Leonard Mlodinow - Did the Universe Begin?
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 04. 2024
- Follow us on X (fka Twitter) for news, articles, and discussions with other followers: shorturl.at/imHY9
Some scientists claim that the universe did not have a beginning. Some theologians contend that the universe did not need a beginning. Yet the universe is expanding, and so run the movie in reverse and there seems to be a beginning. What stakes are riding on whether the universe had a beginning?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more videos on cosmic beginnings: shorturl.at/eCHP2
Leonard Mlodinow is a theoretical physicist and author, recognized for groundbreaking discoveries in physics, and as the author of five best-selling books.
Subscribe to the Closer To Truth podcast on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen: shorturl.at/hwGP3
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.
So much for the Kalam cosmological argument. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist, therefore..."
"Now hold up there, Bucko..."
The Kalam is laughable to anyone with physics knowledge and without a blatant religous agenda. Both its premises are nothing more than nonsense assertions about things we know nothing about, its motivated reasoning and nothing more.
The mere concepts of causation, time, space dont even coherently persist as we approach T-0. To go a step further and pretend we can confidently make all knowing claims about these concepts at T-0, then even claim things such as causation without time pre existing is overconfident psuedo-philosophic postursting about things nobody knows at an absurd level.
Videos like these always make my brain hurt 😂 especially when no one truly knows the answer and may possibly never know…
Yes and that is usually the case with all these "avoidance of truth" videos.
@@sven888 hmm can you explain what you mean by avoidance of truth here?
@@DR713TX Good morning. The truth can be found through bible study. Especially the teachings of Jesus as outlined in the NT which center around Love. Truth can also be discovered by intense study of physics, biology or cosmology. But not all reach so far in life. And that is perfectly fine since we are different by design. Thank you. Appreciate you. Grateful you are here.
@@sven888 thank you for your comment. I agree. Through the studies of science, faith, philosophy, psychology etc, we can get closer to what the truth may be. I think it’s crucial to have a good understanding of both sides. And personally I’ve been raised through Islam and love what it has taught me. And although I may disagree with some of the teachings of Christianity, I do appreciate the actual words of Christ and I agree that love is the answer. I also think alot of these questions may have no definitive answer and sometimes we stress ourselves out trying to figure out everything. It all may appear to be so complex but in reality it’s so simple. Love. Experience. Live. I appreciate your response and wish you a great day, thank you!
@@sven888oh stop it
Excellent explanation.
If our universe were infinite, how could there be more universes? Wouldn't our occupy all the space?
Stop using logic! Science only uses mathematics! Lol
Multi-universe is a mathematical 'prediction'. So, in effect it is just imagination, not reality.
When physicists talk about 'other universes' in relation to inflation theory, they really mean regions of the universe that have different physics from our region. They would seem like completely different universes, but in principle they're contiguous with our region.
In order to “occupy” all that space, the space would need a boundary to define the term “occupy.” I cannot occupy the atmosphere, but I could occupy my skin. There is no way to occupy all of infinity. With infinity there is room for everything that exists, even infinite numbers of infinite universes. Also, there are infinite numbers of infinity types, each existing in infinite dimensions. - all that exists defines infinity, and things that do not exist define nothing at all….therefore, there is no boundary between something and nothing. It’s like a ‘one handed clap.’
@@simonhibbs887 _Known_ Physics breaks down only at singularities. And certainly, singularities are not Universes?
The universe is very suitable for us because we did not come from some other universe.
In the same way, the sea is a very suitable place for a wave.
So, the critique towards the question is that it presupposes the answer and that in a way the question is non-fitting because "time breaks down". In essence, we shouldn't be asking what is North of the North Pole - as that clearly doesn't make sense. But, if you listen to the longer explanation - what he's saying is that in the used model the concept of time breaks down. But the question was never about the concept of time in a particular model - it was about causality.
We live in a universe that is fundamentally causal. The big question is, how can something that is causal, have a beginning in the sense of an "initial event", when everything we know tells us that every event must have a preceding event, so therefore there cannot be an "initial event". Yet, clearly any causal chain, MUST have an "initial event". That's the problematic paradox that lay persons are asking physicists. I'd be perfectly happy if the answer would be: "It makes no sense to us either", but talking about how time coordinates in a certain framework stop working is not a satisfying answer. It doesn't matter which framework you use, the paradox will always remain the same: how can causality "begin"?
I'm just a layperson so maybe I'm missing some steps here. But I wish the question of origins would be addressed in these types of terms, rather than "Well, if we plug the numbers into this framework they come out wonky so the question must be wrong".
I am with you. Thought this answer he gave was a cop out.
