Alexander Vilenkin - Did Our Universe Have a Beginning?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 кві 2024
- Watch more videos on cosmic beginnings: shorturl.at/J0147
Everything in the universe has a beginning, but how can the universe as a whole have a beginning? Does the cosmos come with a start date? Does a universal commencement make sense? What would it possibly mean? And what if there are multiple universes? Does the entire multiverse have a beginning?
Follow us on Instagram to keep up with new content, giveaways, and more: shorturl.at/rwC16
Alexander Vilenkin is a theoretical physicist and the Leonard and Jane Bernstein Professor and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. His work in cosmic strings has been pivotal.
Get free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Difficult to grasp we went from less than a sub atomic particle to the Kardashians in the space of 13 billion years.
so, things have gone full circle then, from a peanut back to peanuts. popcorn to popcorn
@@HarryNicNicholas Yes, this is why our species is ultimately doomed.
Tis, but actually, most of all matter is empty, space, by a lot
We may be less than a 1 on the Kardashev scale, but we are at least a 10 on the Kardashian scale 😂
Diversity is the spice of life.
It sounds like the universe is something much more grand than a universe.
Until now I was completely unaware of how competent Christopher Walken was in physics.
Oh I get it. In the beginning things were in existence that we cannot observe or even explain. The only thing we are sure of is only scientists are allowed to talk about it.
Finally the right questions on that topic! Very fundamental. Very clear. Very existential. THANK YOU!!!
Thanks to Robert Kuhn for bringing these ideas to the rest of us. He interviewed my professor and mentor, Michael Tooley, some years ago, an atheist Platonist. Of course numbers and laws exist logically "prior" to the universe. Positivists like Quine always try to reduce necessary truths to contingent ones to no avail. The reduction always fails. And Vilenkin has been a hot button for theists like W.L. Craig--yet probably misused by Craig. I still haven't figured out the answers to some fundamental questions. Who has? "Closer to Truth" is such a good name for what Kuhn does. We may not always know the right answer, but the progress seems to depend on knowing the wrong answer. Love the guy.
Turtles all the way down is just dandy, but the 'universe from nothing' is a curious notion, in which the 'nothing' isn't really nothing, but consists of laws that have "a platonic existence independent of the universe". The theologically inclined would probably refer to them as the 'Word'. In the beginning were the laws, and the laws were with the eternal, and the laws were the eternal?
Agreed, but many Christians take 'the Word' to mean 'The word of god' as in, the scriptures themselves, which is totally illogical. Obviously by the syntax, it is akin to the logos, the akashic record, the platonic realm, etc... all different names for the same conceptualization.
7:16 "The laws were there prior to the universe itself." Laws as a hypostatiation. Like they were written down somewhere, later to be used to guide the development of the physical processes.
Hence why it is said that love is the law and the law is love.
That’s just, like, his opinion, man.
Could be completely random and ours is just that billionth in a series of universes that happens to now have the configuration that allowed us to recognize it.
@@DH-rj2kv All randomness appears within oneness.
@@sven888
Yabba Dabba Doo!
@@DH-rj2kv🙏
If they made a movie about him, he would have to be played by Christopher Walken.
😂
He does look like Christopher Walken. Maybe the Universe needs more cow bell!
Great episode, great questions
Amazing.
Stand on a large ring (like a big hula hoop). Ask yourself where the ring begins.
Logically, we cannot separate ourselves (or our language) from this cause-and-effect universe to be able to grasp the fundamental realities that put it into place. We're on the hoop. Just be happy with the present moment.
Maybe so, but then where did the hoop come from, or was it always there for infinity? Then to dig a little deeper, are we but a moment inside of infinite time, because then if so we don't really exist...or, are we in an infinite loop of sorts, doomed to relive the same existence infinite times?
Possibly
The universe is probably many universes rolled into one. Each layer? of universe will have a specific purpose in order to ensure the ‘one’ universe works effectively. Maybe we need to find and strip these layers back to have any chance of understanding the enigma.
Somehow we need to understand the role of ‘observer’ in all of this.
The moments in which we identify anything lead to a scaffold of conditional biases. It gets messy.
However it does seem to be evolving. Does the Universe care what we think about it? What about the local effects of our pondering. Destroying the very things that we love and cherish. The term Universe is a convenient way for us to contain the unfathomable.
As I understood, Inflation was caused by a false vacuum state. Then that false vacuum spread it's potential into a space, that had not been existing before. Than , when it got in contact with the real vacuum all the energy was put into a needle ear, causing the big bang. I would would have liked to listen how Vilenkin would have explained that.
This is the 84th big bang we are living in...
I am thinking of multiverses...:-)
The precise definitions of the terms in a question determine the nature of the answer.
How are “universe” and “beginning” precisely defined?
The dynamical relative state is fundamental,for which the concept of beginning is meaningless.
Imagine someone, or something, reveals all the answers to the hard questions, in a comprehensible form: is the universe bounded, and if no, what is infinity? If it is bounded, what is beyond the boundary? Nothing? Are these valid questions, even?
