@@PhilHalper1 Modified gravity has been ruled out to 17 sigma. LQG rules out an earlier universe but at least LQG has put itself in experimental harm's way unlike M-theory.
@@PhilHalper1 I have replied twice and both times the post has disappeared. Perhaps it is because I included a link. My reply without the link "You can get to the original paper from this article. Personally I think that LQG is a mathematical model that is very removed from physical reality. However this article assumes that LQG does, at least approximately, describe reality and even then shows no evidence of a previous universe. The article also mentions the new Ijjas/Steinhardt cyclic cosmological model which, unlike the old Steinhardt/Turok model does not rely on String Theory and its extensions. The New version has fallen to a slight modification of the BGV theorem by Kinney - it cannot be past complete. A mathematical model that supports a past infinite is extremely difficult - the more physics based the model becomes the more incoherent the concept of a past infinite becomes. All the best Michael." Look up "The Universe Began with a Bang, Not a Bounce, New Studies Find" For the article by JAMES RIORDON.
@@TBOTSS I don't delete any posts but UA-cam might. That article in Scientific Amefican is garbage.. Im going to make a film replying to it , stay tuned.
Whilst other sciencey UA-camrs slowly disappear up their own backsides this channel never disappoints. Great content over the years trying to get to the heart of the greatest mystery of them all- the nature and origin and ultimate explanation of our reality.
@@PetraKann He didn't! These are 'Theoretical physicists', not just mathematicians! There are also "experimentalist physicists", and they all work together, so yes, mathematics, engineering, philosophy and a whole lot more are all vital parts of science, making up 'Science' as a whole, and science isn't limited to physics, only by it!
I really appreciate the way in which your channel presents the information through the various expert opinions, directly from those scientists working on the subject at hand. The format is simple and direct and very relatable. Great channel. Thank you
Some need a secret before u can experience Jesus healing energy. A few years back the fallen Angels gathered up scientists from around the world to go to Antarctica under sworn secrecy. Everyone thought they found a portal but they found that years before. In middle earth, first heaven, paradise what ever you want to call it. I call it paradise. Were the floor is glass and the Sea is under the sky is above. How this u say because gravity is reversed. The portal could take u to the 8 planets I stopped that to it wasn't very big. No the scientist were gathered for another reason. When God flooded the world because of the Giants breath was hurting his angels. God last act was flood an leave. 10 giants were flash froze and the fallen Angels needed help bringing them back. Success the thin line chemtrails are true giants breath. I stopped that to no more chemtrails. They moved the giants to Mexico
All sheep black and white sheep are allowed level 1 portion of youth longevity digestion an self beauty Jesus energy wash tonight at 11 30 eastren. Negative energy will creep out yr feet tell it's time. All need a rule before you can experience Jesus power. When we die our spirits know all so faith being the most powerful energy in the universe. Once u experience Jesus power u will be like a spirit that knows all the new rule is once u know u better grow.
Good to see some new thoughts. Things have felt very incremental for the last few years. Exploring complexity and black hole physics. Now there seem to be some new ideas to explore. This is fun.
@skydivephil We must not forget that space-time is a physical-mathematical object that we superimpose on reality to try to understand it with almost arbitrary precision. But superimposing this object is not easy, we don't know how to superimpose it inside a black hole or at the beginning of the universe.
(infinite acceleration eliminates time --> time is inertia ) infinite acceleration of space as opening sequence of an infinite universe where planets are fed with stellar wind and stars and galaxies are fed with cosmic radiation (cosmic radiation takes up space by entropy ) -infinite acceleration gives the brain the ability to grasp/fathom infinite space
Well, I think the Conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) theory from Roger Penrose offers some answers, as it says, that space and time needs mass, and all mass is going to be transformed into radiation on the very, very, very long run. This way the geometric pattern is all what remains. And of course the radiation = energy, which then kicks off the next aeon or universe, if you will.
Vilenkin has publicly and in writing said that Craig has always correctly understood the theorem. There are circumstances which violate the theorem as Craig acknowledges but these are either not past complete for other reasons or fail to describe our universe.
@@31428571J thats the issue, oHysictss I speak wont consider that tie, rather you need periodic change, you cant build a clock out of something that changes at random intervals. Einstein defined tie as that what you measure with a clock .
Bounce off what? Itself? Why all this complexity? Why not just an eternal universe that could have "arms" form off of it. And we're just one of those arms.
well if folks weren't confused before, they will be now. no beginning? ouch. if the universe does just expand eternally, could it not rip? isn't there a limit to how many times you can divide a quantum field? if it ripped we could have another penrose CCC universe, surely? CCC has always made good sense to me. unless, the universe is only going to happen once? i hope we get answers before i croak, i really like to know how stories end.