It is addressed in those terms in interviews with some philosophers and theologians, but Mlodiow is a physicist so he's describing what can be said from that perspective. The interview with James Hartle is interesting if you want to see what a slightly more adventurous theoretician has to say on that.
ok, but now u must to understand the limits of that paradox, understand what is the begining -1 and the final -1, in order to NOT conclude a relativist nihilism
you are correct...the framework is key to answering the question. the issue is we are limited in perception and brain capacity. the answer may be obvious, just not to us and just not now...or maybe ever. try asking a roach to explain relativity. the capacity of the roach doesnt negate the reality of the concept or its framework which is perfectly natural and understandable at a certain level. currently, we are roaches.
@@juliocortez5209 but this is not understanding the paradox. Understand it is understand that is not about "a limited perception", like if there is something complex out there. It's the other way. It's in the simplest way...
brilliant
7:53 a beginning means that the universe is measurable in a time scale and that time or its application predates the formation of the universe as we know it 🤔
Absolute relativity... After all these years I am starting to wonder if Einstein really understood what relativity means.
@@sven888 it gets very weird around natural phenomenas that we're not able to process, because of our limited capacities...
Fuck off with your nonsense @@sven888
could the start of universe be found out at edge? how might edge of universe, beyond cosmic microwave background CMB be detected and measured?
When you wish upon a star
Makes no difference who you are
Anything your heart desires
Will come to you
Now we are talking. They should interview more people like you.
@@sven888 That is so true!
People who blither pretentiously about things they themselves admit are not or cannot be known and do so in front of books and globes need the steadying influence of serious people (like me) who wish upon the stars. Let's pray they soon come to their senses.
Would you like to open us with a word of prayer? 🤡🙏
@@Minion-kh1tq Word. Brother... everyday I pray people remember the purpose of Life (why we are different) is Love. Thank you. In appreciation. Have a blessed day, every day.
A billionth of a second is far too fast for us to experience, so it’s fair to say that in that short time interval we don’t have a sense of being. The problem is that the time frame we are aware of such as 1 second feeling like 1 second, is joined together by by extremely short time intervals where we don’t have a sense of being, so how do we have a sense o being at all. We also need to be focusing on a colour to have a sense of being even if we just picture something in our heads. If 100 years go by without us having any sense of being, to us it would seem like a blink of an eye, because we wouldn’t have any memory of not having a sense of being, such as an extremely short time interval.
If a group of people were individual zero dimensional points that mixed together to form one single zero dimensional point without any dimensions, every one would agree with what number they are looking at because every one would be one individual point. If zero dimensional points were not in any particular space or not separated by any space, they would be separated by time, each being zero dimensional universes. Our sense of being is zero dimensional, so does that mean we could be individual zero dimensional points. If we don’t have any sense of being such as in an extremely short time interval, we wouldn’t exist, not even being zero dimensional points. What if only two multi point points exist. One was the digit one that all numbers up the number line really are, and the other was a gap or boundary that separates numbers. How do we stop more than 2 points existing. Now let’s say there are 20 scattered points. Now you are an individual point with a consciousness of 20, so by imagining these 20 scattered points you are looking at yourself as a an individual point with a consciousness of 20. Now let’s say there are 90 other individual points mixed in with you. The 90 other points might also think their the ones theorising 20 scattered points. Now let’s say there are a number of scattered points you don’t know how many. You can’t count something you don’t know is there, neither can you count infinity. You can mix an infinite number of zero dimensional points points together because they are zero dimensional. So if you don’t know how many scattered points there are, dose that mean you a looking at the point your in not as a number conscious point, but looking at it as the fact there might be an infinite number of individual points mixed in. An infinite number of individual zero dimensional points should be able to be mixed in to make one single zero dimensional point. There would be no order of how many individual zero dimensional points would be mixed in to form one single zero dimensional point.
I like his aside, about 4 minutes in, specifying that he's talking about the observable universe not anything (outside? beyond?) that, because "we believe the universe is infinite" ... maybe that's an important caveat to ask more about.
The universe can be infinite and have regions not causally connected
Whether or not the universe is infinite in physical extent is unclear. Some calculations that seem to align with what we observe work well if we assume a finite universe, others work well if we assume an infinite universe. The best we can tell if it is finite, it's very big. Extending out at least 500 times further than the limits of the observable universe, and quite probably an awful lot more than that.
The discussion is partly about a very small early universe - grapefruit sized. What was outside the grapefruit. Within what was it so small?
I was thinking on same lines . .. except, Universe includes space. So grapefruit-size Universe actually doesn't make any sense. Today it means something because we have the Universe to compare, but imagine the grape-fruit occupied the whole space . . . I don't know
He's saying that the volume of space we can currently observe, as far out as the light from the furthest objects we can see, was about that size at the earliest stage of expansion we can describe with known physics. The space outside that would contain the matter and energy that is now beyond the region of space we can currently observe.
