Has existence always existed?

dlofnep · 19-08-2009 3:09pm #1

Has existence always existed? I'm pretty sure I discussed this before. I'm curious on your thoughts on it. Has the Universe, or the cycle that makes the Universe always existed? Or is the universe finite in terms of age.

If it has always existed, or indeed the cycle for which creates it has always existed - Can you grasp or wrap your head around the idea of something being infinite?

If it has not always existed, then can you grasp non-existence and what created the universe, or even created the material for creating the big bang (that is if you accept the big bang theory).

Thoughts? This question really boggles me.

bluefinger · 19-08-2009 3:10pm

yes

dlofnep · 19-08-2009 3:11pm

Expand on your answer

bluefinger · 19-08-2009 3:23pm

Damn thought i'd get away with that.

14 billion years ago big bang, since then the universe has expanded to become the one we're all living in and sometimes exploring.
This is a phyiscal explanation of where our universe has come from. As a pragmatist on this issue it's a sufficient explanation for me.

I'm not sure you can answer the question of did it always exist or not exist as it seems to be one of those questions that we've not evolved the capacity to answer yet.

dlofnep · 19-08-2009 4:17pm

bluefinger wrote: »

14 billion years ago big bang, since then the universe has expanded to become the one we're all living in and sometimes exploring.

That's fine, but it doesn't answer my question. What existed before the big bang? Was this matter that created it just hanging out for eternity until it decided to eventually explode? Was it put there? Did it suddenly appear from nowhere?

bluefinger · 19-08-2009 5:55pm

dlofnep wrote: »

That's fine, but it doesn't answer my question. What existed before the big bang? Was this matter that created it just hanging out for eternity until it decided to eventually explode? Was it put
there? Did it suddenly appear from nowhere?

Simple answer is i don't know.
Fact is no-one does.

There are theories but as i said previously as a pragmatist I try not to think about it. I did for long enough. It is the question in metaphysics, the Greeks were asking it 2,500 years ago and we're all still asking it now.
Why is there something rather than nothing? I realise the big bang leads to an infinite regress but there's been some attempts to explain that by means of a 'spacetime singularity'. For what it's worth i think that human beings trying to understand the finite or infinite nature of the universe is akin to a turd trying to comprehend the sewerage system.

meditraitor · 19-08-2009 5:57pm

Existance is only what you are now not what your were when I wrote this, so it does exist but only right now and not before or after....

In answer to your question no, always cannot relate to existence

bonkey · 19-08-2009 7:12pm

As far as we can tell, time is a property of the universe.

If that is correct, then there is no "before".

dlofnep · 19-08-2009 7:24pm

bonkey wrote: »

As far as we can tell, time is a property of the universe.

If that is correct, then there is no "before".

If there is no before, do you subscribe to there being a start?

ChocolateSauce · 19-08-2009 10:46pm

As we know it, no. Space itself is expanding. If we go back far enough (the big bang), the entire universe occupied a zero dimensional point. Since time is a property of space, it is meaningless to talk about "before" the big bang.

waitinforatrain · 19-08-2009 11:57pm

bluefinger wrote: »

Damn thought i'd get away with that.

14 billion years ago big bang, since then the universe has expanded to become the one we're all living in and sometimes exploring.
This is a phyiscal explanation of where our universe has come from. As a pragmatist on this issue it's a sufficient explanation for me.

Interestingly, you have to wonder if it only happens once. The theory that the universe collapses in on itself and then expands again didn't show much promise, but i've heard it fits with quantum loop gravity theories.

Hindu mythology has put forward this view since the Puranas (300-500 BC) at the very latest. Their reasoning on this is a generalisation of cycles within cycles, i.e. the day dies to the night every day and is reborn, the moon dies to the sun every month and is reborn, just as we die. Smaller cycles within bigger cycles within bigger cycles. They extrapolate this idea to the a universal scale in their creation myths.