Some of these claims seem conceptually quite confused. Like, to paraphrase the last one: "If there's no spacetime, the question of the beginning may be nonsensical." The question of the beginning only cares about the fact that changes occur in the first place, not under what physical model you can describe them collectively.
not necessarily. Einstein defined time as what you measure on a clock and a clock doesn't just have something that changes but change sin a periodic way. So maybe there are changes happening in this quantum state but not periodic changes.
@@PhilHalper1 Right. There may be non-periodic changes at the bottom. That changes nothing about what I said. What matters to the question of the beginning is only that the changes happen and that they happen in some sequence, whatever it may be (all changes that occurred or will occur in history do not happen at once). It doesn't even matter whether Presentism, Eternalism (or something else) is real. Because even IF time was a physical space-like object (including past- and future-infinite expanse*), you can't reduce the phenomenon of change itself out of your understanding of reality (something would have to move from one moment to another; or each moment would have to self-transform in a forward-like direction). The fact of change occurring is irreducible and those changes happen sequentially. Whatever in reality changes in whichever manner, _that_ sequence of changes is what matters to any argument about the potential beginning. Other ontological features are cosmetic. *to clarify: it is a consistent model to have the actual beginning that spawns a past- and future-infinite space-time block at once, or even _is_ that block, giving the impression of a past-infinite sequence of changes where there was none. These may be less plausible options compared to the simpler ones, but I'm stretching the possibilities on purpose.
Good channel. As the universe going big to bigger , The space too. Gravity and big bang looseing potential . We should rethink are we needed quantum gravity or we need bigger gravity " Fantom" gravity? Recent treat on age of universe (26.7 Billion year ) also indicate a gigantic universe.
Superdetermins is kind of Cartesian Demonism. Nature conspires against scientist. Empiricism (denyed by Superdeterminists) is worthless according to them
I'd say prolly not. If indeed it did begin in the finite past, I'd think of the potential for it to eventually exist as something & not nothing, which of course isn't the colloquial meaning. We just can't currently know. Speculation is fine, so long as we're clear about it. Pretending like we do know is just bad philosophy &/or scientism.
Just brilliant. This is a technical but succinct answer to the question "Did the Universe Begin?" Penrose-Hawking theory vs. Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. Who is right? Beats me! But it challenges Willaim Lane Craig's Kalam argument for God's existence so worth watching.
Extrapolating equations that describe only observations within a very small frame is an invalid scientific method. It is just philosophical speculation. We have a pretty good idea how the universe looked 100, 000 years ago and how it looks now, and our equations are based on this data. Beyond that we have to look at other galaxies and the data starts to become blurry. In fact we don't even have data beyond that, but only interpretation of data. (We have just dots in the sky as data. We only interpret them as other galaxies.) Extrapolating from this small scale into infinity, into the past as well as into the future, is absurd. It assumes that we already have full knowledge of all existing laws of nature and there can be nothing new interfering with our extrapolations. But this is not the case. We don't know how gravity behaves under extreme conditions, if there is a density limit of matter, if new matter comes into existence when interstellar space expands. We should stop speculating and make science again what it is supposed to be: based on empirical observation and experiments. Since we cannot experiment with the primordial conditions of the universe, we cannot make any assumptions about them. It is completely irrelevant for science. Science has to explain phenomena that we directly experience, nothing more.
Since cant progress without speculation, we just should not mistake speculations for facts. We have a pretty good view of the verse beyond galaxies in the form soft the CMB and it matches our theories very well, this shows not all speculations are equal.
Beginning and ending are human concepts its what our mindset tells us everything must have. Your born you die. You start a race you finish. And so on. Everything in our life has a start and an end its the only way we can mentally accept the universe at some point coming into existence. Your brain shuts down trying to mentally grasp a universe with no beginning we formed the big bang theory because it sits comfortably with our mindset and how we want and expect the universe to be
If it all boils down to defining the singularity, I should think QM can answer the solution, as quantum field collapse to produce fine tuned particles that leads to life, consciousness, soul and faith and help us arrive at reality as physics and metaphysics together explains the divine design.
If the universe was not created then there are only two options to explain its existence: 1. The universe came into existence out of nothing 2. The universe has always existed However, neither of these options can be chosen because option 1 would violate the law of causality and Option 2 would overturn all current astronomical discoveries. Therefore the only option left is to agree that the universe was created. But how can you dismiss a personified creator? Let's assume the universe was created by some natural law as atheists and cosmologists suggest. However this natural law cannot arbitrarily decide to create the universe; it must have been satisfied by some condition before it could create the universe. If the condition for the natural law has always been satisfied then the universe has always existed, it falls into option 2. If the condition for the natural law can be unsatisfied then the natural law needs to decide to create this condition. How is this different from a personified creator?
Have you seen our films on the Kalam argument? We answer your points. See here ua-cam.com/video/pGKe6YzHiME/v-deo.html and here: ua-cam.com/video/femxJFszbo8/v-deo.html
Even if the notion of the universe being cyclical in nature is true, conceptually there has to be a beginning somewhere. That is of course unless the unthinkable concept of always existing eternally turns out to be true.