@@simonhibbs887 *The space outside that would contain the matter and energy that is now beyond the region of space we can currently observe*
Isn't that's just a 'fiction' produced by mathematics?
Since, by definition, the Universe includes space-time (all of it - known & unknown), to speak about something beyond the 'known' space is exclusively imaginary, not real. Akin to asking "when did time begin?" Syntactically, it is consistent, but it makes no sense.
He said our _observable_ universe was grapefruit sized, while the actual universe was still _infinite._
@@mrdeanvincent IMO, "infinite" is a mental (mathematical) construct. It is artificial, a placeholder for what we cannot get a grip upon.
So to say that "Universe was still infinite" is to disregard the very definition of Universe.
If there are other universes that preceded ours or even initiated ours, wouldn't that mean that time exists in a more objective way outside of our universe? If one universe came into existence prior to ours or will come into existence after ours then there must exist time outside of our universe?
The ‘universes’ under discussion are really very distant regions of space that may have come out of inflation with some different physics. Maybe different quantum fields with different relative strengths, or different ‘constants’. In fact inflation and effectively the Big Bang may still be happening in very distant regions, it just cooled down already around here.
@@simonhibbs887I may be getting mixed up with multiverse theory. Not that that is something I understand very well.
@@markreed2563 It's all good, there are several different types of multiverse theory, some of them only subtlely different. The one Mlodinov is talking about, and that I expanded on a bit in my last comment, is called eternal inflation. It's the one that has most credence with cosmologists these days.
If there was no beginning, what is the MBR?
What we call the observable universe and the true universe is different. The OU is what is commonly called “the universe” and the true universe is called the multiverse….
Now. Imagine a boiling bubble (OU) in an infinite sea of other boiling bubbles (multiverse). Or….an explosion in an infinite sea of other explosions. Our OU could be an explosive anomaly of space-time in an infinite multiverse (sea) where space-time is unquantifiable and infinite. We live inside the explosion/bubble. Our OU could be an anomaly of physics and order in the multiverse’s quantum chaos/energy field. Much like a particle that forms from quantum waves/fields.
The universe came into existence through the fabric of life the same way an electron did. for example when the universe contracts everything inside it responds to a pulling force passing through the microscopic level down to the plank level this contraction is also good for the nucleus because it helps generate energy around the nucleus outer shell because otherwise if the universe did not contract the nucleus would not have an input output mechanism and therefore cannot generate energy for itself, the universe contracting turns the space inside each particle into a graviton to help generate different electric frequencies around the nucleus I also believe the bigger the space inside each particle will also help increase their wavelength around the nucleus but here's the thing without space and vibration and the contraction of the universe all particle wave function would collapse, this is true on all levels of measurements even on the galactic level
The fabric of life is everywhere and if you could pull it out from thin air with your hands it would vibrate in your hands or if you were in a rocket you will feel the fabric of life pressing against your body. This amazing fabric supports everything and without it everything will collapse even the air you breathe.
can the microwaves that were trapped in the cosmic background be extrapolated backward to earlier in universe using speed of light / electronagnetic radiation? how far back in time? what might universe looked at that earlier time? how can detect?
Primordial gravitational waves, if found, may allow us to see beyond the opaqueness of the CMB.
The creation process started and gave rise to the universe. What is the alternative?
“Miracle” indeed
How do I add a comment?
8:44 IF U SAY SO, entertaining like starship launches.
Let’s say you have two colours that exist on one side of the tennis court, and the other side of the net you have two colours that don’t exist. Each colour one side of the net could each be part of two systems. Each colour that exists could also be a colour that was originally a colour that never existed that has has already crossed over the net from the other side to become a colour that does exist. So the two colours that exist could be part of two systems. The two colours that don’t exist the other side of the net could also be part of two systems. If we look at the two colours that exist from above the court with our head pointing away from the other side of the court, we may see red on the left and blue on the right. But we don’t see the spaces they take up because the spaces don’t contain any colour. What if the space the red colour was in on the left was the blue colour on the right, and the space the blue colour on the right was in was the red colour on the left. And what if the empty spaces thought they were the colours and the colours were the empty spaces they were filling up. Their is on point to make here. Both the empty spaces and colours that are filling them up are both from two systems, the empty space originating from the other side of the net as a colour that does not exist to cross over the net to become a colour that does exist, and the colour that is filling the spaces up is part of the system that is home on the side of the net it’s on. There is also two colours that don’t exist the other side of the net that is also part of the same two systems. The reason the empty space the red colour on the left is in could be the blue colour on the right, is because a colour can’t fill up a space that is the same colour as it is. So we are looking down at the two colours that exist with the top of our head Pointing away from the other side of the net, and we see a red square on the left and blue square on the right. Now if we look at the two colours that exist from underneath the tennis court still with the top of our head pointing the same direction, could we now see a blue square on the original left and red square on the original right, now seeing the empty spaces being the actual visible colours. Now when the two colours switch spaces with each other, in a way the spaces are moving to because they are now entering different colours thinking they are different spaces. A way we can see the two colours one side of the net and spaces they fill all move together without seeing the spaces still, is if the two colours move over the net in a straight direction, and the two spaces they leave move diagonally over the net to the other side of the court. But shouldn’t the two colours now be two colours that don’t exist? If the two colours and new spaces they are in turn into each other once they cross the net, the colours now being spaces will have to change colours because a colour can’t fill an empty space that is the same colour. The side of the net the colours and spaces have crossed over to becoming each other in the process are meant to be for colours that don’t exist, but now becomes the side of the net for colours that do exist. The original two colours that don’t exist and the spaces they fill, and the two colours that do exist along with the spaces they fill, have all crossed the the net to opposite sides, thus the opposite becoming original sides.
