactly one element". Namely, [some set A] |-> [the set {A}] . You would have to define something like a measure or something? Now, I don't mean to say that you can't define senses of talking about "most sets" or "how common are sets with a given property". I believe some people working with category theory stuff came up with a sense in which the "amount" of finite sets (up to bijection?) is Euler's constant, e. So, I don't mean that you can't come up with a sense of "most sets" in which it is true that "most sets are infinite" or even a sense in which "almost all sets are infinite". But you would have to both describe the sense in which you mean that, and also argue for why we should consider that to apply to our intuitive notion of what is "likely" to be true of the universe in which we live, rather than some other sense. Also, the universe having existed for a finite amount of time, doesn't really mean that the, what, set of points in time (in a given reference frame) is finite. Like, maybe time is discrete, but afaiu, we have never observed anything that strongly suggests that it is, and everything we've seen is compatible with using, and we usually do use, mathematical description of which are based on infinitely divisible time (though, there are some things about the planck time and whatnot.) . So, if time is infinitely divisible, the amount of points in time would be infinite, not finite. So, even if one successfully argued that it be "unlikely" that the set of points in time so far be finite, it doesn't seem clear that the amount of time so far shouldn't be finite, because the amount of points in time could be infinite in cardinality while being finite in measure. Even if you wanted to argue that the cardinality of amount of points in time should be at least [any cardinality you want], I still don't think that would be a problem, because the class of Surreal Numbers have ordered subfields of arbitrarily large cardinality (as well as having arbitrarily large cardinality in any interval), and I don't think we could do anything to really distinguish between points in time being infinitely divisible and like the real numbers, vs infinitely divisible and like one of the larger subfields of the surreal numbers. You would have to argue that it be unlikely that something like the measure of the collection of points in time so far be finite, not just something like the cardinality of the points in time. _____ > When you look at the axioms in first order logic the requirement of negation is suggestive of the idea that “nothingness” (i.e. something preceding a finite set) is a logical fallacy. I cannot get any reasonable meaning out of this. First order logic doesn't even have a concept of "finite"/"infinite" or "finite set". I'm pretty sure this is just nonsense. Having the universe of discourse be empty is a totally valid model of first order logic. Also, I personally prefer to reserve the "fallacy" to mean "a step in an argument which is not valid", and therefore would not apply it to a concept. Also, "something preceding a finite set" does not, in my mind, at all correspond to "nothingness", so I don't understand why you equated the two.
- jl6 6y ago
  Are those really the only two options? Consider the surface of the sphere. It is not infinite in area, nor does it have a beginning or end.
  - apta 6y ago
    How did the sphere come into existence?
    - jl6 6y ago
      If the "sphere" is 4D spacetime, including time, one might argue that asking what came before it is like asking what's south of the south pole. The question of "why is there something rather than nothing?" is still absolutely valid, but my mind's open as to whether the answer necessarily involves either an infinity or a discontinuity.
      - mytailorisrich 6y ago
        To explain the existence of the universe you need to explain space, time, and energy/matter. Even if you assume that space-time has always existed, an infinity scenario, (though you then have interesting questions on the nature of time if nothing exists) you still need to explain the existence of energy/matter, which will still be either an infinity or a discontinuity scenario.
      - hinkley 6y ago
        Correct me if I’m wrong, but if time doesn’t exist you can’t violate the laws of thermodynamics, right? Would the existence of energy (which has mass) at T=0 not be a violation of a law that can’t exist until the clock starts?
- white-flame 6y ago
  I guess a 3rd option would be that the universe doesn't actually exist.
  - strbean 6y ago
    Genius! Someone tell r/noearthsociety
- thdrdt 6y ago
  The Bible even combines the two: God exists outside time and space (is infinite) and created the universe by calling a potential into form. Which of course still has the issue of infinity: where did God come from? And even: what does it mean to not be limited by time and space.
