J. Richard Gott III - Why Did Our Universe Begin?
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 02. 2023
- That the universe began seems astonishing. What brought it about? What forces were involved? How did the laws of nature generate the vast expanse of billions of galaxies of billions of stars and planets in the structures that we see today? What new physics was involved? What more must we learn?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Watch more interviews on the beginning of the universe: closertotruth.com/video/gotjr...
John Richard Gott III is a Professor of Astrophysical Sciences at Princeton University who is noted for his contributions to cosmology and general relativity.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
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.
He's not answering the question of 'why' but an alternative hypothesis of 'how' did the universe begin.
Which in that context is the why.
genesis two eighteen
@@tschorsch Proof science is religion.
Suppose there is a time loop
Suppose there is no beginning.
Even if infinity does not compute
Even if infinity doesn't make sense
.
Infinity does not compute, therefore is not science.
And multiverse theory, as well as multiple universes , are considered infinite, therefore does not belong to science.
It only belongs to science fiction.
.
Not much did he address "why" should the universe begin in his particular model, but why such model may provide better alternative solutions to an unresolved issue using other theories.
At the end of the day it seems more theories emanating from the gut than actual science.
If anyone could answer this and was 100% correct our minds would be blown. In reality we are all just guessing. Maybe we will find out when we die.
Theologically speaking; all this is Jesus and Jesus is Diverse for Love.
When we die certainly ... But If you wait for the answer from humans like you and me as enlightened as they are you will be disappointed. The real answer can only come from the True Creator Himself of the universe.
Without our will, who wanted us to exist? do we exist just to die? it always comes back to the big existential questions.
I strongly recommend the latest sacred book "Quran", it gives plenty of answers on existential subjects... it's still just a book to read after all, and the only one that gives coherent answers to my sense of life and dead.
" Then did you think that We created you uselessly and that to Us you would not be returned?" Surat 23 - V115
" Does man think that he will be left uncontrolled, (without purpose)? " Surat 75-V36
This book asks questions and gives answers but everyone is free to believe it or not
" Say : This is the truth from your Lord. Let whosoever will, believe, and whosoever will, disbelieve it." Surat 18-V29
Everyone remains free to read it or not and to believe it or not ... but what is intellectually inadmissible is to judge it false without reading it (that's mediaTV Culture level) ... Tell any muslim to get you one with translation or go to the nearest mosque they will give it to you ... you will have all the answers from the Creator I promise you, the Quran is our Maker's Manual.
It's all already in the Bible. It speaks of Jesus as the one who has a beginning. And of "Father" who has no beginning. And that Jesus and "Father" are the same. That means Jesus came alive to be the Creator of the Father, who made him to create everything.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."
This is clearly a description of a timeloop where all things are made by someone who made him in the future - to create all this. This includes the Father himself.
As i imagine those Angels are counting as "the Father". Basically they took over after being created over the Creator. And made it clear to Him that THEY created Him to be created by Him.
Their power to do such thing, is in their nature of being a copy of the Creator, but combined as many. If they combine their abilities they are "God" - even stronger as the first Creator. So strong as they made it clear by creating a timeloop - where they are inevitably to be created.
Our current physical laws (and logic) permit this
@@sergeysimon9099 I just did a term search . No references to timeloops . In the bible . Not one .
Truth is,our tiny little human brains couldn't possibly begin to comprehend the origins of our universe if any origins at all. I love science,it's inspiring and beyond but truth be told it's nice to "learn" things but in reality it's just entertainment. Thought prevoking. Which is fun,but the truth i believe is we are wayyy off on what reality even is, including the 4th dimention and beyond itself...
You are right ,God is the answer
Yes they can I already figured it all out.
@@pleasebekindandcompassiona5836
God isn’t the answer . I don’t know if any religion that explains the origins of god
Speak for yourself.
@@Kenneth-ts7bp I believe your comment is directed at Kevin. If so, I advise you to stay away from Vegas. These brainiacs sound more delusional as time goes by and new theories formed. There are bonafide scientists, astro physicists, whatever you want to call them that believe black holes do not exist. Take it up with them. I believe these scientists should be given a daily ration of acid. Who knows, some sense might come out of it.
sounds like a group of cosmologists got together, got stoned, and came up with an infinite loop time machine.