In one of the creation stories in the Puranas, a diety named Brahma (not sure of the symbolism here) dreams up the universe every time he opens his eyes, and it dies every time he closes his eyes. Each of these cycles is said to last 86,400,000,000 years (a reference to 86,400 seconds in the day, the indians invented the base 10 number system). The story doesn't just give you the idea, but also a way of seeing your life and the world if you have to face the possibility that no matter what you try to do to "fix" the world, it doesn't really matter overall.

Life is but a dream, nothing really matters. It was a weight off my shoulders anyway!

waitinforatrain · 20-08-2009 12:00am

bonkey wrote: »

As far as we can tell, time is a property of the universe.

If that is correct, then there is no "before".

I disagree. Change is a property of the universe, time is an illusion caused by your brain, which can be seen as a state machine (if you've done electronics), because it has the ability to remember and recall previous states, "snapshots" if you will.

sells · 20-08-2009 2:19am

We will never find out the answer to that question....and if we do, it doesnt matter because we all will be long dead.

Joe1919 · 20-08-2009 11:03am

waitinforatrain wrote: »

I disagree. Change is a property of the universe, time is an illusion caused by your brain, which can be seen as a state machine (if you've done electronics), because it has the ability to remember and recall previous states, "snapshots" if you will.

I am totally in agreement with you here. Many philosophers over the years have argued that time is subjective and has no real existence.
Time ( & space ) is just our way of viewing the world and is not absolute but relative.

Aristotle (Physics.4.iv.) thought that time was just the way we subjectively measure change.

Indeed, this view was taken by St. Augustine when he said 'we cannot truly say that time is, unless because it tends not to be'. (Ch.XIV)
http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/augconfessions/bk11.html

Aquinas argues that causation may take place outside of time and casts doubt on the whole notion of creation (big bang?) taking place in time.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/aquinas-eternity.html
Indeed elsewhere, Aquinas states that time 'does not have perfect existence outside the soul'. (para 629)
http://www.op-stjoseph.org/Students/study/thomas/Physics4.htm#23

Kant also argues that both space and time are 'pure forms of intuition' i.e. They are just ways of seeing the world and both space and time in themselves are nothing.
http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/DB047SECT5

Einstein also cast doubt on our Newtonian way of viewing time and argues that time is relative. (Does this mean that time exists at all outside of the subjective and relative view of the observer? )

ChocolateSauce · 20-08-2009 1:41pm

waitinforatrain wrote: »

I disagree. Change is a property of the universe, time is an illusion caused by your brain, which can be seen as a state machine (if you've done electronics), because it has the ability to remember and recall previous states, "snapshots" if you will.

No, time is a measurable and theoretically manipulatable natural property of the universe.

Joe wrote:

I am totally in agreement with you here. Many philosophers over the years have argued that time is subjective and has no real existence.
Time ( & space ) is just our way of viewing the world and is not absolute but relative.

It doesn't really matter what philosophers think, science (specifically Einstein) has described time rather well. How we perceive time is another matter, but time exists independently of humans, and to think otherwise is megalomaniacal. Einstein didn't cast doubt on the Newtonian view of time, he demolished it.

Joe1919 · 20-08-2009 2:05pm

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

No, time is a measurable and theoretically manipulatable natural property of the universe.

It doesn't really matter what philosophers think, science (specifically Einstein) has described time rather well. How we perceive time is another matter, but time exists independently of humans, and to think otherwise is megalomaniacal. Einstein didn't cast doubt on the Newtonian view of time, he demolished it.

It very hard to see how time can exist outside of human memory. The 'past' is 'dead and gone' and only exists as a memory or as 'traces of the past' in the world. The future only exists in the intellect as hopes or anticapations and the future has yet to come into existence.

What exist and is real is the 'change' that we may or may not perceive.
Our measurement of time are always relative to this 'change' or movement, such as the movement of the sun or earth or pendlum or crystal.
Its these movements or change that really exist,not the measure, which is time.

Hence I dont think time travel will ever be possible as there is no 'time' to travel to. i.e. As the past does not exist, there is no actual past to travel to, the time travel machine has no destination that exists.