  - Fellshard 6y ago
    That is the thesis, is it not? The uncaused cause; /the/ axiom.
  - a9h74j 6y ago
    IIRC 'eternal' used to imply both outside time and outside space; this was an everyday understanding 300 years ago, say. According to this[1] 'eternal' is now ambiguous enough to suggest either "outside of time and space" or "persistent through all time." On nested-simulation views I suppose it becomes necessary to clarify which clock domain(s) we are talking about, in terms of persistence or time. [1] https://iep.utm.edu/god-time/ https://iep.utm.edu/god-time/
- keithnz 6y ago
  we have no evidence of anything yet, we have nothing yet to suggest that all the energy of the universe came into existence. Currently it seems like it is eternal. Big bang is just the point of inflation, it doesn't tell us much about before inflation, it starts with all the energy of the universe in a very condensed state.
- katzgrau 6y ago
  > The idea that we might be in a simulation is equivalent to a creator God, just more hi-tech. Off topic, but I always found it interesting that some people who otherwise reject the idea of a God latch onto that one. At some point it's all kind of religion.
- drran 6y ago
  Even Discontinuity implies that Nothing was there before Beginning, so it's same as "Infinity", but with legitimate excuse to refuse to study times before the Beginning. Anyway, if Universe is infinite, it is infinite in all 4 dimensions. It cannot be infinite in just 1, 2, or 3 dimensions.
sjs382 6y ago
> Every time cosmologists looked, the universe got bigger and suggested growth. I mean... with the scale of the timelines being discussed, that makes sense. They aren't suggesting that the expansion and contraction happens within thousands of years but billions of years.
simonh 6y ago
On the other hand we have no direct evidence for Inflation and no idea what the Inflaton field is, what causes it or where it went. Yes I know the theory makes some predictions that have turned out to be correct, but if there are other theories that can also predict the same outcomes they deserve a hearing. I don't think there's anything dogmatic about keeping an open mind. If you want to see dogma at work, see a reply to another comment of mine here where I'm ranted at about what is or isn't 'Scientific' and questions being 'non-scientific' simply for pointing out that the Big Bang isn't a complete model of the origin of the universe. There are a lot of unanswered questions in this area and it's far from clear to me at least how they will be resolved, but I'm very excited to find out. I just don't think mud slinging about dogma and being non-scientific is going to help with that.
- ziotom78 6y ago
  > Yes I know the theory makes some predictions that have turned out to be correct However, I must say that once P. Steinhardt gave a seminar in my department, and he debunked two famous "predictions" of the inflationary theory (flat universe, scalar index n_s slightly less than ne) showing that papers published in the 90s claimed that inflation predicted "naturally" an open universe with a scalar index larger than one [1]. He used this to stress the fact that inflation can predict almost everything. I must say he sounded very convincing, he wasn't claiming that inflation is false, only that it is far from being a well-established theory, and that other hypotheses must be considered as well. [1] http://physics.princeton.edu/~cosmo/sciam/index.html#facts http://physics.princeton.edu/~cosmo/sciam/index.html#facts
shireboy 6y ago
That was my gut reaction too. Isn't this just saying "it's turtles all the way down"?
- MacsHeadroom 6y ago
  Has anything ever been observed coming into existence ex nihilo or does everything in existence appear to be reconfigurations of things already in existence? "The universe" is not an answer because information about causal events prior to a configuration space capable of recurrent relationships is inherently unrecoverable not non-existent. (Unobservable =\= causally impotent.)
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    Well, our current particle theories predict that virtual particles constantly appear and disappear in a void, and we are actually building a huge laser to try to see if we can observe this happening.
apta 6y ago
> It makes sense that the universe just bounces instead of 'coming from nowhere' This is why people are getting tired of scientism. Instead of being unbiased, some so called scientists are putting dogmas ahead of their observations and pushing for an agenda under the guise of science.
dcow 6y ago
Is it not equally dogmatic to presume that the universe was nothing and then suddenly something and that nothingness is the natural resting state of experience and that before something-ness there exists nothing-ness?