I really like the idea of making his model out of clear glass that has a surface and can make manifold shapes. The rest...not so much.
No distracting moving cameras! Thanks!
Eternity is a line that goes from beginning to end. At the end is the wormhole takes us back to the beginning. Eternal life already exists, you just don't understand the perimeters of it's scope.
What use is eternity, having to spend it alone in a garden?
Shout out to the glass menorah lookin' thing.. Real MVP
Love you now and forever more.
You misunderstand what is meant by eternity. It cannot be conceived of in terms of a repeating loop. That is a closed system that by definition is restricted to the repeated cycle of loops. Eternity is not bounded in any sense and is directly related to the concept of infinity that means no center and no edge; eternity means no beginning and no end. A cycle has a beginning and an end: a repeating cycle is bounded by the cycle itself which is time-dependent.
@@jonthrelkeld2910 Eternity is bound by the very definition to be continual. How it is, verse how it is perceived, are two different axioms. The confines of eternity are required to continue, and by using alpha/omega as the axis of life through eternity, one can measure the yields of a destined outcome.
The question remains, why the fuck should humans be trying to measure eternity in the first place? Taboo taboo..;
@@ToxicSkittle Proof science is religion.
Suppose there is a time loop
Suppose there is no beginning.
Even if infinity does not compute
Even if infinity doesn't make sense
.
Infinity does not compute, therefore is not science.
And multiverse theory, as well as multiple universes , are considered infinite, therefore does not belong to science.
It only belongs to science fiction.
.
Closed causal loop, both a QM and GR concept, why not? Read Reichenbach, MacBeath and Poidevin and form an opinion (and Lewis I guess about time travel)
Where did the time loop needed for this explanation come from? When did it begin?
Gott believes that time travel may be possible and "isn't excluded by relativity" but requires other seemingly impossible things in order to be able to work. It's a bit like the Alcubierre warp drive, you need things like infinitely long cosmic strings, or exotic matter with negative energy, none of which we have reason to believe are real or possible.
I think we cannot truly understand the wildness of this yet as we cannot comprehend it in order to understand it. As we develop and get smarter we may be able to comprehend it to be able to explain it.
Universe began for every reasons behind every causes to every changes happening around us, within us and in us with respect to space and time still developing, still maturing and evolving our human civilisation, developing our concepts of understanding and realizing the universe and its products of which we all are part of.
I'm sorry but the Human in his person has never changed there are always good people and bad people, manipulators and manipulated people, ignorant people and scholars, rich people and poor people, the emotions are always the same, the fear, joy, sadness, happiness, unhappiness, love, hate, pleasures, desires, things around us change but not the Human in the true sense of the Human.
Otherwise what really makes the Human, the matter or the things around?
The Universe has a meaning that can only be disclosed by its Creator hence the need for divine revelations through time... the Quran the last message brings together the whole puzzle of existence
@@smailhamza7251 actually, I , defined various aspects of universe through scientific aspects not through the means of idealistic aspect or religious aspects.
@@smailhamza7251 in the eyes of science and scientific aspects, human beings are product of nature as the product of earth and matter. Without universe, there would never be the existence of matter. Without matter, there won't be earth existing, neither there would be existence of life sustaining conditions, neither there would be existence of human beings.
very interesting
Proof science is religion.
Suppose there is a time loop
Suppose there is no beginning.
Even if infinity does not compute
Even if infinity doesn't make sense
.
Infinity does not compute, therefore is not science.
And multiverse theory, as well as multiple universes , are considered infinite, therefore does not belong to science.
It only belongs to science fiction.
.
Interesting possibility.
Proof science is religion.
Suppose there is a time loop
Suppose there is no beginning.
Even if infinity does not compute
Even if infinity doesn't make sense
.
Infinity does not compute, therefore is not science.
And multiverse theory, as well as multiple universes , are considered infinite, therefore does not belong to science.
It only belongs to science fiction.
.