There are scientists that hold the view that time does not exist.(presentism). All that exists is the present moment.
http://www.geocities.com/trolleylauncher/AJPPresentismConsciousnessFinalVersion.htm
http://books.google.ie/books?id=pTSqg_BHbYoC&pg=PA55&dq=time+presentism+science#v=onepage&q=time%20presentism%20science&f=false

However, I dont claim to be infallible on this or on any matter and I accept that I may be proved wrong if genuine time travel is proved to be possible.

ChocolateSauce · 20-08-2009 5:01pm

Joe1919 wrote: »

It very hard to see how time can exist outside of human memory. The 'past' is 'dead and gone' and only exists as a memory or as 'traces of the past' in the world. The future only exists in the intellect as hopes or anticapations and the future has yet to come into existence.

What exist and is real is the 'change' that we may or may not perceive.
Our measurement of time are always relative to this 'change' or movement, such as the movement of the sun or earth or pendlum or crystal.
Its these movements or change that really exist,not the measure, which is time.

I think I get what you're saying. I misunderstood; I thought you were trying to argue that time (change) was a human concept only. You're quite right, it is a measurement of the change.

I should have said change happens independently of humans.

fintonie · 20-08-2009 5:11pm

before the big bang,,,, collapsing universe

monellia · 26-08-2009 12:50pm

Of course existence has always existed. It’s axiomatic. If it didn’t exist, it wouldn’t be existence

take everything · 20-05-2011 5:15am

Joe1919 wrote: »

Hence I dont think time travel will ever be possible as there is no 'time' to travel to. i.e. As the past does not exist, there is no actual past to travel to, the time travel machine has no destination that exists.

There are scientists that hold the view that time does not exist.(presentism). All that exists is the present moment.
http://www.geocities.com/trolleylauncher/AJPPresentismConsciousnessFinalVersion.htm
http://books.google.ie/books?id=pTSqg_BHbYoC&pg=PA55&dq=time+presentism+science#v=onepage&q=time%20presentism%20science&f=false

However, I dont claim to be infallible on this or on any matter and I accept that I may be proved wrong if genuine time travel is proved to be possible.

Isn't the whole relativity of simultaneity (depending on how fast you're going relative to someone else) in special relativity the basis for possible time travel. In other words depending on how you observe things, the moment in time (past, present, future) varies. Admittedly, IIRC, you can only (theoretically) go back, not forward, in time.

wylo · 20-05-2011 10:38am

Joe1919 wrote: »

It very hard to see how time can exist outside of human memory. The 'past' is 'dead and gone' and only exists as a memory or as 'traces of the past' in the world. The future only exists in the intellect as hopes or anticapations and the future has yet to come into existence.

What exist and is real is the 'change' that we may or may not perceive.
Our measurement of time are always relative to this 'change' or movement, such as the movement of the sun or earth or pendlum or crystal.
Its these movements or change that really exist,not the measure, which is time.

Hence I dont think time travel will ever be possible as there is no 'time' to travel to. i.e. As the past does not exist, there is no actual past to travel to, the time travel machine has no destination that exists.

There are scientists that hold the view that time does not exist.(presentism). All that exists is the present moment.
http://www.geocities.com/trolleylauncher/AJPPresentismConsciousnessFinalVersion.htm
http://books.google.ie/books?id=pTSqg_BHbYoC&pg=PA55&dq=time+presentism+science#v=onepage&q=time%20presentism%20science&f=false

However, I dont claim to be infallible on this or on any matter and I accept that I may be proved wrong if genuine time travel is proved to be possible.

completely agree, I think time is a means of measuring a sequence of events, but the only thing that actually exists is now. This was the case "millions of years ago" too. I put that inverted commas because in reality, back then it was just the present moment as well. Its all the one present moment. I think anyway.

We tend to draw a timeline and treat every bit of it as real as the other, and behave as if we are simply on that existing timeline travelling through it. Whereas I dont think is the case, there is no timeline, there is just now, and there always ever was now (even that last bit doesnt make sense).
And things are simply changing within this now.

