The reason you can’t wrap your head around it is because your brain wasn’t designed to. We have developed to survive on the Earth, where time is pretty constant. There’s simply no reason we would need to have an intuitive grasp of what the big bang would be like.
I think you’re throwing yourself off by saying the big bang “caused everything”. Instead, think of time simply as a 4th dimension, and the big bang as a place in that dimension.
I have heard this many times here on the SDMB, and I think that those who propose it might be mistaken as to its nature. John Wheeler coined the term ‘quantum foam’ in 1955, but this describes the tiny (Planck scale) ‘fluctuations’ in “our” 3-brane, where time exists and therefore where ‘fluctuations’ have a more intuitive, common sense nature: one could almost say that they had a cause. Applying the same idea to time itself is a little misleading, I feel - it implies a ‘quantum nothingness’ in which a fluctuation suddenly ‘happened’. This is not what anyone I know of seriously proposes, indeed it is logically inconsistent almost from the get go.
When talking of the Planck scale as applied to our 3-brane, I suggest it makes far more sense to think of it simply as some kind of gateway rather than a ‘fluctuation’, since the latter implies a ‘cause’ or some temporal ‘event’. Time might well have no meaning on this scale - the universe (either our region or in its entirety) might well be timeless. It simply exists. I still feel that the terms ‘causation’ and ‘creation’ imply a state of non-existence ‘becoming’ a state of existence.
In the same way, these quantum fluctuation in ‘our’ spactime might not be ‘events with a cause’ - they might, again, be objects which simply exist in higher dimensions, perhaps even timelessly: we are merely seeing them as ‘caused events’ because of the strange configuration of ‘our’ region (this odd ‘time’ dimension and all!).
I don’t think we’re really in disagreement here, blow, it’s just that this subject really needs careful linguistic examination. I feel that the words ‘cause’ and ‘create’ carry too much temporal baggage, which we must learn to divest ourselves of.
Well, it is possible that the universe was caused by something within the multiverse, but the multiverse was not caused. Indeed, perhaps within the multiverse, the term “caused” ceases to have meaning, except when it interfaces with ours, therefore there is no “first mover” necessary in the multiverse.
It sounds like the classical Aristotalean cosmological argument is pretty much invalidated by relativity- at least in the sense that the beginning of the universe requires a prime motor, but a First Mover is not necessarily excluded either.
I don’t think it’s possible to ever categorically negate a “divine” First Mover as a possibility since the idea is not subject to Popperian falsifiability but it can at least be said that we have as yet seen no necessity for one and a superfluous entity is still properly excluded by Ockham at this point.
A beautifully concise summary, Dio.
Indeed, it was St Augustine who first pointed out the absurdity of the phrase “before the start of time”.
Time has a beginning anywhere man wants it to, since man decided time would exist. There is no time in the spirit world, all things happen simultaneously. Only in the physical events are linear.
All your arguments fail at the very beginning.
No one can answer were the first energy/matter came from. It could have been here? always, but we don’t know. What you speak of is unknowable. God could have created the universe. God could BE the universe. But never something that happened accidental, that is not rational thinking.
Love
First, let the original poster clarify what he meant. I was just referring to what I guessed he meant. If he harbors any fallacies, I don’t try to correct for them in my interpretation.
Second, we “know” jacksh*t. We don’t know if we can observe other universes/multiverses. Maybe we can, but there’s some critical new concepts we still need to grasp. It’s futile to say that we “know” “our” time is contained in “our” universe.
Per my guess, the OP refers to universe as all inclusive, and “time” simply as the essence that is a necessary agent to perceive change and multitude.
I’d say it was subject to falsifiability, which is why the deistic First Mover is not interesting. But the only reason we are having this discussion is that there is evidence the universe (in Blowero’s sense, ) does have a beginning. There is no evidence that the multiverse, if there is such a thing, does. So the question is whether the universe was caused by something in the multiverse, or began without a cause.
My understanding of quantum fluctuations is that they are a result of uncertainty. Just as it is impossible to tell the position and velocity of a particle, it is impossible to know for sure that a region of space is empty. Therefore particles pop up with no cause, but must disappear again to make the energy books balance. The thing that is different about the universe is that it seems the net energy of the universe is 0, so the universe popping up out of nothing does not violate the law of Conservation of Energy. Thus the beginning of the universe might be a special case of a quantum fluctuation. Or not.
I’ve read that there is some speculation that gravity might leak between branes. Anyone have more information on this?
What would be the falsifiable test for a deistic first mover? (Maybe you meant to say “isn’t” instead of “is?”)
I agree but I think it just pushes First Cause further back. essentially the philosophical question is about existence, not necessarily the universe (although, there was classically no other way to conceive of existence). First Cause could still be arguably applied to a multiverse, but not as easily and it would require some showing of finity, however the dimensions for a multiverse would be defined…
Actually, maybe it would be impossible to impose First Cause on a multiverse. I don’t see how you could define a “beginning” for it, or any sort of boundary at all. This stuff makes my head hurt.
Thank you. I was exaggerating my ignorance a little. I sort of understand the idea of particles coming and going and how it pertains to uncertainty. I just can’t seem to visualize it for the life of me. I can’t see those branes moving in the fifth dimension either.
I found this. It seems to be a fairly prevalent idea if my googling skills are any indication.
I agree. But on the other hand, it confuses the issue when the pendulum swings too far the other way, and people claim to have proven that the universe wasn’t caused.
Allright, let’s clear this up.
That’s exactly the point I’m making.
Understood. But like I said, this is a tautology. You are in essence saying “For the thing which I define as ‘all there is’, there is nothing else.”
On the contrary, relativity theory tells us exactly that.
I think the confusion arises from the careless use of the term “quantum vacuum,” which some laymen interpret to mean mere nothingness. Obviously, this isn’t so; after all, how can fluctuations occur in mere nothingness? As you said, this concept is logically inconsistent from the very start.
I think we agree. A prime move is subject to falsifiability (unlike a why statement) but it is not falsifiable, and is thus not an interesting hypothesis. I’m just not giving it a free pass.
I don’t think you can demonstrate that our universe has a beginning based on logic alone. We are pretty sure that it does based on the evidence. We have no evidence that a multiverse has a beginning, so arguing for a prime mover at that level is a bit premature.
I don’t even try to visualize this stuff. I had to invent a cosmology allowing ftl travel for an sf book I am writing, so I try to keep up so that I don’t say anything stupid. Amazingly, the latest discoveries don’t falsify any of my cosmology - not that there is any chance my cosmology is actually correct!