And then what? What would we do with that knowledge? Deny it if it excludes God? Would that knowledge (if our brains could handle it) save us from the destructive path we are on or accelerate it?
We are asking the wrong questions at the moment, I feel, as per the Wittgenstein quote by Rees : Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
“God” is both the creator of ALL and is also literally ALL.
And that’s how “God” is able to see ALL. “God” “spoke” the WORD (literally the UNI-Verse) “Let there be LIGHT” (Big Bang)
Listen, “God” is the“Observer” of ALL…and we are just “in it” trying to make sense of it and God just smiles
@@THEDOPEGAME Right, ok sure.
@@mindfulawareness1
So, you don’t think the entire Universe could be sentient?
You “think” It’s just a ball of random energy huh?
But yet you THINK.
(Maybe YOU don’t, idk… but you have the innate ability to do so, if you chose)
Maybe you should start by getting a good understanding of the Double Slit Experiment as a base…
@@THEDOPEGAME"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" Voltaire.
@@mindfulawareness1 Very true. Now, tell me how it applies
Our sophistication as a species is a cruel byproduct of evolution. We are self-aware and curious. But we have also realized that our lives are a fleeting random accident. We are really just a moment in time.
From the book, Time and Space Second Edition by Barry Dainton, McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal & Kingston, Ithaca, 2010, page 129, he talks about the creation of a block universe:
Imagine that I am a God-like being who has decided to design and then create a logically consistent universe with laws of nature similar to those that obtain in our universe...Since the universe will be of the block-variety I will have to create it as a whole: the beginning, middle and end will come into being together ...
Now, since we are in a block universe, the Big Bang and what is present now, and what is already in the future, all appeared at once. The idea that our universe came from a Big Bang is out. But nobody wants to face reality. The Big Bang creation story is much more comforting.
In Pearlman YeC SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model, we do find a hyper dense start, followed by a hyper cosmic expansion epoch, but there is not empirical cosmological evidence for any subsequent cosmic expansion.
Start study of Pearlman YeC SPIRAL at Pearlman vs Hubble at ResearchGate.
we also find the entire universe approximates the visible universe with a radius of 1B light years rounded up based on CMB temp.
Year of Tohu 'conception' by our One common designer and creator, preceded the start of the physical universe, thus prior to the start of time, so corroborates the description by Moses as The Designer being 'eternal'.
reference Pearlman YeC reconciliation of Torah testimony, science and ancient civ.
Positive and negative energies netting each other out is very difficult to coexist with the proposition that 70% of total universe energy is dark energy
Dark and Light are One and the Same.
Negative energy😊
Logically it means less than nothing or less than zero or no energy.
Go grab me a negative dozen apples or a negative anything.
Math 😊😊
You can find out some amazing things with math and astronomy and physics...but bottom line is, matter exists and something can't come from nothing...all existence is a paradox. It's scary. And it's cool.
Creations come and go, universes are made and destroyed, but you are a part of that consciousness, you are a ray of that consciousness which is already present at the moment of creation - in fact one should say which creates the universe. And when the whole of creation dissolves, even then it is present as a witness.
Osho....from the book ' The voice of silence '
probably not. why are people never satisfied with reality, they have to invent stuff? which is fine in science fiction, not so fine in reality.
you can't even speak for yourself lol
conciousness is just a mirage
@@HarryNicNicholas this was not science fiction. This view was given by Osho some 50 years ago and it also matches with the scientific information given by Alexander Vilenkin.
@@aiya5777 you needed to edit this comment and it was still terrible.
@@fkcoolers2669 I'm not the only one on the planet who said that conciousness is a mirage
go out and touch grass lol
I don't care if you're a scientist....Regarding this topic, your guess is as good as mine.
There *_is_* a difference. A goal of science is to dig to the next level. The track record thus far seems quite solid for that.
I will agree with you that the fundamental level may never be reached. All claims for that thus far are exactly what you say, guesses.
If you noticed in the interview, the scientist was careful to not overstep conclusions supported by data and draw conclusions based on guesses. Scientists are quite comfortable saying "I don't know." Illogical, self-deluded, and dishonest people somehow interpret being truthful as a weakness.
I'd like to think that space and time are infinite and the big bang was just one important historical event in the infinite universe.
Also... it's Yuni Verse.
big bang from inflation from quantum wave from mathematics from zero point infinitesimal time dimension?
Can someone define what “Nothing” is? I’ve heard that everything came from “Nothing”. But what does that mean? Isn’t there always something? And if that’s the case, that means there was no beginning and that the only thing that there was was a different state of things. So, no beginning, just different.
I feel like the quantum argument has become that no matter what I say it has to be possible.
Including god?
@@David.C.Velasquez God has always been a possibility and always will be.
@@itzed I agree. God is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternally infinite, omniverse itself... anything less, is merely anthropomorphization.
if consciousness is a prerequisite to a low entropy value then universe had a beginning from some other rational/objective form of existence...
