The Universe May Have Had No Beginning

[docyabut2]

The Universe May Have Had No Beginning (msn.com) the beginning did exist:)  

[Grim Reaper 6]

1 hour ago, docyabut2 said:

The Universe May Have Had No Beginning (msn.com) the beginning did exist:)  

This theory was Professor Hawking final working before his death in 2018. According to this theory the Universe has no beginning and no end, it was just spontaneously occurred from nothing.

Stephen Hawking's Final Theory About Our Universe  https://www.sciencealert.com/stephen-hawking-s-final-theory-about-our-universe-will-melt-your-brain

 

 

[docyabut2]

41 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

This theory was Professor Hawking final working before his death in 2018. According to this theory the Universe has no beginning and no end, it was just spontaneously occurred from nothing.

Stephen Hawking's Final Theory About Our Universe  https://www.sciencealert.com/stephen-hawking-s-final-theory-about-our-universe-will-melt-your-brain

 

 

he did say our universe leads to another universe  

[Grim Reaper 6]

4 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

he did say our universe leads to another universe  

Yes he did believe that there was a possibility that multiple Universes exist all around our Universe, or possibly within our Universe. As our Universe expands it destroys the part of the other Universe we are expanding into. There are also theories that Black Holes could contain newly formed Universes at their core! 

[docyabut2]

13 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Yes he did believe that there was a possibility that multiple Universes exist all around our Universe, or possibly within our Universe. As our Universe expands it destroys the part of the other Universe we are expanding into. There are also theories that Black Holes could contain newly formed Universes at their core! 

he did say our universe leads to another universe only  into our black hole in our  milkey way of our galaxie   

Edited October 13, 2021 by docyabut2

[Grim Reaper 6]

9 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

he did say our universe leads to another universe only  into our black hole in our  milkey way of our galaxie   

Yes that's basically what Professor Hawking thought could be the case.

[Guyver]

3 hours ago, docyabut2 said:

The Universe May Have Had No Beginning (msn.com) the beginning did exist:)  

Everything that is has a beginning.  I don’t even need to waste time on this one.

[lightly]

When did   NOW   begin?  ?   ?

[psyche101]

1 minute ago, lightly said:

When did   NOW   begin?  ?   ?

That's the most pertinent question in this thread.

I don't see how black holes lead anywhere but particle soup to be honest. Stretching space time is one thing. Traversing a black hole without becoming particles is another thing altogether. 

[lightly]

6 hours ago, psyche101 said:

That's the most pertinent question in this thread.

I don't see how black holes lead anywhere but particle soup to be honest. Stretching space time is one thing. Traversing a black hole without becoming particles is another thing altogether. 

Hm, I have to wonder if "particle soup" .. (and especially virtual particle soup)  is what creates our universe?     As for space time ... I'm beginning to believe that space is 'particle' soup.   And time?  I think time is simply the constant motions of space and matter materializing and dematerializing !?   (we call it here, and now)    Sometimes intense Gravity,whatever that is, noticeably bends the particle soup (virtual particles)  and it's accompanying MOTION.(actual particles)!! 

...   errr, sumpthin like that. ?,!  

[psyche101]

6 hours ago, lightly said:

Hm, I have to wonder if "particle soup" .. (and especially virtual particle soup)  is what creates our universe?     As for space time ... I'm beginning to believe that space is 'particle' soup.  

That's how it all started.

6 hours ago, lightly said:

And time?  I think time is simply the constant motions of space and matter materializing and dematerializing !?   (we call it here, and now)    Sometimes intense Gravity,whatever that is, noticeably bends the particle soup (virtual particles)  and it's accompanying MOTION.(actual particles)!! 

...   errr, sumpthin like that. ?,!  

To a point, time is part of space, and flexible. Just as space isn't identical at every point, neither is time. Most things in the universe are experiencing a different view of time to what we do. Ours is balanced by the motion of the Milky way and it's journey through space. Things moving at different speeds will experience time differently. There's actually a difference in time at your feet to what there is at your head because of gravity, but it's too miniscule to notice or measure. 

[lightly]

11 hours ago, psyche101 said:

That's how it all started.

To a point, time is part of space, and flexible. Just as space isn't identical at every point, neither is time. Most things in the universe are experiencing a different view of time to what we do. Ours is balanced by the motion of the Milky way and it's journey through space. Things moving at different speeds will experience time differently. There's actually a difference in time at your feet to what there is at your head because of gravity, but it's too miniscule to notice or measure. 

Yes,  motion...is the only thing that 'time' has in common .  I think ,maybe, the only reason we are aware of 'it' is because EVERYTHING is in a constant state of RE - CREATION    I think we actually experience it,  as the passing of 'time'.    ??