So if we look down on the court and see red on the left and blue on the right, then we look from underneath the court and see blue on the original left and red on the original right because we are now focusing on the empty spaces as being the colours, is that because by actually observing from underneath the court we are causing the colours and spaces to cross the net turning into themselves. When we see some thing cross the net we observe the outcome. But by observing the two colours from underneath the court and seeing the outcome (if) the two colours cross over the net, could we be actually causing the two colours to cross over the net. Therefore by looking underneath the court, we are actually looking across the net to other side of the court. The structure of the theory is an empty space can’t be the same colour as the colour that fills it up. If we look at the two colours from above the court, could the reason that we can’t see the empty spaces be that we are looking at the future where the other side of the net is on, and where the two colours that don’t exist are located. which are two colours that don’t exist that are at the other side of the net as the two colours that do exist are on their side of the net. They say particle physics is based on symmetry. What kind of symmetry? If you have 10 different things, what makes them the same thing is that they are all in the same category as being a different thing. All numbers are really just a digit one a certain way up the number line. But the gaps or boundaries in between the numbers look like a truly different thing altogether. Logic is based on numbers, but can we create a new kind of logic based on gaps and boundaries in between numbers.
I don’t think the empty space is in the tennis court…
Wrong
I got 1/4 of the way into that and gave up. "And what if the empty spaces thought they were the colours and the colours were the empty spaces they were filling up." I have no idea what any of that means. The empty spaces are thinking they are colours?
He reminds me a little of Daniel Jackson
Science and Zen have merged
9:16 to me the fascinating thing is that okay that before inflation the universe was homogeneous like everything was put in the blender and stirred up it wasn't really put in it started in the blender state and with time it formed the clumps that's the miracle of inflation is to show that it quantum microscopic quantum fluctuations of this homogeneous goop turn into clusters of galaxies and galaxies and stars and then we can look at the structure of the large scale structure of the universe and see the exactly the mathematical expression in the large that resulted from those small flunctuations and it matches up that's just amazing for phyiscists particular to those who are astronomy physcists are so confused that we don't know that the universe is heading up an evolutionary process or down a degragational process since the end of the inflationary epoch.
We could be part of one zero dimensional point where one second seems like one second. A physical system like a hurricane or falling line of dominos could be an intelligent being and be another zero dimensional point where one week feels like one second. The two zero dimensional points we are part of and the physical system are part of can be two zero dimensional universes separated by time, but both still existing simultaneously. If we are a zero dimensional point where one second feels like one second, and another intelligence is part of another zero dimensional point separated by time, where one week feels like one second, it makes sense for both points to be separated by time but still both exist simultaneously.
He said we can prove inflation because of the cosmic microwave background. That’s just not true. The cosmic microwave background required a theory, that is inflation, and it doesn’t work well.
He didn't say anything about it being proven. He said we have made some observations that support the theory.
The next episode's question: Did universe? -Long stare-
How about this: What if any, and if not, how much?
Great video. How can one even comprehend size. We only compare one size to another from our subjective observation. A universe the size of a melon or grape makes no difference. A forest to us has a beginning and end but to an ant it is like an infinite universe. It is likely the further back you go the less comprehendible it is to human thinking.
Stephen Hawking said to think of what is North of the North pole as an analogy.
Well yes but most find that to be an unsatisfactory explanation.
North of North Pole is UP.
The fact that the universe was once finite (the size of a great fruit in the first nanosecond) and could now be infinite is quite a concept. I don’t understand how that could happen, even with inflation and with 13.8 billion years.
You’re equating the inflation of the universe to common measurements. When the universe inflated, space itself inflated, so the concept of light speed, a mile, and all other concepts are unimportant. The universe could expand as fast as it wanted because it’s wasn’t constrained by physics.
In other words, it expanded that fast “compared to what?”