I’d rather believe everything always existed and it’s just as we see it, like a dream
A Dream for Love.
Everything has a beginning. Entropy follows.
@@mazolab For instance…
@@mazolab Nebulous metaphysical answers don’t count. Please try harder.
@@mazolab Woo woo
Visuals help to understand these theories.
Yes.
I don't think that answers the first cause question. What made/caused the initial loop?
self
I think the hypothesis relies on just brute fact. That nothing isn’t a possible reality . That there has to be something . A loop avoids infinite regress
So what caused this time loop process to start? Or is cause and effect no longer in fashion?
I think he’s suggesting that we have to accept that there are uncaused brute facts . A loop avoids some of the problems
@@tonyatkinson2210 If there are uncaused brute facts, then his idea is unnecessary. Just treat the Big Bang itself as typically conceptualized as an uncaused brute fact not in need of an explanation.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn this is true. But his model resolves many of the problems with BB model .
Why is the universe only 13.4 billion years old ? How long did the pre BB conditions exist? Etc . Avoids infinite regress issues when a lipid ins conceptualised
@@tonyatkinson2210 OK. But then don't suggest that this theory explains how the universe started.
@@jago76 because in this model it didn’t start . It’s a loop . It doesn’t explain why there’s a loop but maybe there couldn’t not be a loop . Maybe there can’t be nothing and this is the only brute fact . Dunno 🤷♀️
First we can suppose and ask: how?
Then we can little by little ask: why?
(This question disappears usually, after multiple answers of the first question.)
The second question disappears when one gives up on answering it.
@@BradHoytMusic Yes, it turns in to a spell.
How would the Big Crunch work with this model ?
Still leads to the infinite regression problem. Where did the time loop and the stuff in it that is capable of creating universes come from?
If it is a problem . Logic and reality might not align . Maybe our 6 pound brains just can’t process such things.
But if there is an infinite regress “problem “ there there must be fundamental brute facts. Something that just is .
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
This theory appeals to me the most.
... so can the donut moderate the stock market if it were anchored to 6 or 8 cosmic positions during one event cycle?
could time be moving downward, producing quantum waves / fields while moving downward? like a rock or something sinking in water?
Hi, physics seems (in general) to be time symmetric, so forward and backward solutions should be, at least theorically, equally valid (and then is entropy, which gives a preference for the time arrow). Dirac's equation (a consequence of mixing quantum mechanics and special relativity) admits for negative energy solutions that Dirac interpreted as antiparticles, but Feynman (and Wheeler I think) proposed that those solution could be normal particles moving backward in time (as maybe you were thinking), which is a mathematically valid interpretation. Obviously, both of them are interesting, but as experiments have detected the antiparticles that Dirac suggested, it seems that the Feynman and Wheeler interpretation is just a super interesting way of viewing things.
I'm sorry for my english (not a native speaker), but I hope this get you excited to search for more, greetings!
Which way is downwards ?
does anyone know if time dilation is included in big bang and/or expansion models?
As external observers to such events, wouldn't we have to take into account that time within such events would seem to be a lot slower?
An object falling into the gravity well of a black hole would seem frozen in time to an observer outside the reference of the falling object.
Even light is distorted by such massive objects.
I'm not sure there's anything much more massive than the compressed state of the early universe, or the singularity 'before' the big bang - which surely would create incredible time dilations...in which case, doesn't it hold that an 'outside' observer to such things would see what would seem like almost-impossibly rapid expansions, etc ?
Soooooo...going further, IF we can approximate how much mass would cause the observed expansions of the early universe, then perhaps that would allow the boffins to figure out how big the universe currently is.
Even further...could the characteristics of dark energy and/or dark matter simply be time discrepancies we see as observers from our frame of reference?
We may well find that this timey-wimey stuff is the key to the theory of everything, unless I'm very wrong.