If the expansion happened before "The Big Bang" then it happened before time came into existence so does the statement about it happened in less than a second really have any meaning?
The question is did 12 months equal a year 14 billion years ago .....AKA we give the universe a time frame for a beginning..... our measurements are just that ....made made measurements.....who was there to give the concept of a year, a month, a week......14 billion years is a lot of leap years! It was October 14 billion Times.....My point is that measurements are just a tool of the mind.
Our Universe is still " beginning " , evolving .
16) The Primordial Cosmic Singularity
Contradictory:
Classical Big Bang Cosmology
As t → 0, classical solutions become transcendentally ill-defined at an initial singularity where all known laws of physics break down.
This inevitably paradoxical breakdown of deterministic geometric description represents an impassable limit.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Infinitesimal Fractal Geometrogenesis
M0 = Σn |Un(t = 0)⟩ (Primordial fracted state)
|Un(t)⟩ = Un(t) |Un(0)⟩ (Evolution fractal operator)
ds2 = Σn,m cn,m Γn,m (Metric from mnadic correlations)
Treating the primordial geometric inception M0 as a superposition of infinitesimal fractal-evolving monadic perspectives avoids singular infinities from the start.
I need extra tomatoes with that word salad, please.
Don’t over think it. A singularity is just a boundary beyond which the function doesn’t apply. That’s all. It’s a mathematical limitation in a particular theory.
Think of fluid dynamics in 3d. The edge of the pool is a “singularity”, or more accurately a boundary. The functions don’t apply there.
It’s the practitioners of scientism that translate that into a magical reality as if a singularity is a physical phenomenon.
Even Einstein was suspicious. He didn’t believe space had unlimited capacity for density of matter
how do we know that the cosmos is in a rotating black hole why we only can see so far ?
sounds like he,s saying it was always there,just in very different states.
I'm with Penrose in this.
It begins with you. Being's egobeing is being's worldbeing . It takes being's egobeing for the world's being. Being's egobeing lends the world its being.
Sorry, but that doesn’t make sense. The universe existed billions of years before you were even conscious.
Sounds like this Universe was made from base material ejected out the backside of a Black Hole in an adjacent Universe. This sure would explain a great deal about the fundamental nature of this Universe. You are what you eat.
chester -chickfunt9 • You are what you eat that you eject out the backside meaning you are caca. 😂🤣
Yes, it arose as a subsequent result of the former's cessation.
Who else thinks this guy must be related to Christopher Waken?
Could white holes be the reason behind expansion of universe(s)?
There is apprently not enough mass even in all the black holes in the universe combined. Not even close.
Evidences and all of our trying strongly suggest that we wont be able to see whole of existence at once ... there are limit for us seems like.. existence is much more than that.. infinite, uncertain, unknown you name it
Strange that he said "inflation ended with the Big bang". Huh? I thought in a bang things inflate. How can that inflation be before the Big than? Am I missing something in terms of what they mean by Big bang?
They believe in magic
I think the idea is that when inflation reached a certain point or intensity, it then triggered the Big Bang. In my opinion, it emerges from an infinite vacuum state that contains tiny fluctuations. When some of those fluctuations reach a certain point or mix, it can almost instantly generate an inflation, which in turn triggers a Big Bang. Within a fraction of a second following inflation, the Big Bang occurs, which marks the instant beginning of the universe along with space and time and everything else contained within the universe.
Inflation preceded the expansion as it was what drove the expansion of the universe to exponentially grow a hundred times over in a millionth of a second. Big bang itself does not explain the origins of our universe but rather the transition of the universe from a very hot and dense state to a cool and sparse state being facilitated by the rapid expansion of space. Many (not all) physicists believe inflation is what drove this expansion…being what banged in the term big bang.
The Big Bang preceded inflation.
Inflation inflated space from nothing to something huge in a tiny amount of time. Within that space, when inflation ended, tremendous energy was released that created matter. I know this. I was there.
Inflation before the BB, and inflation after the BB---confusing. Clarifying for me would be to know if this guy thinks time began with the BB, whether the BB happened 'in time'.
How does time have a beginning?
I never figured it out either but time was invented at the Big Bang. Time started in the millisecond of the start of everything. Time will also end when the universe dies, I think.
Time requires mass and energy to change state. If none of those things exist, there is nothing to measure because change never occurs.
All Births and Creations, have a beginning and a end.
Our universe was born from natural parents,
thats how the Eternal Life perform the miracle of Life.
Maybe everything inside and outside the universe exists because mathematical concepts exist, even in true nothingness 1+1=2 and you can't separate that from nothingness and basically everything just cascaded into existence due to nothingness being corrupted by mathematical concepts.
I just wonder why Tesla and Milankovic didn't believe in these things?
If after a century your still asking the same questions... try thinking outside the box....I think most folks in science really don't was want to do that.
You think a century is a long time?
Long enough to realize your paradigm may need tweaking 💯
@@alpetkiewicz6805 How long did it take to unravel the underpinnings of heredity? The answer is several centuries.