Minor point, he's talking there about the size of the region that would become the observable universe. We believe there is, and was a lot more universe than that.
@@simonhibbs887 Just to clarify, the universe didn’t begin with the Big Bang. It was already infinite and the big bang just occurred in our region of it?
@@mikeys7536 We don't know for sure. Inflation may be an ongoing process in other regions of the universe. Whether the universe is finite or infinite it seems likely every region of it had, is having, or will have it's own big bang.
Is there a situation when time doesn't exist at all. I am not saying time is not but a moment when time doesn't exist at all for our whole existence.
Since time is relative to observers, there might be a situation where time exists for one person but not for another. From our point of view, objects inside a black hole probably aren't not experiencing time, but from the point of view inside the blackhole, they experience time. Also, from an outside point of view, light may not experience time, but light itself might.
*"Is there a situation when time doesn't exist at all. I am not saying time is not but a moment when time doesn't exist at all for our whole existence."*
... Time is a measurement of change, so if there existed a scenario where no change was taking place, then time wouldn't be present either.
*Example 1:* An "inch" is a measurement of length, but if there existed a scenario to where there was nothing that demonstrated any length, then an "inch" would likewise not be present. There wouldn't be anything available that an inch could measure.
*Example 2:* If the universe consisted of a single object that has always remained exactly the same, then time wouldn't be present because there wouldn't be anything for time to chronicle. ... Time would be a useless construct.
@@philochristos I'm not sure that the concept of a point of view inside a black hole makes physical sense. If observers at the event horizon experience no time relative to the rest of the universe, and the universe or just the black hole exist for a finite time, then the point of view of any such hypothetical observer is moot. In fact even if the external universe exists eternally and Hawking was wrong and black hols never actually evaporate, it's still moot because zero multiplied by a countable infinity is still zero.
@@simonhibbs887 Don't black holes usually form from the collapse of a star? There's got to be matter inside there. Otherwise, how does a black hole have mass? If there's a collapsed star or mass inside a black hole, then isn't there a point of view or a frame of reference inside a black hole? I'm not following your reasoning for thinking a point of view or frame of reference inside the black hole or at the event horizon is moot.
@@philochristos Inside or at the event horizon, not sure it makes a difference. The same argument applies. There may well be a point of view there, in theory, but I'm not sure that time passing from that point of view is something that can actually occur.
The framework is key to answering the question. The issue is we are limited in perception and brain capacity. The answer may be obvious, just not to us and just not now...or maybe ever. Try asking a roach to explain relativity. the capacity of the roach doesnt negate the reality of the concept or its framework which is perfectly natural and understandable at a certain level. As it pertains to this conversation, we are roaches.
Is the universe infinite or is what the universe is expanding into infinite?
It’s not expanding into anything, it’s just getting bigger. I know, it’s counterintuitive but it’s to do with space being able to bend and curve, and therefore stretch, as described by general relativity.
It’s not expanding into anything . The universe IS everything and everything is expanding.
A.I will discover quantum gravity equations. We seem to have reached the limit of our understanding.
A.I. won't be smarter than humans, it wss literally made by humans. A.I. doesn't understand things like humans do and that's absolutely essential for physics. Physics is way more than just rearranging equations and to discover them, you needs to understand it.
As Modinov pointed out in the interview, some scientists at the end of the 19th century were saying the same thing about the limits of our understanding. Then along came Einstein.
Talk on Nature (not Univese)
Did Nature begin? There will be many beginnings and many endings in Nature.
I always notice, within the materialistic view of existence, there is never an explanation of where time, space and matter originate. Oh yea, multiverse solves everything. Science of the gaps? Does a creator God really take more faith than that?
Not yet.
...The Multiverse are not lined up parallel universes. Actually, take one step then stop, stand still. Now in a circle pick a spot and turn to it of your choice. Either for good or evil exercise your Free Will to do anything you choose. This should establish, Free Will, Multiverse, & Time/Space Turbulent Flow, respectfully, Chuck...captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings...
Nobody is claiming we don't make choices, the question is how and why choices get made.
When you ask a physicist a question you get a physics answer...when you ask a mathematician a question you get a math answer....who do I ask for the right answer?
He concluded by saying, "That is just amazing." What is amazing in all that he said? I didn't hear even a whisper of anything amazing in everything he said. Rather he was fighting so as not to be pinned against the wall. People have to fight to avoid self deception. It's a personal choice. It's up to him to choose to think whatever he wants to think.
2:24 "weewee inflation"
...Please allow me to postulate the following. Pre Big Bang there was no Past, Present, & Future, simply Eternal. All Every & Every All. The Big Bang was not an Explosion. It was the Energy released when a portion of Eternity was set aside, creating the Super Specialness of Earth, and the Establishment of Time/Space, which actually moves as a Turbulent Flow, including Vortices & Eddie's. Please just think/consider this posting carefully, respectfully, Chuck...captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings...
