The Paradox of Reality

Great Debates
61

What, this part?
“4) some tell me there was no cause, because there was no “before” for the cause to exist in
5) But if that is true, “why” did the big bang happen at all?”

I repeat that I think it’s misleading to say that the Big Bang happened, since linguistically this attempts to put the Big Bang in our everyday life of each time having a before and after. Better, I suggest, to say that the Big Bang exists as a place in the universe. It is difficult, but possible, to divest oneself of temporality and consider time spatially, though it requires much patience.

No, I’m not. We happen to live on the Earth having this shape out of various shapes. I suggest that this region of the universe is similar. We live in the region of the universe having three dimensions of space and one of time (which can be treated as being a fourth spatial dimension), ie. having “this shape”. This shape is such that T<0 is like “north of the north pole”. There is no mysterious “land of nothingness” there - when cosmologists say there was nothing before T=0 they mean that there is no such thing as before T=0, not that there was a nothing-to-something transition.

If this is merely the shape of the universe, then asking what caused the universe to expand is directly equivalent to asking what causes the Earth to expand out to the equator from the north pole. I suggest “cause” is the wrong word to use, understandable though it is to use it since every configuration in our everyday lives does have other configurations either side of it.

You presented what I consider a false dichotomy: either the universe has always been in motion, or it was caused. I suggest a third option: that the universe has always existed, but the last 14 billion years is the only place where change occurs (and therefore, where time exists). This requires neither a first cause nor perpetual motion.

(Indeed, there are many instances of “timelessness” in the universe now, such as the reference frame of a photon or the event horizon of a black hole.)

If something has always existed, ie. never not existed, it requires no cause, agreed? Thomas Aquinas even suggested this 1000 years ago. We might seek to explain the nature or history of the thing that has always existed, but an explanation of its creation is unnecessary, yes?

Hence the title “A brief history … of time”.

62

Sweet. I think this explains more clearly what I am getting at. I have to read it in more detail later as I am tired as well. As a side, where do you go to school?

63

Sorry about that. The Sausage Creature post was my bad. That was me accidentally under my wife’s account. It twas I The Highwayman. Sorry… :smack:

64

That’s fine if by “always” you mean a few billion years. There is a difference between never not existed and cannot not exist.

65

No, by “always” I mean for all time. Now, since time (ie. changes in configuration of the universe) is only defined for 14 billion years, it makes no difference whether we consider that undefined region as being either nonexistent or there being an infinite amount of time before T=0 without change, ie. in the exact same configuration (as compressed as it can be) as at T=0. So I can say always always, so long as I don’t propose any different configurations in that period.

If M Theory, or something like it, is true, then the distinction seems rather arbitrary. We live in a region of the universe having a particlar shape and dimensionality, whereas other regions (such as the two or four dimensional region, or the region next to the Big Bang where stars are absent) do not support life.

66

I’m not sure what you mean by “T=0”. In what equation? If you’re talking about a singularity, what do you know about its configuaration, compression, or changes? Also, is there any reason why we cannot define time as 49 years and declare that I have always existed?

Who said anything about life (whatever that is)? It’s a matter of a temporal claim versus a metaphysical or epistemic claim, isn’t it?

67

That of the entire universe. Call it “the singularity” if you think the language of English rather than that of mathematics is more appropriate.

Hubble’s observations directly imply a compressed configuration which cannot be more compressed. This is the singularity. Your question is logically equivalent to “what do you know about the location of the north pole?”

Because there is evidence of other configurations next to that we call “you”, ie. there is a time in which you don’t exist. That cannot be said of the universe, which is spacetime itself. Again, there is such a thing as north of you, but not of north of the north pole.

I’ll rephrase: if there are regions of the universe having different dimensionality (including that of temporality), then asking whether the universe could have not existed is rather like asking whether you could have been born on Venus. Label that question as you will.

68

I agree. I used “entity” because I thought it was the most encompassing. Morfe sop than “god” or “being”. I don’t know, “force”, “thing”? Any ideas?

69

What would you say about the theory of the multiverse (Linde and others)? In it, our universe is one of many, that have "popped into exestence and continue to do so?

But doesn’t your statement point to a time before T=0? "The universe has “always” existed…the “last 14 billion years”…?