THAT said, it gets messy for the mind when you think of things like physics, i.e. the faster you travel the slower time goes for you.

But I dont know if thats the same 'time' we speak of. Im not sure. Maybe its a bit early in the morning for me

The brain will often try and figure things out that are simply unfigure-outable.

I think to answer the OPs question, yes I believe the answer is.

wylo · 20-05-2011 10:47am

sorry only spotted now that this thread is 2 years old...............or is it?:p

take everything · 20-05-2011 11:58am

take everything wrote: »

Isn't the whole relativity of simultaneity (depending on how fast you're going relative to someone else) in special relativity the basis for possible time travel. In other words depending on how you observe things, the moment in time (past, present, future) varies. Admittedly, IIRC, you can only (theoretically) go back, not forward, in time.

OK i think i got some of this wrong (going back in time would mean faster than light travel so maybe not) and you can go forward in time by whizzing around close to the speed of light (time dilation as observed from earth). But the relativity of simultaneity (things that happen at the same time varies depending on how they're observed) was the main thing i was driving at

Joe1919 · 22-05-2011 11:53am

wylo wrote: »

....The brain will often try and figure things out that are simply unfigure-outable....

I am a bit of a sceptic and its an area of Philosophy I have paid attention to. In eastern philosophy, there is a concept called 'emptiness'. This states that when we look at the concepts that we have of the world e.g. the self, time, space, motion, substance, cause and effect and even emptiness itself, we find that we run into all kinds of paradoxes and hence we have to conclude that these things have no existence in the absolute sense.

The only truth then is that there is no absolute truth.

However, we have to live in the world, trains have to run on time, we conventionally have to give ownership of things to people and we must accept certain regularities, such as that we bake bread from flour and not from sand.
Hence, we must make do and accept that there is some usefulness in these conventional 'truths' and concepts that we have created ourselves, but at the same time being aware that these truths are not ultimate. (e.g that 'time' and the 'self' are ultimately 'empty'). It is made clear that the intention of this doctrine is not to change the world but to change our attitude towards the world.
(Hence we can continue to wear watches, look for causes, use the word I and mine ect.)

The postmodernists and Nietzsche come close to this (anti-realist) view. (imo). Nothing has substance. Everything is interdependent and in flux but is is we that conventionally name things for our own use and purpose.(Also a nominalist and pragmatic view). In the Gay Science, Nietzsche states that

'In order that the concept of substance could originate - which is indispensable for logic although in the strictest sense nothing real corresponds to it - it was likewise necessary that for a long time one did not see nor perceive the changes in things................
Cause and effect: such a duality probably never exists; in truth we are confronted by a continuum out of which we isolate a couple of pieces, just as we perceive motion only as isolated points and then infer it without ever actually seeing it.' (GS111-2)

Enkidu · 23-05-2011 10:45am

Joe1919 wrote: »

It very hard to see how time can exist outside of human memory. The 'past' is 'dead and gone' and only exists as a memory or as 'traces of the past' in the world.

Actually, for the reasons take everything mentioned, that's not correct. My past may no longer exist to me, but may be simultaneous with the present of some planet out there in space. In fact any point in the Earth's past is "currently" simultaneous with some extra-galactic observer. In Relativity the past explicitly exists.

Joe1919 · 23-05-2011 1:19pm

Enkidu wrote: »

In fact any point in the Earth's past is "currently" simultaneous with some extra-galactic observer. In Relativity the past explicitly exists.

I'm glad you used the word 'observer' because I agree with you that we can observe the past as a trace. But our observations of the past may not be the past itself but perhaps only a trace of the path.
( This argument can also be used about the present).

But of course, one could also put forward an argument that all we observe are effects and that the both past and present have existence in terms of the effects that are present.

Anyhow, my intention in my reply is to show that there are huge problems with the concept of time and one solution put forward is that time has no objective meaning but is subjective and relative and linked to how the observer views what looks like an objective change or motion.