I dont think we should use the phrase "there has to be" when it comes to these issues. There is no reason to trust our intuitions in extreme physics, nature has taught us that .
Kalam Theology is FlatEarthist anyway. God is an incoherent hypothesis . Traditional God has been extendivelly disproven since Charles Darwin. ua-cam.com/video/xTJVzx_P8Rg/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/WSSmJLb468k/v-deo.html Now of course some People may believe in Berkleys God/Simulator/Cartesian Demon, but this is also kinda disproven since at least 2014 when a) Godels Theorems were proven with Proof Assitant (meaning that they can't be just "artificts of human brain" as Wittgenstein claimed with no basis) b) they still are objectively proven that they can't be entirely proven by any computer. Plus there's Anirban Bandyopadhyay work that supports that view. And if consciousness is Indeed somehow linked with Quantum Entaglement no computer Quantum or Classicall can ever imitate such interactions. Now thanks to You we have good reasons to think just as Richard Carrier said that we have absolutely no reason to think of Universe being Past Infinite as Anything Incoherent. I agree with him. I'll continue to be Absolute Atheist towards ANY kind of God. Thank You Skydephill! Great Video
The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave! Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles, and our experience-able Universe. Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness". Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely. We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment. Our job is to make it interesting!
Greetings ◇ Isn't the foundation of existence us we know it ● Everything is dependent on space/ time \ energy----- Each dominator is a delta that combine to a tetrahedron /___\ Evolves a fourth delta (d# plate) in space (vacuum) Genesis a glow of light in our human quest of everything ~@~
"Duh, I didn't understand the video. It must be nonsense; I think I'll mock it." Goobers gotta goober, but get back to mopping floors or whatever it is that you do. Think how you look to the people who watched the video and did understand it.
@@PhilHalper1 To be fair, that doesn't refute his assertion. While some theists accept an eternal universe and God, the idea is that atheists cannot accept a universe that has an absolute beginning from no pre-existing material structure (whether temporal or non-temporal). So, (1) Coherent: God + eternal universe. (2) Coherent: God + finite universe. (3) Coherent: No God + eternal universe. (4) *Incoherent: No God + finite universe.* Pointing out that (1) is coherent doesn't refute the alleged incoherence of (4).
@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco I dont see why4 is incoherent . But the bigger point is cosmologists are intersted in early universe cosmology not necessarily because they are trying to disprove theism. Most of them couldn't care less about cosmological arguments in my opinion.
@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco (4) No God + finite universe - that's a banally coherent proposition. Typically, theists argue it's not because they do not notice they commit the conflation of meanings when using the term 'universe'.
Lost in Math, a very interesting book from Sabine Hosdenfenfer that's highly recommended. Each scientist with his super convoluted theory when they have not even achieved a theory of quantum gravity that reconciles quantum mechanics with relativity. PURE GARBAGE!
the past is infinite, that is a certainty, in terms of something always being around and everywhere. there is no such thing as true nothingness existing, either in total or localized at edge of universe. either our universe is infinite, or we are part of infinite universes...not in some funky additional dimensions. there is only one dimension of space, that we arbitrarily map to a three dimensional perpendicular cartesian co-ordinate system.
@@PhilHalper1 : a true nothing is only mathematically possible. it is incoherent as being possible in existence. it is inexistence. it is an artifact of incomplete formulae with zero based mathematics. if it was magically possible, a true nothing cannot be localized, and would therefore replace everything. if there's nothing else apart from nothing, then this nothing thing has zero qualities that could lead to anything else. theoretical physicists never mean a true mathematical nothing, when talking about spacetime. they get many other things wrong (black hole information paradox, time disappearing before start of current universe), but at least they got "nothing" right :)
There's nothing incoherent about past-finitism. If the past is finite, it's only coherent to talk about existence in moments that happened and from the very first moment till now, something has always existed. Talking about time before the first moment would be incoherent. Talking about the first moment being caused would be also incoherent (it's the first one after all!). You might ask why should the past be finite? Well, if you agree that the description of the universe cannot be incoherent & if it were true that past-infinite progression of changes leads to paradoxes (as it seems to be the case), the universe would have to be necessarily past-finite. By the virtue of the impossibility of it to be in any way different in that regard.
@@krzyszwojciech : incoherent. a mathematical nothing, stays a nothing, as there's nothing to change it. it cannot be local, and would lead to nothing. i dont take causality seriously, as it's pretty much just a local focus study of things of interest, and ignores everything else, and that's not how the universe behaves. also, it's very high school physics (not implying you here) that you can separate forces of movement from gravity, as if one or the other was acting in discrete timeframes. the universe is in a cosmic dance, already pre-determined at the start...and before that.
@@Chris-op7yt Let's focus on one thing at a time here. Who said anything about Nothing? Non-existence cannot exist, it would be a contradiction in terms. But there could easily be a naturalistic first cause. And no, it doesn't have to transcend the whole history of the universe. It could simply be the first cause in that chain.