Have you ever spent time with actual scientists? Every incremental step towards understanding nature or improving technology involved thinking "outside the box."
If you're unconvinced of science's contributions to society, discard your phone and just about every other modern convenience you benefit from. After all, no honorable person would be content being a freeloader.
Yes; Brahma.
If the universe didn't have a beginning today wouldn't be here
In other words..we havnt a bloody clue
The elements are eternal, they have always existed. Elements are not createdbout of nothing. Elements can only be organized.
"Yes, it began with God." Aka: I can't explain X, therefore magic did it.
Not yet.
Laws are just descriptions of how things ordinarily behave, don’t cause things to exist.
If the Big Bang created time and space, then it means that before the Big Bang, there was no space, not even as big as an atom. So, in this case, what was containing the energy that gave birth to time, space?
The singularity!
We don't know what there was "before" the Big Bang
That was the idea that came to Stephen Hawking's mind
Thanks for clarifying it
İt is said that space expanded 200K years in a blink of eye time at big bang. That is the space it self i guess. What about matter travelling within this primitive space? It will follow space 200K years behind as it can't travel faster than light within this space.
This life right now is literally millions upon MILLIONS of peoples eternity already through incarnation back into their same mothers womb to take on the same body to relive the EXACT same life over n over n over again called eternal recurrence. It's why we get deja vue because we know we've been here and have lived this before. It's why we only know and remember this particular life and why we don't know how we got here or where we were before we got here or why we are here because we get a memory wipe so each time we will always think it's our first time ever being here. It's why the dome firmament was put there so that we cant escape. Our existence is FAR more bizarre than what anyone could ever possibly imagine, especially knowing that we are able to get a memory wipe, which is pretty terrifying all on its own. Humanity is literally already doomed forever.
You are partially correct, but can't speak on everyone else experience, only your own, and you do have a sort of 'memory' of other concurrent instances of existence, through dreams.
@@David.C.Velasquez Well, there's no proof that those are actual accurances of past lives because the mind could just be creating those images since we really don't understand consciousness to begin with. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying that there's no evidence for that.
All of the people who have done a past life regression disagree with your theory (I'm not saying I necessarily believe in past life regression). They always claim a different life than their current one. The Buddha doesn't become the Buddha over and over again.
Samsara is not the cycle itself but the negative cycle where we go from human form and reincarnate as lesser animals. Nirvana is not an escape from the cycle but the positive cycle where we come back more evolved into better lives, or the extinguishment of life altogether.
i thought inflation came after the bb and was caused by particle formation (not enough room for all the new particles).
I guess it just depends on how you define your terms. If you call the bang "the expansion of the universe," then the big bang is still happening. If you call it, "the initial expansion of the universe," then it happens before or at the beginning of inflation. If you call it "the expansion of the universe after inflation," then it happens after inflation. It's all semantics.
My Geology teacher told me that the earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago. According to Bishop Usher the earth was created at about teatime on 22nd October, 4004 BC. Which is closer to the truth ?
It depends whether you think that the Earth formed through natural processes, or was created near instantly in it's present form in such a way as to appear as though it formed through natural processes.
@@simonhibbs887
God put fossils in rocks to confuse Darwin.
@@tedgrant2 Maybe god wants us to be atheists. 🤯
@@tedgrant2is that what you believe?
@@therick363
I read it in a book.
"Nothing prevents this [closed universe] from being spontaneously created." Assuming he is implying 'spontaneously' means "without a cause, " then logic would prevent it from being created.
If the universe had a beginning, who or what was the place holder?
Arithmetics acknowledges principles. 1 as principle, 0 as place holder.
This is why arithmetics is very important.
Mathematics is a mimic of what is to try and better understand.
I never hear mathematicians today ever mention arithmetics. It seems as if they've fallen in love with their mimic model more than with what is.
God created it and he is watching over us all. This is a proven fact and we should all be thankful. Amen.
Mr. Vilenkin, you screwed it up. You slipped back into thinking 'The universe, it's just another thing in the universe.' There is a big difference between 'We think the universe came about spontaneously.' And 'We think the universe came about spontaneously from nothing.' One of these alternatives ends the infinite regress and the other does not.
I'm probably splitting hairs in light of later clarifications you make in the video.
1:46 let's just let's dissect those two pieces apart let's first talk about the big bang itself you say it's very hot very dense uh uh how hard how dense? 1:55 AV: ... 2:08 okay and we know from Einstein's equation E equals MC square that with so much energy and so much heat the matter could begin forming out of that tremendous energy. 2:20 AV: that's right. 【what's is the formation of that tremendous energy?】
The infinite regress that Mr. Vilenkin mentions is solved, at least in my mind, with Ayn Rand's Premise of Premises; Existence exists. To which I add the corollary, The universe is not just another thing in the universe.
Very Vedanta. "Existence IS... Existence is not just another thing."
The more pertinent question is, in my reckoning... does infinity exist?