Enkidu · 23-05-2011 2:33pm

Joe1919 wrote: »

I'm glad you used the word 'observer' because I agree with you that we can observe the past as a trace. But our observations of the past may not be the past itself but perhaps only a trace of the path.
( This argument can also be used about the present).

But of course, one could also put forward an argument that all we observe are effects and that the both past and present have existence in terms of the effects that are present.

Anyhow, my intention in my reply is to show that there are huge problems with the concept of time and one solution put forward is that time has no objective meaning but is subjective and relative and linked to how the observer views what looks like an objective change or motion.

I don't really see how time can be a subjective thing. First of all, in Special Relativity, the past continues to exist, not as some kind of trace, but it actually exists. My past isn't "a trace" for some observers, it's literally occuring at the same time as them.

Beyond that, in General Relativity, gravity is literally the warping of time, this isn't something that can occur if time is an illusion.

Joe1919 · 23-05-2011 5:30pm

Enkidu wrote: »

............. this isn't something that can occur if time is an illusion.

It may be that time is not an illusion as such. It may be instead that time is not the fundamental objective thing that we think it is. Aristotle, for example always thought that it was the change ( or Heraclitus the flux) that was more fundamental than time. Time then becomes a sort of 'measure' of that change. Its part of the conceptual framework that we use to measure what we think is reality.

These type of arguments show the difficulty of seperating the observer from what is been observed. e.g. Schroedinger's Cat

take everything · 23-05-2011 8:46pm

Enkidu wrote: »

My past may no longer exist to me, but may be simultaneous with the present of some planet out there in space. In fact any point in the Earth's past is "currently" simultaneous with some extra-galactic observer. In Relativity the past explicitly exists.

I think this, more than anything else, is the most mind-bending and awe-inspiring concept i've come across in science. Even after reading the stuff behind it, i still have to go back and wonder how it can be. It's fundamentally, to me at least, unintuitive.

Morbert · 24-05-2011 12:55am

Joe1919 wrote: »

It may be that time is not an illusion as such. It may be instead that time is not the fundamental objective thing that we think it is. Aristotle, for example always thought that it was the change ( or Heraclitus the flux) that was more fundamental than time. Time then becomes a sort of 'measure' of that change. Its part of the conceptual framework that we use to measure what we think is reality.

These type of arguments show the difficulty of seperating the observer from what is been observed. e.g. Schroedinger's Cat

Unfortunately there's a lot of mysticism behind modern physics. Neither quantum mechanics nor relativity make references to observers, and neither assume conscious observers exist. "Observer" is just a simple means of describing the consequences of these theories. In relativity, an observer can be any valid co-ordinate system. In quantum mechanics, an observer is any classical system that entangles with the quantum system.

alex73 · 28-05-2011 2:02pm

Greeks believed in a Creator not created, a being eternal. Its philosophically impossible for exist to be spontaneous.

Linkus · 27-06-2011 2:53am

The universe began with the big bang.
Much like how a piece of string begins at one point.
Consider the string as time, linked to the universe.
Move back from that point and there is no string, no universe, no time.
But the universe still begins at a certain point.

Very basic way of looking at it and not intended to read into too much.

It's pretty tough for our brain's to comprehend not existing since they have never experienced it.
You could say that none of us have experienced the starvation many millions suffer and die from globally but we have felt hunger and seen the effects of starvation on others.
We have nothing to compare non-existence to, nothing to measure it by and that's why our brains simply can't wrap their claws around it - they have no idea whatsoever.

Enkidu · 27-06-2011 3:37pm

Joe1919 wrote: »

Aristotle, for example always thought that it was the change ( or Heraclitus the flux) that was more fundamental than time. Time then becomes a sort of 'measure' of that change. Its part of the conceptual framework that we use to measure what we think is reality.

I'd have to disagree. In many accurately tested scientific theories time is explicitly real, not some "measurer of change".