@@moonshoes11 some need a secret before u can experience Jesus healing energy. A few years back the fallen Angels gathered up scientists from around the world to go to Antarctica under sworn secrecy. Everyone thought they found a portal but they found that years before. In middle earth, first heaven, paradise what ever you want to call it. I call it paradise. Were the floor is glass and the Sea is under the sky is above. How this u say because gravity is reversed. The portal could take u to the 8 planets I stopped that to it wasn't very big. No the scientist were gathered for another reason. When God flooded the world because of the Giants breath was hurting his angels. God last act was flood an leave. 10 giants were flash froze and the fallen Angels needed help bringing them back. Success the thin line chemtrails are true giants breath. I stopped that to no more chemtrails. They moved the giants to Mexico
There is no beginning of time and there will be no end of time either. Whatever happens around us has happened for an infinite times and will keep happening for an infinite amount of times in an endless set of recycling processes.
Imagine the Universe with the "Star" of the Big Bang on top, and the fallen world swirling down in lights like a Christmas tree. Maybe there will be presents at the bottom for the good boys and girls.
So fascinating to listen to the experts to get a better idea of where we stand! Thank you skydivephil for the great content!
you are very welcome
@@PhilHalper1 Modified gravity has been ruled out to 17 sigma. LQG rules out an earlier universe but at least LQG has put itself in experimental harm's way unlike M-theory.
@@TBOTSS , How does LQg rule out an earlier universe?
@@PhilHalper1 I have replied twice and both times the post has disappeared. Perhaps it is because I included a link. My reply without the link
"You can get to the original paper from this article. Personally I think that LQG is a mathematical model that is very removed from physical reality. However this article assumes that LQG does, at least approximately, describe reality and even then shows no evidence of a previous universe. The article also mentions the new Ijjas/Steinhardt cyclic cosmological model which, unlike the old Steinhardt/Turok model does not rely on String Theory and its extensions. The New version has fallen to a slight modification of the BGV theorem by Kinney - it cannot be past complete. A mathematical model that supports a past infinite is extremely difficult - the more physics based the model becomes the more incoherent the concept of a past infinite becomes. All the best Michael."
Look up "The Universe Began with a Bang, Not a Bounce, New Studies Find" For the article by JAMES RIORDON.
@@TBOTSS I don't delete any posts but UA-cam might. That article in Scientific Amefican is garbage.. Im going to make a film replying to it , stay tuned.
Once again another excellent presentation! My brain hurts less with every one, and I thank you, your partners, staff and your guests for that!
glad you like it and thanks for your comment
Whilst other sciencey UA-camrs slowly disappear up their own backsides this channel never disappoints. Great content over the years trying to get to the heart of the greatest mystery of them all- the nature and origin and ultimate explanation of our reality.
Never confuse Mathematics with Science.
Thanks so much
@@PetraKann He didn't! These are 'Theoretical physicists', not just mathematicians! There are also "experimentalist physicists", and they all work together, so yes, mathematics, engineering, philosophy and a whole lot more are all vital parts of science, making up 'Science' as a whole, and science isn't limited to physics, only by it!
A wise Fox once said, “The Truth is out there.”
@@TheMemesofDestruction or was it mOulder?
I really appreciate the way in which your channel presents the information through the various expert opinions, directly from those scientists working on the subject at hand. The format is simple and direct and very relatable. Great channel. Thank you
Thanks very much , appreciate your comment
❤Attention all sheep black and white sheep. A great power will consume you. Warning it is intense. Soon as u read this. Jesus power
@@raya.p.l5919 Baaaaa!
Some need a secret before u can experience Jesus healing energy. A few years back the fallen Angels gathered up scientists from around the world to go to Antarctica under sworn secrecy. Everyone thought they found a portal but they found that years before. In middle earth, first heaven, paradise what ever you want to call it. I call it paradise. Were the floor is glass and the Sea is under the sky is above. How this u say because gravity is reversed. The portal could take u to the 8 planets I stopped that to it wasn't very big. No the scientist were gathered for another reason. When God flooded the world because of the Giants breath was hurting his angels. God last act was flood an leave. 10 giants were flash froze and the fallen Angels needed help bringing them back. Success the thin line chemtrails are true giants breath. I stopped that to no more chemtrails. They moved the giants to Mexico
All sheep black and white sheep are allowed level 1 portion of youth longevity digestion an self beauty Jesus energy wash tonight at 11 30 eastren. Negative energy will creep out yr feet tell it's time. All need a rule before you can experience Jesus power. When we die our spirits know all so faith being the most powerful energy in the universe. Once u experience Jesus power u will be like a spirit that knows all the new rule is once u know u better grow.
Thanks for posting this informative and fascinating video with these 2 titans of Cosmology!