What I don’t understand about the beginning of creation of all matter was concentrated into a point in the behind why wasn’t
A black hole immediately created. Or maybe we are in a black hole. Or maybe we are at
The other end of a black hole and our entire universe is from a white hole.
Logically there always was an infinite nothingness, meaning that spacetime always existed and wasn't a creation of the big bang. The big bang itself was an overcoming of gravity by the centrifugal force of spin this person said based upon current knowledge of black holes. Nice theory, but is it wrong? 😀👍
Yes but doesn’t all available evidence indicate that the universe is Flat?? No open or closed but flat.
Well, the "universe" can be thought of as a giant reaction of colossal proportions carried out in transcendental space. And just as there is a beginning for every lab-induced reaction, it's bound to have a beginning (and conscious intervention behind it too).
Whatever you believe about the origin of the universe is an act of faith.
Faith is not only for religion as non theists so often say
Bingo! Big bang is a creation myth.
Key phrases “we know” vs “we have evidence that”
This highlights the faith, when they claim to know then contradict that immediately with “there is evidence”, which highlights the uncertain nature of scientific knowledge
It is possible to just reserve one’s opinion, given we have no useful/reliable data. Intelligent people do this re the origins of the universe; except religious people, of course … 😏
@@kierenmoore3236 do you think that no intelligent people are religious?
@@kierenmoore3236 You confidently give your opinion of religious people. There are other reasons also for believing in God such as prophesy Jesus Christ etc. not all of us are able to not make a conclusion based on an inference to the best explanation as we see it. Many highly intelligent people insist on naturalistic explanation..
@@deanodebo well not they they aren't intelligent, just that they are certain there must be a god. So certain that they are going to make you believe it by passing laws that they believe their god wants. Science has come far in helping us understand the universe, not all of it for sure, but we have learned much. Religion is an iron age technology that is not very useful in helping us understand anything. Where science minded people look down on it is when you say that ..........we dont know what created the universe, but, here is a book of iron age poetry, so it must be right. Oh, and that I have a perfect understanding of what a so called god wants from reading this poetry, that he cares if we ate meat on Friday, or coveted our neighbors wife or that we fell to our knees in prayer regularly. Those behaviors become very silly, the more you understand science. How could you say that silliness is an absolute truth. If its your personal truth great, but it isnt an absolute anything. Seems to me if you want atrocities and wars that cant be stopped...........engage different religions. No hope when religious people are in disagreement. Cant reach them, cant help them......they are not rational. Thats what IU think he is saying
"Everything came from nothing. And explanatorily prior to this were all the laws of physics."
It takes a lot of faith to be an athiest
“Faith is the bridge between gaps of knowledge”.
Why do you take such offense that there are people willing to admit that they don't know but are trying to find out? Your mischaracteriztion of other's position says a lot more about your lack of honesty, or perhaps it's just a lack of sufficient intellectual capacity to digest what was actually said, than the position you seem to take offense to.
The world awaits your erudite explanations on its origins. I won't hold my breath waiting on anything beyond illogical claptrap from the cesspool of mediocre ideas.
Atheist: "Let's talk about physics and the wonders of the Universe"
Karl: "God did it!"
Atheist: "Okay, let's talk about the formation of the constellations"
Karl: "God made them!"
Atheist: "Evolution?"
Karl: "You're going to hell you devil!"
@@mikel5582 You're simply wrong and dishonest. Nobody is offended that we don't know everything. The problem is that what we DO KNOW is highly indicative of a non-physical, transcendent causal agency (God) and radically incompatible with atheistic Naturalism. Yet, the scientist is trying to shoehorn a Naturalistic perspective where is absolutely absurd and insufficient - with no hope of reconciling with the evidence - rather than simply following reason to the most sufficient and plausible conclusion derived from the evidence and reason. Of course, your intellectual dishonesty is typical of modern atheism.
When the atheist must speak of 'spontaneously coming into existence' from a zero-sized infinitely dense 'something' (that is nothing) he has abandoned reason.
Wise up.
@@EdithBromfeld You're simply wrong and dishonest. There is ABSOLUTLY NOTHING that is indicative of a non-physical, transcendent causal agency (God). That is all philosophic nonsense that claims that. Sorry the most plausible conclusion will never be the most complex, improbable being that one can imagine. Anything is more plausible than that. Of course, your intellectual dishonesty is typical of theism.
When the theist must speak of 'spontaneously coming into existence from nothing when the fictional being spoke the magic words', he has abandoned reason.
How about the hypothesis that God, who exists outside space and time, created everything. Many scientists see this as the only logical alternative. There may not be much, if any difference, between a hypothesis and faith. Something out of nothing, without some external force causing it? That seems to make no sense. "In the beginning God created...." makes the most sense to me.
scientists simply think that the God hypothesis is not a useful idea
there's a good reason why preachers cannot heal amputees
because the belief in God or Gods are just placebos *at best*
you're gonna need medical professionals to reattach the ripped limbs, placebo isn't enough, placebo by itself is useless
religions are mostly making claims without any actual proof *at best*
Pure spirit only creates pure spirit. If pure spirit created matter, then it would not remain pure spirit. Pure spirit is unchanging and eternal; which means there is no time. The eternal cannot create time, because it would not remain eternal and time-less.