LeeHoffmann · 27-06-2011 4:07pm

Consider the string as time,

I think this linear concept of time causes all kids of philosophical problems. If this were the case, then what was before time/the universe? If you answer nothing, then define what nothing means. It means the absence of existence. Saying 'there was nothing' makes no sense because nothing (non-existence) cannot exist or be. Also, how did something begin to exist if before it there was nothing?

I tend to think of time in 2 ways - clock time and real time. The former is the linear version we're all used to - past, present, future. The latter refers more to the structure of time...I'd think of time (in this sense) as (for want of a better way of putting it) spherical. But again, I'd take a Kantian point of view of this and say that we have to think in terms of time because we exist in time. We can't know what the universe is/would be like outside of our consciousness; we can only understand things within the categories and limits of our existence - an existence that is characterised as being in time. As bluefinger said,

human beings trying to understand the finite or infinite nature of the universe is akin to a turd trying to comprehend the sewerage system.

Time may have objective reality in the noumena, but we can't know whether it does or doesn't. What matters for us is the validity of the concept we have of time in the phenomenal world

Enkidu · 27-06-2011 4:42pm

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Time may have objective reality in the noumena, but we can't know whether it does or doesn't. What matters for us is the validity of the concept we have of time in the phenomenal world

That can be said about anything though can't it? (i.e. all we can be sure of is the usefulness of our conception.)
However considering that gravity is best explained as the physical warping of time, that pretty much implies its actual existence.

LeeHoffmann · 27-06-2011 4:46pm

That can be said about anything though can't it? (i.e. all we can be sure of is the usefulness of our conception.)

It has particular relevance to this kind of metaphysical debate though as it's asking us to think outside the limits of our consciousness, which is impossible.

Shtanto · 12-08-2011 3:51pm

Existence has only been a concept since the emergence of concious thought. That took a while for us to evolve. Cats and dogs have no concept of the big bang, nor do they need one. They just aspire to be as catish and dogish as they can possibly be.

Besides, the date we place on the big bang is just a measurement we made with our tools. They're pretty spiffy tools alright, but it's still only a measurement.

Thud · 12-08-2011 4:16pm

Shtanto wrote: »

Existence has only been a concept since the emergence of concious thought. That took a while for us to evolve. Cats and dogs have no concept of the big bang, nor do they need one. They just aspire to be as catish and dogish as they can possibly be.

Besides, the date we place on the big bang is just a measurement we made with our tools. They're pretty spiffy tools alright, but it's still only a measurement.

but if you don't think/know about it it doesn't mean it didn't happen....

Shtanto · 12-08-2011 11:14pm

Ah yes, the old tree in a forest jazz - personally, if a tree did fall in the forest and oh wait one just did! I reckoned it would! (wood, lol :P ).

Of course I can't prove it either way.

I'm told the expanding universe will gradually create more dimensions as it expands, further aggravating retired men into declaring that "she's bloody well tidied it away"

Edit: Did trees fall in the forest before I was born?

canbai · 22-12-2011 12:38pm

Consciousness, structure, and energy are three elements that make up the universe.

Different consciousnesses form different structures, and different structures make use of different kinds of energy.

Consciousness originates from structure and acts on structure. Energy is neutral.

All forms are seen is “unreal”！

ronan45 · 22-12-2011 12:43pm

I cant get my head around the following...

The big bang was created from a single tiny point...

Now if you add up all the physical stuff in the universe not the gases just the actual stuff you can touch. Rocks Asteroids, Ice, rocky planets. etc How did this appear from nothing. like we are talking something of the size of BLOODY MASSIVE hundreads of billions of billions the size of the earth. If we put all the stuff in the universe in one big ball do we know how big it would be?

18AD · 22-12-2011 3:37pm

I guess you could compare it to an atom bomb. The spark is tiny, the result is massive. All the elements in the universe didn't exist back then. They have all generated from fundamental particles, as far as I know.

slowburner · 31-12-2011 11:38am

dlofnep wrote: »

Has existence always existed? I'm pretty sure I discussed this before. I'm curious on your thoughts on it. Has the Universe, or the cycle that makes the Universe always existed? Or is the universe finite in terms of age.