Thank you for this. There are lots of great videos and documentaries about the universe, but rarely are they this interesting. Liked and shared!
thanks very much
An excellent collection of interviews on this difficult but fascinating theory, well put together as always.
thanks a lot , appreciated.
Another great video! Thanks for doing these!
you are welcome
I’m here cause M. Shermer shared this video on the blue bird! Dunno about filters so used a little slang!
welcome , alas its not the blue bird anymore
I love good ol' Michael
Now it is X.
Good to see some new thoughts. Things have felt very incremental for the last few years. Exploring complexity and black hole physics. Now there seem to be some new ideas to explore. This is fun.
Thanks, glad you liked it
Thanks guys for another awesome cosmology video! ❤
It's a good day when skydivephil is penroseposting.
lol thanks
"without time no change possible"
what a discovery ;)
@skydivephil We must not forget that space-time is a physical-mathematical object that we superimpose on reality to try to understand it with almost arbitrary precision. But superimposing this object is not easy, we don't know how to superimpose it inside a black hole or at the beginning of the universe.
(infinite acceleration eliminates time --> time is inertia )
infinite acceleration of space as opening sequence of an infinite universe where planets are fed with stellar wind and stars and galaxies are fed with cosmic radiation
(cosmic radiation takes up space by entropy )
-infinite acceleration gives the brain the ability to grasp/fathom infinite space
These are good quality videos. Im curious who does the interviews? Is this all you? And the editing and narration?
Yes I do all that my wife narrates. Thanks for the kind words
Well, I think the Conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) theory from Roger Penrose offers some answers, as it says, that space and time needs mass, and all mass is going to be transformed into radiation on the very, very, very long run. This way the geometric pattern is all what remains. And of course the radiation = energy, which then kicks off the next aeon or universe, if you will.
So much advertisements, I forgot what this video was about.
ok ill lok into this and try and reduce them.
ok i didnt realise there were so many its veyr few now
50 seconds in and I can hear the Swiss accent coming through, feels like home 😊
Great video thanks!
Cool , though I sweat at the idea of even looking into Emergent Metric Space-Time from Matrix Theory.
Thanks Dave. There is a talk on it here pirsa.org/23050109 its not as hard as you think
@@PhilHalper1
Cheers will check it out ..
@@tdsdave let me know what you think, I was in the audience and gave a talk at this conference myself.
@@PhilHalper1
Ah will drop you an email if my brain does not melt :) Already found your's which I'll check out as well.
@@tdsdave cool
Yabut, have you considered that William Lane Craig understands the BVG theorem better than Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin, huh? /sarcasm
seems plausible to me
If there is a one in a million chance that is true…
(Also sarcasm)
Vilenkin has publicly and in writing said that Craig has always correctly understood the theorem. There are circumstances which violate the theorem as Craig acknowledges but these are either not past complete for other reasons or fail to describe our universe.
@@TBOTSS your assuming that Vilenkin reads everything Craig and as for "fail to scribe our universe" did you even watch the video? we address this
@@PhilHalper1 Where has Craig got the theorem wrong?
you don't remove it via coordinate transformation you make a transformation and you end of with complete geodesics with finite proper time.
Your vids make my brain explode 🤯Thank's!
like in the movie Scanners?
@@PhilHalper1 Not quite as messy 😅
well an incomplete geodesic with a boundary strictly in time is just a complete geodesic which has a finite proper time associated with it really.
1:14 Time being "emergent" is still a major problem for me.
How can time (or space) "emerge", discretely or otherwise, without time?:-)
I thin it depends on your deifntion of time,
@@PhilHalper1 "Change".
@@31428571J thats the issue, oHysictss I speak wont consider that tie, rather you need periodic change, you cant build a clock out of something that changes at random intervals. Einstein defined tie as that what you measure with a clock .
@@PhilHalper1 Thanks for your thoughts.
Bounce off what? Itself?
Why all this complexity? Why not just an eternal universe that could have "arms" form off of it. And we're just one of those arms.
well if folks weren't confused before, they will be now. no beginning? ouch.
if the universe does just expand eternally, could it not rip? isn't there a limit to how many times you can divide a quantum field? if it ripped we could have another penrose CCC universe, surely? CCC has always made good sense to me. unless, the universe is only going to happen once? i hope we get answers before i croak, i really like to know how stories end.
Exactly. We don't know. We are just extrapolating from a tiny range of data that we know. This is not a valid scientific method.
there are cyclic model based on the big rip they are called phantom bounces .
Measure the amount of helium in galaxies to see if they match and you'll get an idea of whether or not expansion is symmetrical
The universe is Topless!, bottomless, heck, the universe has no bounds.
