# A shy at “The universe has always existed” **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 11, 2003, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-shy-at-the-universe-has-always-existed/194345 "2003-08-11T09:31:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-shy-at-the-universe-has-always-existed/194345/121 "2003-08-22T08:24:50Z")
> [@](#): > > actually, isn’t it assumed that time is part of the universe? isn’t that part of the definition of one of the two terms? Not _defined_, no. Einstein’s Relativity stated that _if_ time was not absolute but “comprised” the universe _then_ various consequences would be observed. The consequences were observed. The theory therefore withstood an incredibly rigorous test and was an undeniably impressive acheivement, scientifically speaking. _Nonsensically_ speaking, of course, Relativity was nostalgic yet tepid. In the epistomology known as “nonsense”, this is valid. I’m afraid you’re not going to get a rise out of us this time, **Rama**. Carry on making your snowballs if you wish, but your fingers will get cold and your lovely new gloves will get wet. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-shy-at-the-universe-has-always-existed/194345/122 "2003-08-22T17:39:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ramanujan \* > i think the reason this has gone so long is because it’s taken us forever to say that once you accept science as your epistemology, your conclusions are so obvious as to be almost trivial I’m not sure where you’re going with this. This is what I get for epistemology: “the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity” I would say the first part descibes science well enough, but the second part does not. Science does not deal in the _limits_ of knowledge. Science is quite obviously dynamic. Were it not, scientists would still be asserting that the Earth is the center of the universe. In fact, the dream of most scientists is to find that new discovery that would change everyone’s way of thinking, in the way that Einstein did. If the nature of science were to set limits on knowledge, and say “what we know now is all that there is”, none of our body of scientific knowledge could exist. I’m also not sure what you mean by “your conclusions are so obvious as to be almost trivial”. Most conclusions in science are most certainly _not_ trivial. Also don’t forget that science has a proven track record. We wouldn’t even be communicating right now without science. I’d be interested to hear what other method of obtaining objective knowledge you think even comes close to the scientific method. > [@](#): > > and that when someone uses cosmology to imply the existence of something supernatural, they are not using science. that doesn’t make them invalid. No, it doesn’t make the _person_ invalid, although I’m not sure what the characteristics of a “valid” person or an “invalid” person would be, exactly. But the methodology is definitely invalid. Using science to prove something that is not scientific is like using math to analyze Shakespeare. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2003, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-shy-at-the-universe-has-always-existed/194345/123 "2003-08-23T01:40:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > \*\*Using science to prove something that is not scientific is like using math to analyze Shakespeare. \*\* Invalid simile. There’s no reason Shakespeare _couldn’t_ be analyzed mathematically. Math is just a language, and all language is ultimately math. Unfortunately, a mathematical model able to do much with Shakespeare would need to be of roughly the same complexity as the sections of the human brain involved in recognizing and processing language. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2003, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-shy-at-the-universe-has-always-existed/194345/124 "2003-08-23T04:34:52Z")
Anything which restricts propositions sets a limit on human knowledge, **blowero**. Science, in its never-ending methodology, restricts a great many propositions explicitly through falsification or implicitly through verification (depending on how you like your science). > [@](#): > > \*From [Stanford’s Encyclopedia of Philosophy](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/) > One of the many remarkable features of Popper’s thought is the scope of his intellectual influence. In the modern technological and highly-specialised world scientists are rarely aware of the work of philosophers; it is virtually unprecedented to find them queuing up, as they have done in Popper’s case, to testify to the enormously practical beneficial impact which that philosophical work has had upon their own. But notwithstanding the fact that he wrote on even the most technical matters with consummate clarity, the scope of Popper’s work is such that it is commonplace by now to find that commentators tend to deal with the epistemological, scientific and social elements of his thought as if they were quite disparate and unconnected, and thus the fundamental unity of his philosophical vision and method has to a large degree been dissipated. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2003, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-shy-at-the-universe-has-always-existed/194345/125 "2003-08-23T08:20:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > \*\*Anything which restricts propositions sets a limit on human knowledge, **blowero**. Not if the propositions that are excluded are false ones. Eliminating _false_, _imaginary_ or _purely hypothetical_ things from our belief system does not restrict knowledge. > [@](#): > > Science, in its never-ending methodology, restricts a great many propositions explicitly through falsification or implicitly through verification (depending on how you like your science). Yes, if the evidence doesn’t support a proposition, it is discarded. That’s why we no longer believe the Earth is flat. I don’t consider believing the Earth is flat to be knowledge, do you? (Not sure what your quote has to do with it.) ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2003, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-shy-at-the-universe-has-always-existed/194345/126 "2003-08-23T08:22:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*Invalid simile. There’s no reason Shakespeare _couldn’t_ be analyzed mathematically. Math is just a language, and all language is ultimately math. > > Unfortunately, a mathematical model able to do much with Shakespeare would need to be of roughly the same complexity as the sections of the human brain involved in recognizing and processing language. \*\* Uh, no. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2003, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-shy-at-the-universe-has-always-existed/194345/127 "2003-08-23T13:06:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > \*\*Uh, no. \*\* Uh, yes. Unlike you’d like to postulate that your brain operates in some manner other than the laws of mathematics. I know several physicists, neurophysiologists, and information theorists who would be fascinated if that were the case. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2003, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-shy-at-the-universe-has-always-existed/194345/128 "2003-08-23T19:15:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*Uh, yes. > > Unlike you’d like to postulate that your brain operates in some manner other than the laws of mathematics. I know several physicists, neurophysiologists, and information theorists who would be fascinated if that were the case. \*\* TVAA, you have completely missed the point. Are you contending that science can be validly used to prove that which is not scientific? If yes, please provide an example of such. If no, then I fail to see your point. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2003, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-shy-at-the-universe-has-always-existed/194345/129 "2003-08-23T21:24:10Z")
**blowero** , you have completely missed the point. Are you contending that even though science can validly be used to study a subject, that subject is not scientific? What criteria do you have that indicate the study of Shakespeare cannot be scientific? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2003, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-shy-at-the-universe-has-always-existed/194345/130 "2003-08-24T08:13:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > **blowero** , you have completely missed the point. Are you contending that even though science can validly be used to study a subject, that subject is not scientific? No, that’s not what I said at all. > [@](#): > > What criteria do you have that indicate the study of Shakespeare cannot be scientific? Huh? I made an analogy. It’s very simple: The discipline of science is to so-called “non-scientific” things as - The discipline of math is to literature. In other words, you can’t use science to prove things which you claim to be outside of the scope of science. This seems so obvious to me that I am flabbergasted that you would argue against it. And then when you argue against the specifics of my analogy, it makes me wonder if you understand what an analogy _is_. Do you understand that the point of the analogy is NOT whether one could conceivably study Shakespeare using math? If you honestly don’t understand what my point was, then there’s no point in continuing; we may as well be speaking different languages. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2003, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-shy-at-the-universe-has-always-existed/194345/131 "2003-08-24T15:05:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > **No, that’s not what I said at all.** I think you may be confusing what you meant to convey with what you said. > [@](#): > > \*\*Huh? I made an analogy. It’s very simple: > > The discipline of science is to so-called “non-scientific” things as - > The discipline of math is to literature. > > In other words, you can’t use science to prove things which you claim to be outside of the scope of science.\*\* That’s not what your analogy represents. Your analogy is in fact fundamentally flawed. The following analogy demonstrates why: Math : Literanture :: Chemistry : Cooking Indeed, science cannot study things that cannot be studied by science. The problem here is that you don’t appreciate just what it is that _can_ be studied by science. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2003, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-shy-at-the-universe-has-always-existed/194345/132 "2003-08-25T18:31:36Z")
> [@](#): > > ## \*Originally posted by TVAA \* Originally posted by blowero **No, that’s not what I said at all.