The fall most likely created matter, time, change, etc..God's fallen sons created matter.
@@realitycheck1231 so much mental gymnastics in one breath
@@realitycheck1231 and that's just a ripped off from Hinduism
BrahmaN iS formless, the most pure, iS existence itself
BrahmaN then manifests into Trimurti
Brahma as the creator, Vishnu as the preserver and Shiva as the destroyer
@@aiya5777 I don't know much about Hinduism. My thoughts are from 'A Course In Miracles'.
I don't consider it mental gymnastics. One element that is always eternal, timeless, unchanging and formless cannot create elements of time, change and form (matter), because another element would be required, other than the One.
It had to have a beginning because if it were an infinite past, it could not have gotten to the present time. The alternative is a beginning.
That is thinking as a finite being.
You’re right but there are bubbles of finite matter, like our universe that makes time possible. Bubbles floating in an infinite sea.
Seems like a valid point but think about it this way. If something did exist infinitely in the past whatever point intelligent creatures arose and could contemplate time they/we would call it the present.
@@rexreynolds9203 Correct, any being or 'obserer' will always find themselves to be at the center of any given infinite dimension... including time. We tend to visualize time as a clock, when it is more akin to an axis.
I'm sure there as many big bangs and universes as there are galaxies and stars.
Dr, Vilenkin: “Inflation cannot be continued back indefinitely.” (9:00).
P1): Either the universe is eternal or God is eternal.
P2): The universe is not eternal.
C): Therefore God is eternal (and caused the universe to begin).
These people have no clue what is magnetism, yet are 100% sure universe begun exactly 13.8 billion years ago, one day our grandrandchildren will have a hard time to explain to their kids, why we went so astray
Everything has a beginning. ... You have a beginning; I have a beginning, "Closer To Truth" has a beginning, UA-cam has a beginning, life has a beginning, Earth has a beginning, the Milky Way has a beginning, and the universe has a beginning. To claim that everything we observe has a beginning and then suddenly claim that the universe _doesn't have_ a beginning is to succumb to *special pleading.*
"Existence" provides us with all the information we need to reason it all out. However, when we willingly choose to operate against logic and reason, all we are doing is making our job that much more difficult.
Presupposing a beginning is just as fallacious. So we don’t know and need to continue observing. No need to whine.
Thank you for saying that.
@@Paine137 how dare you to label this argument fallacious....if there is no begning than how you have achieved present after an infinite past? for b theory of time do you think that their are infinite present moments in real world which can not change if added or subtracted / neglected in counting?
@@randomteenboy because time has beginning
@@Paine137 *"Presupposing a beginning is just as fallacious."*
... No, it isn't. You just have to think a little harder (especially when everything you observe has a beginning). That's what I did in my book.
*"No need to whine."*
... Swap out _whining_ with _thinking_ and you'll get there quicker.
Numbers can’t exist before quantities. Please think logically.
Why did the so called Big Bang happen?...and will it happen again,is it possible?
Is it hard to admit that maybe there is/was more smarter "creator" than human!?😁 The second option of course quantum mechanics made this all. By chance...
First, this discussion is philosophy or pseudoscience, not science. Second, a thing cannot create itself. The physical, natural laws of the universe cannot exist prior to the universe existing. Third, you cannot traverse an infinite timeline. Time cannot have existed into the eternal past because we would never get here! Imagine you hear someone counting down, "3... 2... 1. I did it! I counted down from infinity!" You know that person is not thinking clearly. It's fine to discuss philosophy, but at least force them to try to make sense.
okay...lets examine the" traversing infinite timeline" problem. I can believe that, but it conflicts with other axioms and I would like to see who's correct. Shall we? Let me preface this by saying, I completely agree with you and that you cannot measure between two points in infinite space-time....but...
I'll start. The universe is unbound because "something" cannot be contained in "nothing." So this must mean we are dealing with different types of infinites because we can't both be correct...
I would maintain that the boundless universe must have pockets of closed (quantifiable) bubble-verses that allow's matter to circumvent the infinite timeline problem. Our observable universe is one or an infinite number of other "existing" universes that fall under the anthropic principle. Meaning, of the infinite multiverse, there exists infinite bubbles, finite bubbles, fixed bubbles, and collapsing bubbles. The infinite bubbles contain the traversing infinity problem, (lets call it "TIP.) "but we live in a universe that does not have that problem.
@@dr_shrinker I never said you could not measure between two points. That represents a finite distance, so we can definitely measure that. It's just that one of the points cannot be "eternity past" nor "eternity future."
I think you are saying that our universe exists in some outer substrate. Is that right? Since this cannot be scientifically determined, it is going to be all about speculation and philosophy.
By "boundless universe," you mean that combination of both our universe and whatever is outside our universe, containing our universe. Is that correct?