"Space and time could be emergent"..."Beginning out of some other physics, maybe". Oh noooo...how am I going to tell my auntie?
just get her to watch the video, all will be clear
Some of these claims seem conceptually quite confused. Like, to paraphrase the last one: "If there's no spacetime, the question of the beginning may be nonsensical." The question of the beginning only cares about the fact that changes occur in the first place, not under what physical model you can describe them collectively.
not necessarily. Einstein defined time as what you measure on a clock and a clock doesn't just have something that changes but change sin a periodic way. So maybe there are changes happening in this quantum state but not periodic changes.
@@PhilHalper1 Right. There may be non-periodic changes at the bottom. That changes nothing about what I said.
What matters to the question of the beginning is only that the changes happen and that they happen in some sequence, whatever it may be (all changes that occurred or will occur in history do not happen at once).
It doesn't even matter whether Presentism, Eternalism (or something else) is real.
Because even IF time was a physical space-like object (including past- and future-infinite expanse*), you can't reduce the phenomenon of change itself out of your understanding of reality (something would have to move from one moment to another; or each moment would have to self-transform in a forward-like direction). The fact of change occurring is irreducible and those changes happen sequentially. Whatever in reality changes in whichever manner, _that_ sequence of changes is what matters to any argument about the potential beginning. Other ontological features are cosmetic.
*to clarify: it is a consistent model to have the actual beginning that spawns a past- and future-infinite space-time block at once, or even _is_ that block, giving the impression of a past-infinite sequence of changes where there was none. These may be less plausible options compared to the simpler ones, but I'm stretching the possibilities on purpose.
Good channel. As the universe going big to bigger , The space too. Gravity and big bang looseing potential . We should rethink are we needed quantum gravity or we need bigger gravity " Fantom" gravity?
Recent treat on age of universe (26.7 Billion year ) also indicate a gigantic universe.
A singularity is not a physical thing. It's just a word to describe a situation which is not comprehensible in terms of currently understood physics.
The question❓ that physicists should really ask: What replaces renormalization🌌 in superdeterministic theories? ❄️
but do we need to assume superdeterminism? annd is this related to the issues we discussed in this film ?
Superdetermins is kind of Cartesian Demonism. Nature conspires against scientist. Empiricism (denyed by Superdeterminists) is worthless according to them
Is this closer to Carlo Rovelli's position?
Yes he appeared in some of other films, check out our cosmology playlist ua-cam.com/video/Ol7IWdtCS2Q/v-deo.html
Would you accept the Kalam argument if we ever find out that the universe did in fact have a beginning!
I dont buy the causality bit either and the second stage is even worse
I'd say prolly not. If indeed it did begin in the finite past, I'd think of the potential for it to eventually exist as something & not nothing, which of course isn't the colloquial meaning. We just can't currently know. Speculation is fine, so long as we're clear about it. Pretending like we do know is just bad philosophy &/or scientism.
Yes IA green we should pretend we know when we dont.
Just brilliant.
This is a technical but succinct answer to the question "Did the Universe Begin?" Penrose-Hawking theory vs. Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. Who is right? Beats me! But it challenges Willaim Lane Craig's Kalam argument for God's existence so worth watching.
thanks , glad you liked it
Extrapolating equations that describe only observations within a very small frame is an invalid scientific method. It is just philosophical speculation. We have a pretty good idea how the universe looked 100, 000 years ago and how it looks now, and our equations are based on this data. Beyond that we have to look at other galaxies and the data starts to become blurry. In fact we don't even have data beyond that, but only interpretation of data. (We have just dots in the sky as data. We only interpret them as other galaxies.) Extrapolating from this small scale into infinity, into the past as well as into the future, is absurd. It assumes that we already have full knowledge of all existing laws of nature and there can be nothing new interfering with our extrapolations. But this is not the case. We don't know how gravity behaves under extreme conditions, if there is a density limit of matter, if new matter comes into existence when interstellar space expands.
We should stop speculating and make science again what it is supposed to be: based on empirical observation and experiments. Since we cannot experiment with the primordial conditions of the universe, we cannot make any assumptions about them. It is completely irrelevant for science. Science has to explain phenomena that we directly experience, nothing more.
Since cant progress without speculation, we just should not mistake speculations for facts. We have a pretty good view of the verse beyond galaxies in the form soft the CMB and it matches our theories very well, this shows not all speculations are equal.
Beginning and ending are human concepts its what our mindset tells us everything must have. Your born you die. You start a race you finish. And so on. Everything in our life has a start and an end its the only way we can mentally accept the universe at some point coming into existence. Your brain shuts down trying to mentally grasp a universe with no beginning we formed the big bang theory because it sits comfortably with our mindset and how we want and expect the universe to be
When you say Big Abgn theory , what do you mean?
If it all boils down to defining the singularity, I should think QM can answer the solution, as quantum field collapse to produce fine tuned particles that leads to life, consciousness, soul and faith and help us arrive at reality as physics and metaphysics together explains the divine design.
Have you seen our video on the design argument?
There is no soul 😂
@@myles5158 I cannot agree more. Charles Darwin and Evolutionary Errors debunked Descartes long before Cosmology started. Laryngeal nerve!
