[alex73]

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

[Linkus]

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]

Originally Posted by Joe1919

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]

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]

Originally Posted by LeeHoffmann

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Shtanto

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]

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 ).

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by dlofnep

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]

Originally Posted by slowburner

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 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]

Originally Posted by Nabber

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.