But then you pretty much end up with 3D image entities, moving across a pixel medium
I become ever more of the mind that linear/seqeuntial time did begin....but this was not the defacto beginning or existance.
I become ever more convinced, that the vacuum energy background was the substrate upon which dynamic time could exist beforehand and linear time be founded upon.
So that the corporeal could manifest out of the aetherial.
What's the difference between dynamic time and linear time?
@@philochristos Whats the difference between being awake and being asleep ?
Our Ehtel is probably a better candidate
Did the Universe Begin? My gut says it may not have a beginning.
Do you have a big gut?
Healthy gut
Did matter preexist the Big Bang?
I suppose if gravity is a force that acts on matter it’s possible that is the case.
In the models he was discussing we can't say anything about conditions 'before' the big bang, but in the very early state proposed by inflation theory there is no matter. There is an extremely high energy density, which drives the inflation effect expanding space incredibly fast. This 'dilutes' the energy density to the point where it breaks up, or condenses, into the various particles we observe today.
According to my geology teacher, it began 4.5 billion years ago.
According to my pastor, it began 6000 years ago.
Which one is closer to the truth ?
The earth formed 4.5 billion years ago. The big bang was about 13.5 billion years ago.
@@simonhibbs887
Sorry, I got my facts mixed up.
@@tedgrant2 It's a long time, anyway. 😀
I don’t think the bible puts a number on it . The bible was written before we had science and isn’t a science book , so I’d stick with your teacher .
@@tonyatkinson2210 The 'biblical' number was calculated by adding up the ages of all the patriarchs and kings of Israel and such in the Bible "When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he became the father of Lamech." etc and using average lifespan numbers for the ones not given. Yeah.
But bear in mind only some christians, and hardly any academic theologians outside the evangelical institutions give this stuff any credence. It's easy to look at this and think 'Christians be dumb', but this is actually a minority, mainly in the US.
Don't we all human "begin" with first single couple..!! Physics don't have the answer but embryology does
I think we came out of the first egg.
@@philochristos hiranyagarbha, the golden egg?
*Don't we all human "begin" with first single couple*
NO, we don't.
That's just a convenient point for start of discussion among biologists.
And Physics doesn't CLAIM to have answers.
It only tells how to look for an answer.
Meanwhile, physics is as metaphysical as religion is.
Quantum, quantum, quantum, fields, fields, fields, fields. Lagrange, Lagrange, Lagrange. Spacetime, Spacetime, Spacetime. Totally diverse things. Yet they try to bring it all together. „Quantum Gravity“ ? „Gravitons“? So far it was futile, still is futile and I dare to say, will be futile.
It’s easy to prove gravity exists in the physical realm. Hold your breath for 5 mins. I predict you can’t.
Where did it all come from? At some point it perhaps came from nothing. But then what is nothing and how do you explain it. The thing is, we will never know unless perhaps there is some sort of afterlife and it’s all revealed (maybe revealed) Maybe a supreme being/entity. But where did that come from, if it ever did come from anything. How could something always be. Physics will never, never have these answers. I like it when they say things like “it’s not important “ when they don’t have an answer for it.
*But then what is nothing and how do you explain it*
It is not 'nothing', it is no-thing, ie., it is not a 'thing' which can be isolated and studied. E.g., dark matter.
So many words, using scientific jargon, grasping to theories to factually avoid to simply express: I / we do not know. Sheesh
It's turtles all the way down...
I had a 1 and a half year NDE you would love consulting me, I was low on oxygen and stopped existing. I found no god in the process of dying.
Did u saw anything?
@@rickpieterjan the dark sun of death
Clearly you didn't die. So, your claims based on that are invalid.
9:37 "homogenous goop." I assume he's referring to the aether.
Some guys say that when God or metaphysics is brought up, the discussion no longer is of science. I'm starting to realize those kinds of men are stuck in a little sandbox and only care to deal with the things they can play with and control....if anybody, therefore, mentions God that will cause them to complain saying " don't wake me up don't wake me up, i want to do science." If you can't touch it, it ain't science. If you can't control it, it ain't science. If it remains a mystery, do away with it and instead deal with what you can prove wrong and know of. How dare they think they can mess with our nihilistic mathematics. Ain't got no time for philosophers.
Like always you have assumed wrong.
@@tomjackson7755 prove it
By definition, the universe has always existed. The universe is everything and anything, so whatever there was or wasn't before this current part of the universe, was also the universe.
I’d disagree with that. The universe is our universe as we know it. The cosmos includes other states such as whatever was before our universe, multiverses, etc.
That is not how universe is defined. Multiverse if they exist are separate universes
@@sndpgrno, the multiverse is a fractalized universe but still there is just one universe.