[SHaYap]

From 2013... Full Harvard lecture... 

One hour fifteen plus minutes... 

Quote

[01.16:37]

 

 

~

Or if you prefer to read... 

Quote

A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing is a non-fiction book by the physicist Lawrence M. Krauss, initially published on January 10, 2012 by Free Press. It discusses modern cosmogony and its implications for the debate about the existence of God.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki

A Universe from Nothing - Wikipedia

 

 

Originally published: January 10, 2012

Pages: 224 pp

Genre: Popular science

Subject: Physics; Cosmology

LC Class: QB981.K773 2012

~

 

[lightly]

Thanks Third,    But, I can't spare that much data .  .and the link won't work for me.    I'll patiently await other's input.  Fascinating subject.   I've become convinced that  n o t h i n g  is simply not possible. 

[SHaYap]

2 hours ago, lightly said:

I've become convinced that  n o t h i n g  is simply not possible. 

That's all in the definition of "nothing"

~

[psyche101]

11 hours ago, lightly said:

Yes,  motion...is the only thing that 'time' has in common .  I think ,maybe, the only reason we are aware of 'it' is because EVERYTHING is in a constant state of RE - CREATION    I think we actually experience it,  as the passing of 'time'.    ??

More decreation at the moment. That's entropy for you.

[toast]

On 10/13/2021 at 3:07 AM, docyabut2 said:

he did say our universe leads to another universe  

He suspected such a scenario but he would never have confirmed it because such a statement is not verifiable and therefore not provable.

[+Pettytalk]

Socrates: Now, the beginning is unbegotten, for that which is begotten has a beginning; but the beginning is begotten of nothing, for if it were begotten of something, then the begotten would not come from a beginning. But if unbegotten, it must also be indestructible; for if beginning were destroyed, there could be no beginning out of anything, nor anything out of a beginning; and all things must have a beginning. And therefore the self- moving is the beginning of motion; and this can neither be destroyed nor begotten, else the whole heavens and all creation would collapse and stand still, and never again have motion or birth.

We were meant to be here, from the Beginning.

Timaeus: This being supposed, let us proceed to the next stage: In the likeness of what animal did the Creator make the world? It would be an unworthy thing to liken it to any nature which exists as a part only; for nothing can be beautiful which is like any imperfect thing; but let us suppose the world to be the very image of that whole of which all other animals both individually and in their tribes are portions. For the original of the universe contains in itself all intelligible beings, just as this world comprehends us and all other visible creatures.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ad from Amazon Books website:

A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing

Bestselling author and acclaimed physicist Lawrence Krauss offers a paradigm-shifting view of how everything that exists came to be in the first place.

“Where did the universe come from? What was there before it? What will the future bring? And finally, why is there something rather than nothing?”

One of the few prominent scientists today to have crossed the chasm between science and popular culture, Krauss describes the staggeringly beautiful experimental observations and mind-bending new theories that demonstrate not only can something arise from nothing, something will always arise from nothing. With a new preface about the significance of the discovery of the Higgs particle, A Universe from Nothing uses Krauss’s characteristic wry humor and wonderfully clear explanations to take us back to the beginning of the beginning, presenting the most recent evidence for how our universe evolved—and the implications for how it’s going to end.

Provocative, challenging, and delightfully readable, this is a game-changing look at the most basic underpinning of existence and a powerful antidote to outmoded philosophical, religious, and scientific thinking.  

A powerful antidote to OUTMODED Philosophical thinking?  Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!.....Ha!  Krauss got the idea from Plato; in other words, he plagiarized, since he does not give credit where credit is due.

 

[psyche101]

8 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

Socrates: Now, the beginning is unbegotten, for that which is begotten has a beginning; but the beginning is begotten of nothing, for if it were begotten of something, then the begotten would not come from a beginning. But if unbegotten, it must also be indestructible; for if beginning were destroyed, there could be no beginning out of anything, nor anything out of a beginning; and all things must have a beginning. And therefore the self- moving is the beginning of motion; and this can neither be destroyed nor begotten, else the whole heavens and all creation would collapse and stand still, and never again have motion or birth.

We were meant to be here, from the Beginning.

Timaeus: This being supposed, let us proceed to the next stage: In the likeness of what animal did the Creator make the world? It would be an unworthy thing to liken it to any nature which exists as a part only; for nothing can be beautiful which is like any imperfect thing; but let us suppose the world to be the very image of that whole of which all other animals both individually and in their tribes are portions. For the original of the universe contains in itself all intelligible beings, just as this world comprehends us and all other visible creatures.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ad from Amazon Books website:

A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing

Bestselling author and acclaimed physicist Lawrence Krauss offers a paradigm-shifting view of how everything that exists came to be in the first place.