If the universe was not created then there are only two options to explain its existence:
1. The universe came into existence out of nothing
2. The universe has always existed
However, neither of these options can be chosen because option 1 would violate the law of causality and Option 2 would overturn all current astronomical discoveries. Therefore the only option left is to agree that the universe was created.
But how can you dismiss a personified creator? Let's assume the universe was created by some natural law as atheists and cosmologists suggest. However this natural law cannot arbitrarily decide to create the universe; it must have been satisfied by some condition before it could create the universe.
If the condition for the natural law has always been satisfied then the universe has always existed, it falls into option 2. If the condition for the natural law can be unsatisfied then the natural law needs to decide to create this condition. How is this different from a personified creator?
Have you seen our films on the Kalam argument? We answer your points. See here ua-cam.com/video/pGKe6YzHiME/v-deo.html and here: ua-cam.com/video/femxJFszbo8/v-deo.html
@@PhilHalper1 no! you didn't answer my points
Even if the notion of the universe being cyclical in nature is true, conceptually there has to be a beginning somewhere. That is of course unless the unthinkable concept of always existing eternally turns out to be true.
I dont think we should use the phrase "there has to be" when it comes to these issues. There is no reason to trust our intuitions in extreme physics, nature has taught us that .
I wouldn't entirely throw the idea out the window just yet.
Many concepts accepted in physics today were considered entirely unthinkable decades back.
For thousands of years the religious have considered God to be eternal. Why is this concept unthinkable?
@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke good point
@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Then God is indeterminate
Great video! I hope Phil's efforts will put an end to the scientific arguments for the Kalam.
glad you liked it, Im sure the debate will go on though
@@PhilHalper1 I'm afraid it will.
What did Einstein say about infinity, the universe, and stupidity? Yeah, good luck with that! 😅
Kalam Theology is FlatEarthist anyway. God is an incoherent hypothesis . Traditional God has been extendivelly disproven since Charles Darwin.
ua-cam.com/video/xTJVzx_P8Rg/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/WSSmJLb468k/v-deo.html
Now of course some People may believe in Berkleys God/Simulator/Cartesian Demon, but this is also kinda disproven since at least 2014 when a) Godels Theorems were proven with Proof Assitant (meaning that they can't be just "artificts of human brain" as Wittgenstein claimed with no basis)
b) they still are objectively proven that they can't be entirely proven by any computer.
Plus there's Anirban Bandyopadhyay work that supports that view. And if consciousness is Indeed somehow linked with Quantum Entaglement no computer Quantum or Classicall can ever imitate such interactions.
Now thanks to You we have good reasons to think just as Richard Carrier said that we have absolutely no reason to think of Universe being Past Infinite as Anything Incoherent.
I agree with him.
I'll continue to be Absolute Atheist towards ANY kind of God.
Thank You Skydephill! Great Video
Ant man is right... I am looking forward to more of his physics videos.
thanks
The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave!
Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles,
and our experience-able Universe.
Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness".
Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely.
We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment.
Our job is to make it interesting!
shut up lol
As long as there is space and no CRUNCH there will be time.
So this is waste of time....they want to see something there but there is not
Greetings ◇
Isn't the foundation of existence us we know it ●
Everything is dependent on space/ time \ energy-----
Each dominator is a delta that combine to a tetrahedron /___\
Evolves a fourth delta (d# plate) in space (vacuum)
Genesis a glow of light in our human quest of everything ~@~
We laffing scienceman inventored new wurd salad thery with egghed gish gillete tac tic brow beet layman.
"Duh, I didn't understand the video. It must be nonsense; I think I'll mock it." Goobers gotta goober, but get back to mopping floors or whatever it is that you do. Think how you look to the people who watched the video and did understand it.
How avante guarde...
@@seanhewitt603 tanyko bro
Maybe? Who knows... seems like maybe not?! :D Neat!
I agree we dont know , but there is a bit more to it than that. Did you watch the film ?
@@PhilHalper1 yeah - pretty deep ideas. Seems to me that whatever the answer is, its going to surprise us! :D
The mental gymnastics some physicists commit all to escape the reality of th Divine!
There have been plenty of physicists and phosphors who thinks God could have made a universe that was past eternal . So I think you are off base here.
@@PhilHalper1 To be fair, that doesn't refute his assertion. While some theists accept an eternal universe and God, the idea is that atheists cannot accept a universe that has an absolute beginning from no pre-existing material structure (whether temporal or non-temporal). So,
(1) Coherent: God + eternal universe.
(2) Coherent: God + finite universe.
(3) Coherent: No God + eternal universe.
(4) *Incoherent: No God + finite universe.*
Pointing out that (1) is coherent doesn't refute the alleged incoherence of (4).
@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco I dont see why4 is incoherent . But the bigger point is cosmologists are intersted in early universe cosmology not necessarily because they are trying to disprove theism. Most of them couldn't care less about cosmological arguments in my opinion.