70

As a nitpick, I wouldn’t say these are other universes - the universe is everything, the combined whole, and so “our” universe is merely one region of it (rather like our planet is but one region of that universe). There may well be other configurations of the universe “attached” to the singularity lying at one end of “our” region, which one could even say are before that singularity. The point is still that the universe has some configuration at every time - it always has some configuration or other.

There is no difference between time stopping and time continuing without change. Before your fingers leap to the keyboard to respond, think about that carefully. Time is irretrievably bound to change, to the different configurations of a system (indeed, this is the entire basis of thermodynamics).

14 billion years is the portion of that time in which change occurs. You can either consider it to be a portion of an infinite amount of time, or you can consider it as all the time there is. It makes no difference: in both cases, the universe has always existed, over all time.

71

Interesting. I think what you’re saying is that time is part of the nature of the universe, maybe even vice versa. That’s it’s similar to the relationship between matter and extension, which we’ll call length (L). It’s meaningful to talk of infintely small length, and L can indeed approach 0, but there is no L=0, nerver mind L<0. There can’t be, because then you be talking about matter with no extension, which, by definition, is not matter?

Question: I see that change cannot occur without time. But can time exist without change occuring?

As far as multiverse theory, I don’t think they have the multiverses all being born at the same time. Now, I realize this is a tangent. Feel free to ignore. There’s enough on the plate.

72

Thank you. I go to school in the Washington DC area, but I can’t say any more on this board for security reasons :rolleyes: I’m taking the TOK class as part of the International Baccalaureate Diploma program here. As a side, I think I’m going to post the reality subject as a new thread to see if we can get any one else to jump in…

73

Exactly. The universe is spacetime - Einstein showed that the Newtonian model of the universe existing in some “theatre” was simply wrong. One cannot logically posit a time when the universe had no configuration, since time is the different configurations.

Yes, the analogy is instructive, I think.

Like I said, think about this very carefully (as Thomas Aquinas did when he asked this question nearly a millennium ago). [ul][li]Imagine time stopping. The music stops, and everyone at the party is suddenly frozen in a candid photographic pose.[/li][li]Now imagine time continuing but without change. Again, the music cannot be heard, since it requires a change in the position of the air molecules and the rotating CD. The people cannot change their position either. Indeed, any change whatsoever, down to the fundamental thermodynamic or quantum level, is now forbidden.[/ul][/li]Can you see that there is no difference between an absence of time and a continuation of time without change? If so, we can apply either to the singularity at one end of our universe. It does not matter whetehr we say time stops there or time continues back without change. So, in answer to the question “What was the state of the universe before the Big Bang?” we can answer exactly the same as at T=0! There is no “then” to cause the expansion anymore than something causes the Earth to expand spatially.

74

Resounding clang as a long-teetering penny finally drops in matt’s head.

SentientMeat, I am deeply grateful that you are a member of this board. That post is an example illustrating why this is so. Thank you!

75

Well, singularity is a mathematical term, meaning an undefined expression like X = 2 / Y, where Y = 0.

But that is exactly what you keep talking about: the location of the north pole, or rather, the nature of change in the singularity. The Einstein formula for a mass in motion is m = m0/ sqrt (1-v [sup]2[/sup]/c [sup]2[/sup] ). Time is t = t0/ sqrt (1-v [sup]2[/sup]/c [sup]2[/sup] ). If t0 is the beginning of time and m0 is the emergence of mass, then m/m0 = t/t0. So, m0 = mt0/t. Then, m0 = 0/t. Finally, m0 = 0.There therefore was not only no time in the singularity; there was no mass either. (There is also another approach to proving this, but it’s more complicated.) It isn’t the case that mass was compressed to infinite compactness in the singularity, but that mass did not exist.

There was not only no compressed configuration, there was no configuration of any kind. The singularity was nothing at all. It was not a blob of potential waiting to explode. It did not exist.

You miss the point of the question. If t0 is the beginning of time, then there was no time at the beginning of time. No mass either. No mechanism by which tn is greater than t0, where n is any positive number. If time did not begin at the beginning of time, then we have a paradox, and may assign the beginning of time to any arbitrary coordinate set along the space-time cone. If, on the other hand, t0 was the first moment of time, then by the definition you give of time (changes of state), there had to be a state before t0 what was different from t0.