Hi, for your first question: yes, Big Bang is a theory built on general relativity and time dilation is a consequence of Einstein's theory. For your second question (maybe I didn't get it, sorry if that is the case): it doesn't really make sense to think of an outside observer, cause... outside of what? I think I get what you mean, but it doesn't seems right to have an observer outside of the universe itself. For you third question/suggestion: early universe was dominated by radiation, not baryonic/dark matter, so talking about mass doesn't really make sense too. For your last question: try not to mix dark energy and matter, cause they are not the same, dark matter is probably a new particle with special properties (like just being able to interact with gravity) and dark energy is suppossed to be a form of energy inherent of empty space that is (at least in our current understanding) responsable of the expansion of the universe. Besides that, in cosmology is common to use comoving distances, something like a frame that "fixes" the distance between objects in the universe to be able to measure through space-time so those situations are not an issue (I know this is not the best explanation, but I already wrote a lot and, as you can guess, I'm not an english native speaker, so I had to try my best jaja)
I hope my answer helps you, greetings!
Robert missed the memo that his understanding of inflation and expansion is no longer fashionable.
Is cosmic vibration like sonoluminescence create big bang
I thought going back in time was impossible
I think the hypothesis is that it keeps going “forward@ but loops around
I appreciate the effort with the glass model, but it does not answer the question.
Very interesting, but it doesn’t answer the anthropic problem. Why is the universe we’re in so finely tuned for our existence?
Time does not exist. It is a singularity we used to change the model to match the physics that we change the physics to match the ridiculous model.
The singularity isn’t the model . The singularity is where the model breaks down . All physics case to work . Either we get better physics that covers this empty hole of knowledge or we develop a model that doesn’t end up with singularities
Mike Nesmith is really smart
Is the loop still out there somewhere generating new universes?
Universe is always one; multiverse(s) is a misnomer.
I think so. We could speculate how many there are , presumably a potential infinite
Cute. But this time-loop "something from itself" paradox doesn't really evade the "something from nothing" paradox.
Why Did Our Universe Begin? That's a silly question. The beginning is when time was created? I know how the big bang, and expansion work? I think that 'Closer To The Truth' should be renamed 'You Can't Get Much Further From The Truth'.
This ignores what caused the loop.... Philosophically speaking, I think cause and effect may be an emergent property.
physics (especially time) may work so differently back then (in that state) that cause has no meaning.
There's a cheesy old movie from the '60s called "Journey To The Center of Time" that ends with a time loop. Apparently, Gott watched it, too.
Proof science is religion.
Suppose there is a time loop
Suppose there is no beginning.
Even if infinity does not compute
Even if infinity doesn't make sense
.
Infinity does not compute, therefore is not science.
And multiverse theory, as well as multiple universes , are considered infinite, therefore does not belong to science.
It only belongs to science fiction.
.
He says a branch turned back into itself which created the loop. So he is saying there was a time before the loop was created which means the branch expanded FROM the original point, which implies that the original point too had a beginning. So his explanation doesn't really make sense to me.
Asymmetrical timeloop
I. I think he’s saying that there might be a brute fact that something might have always existed . A loop avoids the infinite regress problem.
@@tonyatkinson2210 but if the loop itself had a time before it was a complete enclosed circle, that doesn't really do away with an infinite regress, right? Idk if I'm missing something.
@@andrewrato6086 dunno. I’d have to watch it again but isn’t he arguing the loop a brute fact ? It has no beginning ?
@@tonyatkinson2210 I think he is trying to say that but his reasoning doesn't seem to get away from the problem. I think he is saying the loop is a brute fact but then he also goes on to say how it became a loop. Implying that it wasn't always and the loop still had a starting point before it expanded into what it is now.
Feels like a bit of a fudge, how did the time loop get there?
It came out during the cosmic inflationary period of the universe which, in turn, came out of a dense state.
@@CesarClouds It's obviously paradoxical to say the thing that preceded the universe came from the universe.
It is a logical possibility in GR
@kale wintermute The dense state was not the universe. I watched the video again and Gott is not saying the universe came out of the universe; he's saying our universe maybe one branch to come out during the inflationary period.
Why is it s fudge ? It would eliminate many of the arguments against a naturalist universe
Oh dear...
Um... counterintuitive... and has same problem it seeks to answer... then how did the loop start? Heh. Good analogy though, did our universe begin as a seed?
