Atemporal Cause of the Universe

MisterEpicurus

I just wanted to ask you guys a question concerning the 'cause' of the Big Bang.

Given that time and space began at the Big Bang, some people assume that it must have been a spaceless atemporal cause. But the idea of causation surely requires 'time'.

Another issue I have is the actual concept of 'atemporal'. Given that physicists seemingly have no idea how the Big Bang arose, do terms like 'atemporal' have any meaning whatsoever [for clarification, I mean outside our Universe alone]? Something being 'temporal' is surely a concept within the Universe. Of course, it would be easy to make an analogy to 'a' something within the Universe, but that would require 'time' in the current Universe. I have a major problem with 'atemporal' because if our version of reality began at the Big Bang, how can we possibly apply our reason to concepts beyond the Big Bang.

Similarly I can't see how physical laws can be deduced beyond the Big Bang given that all our understanding only applies within it.

I hope that makes sense. :rolleyes:

Popoutman

Atemporal - not involving time.

i.e. in this context it's indicating that the Big Bang was outside of time, as time-space was created at the instant of the Big Bang. Given this - it's fair to say that whatever caused it was not relating in any way to time-space as we know it.

Everything relating to "before" is only a semi-educated guess at best, and probably best left to those that debate the number of angels on pinheads.

This question is probably better aimed at the philosophers instead of the astronomers

MisterEpicurus

Popoutman wrote: »

Atemporal - not involving time.

i.e. in this context it's indicating that the Big Bang was outside of time, as time-space was created at the instant of the Big Bang. Given this - it's fair to say that whatever caused it was not relating in any way to time-space as we know it.

Everything relating to "before" is only a semi-educated guess at best, and probably best left to those that debate the number of angels on pinheads.

This question is probably better aimed at the philosophers instead of the astronomers

I agree that space-time was originated with the Big Bang, but that surely means that any concept of timeless loses it's meaning 'outside' of the Big Bang. If you said there was beauty in the Universe, it would be nonsensical to say that beyond the Universe is beauty-less. The word only applies within the Universe. I guess it's a conceptual distinction I'm trying to draw. Timeless can apply within the Universe, but I don't see why you can extend that definition to something which apparently caused it. The concept of 'causation' is also a problem.

tricky D

A large part of the problem in this area is the difficulty us humans have with the concept of firstly, there being nothing (both time and dimensions) and secondly and perhaps worse, something coming from nothing. The classic example of the first is thinking of before the Big Bang when there was no before and nothing being nothing but in a space, when the notion is that there is no space. We view no space as no space in a 3 axis system when we should be considering it as with no axes at all. The second is notions like spontaneous existence from nothing.

Humans have a history of not interpreting 'nothing' very well to the extent of omitting it from number systems.

There doesn't need to be a cause nor anything outside the Big Bang.

rccaulfield

It's either time and space began at a certain point and there was no before or time and space was always there and the universe is eternal and expanding/collapsing etc...........either way, humans cannot understand that and it has to be one of them. Trying to understand seems futile. All we can do is keep gathering evidence and observations.