mytailorisrich 6y ago

The metaphysical issues are unavoidable because whatever the theory we come up with or, I think, whatever the reality is, it can only fall within 2 possibilities: - Infinity: There is no beginning and something always precedes the 'current' step (e.g. the Big Bang occurred out of something) - Discontinuity: There is a beginning. Everything suddenly started out of nothing. While both options are hard to grasp for the human mind, the second one, which is the standard Big Bang also sits very uncomfortably with Physics' concepts and is the more 'disturbing' of the two. I think that's why people have been looking for alternatives to the standard Big Bang theory. Infinity, is still unfathomable but at least it is easier to fit Maths and Physics around. Even adding God to the mix still leads to these 2 options, because if the Universe was created by 'God' it implies that the Big Bang is not the beginning and that something (God) pre-existed. The idea that we might be in a simulation is equivalent to a creator God, just more hi-tech. It really seems to me that these alternatives, infinity or discontinuity, are inescapable.

mensetmanusman 6y ago
Yes, it’s silly to think the metaphysical issues would go away if we somehow proved the universe has been bouncing around for infinity amount of time.
- cthonicthulu 6y ago
  You are correct. Although, I think the idea of the universe simply "bouncing around for infinity amount of time" lends a lot of otherwise unintuitive epistemological intuitions around ecological circuitry. There's a lot to be said to for how conceiving of things circuitously rather than linearly provides space for things which would otherwise end up elided.
appstateguy 6y ago
> Infinity, is still unfathomable but at least it is easier to fit Maths and Physics around. Arguably Maths requires this same discontinuity due to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. Consistent axiomatic systems require a Gödel sentence that is unprovable in the system; it requires a logical tautology or else your system will contain an infinite regress. I think of a logical tautology as a kind of "something from nothing", but I suppose that is debatable. The implication of this property of axiomatic systems on reality is also debatable, but wouldn't any system we come up with to describe reality need to abide by these same rules?
- hacknat 6y ago
  We need infinity in mathematics for proofs, limits, etc. Even magnitudes of infinity have useful properties in game theory, signal theory. There is something “real” about infinity that “works” in our Universe. The axioms of infinity in math seem to “work”. Could there be a better set of axioms? Sure, but no one has come up with any.
- falseprofit 6y ago
  Gödel's theory relates to systems of mathematical proof (epistemology), rather than mathematical models of reality (ontology). The problem comes not with fitting maths around an infinite universe (which arguably requires fewer assumptions than for a finite one), but with building maths in the first place.
- drdeca 6y ago
  > Consistent axiomatic systems require a Gödel sentence that is unprovable in the system; it requires a logical tautology or else your system will contain an infinite regress. I don't see the connection between these two statements. Yes, in a consistent system with a finite description, a statement in that system which can be interpreted as "the system [description of the system] cannot prove [this statement]" cannot be proven (also, where "can be interpreted as" is taken to mean the sensible thing that it should mean) (though, sufficiently weak systems can have languages incapable of expressing such a statement) . But the second part of that sentence, after the semicolon, appears to be talking about something else? It seems like it is describing the Münchhausen trilemma , except applied to mathematical proofs, and giving an argument that a system needs axioms (and/or rules of inference). While a system of proof does need axioms and rules of inference in order to conclude anything, this is not because of the incompleteness theorem. The two do not seem particularly connected to me. So, I don't see why you connected the two statements with a semicolon. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by the second statement in the sentence? Also, when you say "logical tautology", are you talking about purely logical tautologies, or are you talking about axioms? The way you are using it makes it seem like you are talking about axioms, which I wouldn't call logical tautologies. But maybe you do mean what I would mean if I was to refer to "logical tautologies"? In that case, uh, I don't think logical tautologies are all that much of a foundation?
michaelsbradley 6y ago
Whether “adding God to the mix still leads to these options”, I suppose it depends on your philosophy/theology: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/#DiviTime https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/#DiviTime See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity_of_the_world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity_of_the_world
simonh 6y ago
Well, there's the Marvin Minsky answer. He believed that there is no difference between a possible universe and a real universe. Think of the difference between an algorithm that only exists in theory and running the algorithm on a computer. What do we add to the result by running it? We don't change the result, or grant it any greater validity in a metaphysical sense. The answer was always going to be the same and always will be the same. Minsky thought that our world is simply a possible world, but to suppose it is 'real' or not doesn't change anything and more than doing a calculation makes the result correct. It simply is. It's similar in some ways to the concept of block time, in which there is no progression of time. The universe simply exists and the perception of the 'present' is an illusion. Similarly for Minsky the perception of reality or existence is an illusion.
- hacknat 6y ago
  It’s a pleasing cognitive answer, but doesn’t really fit well with math or physics. Time is an emergent property of the Universe that we can measure and compare with a more platonic mathematical model of time. Also, you could make the argument that Minsky’s argument is just a form of discontinuity.
- paviva 6y ago
  Do you have a citation? I never heard of Minsky espousing this view. Could you be confusing him with Moravec? (https://frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/general.articles/1998/SimConEx.98.html https://frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/general.articles...)
  - simonh 6y ago
    Sure, he explains it here. All his interviews on Closer to Truth are worth watching, but then I'm a fan of the show. I don't know if the idea was original to him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUbANEalnzc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUbANEalnzc
    - Jach 6y ago
      Thanks, I'll also watch it later. It initially reminded me of Tegmark's levels of parallel universes (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302131 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302131) whose highest is one that assumes mathematical reality is the same as physical reality.
hacknat 6y ago