Your guess is as good as mine......
The explanation didn't address the question of why, it spoke about how. It was Ayn Rand I think who broke knowledge into three categories, the known, the unknown, and the unknowable. But science tells us that there are only two categories of theories, those proven wrong and those that haven't been proven wrong yet. So we're left with what we think we might know something about, what we don't know, and the unknowable. Science does not attempt to address why. That's the provenance of philosophy and because it is unknowable it's all speculation so there can't be any truth to it. What's more the question of whether or not the universe ever had a beginning or not may also be unknowable. Therefore, anyone who says they know is an example of the ultimate hubris of complete ignorance.
You thing philosophy can answer the why ?
@@tonyatkinson2210 NO because IMO there is no answer.
Very nice. But does it have any empirical backing?
Without question.
That's a joke. I would assume
Theoretical possibility
@@RARa12812 Er, no. He has described a possibility (which, BTW, some philosophers have already discussed). We need evidence if we are to believe that it is not just possible but actual.
@@Robinson8491 Yes a possibility ... but is it what actually happened?
That's a pretty cool pot pipe he's got there 👍
If such time loop is inherently built into the universe/s then the universe has no beginning and no end. Then there is no primordial cause, never was, and never will be. Anyway, things start to become paradoxical the further you go, and my ordinary mind will not grasp it. Because the cause becomes its own cause.
There are logical needs and non-logical needs ,if it's later it answers itself.
Agreed on the first sentence. However. There is only the primordial cause. It just that it is not good to be alone (Genesis 2:18) which is why the wisest of all wise Rishis proclaim: "The Meaning of Life is Love".
We know there is spacetime so we can postulate spacetime as a primary, that is his point
So the universe went back in time to create itself. His presentation is nothing more than FUN WITH MATHEMATICS. "This is a loop geometry that is possible in general relativity." This is an idea not worth spending any time on.
Time was created
Why something out of nothing? well, what is wrong is the question itself. The nothingness is a human invention, a concept that seems intuitive to our imperfect brains like many other illusions. Total nothingness is what has no possible existence, as it if exists then there is something. Just ask the question the other way, how do you get total nothingness from something ? that's what is not possible. Nothingness is an impossibility, because everything that can exist by itself will do it. It could be time loops or something else, we just don't know, but what we know is that "something" can do that trick.
Theologists think 'nothing' is a primary, that 'nothing' was before something. I think of 'nothing' as dependent on something. 'Nothing' has meaning only in contradiction to something, and denotes its absence. 'Nothing' is a concept of consciousness, of epistemic use. There is no existential 'nothing' for being to come out of.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 Exactly. Theologist usually solve this question by putting a "God" in there, who created us. But they create a much bigger problem, which is the fact that now you have a God thinking: And who the f. created me? (but apparently that is his problem, not ours )
Just because people use to be Fanatic Fundamentalist Religious FFRs.
The question is legit. The answer not so much. Even Aristotle had a more logical argument.
More evidence that no belief, description, or mode of conscious symbolic thought is capable of capturing reality.
There is no “why”.
Only how.
It's both.
wunskijaną
But if we are the result of entropy, we are living in a simulation.
How does that follow ?
@@tonyatkinson2210 long way back and forth ;) ;)
@@_UnknownEntity sorry ?
The question is where does the stuff of the universe come from. This does not answer that question.
Your question may not have an answer that you might feel comfortable with, meaning there is no place from which everything came. Everything we experience, be it physical or theoretical, comes from something. But this is a property of that which already exists (our universe), so it's hard for us to wrap our minds around the start of a universe that doesn't require such a beginning.
@@thecarman3693 It wasn't my question but a paraphrase of the question posed to Gott. But your claim that the universe does not require a beginning strikes me as entirely baseless.
@@herrrmike I didn't say it didn't have a beginning, I merely said that thinking of its origins in the way we look at origins within the universe may be an inappropriate way of explaining where it came from or how it started. You might wish to look up the terms "quantum foam", "Cassimere effect" or "vacuum genesis" for a start.
Yep she made me a Millionaire, I used to be a Billionaire 😭
Just another guess
It's turtles all the way down!