If so, we can certainly imagine bubble-verses that exist like ours, outside of ours but within the same universe-holding substrate that holds ours.
It makes no logical sense to suggest that the infinite timeline problem can be circumvented. How would that happen? Are you just asserting that as a fundamental property of a universe? If so, again, it's all your imagination, since it is not realistic in our known reality.
There is no infinite multiverse. That is a self-defeating hypothesis. E.g., if there are infinite universes of all possibilities, then there will be a universe where someone has figured out how to traverse universes. There will also be one where someone has figured out how to destroy universes. There will also be one where someone has destroyed all other universes. We're still here, so the hypothesis fails.
@@cklester Thanks for the reply.....👍
1. You said, " I never said you could not measure between two points.." -- I thought that was what you meant by traveling infinite timelines, because space and time are the same dimension. So, if you cannot measure/traverse infinite time, you cannot measure/traverse between two points because they are infinitely spaced apart.
2. You said." Since this cannot be scientifically determined, it is going to be all about speculation and philosophy.
" -- yes. This entire video and comment thread is speculation. Since we cannot see beyond the CMB.
3. You said, "If so, we can certainly imagine bubble-verses that exist like ours, outside of ours but within the same universe-holding substrate that holds ours." -- correct. I agree. We live in a single bubble in an infinite sea of other bubble-verses. Some expand for infinity, some collapse, some are static, etc..
4. You said," It makes no logical sense to suggest that the infinite timeline problem can be circumvented. How would that happen? Are you just asserting that as a fundamental property of a universe? If so, again, it's all your imagination, since it is not realistic in our known reality." -- that's what I aim to find out, and it is all everyone's imagination because no one can see beyond the CMB. Logical and dialectic's are all we have. (I will come back to this point later)
5. You said. "There is no infinite multiverse. That is a self-defeating hypothesis. E.g., if there are infinite universes of all possibilities, then there will be a universe where someone has figured out how to traverse universes. There will also be one where someone has figured out how to destroy universes. There will also be one where someone has destroyed all other universes. We're still here, so the hypothesis fails." -- great, except that only works if it is possible to traverse universes (which we would have to imagine violates the laws of locality and E=mc2)...otherwise it's a moot point. That's like saying if someone has figured out a way to make a spaceship exceed the speed of light and violate General relativity. As far as we know, it takes infinite energy to move a mass particle the speed of light....this whole idea is conjecture at best....lets go back to point number 1 and 4......
___The way to circumvent the infinite time is because the areas of space which lack matter also lack time. Infinite time and space mean nothing to a photon, but,,,,(and I thought of this a few weeks back.) How could you measure the speed of light in a true vacuum? In a region of space that had absolutely zero mass, zero matter, and zero energy.....How would you know if a photon were traveling at the speed of light, or just sitting motionless in a vacuum? What would you measure a photon's velocity relative to, if there was nothing else to compare it to?
I'll think of more tonight....can I get back to you later? Thanks
@@dr_shrinker > ...if you cannot measure/traverse infinite time, you cannot measure/traverse between two points because they are infinitely spaced apart.
Two points with coordinates on a grid can never be infinitely spaced apart.
There is a difference between infinite distance/time and finite distance/time. A finite line can exist on an infinite plane. That is what you are talking about.
> There will also be one where someone has destroyed all other universes. We're still here, so the hypothesis fails." -- that only works if it is possible to traverse universes...otherwise it's a moot point.
Yes, but the definition of infinite universes with infinite possibilities is that all possibilities are included. Therefore, we have to include the possibility that someone develops the ability to destroy universes.
> That's like saying if someone has figured out a way to make a spaceship exceed the speed of light and violate General relativity.
No, it isn't. We know by our scientific observations that accelerating any mass to the speed of light is impossible. We have not observed scientifically the possibility or impossibility of destroying universes. One is a theory, the other an hypothesis.
> ....can I get back to you later? Thanks
Please do! Thank you!
@@cklesteryou said, “ Yes, but the definition of infinite universes with infinite possibilities is that all possibilities are included. Therefore, we have to include the possibility that someone develops the ability to destroy universes.”
There’s no proof that it is possible, even with infinite possibilities. The key word is “possible.” If something is IMpossible, then it is excluded from the infinite possibilities. - Like moving an electron faster than light. It does not matter how many (limitless) opportunities the universe has, if it can’t be done, it won’t happen even given an infinite number of times to try. Faster than light and reaching the universes is impossible….so destroying infinite universes is impossible because you could never reach them all.
I said,’ That's like saying if someone has figured out a way to make a spaceship exceed the speed of light and violate General relativity……..”
Then you replied,” No, it isn't. We know by our scientific observations that accelerating any mass to the speed of light is impossible. We have not observed scientifically the possibility or impossibility of destroying universes. One is a theory, the other an hypothesis.’
- that’s my point. Impossible things cannot be included in the infinite possibilities list.