@@sndpgr Multi-verses are imaginations based on mathematical-predictions. It is not reality. Don't confuse mathematical equations with reality.
@@Jun_kidThat just made my day! Finally someone who thinks logically!
It isn't possible the universe has natural origins.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Now we are just trying to figure out how he did it.
Is not the theory of multiverse the same as something outside this universe caused it?
That is what we call agency.
Truths don't change.
No one knows
Indeed
I know! Actually, no I don't. Sorry. False alarm.
And no one ,of our species anyway, will probably ever know for sure. The universe may always speak to us in paradoxes that will elude us and leave us at best pondering. As Issac Newton said, "Nature's greatest secrets will always remain opaque to Man."
Of course the universe began. Everything in a temporal reality requires a beginning and a cause.
*"Of course the universe began. Everything in a temporal reality requires a beginning and a cause."*
... I agree with your comment, but it doesn't require a cause. "Cause" is an imprecise term.
The universe can be "the result of" something that doesn't necessarily have causal effects. *Example:* I can think of a painting I'd like to create, and then paint it. What technically "caused" the painting to be painted was me physically moving paint all over the canvas, but in reality, the painting was merely "the result of" something I envisioned.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC I’m not sure how your example conflicts with what I said. You first think about a painting and then you paint it- cause and effect. What I was saying was that every action requires an act to bring that action about. That’s why I don’t believe in an infinite regression, such as the multiverse- in a temporal universe it would break the laws of physics.
@@JohnHowshall >"every action requires an act to bring that action about"
Including the act of the universe beginning?
In order for there to be a unique original cause of the universe, that cause must itself be un-caused. So a true beginning requires believing in an action without anything bringing it about. I'm not saying you're wrong as such, there may have been such an un-caused cause, but there would have to be some sense in which the original cause whatever it is/was, and the form of causation we experience and are familiar with now, would be dissimilar.
@@JohnHowshall *"You first think about a painting and then you paint it- cause and effect."*
... The painting preexisted in my mind. The physical version was physically painted by my physical hands. True, my mind formed the image, but my mind cannot physically paint a painting. Based on that, what is the "cause" of the physical painting? My thoughts or my hands?
*"What I was saying was that every action requires an act to bring that action about."*
... That's a different claim than "cause and effect." That's why I pointed out that "cause" is an imprecise term. You can have a "first move" that does not cause anything physical to happen at all (like thinking of a painting).
If I thought of a meteor destroying planet Earth, and then it actually happened ... was it my thoughts that caused it to happen or the meteor?
*"That’s why I don’t believe in an invite regression, such as the multiverse- in a temporal universe it would break the laws of physics."*
... On that we can agree. Plus, "evolution" is not compatible with an infinitely existing multiverse.
@@simonhibbs887 Well… causality only applies to space-time. If the universe had a beginning, (which I believe it did) then the cause of that beginning must exist outside of space and time.
How could anyone as smart as Stephen Hawking ever think that any science at any time could ever be fully understood and complete. Just a class or two beyond _PHILOSOPHY 101_ tells you that ain’t possible.
From one of Hawing's lectures:
"Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles.I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I'm now glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end, and that we will always have the challenge of new discovery.wIthout it, we would stagnate. Goedels theorem ensured there would always be a job for mathematicians.I think M theory will do the same for physicists. I'm sure Dirac would have approved."
Why did inflation begin, and what caused it to stop? No one ever offers an explanation for this "process". Is there some kind of cosmic " switch " buried in space-time?
The very early universe was at an incredibly high energy density state. It's the high energy state that drives inflation. As space expands that energy density reduces, which reduces the inflation effect.
@@simonhibbs887 Thank you. Now consider, don't high mass-energy densities exist in quasars, black holes and neutron stars? Are there any observations of (late) inflationary effects or processes occurring in, around or about, these extreme states?
@@panmichael5271 That's a really good question. Firstly the energy densities outside black holes, even very close to the event horizon, are drastically lower than the energy state at the early stages of the big bang we're talking about. Many, many, many, many orders of magnitude lower.
When a star collapses into a black hole the forces keeping protons and neutrons distinct from each other are overcome and they break down. This creates a very high energy density, and then an event horizon forms that in a sense closes off that region of spacetime from the rest of the universe. However again that happens at energy densities much lower than the conditions in the inflationary era.
So your intuition is quite right, if the conditions of energy density we're talking about could be replicated here and now we should see a similar effect occurring. In principle that could happen with a sufficiently high energy collision, due to random quantum variation, but it's spectacularly unlikely and we'd probably detect the results using telescopes, or a gravity wave detector such as LIGO. If it happened anywhere near us, on the cosmological scale, it would be very bad.
Whatever begins to exist had a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore, the universe has a cause
How could time itself have a cause, though? Wouldn't something have to exist before time in order to cause time?