If it has always existed, or indeed the cycle for which creates it has always existed - Can you grasp or wrap your head around the idea of something being infinite?

If it has not always existed, then can you grasp non-existence and what created the universe, or even created the material for creating the big bang (that is if you accept the big bang theory).

Thoughts? This question really boggles me.

This is the ultimate question.

All good philosophers will answer with a question - "What do you mean by, Universe?".

If by Universe, you mean all matter and energy originating from the Big Bang of current theory - then yes, that universe is finite in its form. Which essentially just means that it will ultimately change in form - the energy and matter can't disappear - they just change.

If by, Universe you mean all things which do, might, did or will exist, then no, the Universe is not finite - it cannot be because the Universe is infinity.
It is all time and space, all matter, anti-matter and energy, it is the space which 'contains' everything and it is the space outside that too.

Can you get your head around something being infinite?
Kind of.
The best way to grasp the concept of infinity is to conceive of how the Universe was not created - it just always was and will be - it cannot, not exist.
And that is the Metaphysical shock - it would make more sense if nothing existed. But (here's the head wrecker) if nothing existed, that nothingness would be the Universe, so there would still be existence.
There cannot be a creator of the Universe; that would imply that that entity could exist outside the Universe - which is an impossibility.

Nabber · 26-01-2012 2:50pm

slowburner wrote: »

Can you get your head around something being infinite?
Kind of.

No you can't get your head around Infinity.
Something as finite as the mind is not going to understand infinity

The universe began with the big bang.
Much like how a piece of string begins at one point.
Consider the string as time, linked to the universe.
Move back from that point and there is no string, no universe, no time.
But the universe still begins at a certain point.

The big bang came from nothing is a pointless explanation for the Universe :cool: Much the same way the string is. The string is made of 'intelligent design' It's begining and end were decided. Are you implying the universe is same in this sense

The scope of the question is beyond our reason.

The big bang theory undermines all scientific logic. Everything from non existence...

Basically all answers in science could be answered with 'that came from non-existence'

Trying to explain non-existence within existence. Impossible.

slowburner · 26-01-2012 3:13pm

Nabber wrote: »

No you can't get your head around Infinity.
Something as finite as the mind is not going to understand infinity

I disagree.
The mind is not precluded from understanding the concept of infinity because it is itself finite.
If a car runs out of petrol on a long journey - it doesn't follow that the driver loses his understanding of the intended destination.

London Acid · 29-04-2012 8:28pm

I'll throw in with eternal recurrence, but no way to be sure.

An0n · 30-04-2012 5:48pm

If the universe is finite, then it's possible that time has no bounds and is thus approaching infinite. This would mean that as the universe expanded it's building up potential energy to recollapse and restart all over again. Energy conservation laws would make this possible if the energy was always there in the first place. But since we don't know if the energy was always present; we cannot assume it to be or not. That is merely the work of your belief system to find out. Personally, I refuse to assume or believe it was or not.

If the universe is infinite; then there must have been some start of existence. The measurability of the big bang places scientists 1 billionth of a second before the universe started expanding, but no further. We cannot know where all the energy came from to create such existence, but again; we can only assume or believe in something perhaps irrational. Because if the universe has no bounds, rationality can only be seen by the observers within. We cannot look at the universe because we can't fully look at ourselves. This is again, down to personal opinion more than anything.

Personally, I can't say. Nobody can. But I'd like to have a certain answer and for that reason (along with others) I can't bring myself to conclude that some divine force started it all. (Especially if that divine force made us in the image of himself, if ya know what I mean

A bit of evolutionary protection I presume.) Anyways. Getting a little off topic. This question doesn't have a definite answer because the resources needed are unobtainable in the conditions we're in. We will never know. Yes, it's a sad world. ):

18AD · 30-04-2012 7:41pm

Even if existence didn't exist at some time, it is still true to say that existence has always existed.

To put it another way, if existing is the only possible mode of existence then existence has always existed. It can't do anything else!

:pac:

Has existence always existed?

Comments