Another example is reaching the end of infinite space……it doesn’t matter how long or fast you move, you can never reach infinity, so it would be impossible to destroy an infinite universe because you could never control/destroy it in its entirety.
You said.”Two points with coordinates on a grid can never be infinitely spaced apart.”
How would you measure a grid in an infinite vacuum? What would be your point of references between 2 points, where absolutely nothing, no matter no time (zero point energy energy) exists?
What is a meter with no matter to give a relative reference?
If infinity exists than by mandate all possibilities exist This means a omnipotent creator must exist out there somewhere by the infinity mandate itself
An Omnipotent God should not be the stopping point. What was there before He or she or it?
That's not how infinities work. The set of natural numbers is infinite but you'll never find a -1 or a 5,6 or a 4/6
@@profoot6917infinity literally means limitless/ unbounded by definition! You trying to bound infinity by your limited knowledge is the epitome of illogical absurdity!?!?!?
@@xtopher960also infinity! All imagined and unimagined possibilities are by mandate the correct answere. Crazy but this is your belief system . It's eithier infinity or an intelligent creator and infinity mandates an omnipotent intelligent creator exits.
What you think you're pointing out is completely arbitrary. It's super fallacious to pretend to construct arguments based on "infinity".
Do you stop to consider finiteness?
God is a circle who's center is nowhere and who's circumference is everywhere.
The set of all possible sets that includes itself.
Does the set of all sets includes sets that are not members of themselves?
My geographically-linked god(s) did it, because thinking is hard.
Belief in God is NOT a conclusion of fact but just a rational choice, so, search and thinking does not stop..
Why throw the bait? Let people believe whatever gives them comfort up to the point where they start harming others which, while sadly quite common, is not a prerequisite.
@@mikel5582 I know what you’re saying, but believing things without reliable evidence - which inevitably affects peoples actions - is a massive problem in this world.
@@evaadam3635 Is it rational to believe in things without any reliable evidence at all? Also, which god do you mean? Why that one?! Because of where and when you were born?! A lot of problems and damage in this world could be avoided (and fixed) with more rational, skeptical and scientific thinking.
@@kierenmoore3236 Sometimes just the general principle of having faith in something larger than yourself can lead to a feeling of fulfillment. You seem to be viewing this topic only through the lens of pessimism.
How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all. Firesign Theater
It’s all probability.
“Place” isn’t real.
I heard he worked as a night watchman at a zoo before becoming famous.
7:38 lmao space isnt an absence. I used to think there was a thing such as nothing but even nothing is made of something. Space doesn’t mean nothing between, it’s just distance. Time is measurements of change not making the change itself, space is the same as time. We see space the same as time by accident.
When someone says, "I see nothing" what they really mean is they don't see anything they are looking for. Nothingness is not real. We have to remember as humans we only see a small sliver of reality.
"...nothing is made of something."
Is that some kind of Zen philosophy, akin to less is more?
@@mikel5582 no literally think of something even nothingness and understand there is no nothing because it is something. Take space for instance, there is no space, the absence isn’t of all. Space is a measurement of relativities not a thing itself. Like between 1 and 2 is infinite but it’s also relative to the rest.
@@user-if1ly5sn5f I figured that's what you meant but just thought the wording was kind of funny. It is indeed hard to fathom nothing to the point that it might be a word that is essentially meaningless; yet we all know what it means. It's a word that seems to invite oxymoronic statements about it.
Is cosmology, and fundamental physics, becoming too fantastical? Because where the hell does it go from here?
I wonder if the answer is simple
This is current cosmology's explanation, and it is insufficient. The math with assumptions points to this explanation, but not the physics. Roger Penrose and other are on the right track IMO. The universe is infinite and eternal; it has no beginning. Our little observable universe is but a speck that emerges from the "mother" universe, timeless and limitless. Emergence was quantum fluctuations with instantaneous expansion.
That’s just a cop out, ‘infinite and eternal’ . May as well substitute for God.
@@mikelincoln8395 Not really, but to appease you, "limitless". Not God as God usually is conceptualized as a "being" of some kind.
...I would like to add a thought. Prior to Big Bang there was no Past, Present, or Future. All Every & Every All was Eternal. I honestly believe GOD took a piece of Eternity, and set it aside to establish HIS Garden, the whole Earth. I so wish we could sit down and speak face to face. I understand I think some of the questions you ask of your colleagues. I am amazed by so many things we find in our world. The Creation of skills in the hands of man. The medical surgeons, the sciences, the amazing machines, studying Space at great distances and how the satellites function timed and remotely. Man has been gifted with marvelous gifts and talents
The wonderful gift of life here on Earth is just so marvelous, respectfully, Chuck...captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings...
Oh weird, there were laws preceding the big bang? It's as if I read this somewhere...
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
That verse is referring to one of the sons of God (Jesus), who are the "same" as God. The sons miscreate the Universe..
BS.
The Universe doesn't have beginning and end.
No.
Wirhout space and time here was god? There was nothing, so god was nohere...
No.
You're welcome.