I think discontinuity also doesn’t sit well with Math. What are the odds that we happen to be in a finite set? When you look at the axioms in first order logic the requirement of negation is suggestive of the idea that “nothingness” (i.e. something preceding a finite set) is a logical fallacy. It makes more sense, mathematically, to suggest that the current iteration of the universe is one step in an infinite set.
- drdeca 6y ago
  I don't think this makes sense. When you ask "What are the odds that we happen to be in a finite set?", what probability distribution are you talking about? It is entirely possible to describe a probability distribution over a finite set, and is, in fact, easier to do so than to describe a probability distribution over an infinite set. But, you said "happen to be in a finite set", which, seems to suggest that you are talking about a probability distribution over "what set we are in", where some of the sets are finite and some of them are infinite? If so, there is still the question of "what distribution are you talking about over sets?". If you are hoping for some kind of uniform distribution over sets, and arguing that "most" sets are infinite, then this is still fraught. Assuming ZF, there is an obvious correspondence between "Sets" and "Sets with exactly one element". Namely, [some set A] |-> [the set {A}] . You would have to define something like a measure or something? Now, I don't mean to say that you can't define senses of talking about "most sets" or "how common are sets with a given property". I believe some people working with category theory stuff came up with a sense in which the "amount" of finite sets (up to bijection?) is Euler's constant, e. So, I don't mean that you can't come up with a sense of "most sets" in which it is true that "most sets are infinite" or even a sense in which "almost all sets are infinite". But you would have to both describe the sense in which you mean that, and also argue for why we should consider that to apply to our intuitive notion of what is "likely" to be true of the universe in which we live, rather than some other sense. Also, the universe having existed for a finite amount of time, doesn't really mean that the, what, set of points in time (in a given reference frame) is finite. Like, maybe time is discrete, but afaiu, we have never observed anything that strongly suggests that it is, and everything we've seen is compatible with using, and we usually do use, mathematical description of which are based on infinitely divisible time (though, there are some things about the planck time and whatnot.) . So, if time is infinitely divisible, the amount of points in time would be infinite, not finite. So, even if one successfully argued that it be "unlikely" that the set of points in time so far be finite, it doesn't seem clear that the amount of time so far shouldn't be finite, because the amount of points in time could be infinite in cardinality while being finite in measure. Even if you wanted to argue that the cardinality of amount of points in time should be at least [any cardinality you want], I still don't think that would be a problem, because the class of Surreal Numbers have ordered subfields of arbitrarily large cardinality (as well as having arbitrarily large cardinality in any interval), and I don't think we could do anything to really distinguish between points in time being infinitely divisible and like the real numbers, vs infinitely divisible and like one of the larger subfields of the surreal numbers. You would have to argue that it be unlikely that something like the measure of the collection of points in time so far be finite, not just something like the cardinality of the points in time. _____ > When you look at the axioms in first order logic the requirement of negation is suggestive of the idea that “nothingness” (i.e. something preceding a finite set) is a logical fallacy. I cannot get any reasonable meaning out of this. First order logic doesn't even have a concept of "finite"/"infinite" or "finite set". I'm pretty sure this is just nonsense. Having the universe of discourse be empty is a totally valid model of first order logic. Also, I personally prefer to reserve the "fallacy" to mean "a step in an argument which is not valid", and therefore would not apply it to a concept. Also, "something preceding a finite set" does not, in my mind, at all correspond to "nothingness", so I don't understand why you equated the two.
jl6 6y ago
Are those really the only two options? Consider the surface of the sphere. It is not infinite in area, nor does it have a beginning or end.
- apta 6y ago
  How did the sphere come into existence?
  - jl6 6y ago
    If the "sphere" is 4D spacetime, including time, one might argue that asking what came before it is like asking what's south of the south pole. The question of "why is there something rather than nothing?" is still absolutely valid, but my mind's open as to whether the answer necessarily involves either an infinity or a discontinuity.
    - mytailorisrich 6y ago
      To explain the existence of the universe you need to explain space, time, and energy/matter. Even if you assume that space-time has always existed, an infinity scenario, (though you then have interesting questions on the nature of time if nothing exists) you still need to explain the existence of energy/matter, which will still be either an infinity or a discontinuity scenario.
    - hinkley 6y ago
      Correct me if I’m wrong, but if time doesn’t exist you can’t violate the laws of thermodynamics, right? Would the existence of energy (which has mass) at T=0 not be a violation of a law that can’t exist until the clock starts?
white-flame 6y ago
I guess a 3rd option would be that the universe doesn't actually exist.
- strbean 6y ago
  Genius! Someone tell r/noearthsociety
thdrdt 6y ago
The Bible even combines the two: God exists outside time and space (is infinite) and created the universe by calling a potential into form. Which of course still has the issue of infinity: where did God come from? And even: what does it mean to not be limited by time and space.
- Fellshard 6y ago
  That is the thesis, is it not? The uncaused cause; /the/ axiom.
- a9h74j 6y ago
  IIRC 'eternal' used to imply both outside time and outside space; this was an everyday understanding 300 years ago, say. According to this[1] 'eternal' is now ambiguous enough to suggest either "outside of time and space" or "persistent through all time." On nested-simulation views I suppose it becomes necessary to clarify which clock domain(s) we are talking about, in terms of persistence or time. [1] https://iep.utm.edu/god-time/ https://iep.utm.edu/god-time/
keithnz 6y ago
we have no evidence of anything yet, we have nothing yet to suggest that all the energy of the universe came into existence. Currently it seems like it is eternal. Big bang is just the point of inflation, it doesn't tell us much about before inflation, it starts with all the energy of the universe in a very condensed state.
katzgrau 6y ago
> The idea that we might be in a simulation is equivalent to a creator God, just more hi-tech. Off topic, but I always found it interesting that some people who otherwise reject the idea of a God latch onto that one. At some point it's all kind of religion.
drran 6y ago
Even Discontinuity implies that Nothing was there before Beginning, so it's same as "Infinity", but with legitimate excuse to refuse to study times before the Beginning. Anyway, if Universe is infinite, it is infinite in all 4 dimensions. It cannot be infinite in just 1, 2, or 3 dimensions.