@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco (4) No God + finite universe - that's a banally coherent proposition. Typically, theists argue it's not because they do not notice they commit the conflation of meanings when using the term 'universe'.
@@krzyszwojciech What do you mean by conflation when using the term universe? Would you mind clarifying your point?
When you know, no explanation is necessary, when you don't.., nothing is possible, like insects stuck in Amber.
Embarrassing.
know what?
Lost in Math, a very interesting book from Sabine Hosdenfenfer that's highly recommended.
Each scientist with his super convoluted theory when they have not even achieved a theory of quantum gravity that reconciles quantum mechanics with relativity.
PURE GARBAGE!
there no time and neither no space, there only duration and distance. the relativity theory is just a mathematical artifact
❤
relativity is very well verified by experimental data to many decimal paces ,
@@PhilHalper1 So is QM and Bell Tests. Irony?
@@jimmyjasi- which is we need a quantum theory of gravity and thats part fo the point of this film
@@PhilHalper1 I now I loved your video!
#notonyrobbins
the past is infinite, that is a certainty, in terms of something always being around and everywhere.
there is no such thing as true nothingness existing, either in total or localized at edge of universe. either our universe is infinite, or we are part of infinite universes...not in some funky additional dimensions. there is only one dimension of space, that we arbitrarily map to a three dimensional perpendicular cartesian co-ordinate system.
Have you seen our film on the tunnelling form nothing proposal of Vilenkin?
@@PhilHalper1 : a true nothing is only mathematically possible. it is incoherent as being possible in existence. it is inexistence. it is an artifact of incomplete formulae with zero based mathematics.
if it was magically possible, a true nothing cannot be localized, and would therefore replace everything.
if there's nothing else apart from nothing, then this nothing thing has zero qualities that could lead to anything else.
theoretical physicists never mean a true mathematical nothing, when talking about spacetime.
they get many other things wrong (black hole information paradox, time disappearing before start of current universe), but at least they got "nothing" right :)
There's nothing incoherent about past-finitism.
If the past is finite, it's only coherent to talk about existence in moments that happened and from the very first moment till now, something has always existed.
Talking about time before the first moment would be incoherent.
Talking about the first moment being caused would be also incoherent (it's the first one after all!).
You might ask why should the past be finite? Well, if you agree that the description of the universe cannot be incoherent & if it were true that past-infinite progression of changes leads to paradoxes (as it seems to be the case), the universe would have to be necessarily past-finite. By the virtue of the impossibility of it to be in any way different in that regard.
@@krzyszwojciech : incoherent. a mathematical nothing, stays a nothing, as there's nothing to change it. it cannot be local, and would lead to nothing. i dont take causality seriously, as it's pretty much just a local focus study of things of interest, and ignores everything else, and that's not how the universe behaves. also, it's very high school physics (not implying you here) that you can separate forces of movement from gravity, as if one or the other was acting in discrete timeframes. the universe is in a cosmic dance, already pre-determined at the start...and before that.
@@Chris-op7yt
Let's focus on one thing at a time here.
Who said anything about Nothing? Non-existence cannot exist, it would be a contradiction in terms. But there could easily be a naturalistic first cause. And no, it doesn't have to transcend the whole history of the universe. It could simply be the first cause in that chain.
😂Attention all sheep black and white sheep. A great power will consume you. Warning it is intense. Soon as u read this. Jesus power
What?
@@moonshoes11 some need a secret before u can experience Jesus healing energy. A few years back the fallen Angels gathered up scientists from around the world to go to Antarctica under sworn secrecy. Everyone thought they found a portal but they found that years before. In middle earth, first heaven, paradise what ever you want to call it. I call it paradise. Were the floor is glass and the Sea is under the sky is above. How this u say because gravity is reversed. The portal could take u to the 8 planets I stopped that to it wasn't very big. No the scientist were gathered for another reason. When God flooded the world because of the Giants breath was hurting his angels. God last act was flood an leave. 10 giants were flash froze and the fallen Angels needed help bringing them back. Success the thin line chemtrails are true giants breath. I stopped that to no more chemtrails. They moved the giants to Mexico
There is no beginning of time and there will be no end of time either. Whatever happens around us has happened for an infinite times and will keep happening for an infinite amount of times in an endless set of recycling processes.
That might be true but we should be cautious and admit we dont know it to be true.
Imagine the Universe with the "Star" of the Big Bang on top, and the fallen world swirling down in lights like a Christmas tree. Maybe there will be presents at the bottom for the good boys and girls.
Let's hope
"The Fallen World"?!?, how very catholick.
@@seanhewitt603 It's hard to argue against gravity and chaos.
Atheists are the new Houdinis who believe everything ultimately came from nothing 😂 🪄
Did you watch the film?
Theists have always been deluded by pretending a sky dictator came from nothing in order to create deluded humans. Grow up.