“Where did the universe come from? What was there before it? What will the future bring? And finally, why is there something rather than nothing?”

One of the few prominent scientists today to have crossed the chasm between science and popular culture, Krauss describes the staggeringly beautiful experimental observations and mind-bending new theories that demonstrate not only can something arise from nothing, something will always arise from nothing. With a new preface about the significance of the discovery of the Higgs particle, A Universe from Nothing uses Krauss’s characteristic wry humor and wonderfully clear explanations to take us back to the beginning of the beginning, presenting the most recent evidence for how our universe evolved—and the implications for how it’s going to end.

Provocative, challenging, and delightfully readable, this is a game-changing look at the most basic underpinning of existence and a powerful antidote to outmoded philosophical, religious, and scientific thinking.  

A powerful antidote to OUTMODED Philosophical thinking?  Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!.....Ha!  Krauss got the idea from Plato; in other words, he plagiarized, since he does not give credit where credit is due.

 

 

 

 

You're a fork in the soup of life right?

[+Pettytalk]

56 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

You're a fork in the soup of life right?

Well, such personal questions are definitely out of the question! We'll never spoon, that's for certain. Have you anything else to say on the post? Like, do you listen to ELP? And for your information, now that you have manged to get my attention, if a fork is the only tool for eating that I have, and soup is served, I make the best of what I have on hand; besides one can always drink it.. 

Don't you find it ironic that Dr. Krauss badmouths the old philosophers, and then plagiarizes from them?

You're making soup out of Nothing.

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Pettytalk said:

Well, such personal questions are definitely out of the question! We'll never spoon, that's for certain.

Forks aren't spoons. It's like you fail basic philosophy right away.

1 hour ago, Pettytalk said:

Have you anything else to say on the post? Like, do you listen to ELP?

Whenever it's on. I don't not listen to it.

1 hour ago, Pettytalk said:

And for your information, now that you have manged to get my attention, if a fork is the only tool for eating that I have, and soup is served, I make the best of what I have on hand; besides one can always drink it.. 

 Crikey bloke. 

The clown said he is the fork. You've either gone a step beyond that or you for don't get the quote. 

You modern day so called philosophers are fricken over the top egotistical aren't you? 

1 hour ago, Pettytalk said:

Don't you find it ironic that Dr. Krauss badmouths the old philosophers, and then plagiarized from them?

No, your kidding yourself if you think his work hasn't greatly impacted philosophy. 

1 hour ago, Pettytalk said:

You're making soup out of Nothing.

Well, should be easy. We got a whole universe out of if after all. 

[+joc]

2 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

Well, such personal questions are definitely out of the question! We'll never spoon, that's for certain. Have you anything else to say on the post? Like, do you listen to ELP? And for your information, now that you have manged to get my attention, if a fork is the only tool for eating that I have, and soup is served, I make the best of what I have on hand; besides one can always drink it.. 

Don't you find it ironic that Dr. Krauss badmouths the old philosophers, and then plagiarizes from them?

You're making soup out of Nothing.

I listen to  ELP....well, I  used to.  I really like Greg Lake.  I liked him better with King Crimson.  Favorite ELP lyrical quote, from of course the brilliant mind of Greg Lake:

There may be an Om in Moment, but there's very few Folk in Focus. You needn't be Well to be Wealthy but you've got to be Whole to be Holy.

The concept of something from nothing is a mute point.  Nothing is nothing...If we go back to the place of nothing...that's all there is.  How does Something come from Nothing?  It doesn't.  It didn't.  Something has always been...what is nothing?  And...how did it become something?  It's a maddening question circle with no end.  So...it is unanswerable.

We have better things to do with our time than ponder unanswerable questions.  

...or is it unanswerable?  We know what something is.  But do we know what nothing is?   Absolute nothing.   Vast infinite nothingness.  No matter?  No gravity?  No waves?   But wait...if there is or was a state of Nothing.  Then it could not have existed alone.  There would still be the Anti-nothing.  And that would consist of potential.  How is it that Nothing even could exist?  The question isn't how did something come out of nothing.  The question is how did Nothing even exist?  Actually the question isn't even that.  Nothing came from Something.  Something comes from Nothing.  There has always been Something and there has always been Nothing.  Not Yin or Yang...Yin and yang

So, because I can...

I hereby bequeath to you all a poem I wrote at the tender age of 19 while pondering my spiral notebook:

Spirals In Essence

A silver circle never ending 

Hues of light and dark abounding

Disappearing into holes and coming back as first began

The silver rings and countless gorges, sinking, probing gospel torches

Flames toward heaven, hear the cries?