sjs382 6y ago

> Every time cosmologists looked, the universe got bigger and suggested growth. I mean... with the scale of the timelines being discussed, that makes sense. They aren't suggesting that the expansion and contraction happens within thousands of years but billions of years.

simonh 6y ago

On the other hand we have no direct evidence for Inflation and no idea what the Inflaton field is, what causes it or where it went. Yes I know the theory makes some predictions that have turned out to be correct, but if there are other theories that can also predict the same outcomes they deserve a hearing. I don't think there's anything dogmatic about keeping an open mind. If you want to see dogma at work, see a reply to another comment of mine here where I'm ranted at about what is or isn't 'Scientific' and questions being 'non-scientific' simply for pointing out that the Big Bang isn't a complete model of the origin of the universe. There are a lot of unanswered questions in this area and it's far from clear to me at least how they will be resolved, but I'm very excited to find out. I just don't think mud slinging about dogma and being non-scientific is going to help with that.

ziotom78 6y ago
> Yes I know the theory makes some predictions that have turned out to be correct However, I must say that once P. Steinhardt gave a seminar in my department, and he debunked two famous "predictions" of the inflationary theory (flat universe, scalar index n_s slightly less than ne) showing that papers published in the 90s claimed that inflation predicted "naturally" an open universe with a scalar index larger than one [1]. He used this to stress the fact that inflation can predict almost everything. I must say he sounded very convincing, he wasn't claiming that inflation is false, only that it is far from being a well-established theory, and that other hypotheses must be considered as well. [1] http://physics.princeton.edu/~cosmo/sciam/index.html#facts http://physics.princeton.edu/~cosmo/sciam/index.html#facts

shireboy 6y ago

That was my gut reaction too. Isn't this just saying "it's turtles all the way down"?

MacsHeadroom 6y ago
Has anything ever been observed coming into existence ex nihilo or does everything in existence appear to be reconfigurations of things already in existence? "The universe" is not an answer because information about causal events prior to a configuration space capable of recurrent relationships is inherently unrecoverable not non-existent. (Unobservable =\= causally impotent.)
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  Well, our current particle theories predict that virtual particles constantly appear and disappear in a void, and we are actually building a huge laser to try to see if we can observe this happening.

apta 6y ago

> It makes sense that the universe just bounces instead of 'coming from nowhere' This is why people are getting tired of scientism. Instead of being unbiased, some so called scientists are putting dogmas ahead of their observations and pushing for an agenda under the guise of science.

dcow 6y ago

Is it not equally dogmatic to presume that the universe was nothing and then suddenly something and that nothingness is the natural resting state of experience and that before something-ness there exists nothing-ness?