@@philochristos yes your logic follows true and follows the law of causality.
Ie Everything that begins to exist has a cause
@@philochristos Right, but in principle that cause could be an atemporal state.
@@karl5395does causation exist?
I know it didn't. It did not begin. I know it. I've seen that. That is available to us to see if we give up all thought. It's obvious.
Give up thought? 😅😂
Physics of nonsense ?
No space-no time yet there was quantum of fluctuation.
But it was a miricle of The God (Allah SWT) Will likes the birth of Prophet Isa@Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him) of The Virgin Maryam@Mary (PBUH)!
Empty space has always existed, the Universe began when it first started producing gas that created stars.
So you don't consider space itself to be part of the universe?
@@philochristos Space is technically nothing. It's infinite and without boundary. When I say space has always existed, that means empty space has always been there. The Universe began when the first particles came into existence.
@@user-ei1ym1lq6h In general relativity, space can bend and warp. That's the explanation for gravity and for why light bends around massive objects. How can space be "technically nothing" if it can bend? Doesn't the bending of space mean space has properties, in which case it's "something"?
@@philochristos Plus of course we know that 'empty space' actually has a vacuum energy and isn't empty at all.
Empty space has no properties and is nothing, everything you're listing came AFTER the Universe came into existence.
you've got the money fix your tooth
when your being sponsored by Hilsdale college how can you be expected to be truly searching for the truth, but carrying out the not an agenda?
Stop being a whiney baby
(1:50) *LM: **_"And it doesn't really have a beginning in the way we think of it."_* ... I find it interesting how so many who subscribe to science and physics will totally jump off the empirical rails the instant a phenomenon doesn't behave like _they_ think it should. ... That's when all the crazy Multiverse / Many Worlds / Big Bounce theories start popping up.
... *_How dare the universe have a beginning!_*
You and I can trace back our lives to a *single-celled ovum;* the entire spectrum of life can be traced back to a *single-celled prokaryote,* and the entire universe can be traced back to a *point of singularity.* This is clearly an observable, evidence-supported *pattern of evolution* that cannot be denied, yet so many who adhere to the principles of science simply refuse to accept it.
The fact is that everything has a beginning, and everything evolves from _simplicity to complexity._ Apparently, *evidence, patterns and observation* are only good up to the point where they don't fulfil a predetermined narrative or satisfy some underlying "core ideology."
We can’t talk about “everything has a beginning” when we have a sample of 1 for our universe and we can only forensically investigate its “origin”.
And if I give you a grapefruit you cannot complicate it into a Milky Way Galaxy 🍊🪄🌌
@@DCDevTanelorn *"We can’t talk about “everything has a beginning” when we have a sample of 1 for our universe and we can only forensically investigate its “origin”."*
... When everything we observe demonstrates a beginning, but we decide to claim that the universe _doesn't_ have a beginning (even though that's what Big Bang posits), then this is called *"Special Pleading."*
>The fact is that everything has a beginning,...
Maybe you watched a different video from me, but didn't he precisely just give an account of how time and space might in some sense actually have a beginning?
@@simonhibbs887 *"Maybe you watched a different video from me, but didn't he precisely just give an account of how time and space might in some sense actually have a beginning?"*
... He chose the safe route and covered ALL of the mainstream thinking on "Time" (including the "spherical version" of time with no beginning and no end). My comment was directed toward all "no beginning" propositions.
You're not looking at a dot on a piece of paper, you're inside the dot and its not on anything.
Trying to quantify and objectify everything is an impediment upon self. What comes into time dies in time, i.e. mass and magnitude. Quantifying and objectifying everything is a reification of general relativity and mind. In trying to understand how all of phenomena has come to be isn't understanding That which is immanent and transcendent. The great metaphysicians did greatly consider qualities and properties but not from the perspective of trying to understand phenomena in itself but God. Because there is harmony, qualities, beauties, balance, providence, law, and the good that all beings seek, they used these as catalyst to try and touch That - God. What do you believe you're after with all of your inquiries if God is occluded?
Questions direct and modify our inquiries in many ways. Persons want to understand the universe but not God? All of the qualities, forms, harmony and beauty isn't the universe, nor is it science, it's the Divine. You want to understand a cake while indifferent in even considering the baker or maker, that which give it form, beauty, qualities?"
People will mock God saying he's just imaginary, right.... where do you think the very abstract thought of imagination, its function and practicality arised from? Humans being transient are far more imaginary than the imaginary God.
Yes, it began with God.
Define god
Prove it. “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”, Christopher Hitchens
Your god began with Thor
Einstein’s “Secrets of the Old One” ‽
@@DCDevTanelorn Prove that the multiverse exists. Unfortunately no one can and yet that belief is held so dear to atheists.