Her moments fleeting proverb dies

All the same yet vaguely different, piles of circles just the same

Their purpose binding, bodies winding around the universal holes of time.

Edited October 29, 2021 by joc

[+Pettytalk]

If only some here could truly understand Plato, then there would be no need to ask what nothing (not-being) is. Because this nothing (not-being) is something a sophist the likes of Dr. Lawrence Krauss uses to hide in. Absolute Being (Something) and Absolute Not-Being (Nothing) can only be known by God. All Absolutes are in the realm of God. The Absolute Ideas. 

For to speak of absolute nothing (not-being), an abstract something naked and isolated from all being is impossible. Something has always existed, in fact we all have always existed in Eternity: The Eternal Kingdom of God, our Father. Absolute Nothing (not-being) is just an abstract, a necessity to contrast Being (Something) 

An excerpt from Plato's Timaeus:

Timaeus: Was the heaven then or the world, whether called by this or by any other more appropriate name—assuming the name, I am asking a question which has to be asked at the beginning of an enquiry about anything—was the world, I say, always in existence and without beginning? or created, and had it a beginning? Created, I reply, being visible and tangible and having a body, and therefore sensible; and all sensible things are apprehended by opinion and sense and are in a process of creation and created. Now that which is created must, as we affirm, of necessity be created by a cause. But the father and maker of all this universe is past finding out; and even if we found him, to tell of him to all men would be impossible. And there is still a question to be asked about him: Which of the patterns had the artificer in view when he made the world—the pattern of the unchangeable, or of that which is created? If the world be indeed fair and the artificer good, it is manifest that he must have looked to that which is eternal; but if what cannot be said without blasphemy is true, then to the created pattern. Every one will see that he must have looked to the eternal; for the world is the fairest of creations and he is the best of causes.

An excerpt from Plato's Sophist: 

STRANGER: I was doubtful before in which of them I should place the Sophist, nor am I even now able to see clearly; verily he is a wonderful and inscrutable creature. And now in the cleverest manner he has got into an impossible place.

THEAETETUS: Yes, he has.

STRANGER: Do you speak advisedly, or are you carried away at the moment by the habit of assenting into giving a hasty answer?

THEAETETUS: May I ask to what you are referring?

STRANGER: My dear friend, we are engaged in a very difficult speculation—there can be no doubt of that; for how a thing can appear and seem, and not be, or how a man can say a thing which is not true, has always been and still remains a very perplexing question. Can any one say or think that falsehood really exists, and avoid being caught in a contradiction? Indeed, Theaetetus, the task is a difficult one.

THEAETETUS: Why?

STRANGER: He who says that falsehood exists has the audacity to assert the being of not-being; for this is implied in the possibility of falsehood. But, my boy, in the days when I was a boy, the great Parmenides protested against this doctrine, and to the end of his life he continued to inculcate the same lesson—always repeating both in verse and out of verse:

'Keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is.'

Such is his testimony, which is confirmed by the very expression when sifted a little. Would you object to begin with the consideration of the words themselves?

THEAETETUS: Never mind about me; I am only desirous that you should carry on the argument in the best way, and that you should take me with you.

STRANGER: Very good; and now say, do we venture to utter the forbidden word 'not-being'?

THEAETETUS: Certainly we do.

STRANGER: Let us be serious then, and consider the question neither in strife nor play: suppose that one of the hearers of Parmenides was asked, 'To what is the term "not-being" to be applied?'—do you know what sort of object he would single out in reply, and what answer he would make to the enquirer?

THEAETETUS: That is a difficult question, and one not to be answered at all by a person like myself.

STRANGER: There is at any rate no difficulty in seeing that the predicate 'not-being' is not applicable to any being.

THEAETETUS: None, certainly.

STRANGER: And if not to being, then not to something.

THEAETETUS: Of course not.

STRANGER: It is also plain, that in speaking of something we speak of being, for to speak of an abstract something naked and isolated from all being is impossible.

THEAETETUS: Impossible.

STRANGER: You mean by assenting to imply that he who says something must say some one thing?

THEAETETUS: Yes.

STRANGER: Some in the singular (ti) you would say is the sign of one, some in the dual (tine) of two, some in the plural (tines) of many?

THEAETETUS: Exactly.

STRANGER: Then he who says 'not something' must say absolutely nothing.

THEAETETUS: Most assuredly.

STRANGER: And as we cannot admit that a man speaks and says nothing, he who says 'not-being' does not speak at all.