I’d like to label it the way it should be labelled, and it seems to me that the claim you are making is temporal, not metaphysical. Can you see the profound difficulty in saying that something emerged from nothing (which is what the singularity was) when nothingness implies the absence of any mechanism by which something may arise?

76

But all that really implies is a supernatural cause. There was no natural potential of any kind, including the potential to exist.

77

It is not just a mathematical term. Just as “2” is a mathematical term which can also apply to "two objects", so eg. a black hole is a singularity object.

What? You are applying the equations of time dilation in special relativity to the entire universe when it is compressed, which must have both a general relativistic and a quantum mechanical mathematical formulation? Pray, which reference frame is such an observer?

The “emergence of mass”? I don’t understand. Are we talking about which time the Higgs boson first breaks the electroweak symmetry or something?

Mass is not identical to spacetime, it is just one configuration of spacetime. The universe was indeed compressed to a configuration in the Planck epoch such that the word “mass” makes little sense. Nevertheless, that compressed configuration is the universe.

The universe a billion years ago was in a more compressed configuration than today, agreed?

Does there need to be a mechanism by which Greenland lies 500 miles from the north pole? Does anything cause the Earth to expand from the north pole, or is that just the shape of it?

I disagree, and don’t understand why you consider this necessary.

The singularity was not “nothing”, any more than a black hole is “nothing”.

Lucky I, and every other cosmologist I know of, do not propose a state of nothingness.

“Potential” is itself temporal language. You must divest yourself of the temporality of your everyday life and consider time as a dimension of space in order to understand that the universe has always existed in some configuration, such as one of infinite compression like that of a black hole singularity. Or do black holes not exist either?

78

And thank you for your kind words, matt. They are genuinely appreciated.

79

Yes, but it is called a singularity because of the Schwarzschild equation describing a region of infinite spacetime curvature — an equation with an undefined solution.

You tell me. You keep talking about T=0 as though it were some significant value of some significant dimension. I asked you what equation you meant for T, and you answered something about an equation of the universe. But that’s the problem with a singularity — all equations break down. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a singularity.

No one knows. What was the value of n when Tn was first greater than T0?

You can’t have it both ways. If you want to invoke a hypothetical Planck Epoch, then you must concede that there never was a singularity of infinite density. In that model, the universe did not exist until 1.6 * 10[sup]-35[/sup] lightmeters.

Sure, but that doesn’t imply anything at all about the universe as a singularity anymore than Zeno’s paradox explains why a man can never reach his destination. You can extrapolate to any finite quantifiable value for your dimension T, but you can say nothing meaningful about T when T is zero.

But those are not events. Clearly, the Big Bang was an event.

But you already said that it is indistinguishable from nothing. It had no time, you say. And taking that as a premise, I proved that it therefore had no mass either. It had no changes. No events. No mechanisms. In fact, nothing definable. So what was it? Merely to say it was a singularity is to say nothing about it other than, “I don’t know.”

Apparently not. Hawking has already conceded his bet with Preskill, and as of about a year ago now says, “I have been thinking about this problem for 30 years, but I now have an answer to it. The black hole only appears to form but later opens up and releases information about what fell in, so we can be sure of the past and we can predict the future.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3897989.stm

And by the way, lest it appear otherwise, I too am very glad you’re here. You are my most formidable opponent on these matters, and very important to me. Thanks, my friend, for never failing to argue honestly and as a gentleman.

80

Sentient Meat:

It seems that it does matter. I thought your position was that there was no time before the big bang. If from now back to what we’ve been calling T=0 is, as you allow, “a portion of an infinite amount of time”, then time can be a stage in which events “happen”, including the big bang. And including other events.

Liberal/Sentient:

This makes perfect sense to me. If before matter started being created, and before the forces that started that, there at least had to be “potentiality”. I think this problem exists if if Sentient is right and there is nothing prior to T=0. At some point some “forces” started working (Higgs Field or whatever). The question is, why did it start THEN, 14.0000000X billion years ago, and not one trilli-trilli-trilli-trilli-second sooner or later?

Sentient Meat: I, too, appreciate your input and the quality of your thinking. But I’d like to make a tiny request: could you not use phrases like the one below?

It’s probably unintentional but it is a little condescending. And It makes me CRINGE. Thanks.