** > > I think you may be confusing what you meant to convey with what you said. > > ## quote: > > \*\*Huh? I made an analogy. It’s very simple: > > The discipline of science is to so-called “non-scientific” things as - > The discipline of math is to literature. > > ## In other words, you can’t use science to prove things which you claim to be outside of the scope of science.\*\* > > That’s not what your analogy represents. Your analogy is in fact fundamentally flawed. The following analogy demonstrates why: > > Math : Literanture :: Chemistry : Cooking > > Indeed, science cannot study things that cannot be studied by science. The problem here is that you don’t appreciate just what it is that can be studied by science. Jesus, TVAA - are you _always_ this picayune? ---
**Author:** ![Stephanos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@Stephanos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stephanos)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2003, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-shy-at-the-universe-has-always-existed/194345/133 "2003-09-30T04:28:49Z")
I’m new and I have a question. I’ve read all of the first page and skimmed the next two. Anyway, my question is… Is my knowledge of the Cosmological argument out of date? I am not seeing anything in the discussion about the infinite regression of events, or the ‘Principle of Causality.’ For instance, saying the Universe simply is, and does not need a cause, seems to just be throwing that principle out. So is it not regarded very highly anymore? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2003, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-shy-at-the-universe-has-always-existed/194345/134 "2003-09-30T07:33:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Stephanos \* > \*\*I’m new and I have a question. > > I’ve read all of the first page and skimmed the next two. Anyway, my question is… > > Is my knowledge of the Cosmological argument out of date? I am not seeing anything in the discussion about the infinite regression of events, or the ‘Principle of Causality.’ For instance, saying the Universe simply is, and does not need a cause, seems to just be throwing that principle out. So is it not regarded very highly anymore? Thanks. \*\* Welcome to SDMB. Just FYI, I think people here prefer if you start a new thread rather than “bumping” an old one like this. But since it’s already done, let me see if I can shed some light on this. The “principle of causality”, as you call it, is something that is an observable part of the universe, but that doesn’t mean it necessarily applies to the universe as a whole, or transcends the universe. Cosmological theory holds that if you trace the development of the universe backwards in time, it does not regress infinitely, but rather reaches a point that they have named the “Big Bang”. To quote our friend Stephen Hawking: > [@](#): > > Hubble’s observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe wa infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down. If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect what happens at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no observational consequences. One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined. It should be emphasized that this beginning in time is very different from those that had been considered previously. In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could still imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that is was created _before_ the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job! Or the Reader’s Digest version: You can’t apply the “principle of causality” to “before” the Big Bang, because the principle breaks down at the moment of the Big Bang. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2003, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-shy-at-the-universe-has-always-existed/194345/135 "2003-09-30T11:52:31Z")
According to our limited understanding of singularities, if the universe did form from one, then any information from the universe’s “previous” states would have been wiped out. From our perspective, it would be meaningless to ask what happened “before” the Big Bang. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2003, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-shy-at-the-universe-has-always-existed/194345/136 "2003-09-30T12:56:37Z")
Well, welcome back and welcome **Stephanos**. Actually, I _intended_ this thread to be bumped every once in a while so as not to unnecessarily cover old ground - having to read a few dense pages before even _posting_ to a new thread puts some people off, and the same points are obviously going to be repeated by those who can’t be bothered. Anyway **Steph** , yes I do believe the Principle of Causality loses its power when speaking of the singularity (or _near_-singularity) and the Planck epoch. _events, cause, previous, before_: These words have meaning **only** in the part of the universe where **time** exists. Once one accepts that the nature of the Singularity-Type-Object which lies at one end of the universe **does not necessarily have any timelike properties** then these words and the notions encapsulated therein lose their meaning. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-shy-at-the-universe-has-always-existed/194345.md?page=6)