THEAETETUS: The difficulty of the argument can no further go.

STRANGER: Not yet, my friend, is the time for such a word; for there still remains of all perplexities the first and greatest, touching the very foundation of the matter.

THEAETETUS: What do you mean? Do not be afraid to speak.

STRANGER: To that which is, may be attributed some other thing which is?

THEAETETUS: Certainly.

STRANGER: But can anything which is, be attributed to that which is not?

THEAETETUS: Impossible.

STRANGER: And all number is to be reckoned among things which are?

THEAETETUS: Yes, surely number, if anything, has a real existence.

STRANGER: Then we must not attempt to attribute to not-being number either in the singular or plural?

THEAETETUS: The argument implies that we should be wrong in doing so.

STRANGER: But how can a man either express in words or even conceive in thought things which are not or a thing which is not without number?

THEAETETUS: How indeed?

STRANGER: When we speak of things which are not, are we not attributing plurality to not-being?

THEAETETUS: Certainly.

STRANGER: But, on the other hand, when we say 'what is not,' do we not attribute unity?

THEAETETUS: Manifestly.

STRANGER: Nevertheless, we maintain that you may not and ought not to attribute being to not-being?

THEAETETUS: Most true.

STRANGER: Do you see, then, that not-being in itself can neither be spoken, uttered, or thought, but that it is unthinkable, unutterable, unspeakable, indescribable?

THEAETETUS: Quite true.

STRANGER: But, if so, I was wrong in telling you just now that the difficulty which was coming is the greatest of all.

THEAETETUS: What! is there a greater still behind?

STRANGER: Well, I am surprised, after what has been said already, that you do not see the difficulty in which he who would refute the notion of not-being is involved. For he is compelled to contradict himself as soon as he makes the attempt.

THEAETETUS: What do you mean? Speak more clearly.

STRANGER: Do not expect clearness from me. For I, who maintain that not-being has no part either in the one or many, just now spoke and am still speaking of not-being as one; for I say 'not-being.' Do you understand?

THEAETETUS: Yes.

STRANGER: And a little while ago I said that not-being is unutterable, unspeakable, indescribable: do you follow?

THEAETETUS: I do after a fashion.

STRANGER: When I introduced the word 'is,' did I not contradict what I said before?

THEAETETUS: Clearly.

STRANGER: And in using the singular verb, did I not speak of not-being as one?

THEAETETUS: Yes.

STRANGER: And when I spoke of not-being as indescribable and unspeakable and unutterable, in using each of these words in the singular, did I not refer to not-being as one?

THEAETETUS: Certainly.

STRANGER: And yet we say that, strictly speaking, it should not be defined as one or many, and should not even be called 'it,' for the use of the word 'it' would imply a form of unity.

THEAETETUS: Quite true.

STRANGER: How, then, can any one put any faith in me? For now, as always, I am unequal to the refutation of not-being. And therefore, as I was saying, do not look to me for the right way of speaking about not-being; but come, let us try the experiment with you.

THEAETETUS: What do you mean?

STRANGER: Make a noble effort, as becomes youth, and endeavour with all your might to speak of not-being in a right manner, without introducing into it either existence or unity or plurality.

THEAETETUS: It would be a strange boldness in me which would attempt the task when I see you thus discomfited.

STRANGER: Say no more of ourselves; but until we find some one or other who can speak of not-being without number, we must acknowledge that the Sophist is a clever rogue who will not be got out of his hole.

 

 

[+Pettytalk]

22 hours ago, joc said:

he concept of something from nothing is a mute point.  Nothing is nothing...If we go back to the place of nothing...that's all there is.  How does Something come from Nothing?  It doesn't.  It didn't.  Something has always been...what is nothing?  And...how did it become something?  It's a maddening question circle with no end.  So...it is unanswerable.

We have better things to do with our time than ponder unanswerable questions.  

...or is it unanswerable?  We know what something is.  But do we know what nothing is?   Absolute nothing.   Vast infinite nothingness.  No matter?  No gravity?  No waves?   But wait...if there is or was a state of Nothing.  Then it could not have existed alone.  There would still be the Anti-nothing.  And that would consist of potential.  How is it that Nothing even could exist?  The question isn't how did something come out of nothing.  The question is how did Nothing even exist?  Actually the question isn't even that.  Nothing came from Something.  Something comes from Nothing.  There has always been Something and there has always been Nothing.  Not Yin or Yang...Yin and yang

Very wise is our Joc.....I concur! The truth stings!

 

[+Pettytalk]

Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin' You gotta have somethin' if you want to be with me. I'm a soldier in the war on poverty

Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life for my soul?”

Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your things/possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”