This sounds like a simplification of something and of course nothing (wich might be the biggest question)
Not exactly provable but causality kinda lines it up to deferred rational perhaps.? Still a better answer than making up another god.! Thinking we humans have made enough of them gods to understand if you can give your God and or its family then you can know for certain that that ain't the god...... When someone comes up with evidence for a God better than myself in every since then I will spell it with a capital "G"....
It may be provable, it certainly hasn't been proved.
Entertainment...
Except he did not answer the causality of the beggings of the universe. He answered one possible theory as to how the universe can loop itself going in the forward direction in time, but not how the original first «trunk» got there
True. He just negated the question
Time is desire and causes all the events. Reality is a combination of three concepts called sat-cit-ānanda, which can be translated as relation, cognition, and emotion.
Or Truth Consciousness/One Bliss.
@@waldwassermann I learned those meanings previously but have since been studying under a śikṣā-guru whose deep, comprehensive, and sweet knowledge compels me to accept his explanations. Sat-cit-ānanda also relates to right, true, and good. Sat and cit have practically exchanged meanings. Context does it. Another set of meanings is sambandha, abhidheya, and prayojana, which means the relationship, the method, and the ultimate goal. In other words, it is realizing oneself as an eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa (sat), acting as His servant (cit), and manifesting pure love for Kṛṣṇa (ānanda). His channel here is called Shabda Media.
sounds like mumbo jumbo. Those things are properties of people, not the universe.
@@tschorsch There are only persons, including the universe. My guru explains this in "The Personification of Knowledge" and "The Implications of Compression and Incompressibility" at Shabda Blog.
But, from where did that little time -loop come?
From where did the Universe come? From itself!!! Totality but not an explanation...
Why not just ask some mystic of sorts. Perhaps give a time traveller a Polaroid camera, let him travel back in time and take a picture or two. Problem solved. Your welcome.
Overcomplicating things, it's seems like science fiction
The timeless Juxtaposition of *Existence* and *Nonexistence* is as far back as one can regress while still adhering to logic. At this stage, neither are conceivable. What broke the conceivability stalemate was Existence counting itself as *1* and Nonexistence as *0.* This represents the emergence of Existence, logic, energy, matter, and everything else that followed.
... Yes, the universe isn't the result of a _"first cause."_ It's the result of a _"first move!"_
Brilliant, absolutely brilliant!!!
Proof science is religion.
Suppose there is a time loop
Suppose there is no beginning.
Even if infinity does not compute
Even if infinity doesn't make sense
.
Infinity does not compute, therefore is not science.
And multiverse theory, as well as multiple universes , are considered infinite, therefore does not belong to science.
It only belongs to science fiction.
.
In other words: Jesus is right! The meaning of Life is Love.
_"Jesus is right!"_
Jesus is a fictional character.
@@twitherspoon8954 not proven . There clearly is evidence that there was a charismatic apocalyptic rabbi with messianic claims wandering around the Middle East about 2k years ago . And that he was named Jesus .
@@tonyatkinson2210
_"There clearly is evidence that there was a charismatic apocalyptic rabbi with messianic claims wandering around the Middle East about 2k years ago."_
So provide the single-best evidence you have to support your assertion.
@@twitherspoon8954 the bible . The fact that within 100 years of his death there were stories about him being written down . The fact that he had followers .
There is no evidence he was god or that of any of the supernatural claims made about him are true . This guy was probably a bit of a magician maybe ?
So there evidence he existed . That’s all I’m saying . Whether there is enough evidence to say for certain that’s difficult to say , but on balance - yeah he probably did exist .
@@tonyatkinson2210 There is clearly evidence that there was multiple charismatic apocalyptic rabbi with messianic claims wandering around the Middle East about 2k years ago. Sorry not one of them was named Jesus as the letter 'j' had not been invented yet.
Does 'Why did the universe begin?' assume that the universe is just another thing in the universe? It seems to me it does.
*"Does 'Why did the universe begin?' assume that the universe is just another thing in the universe? It seems to me it does."*
... With un unfathomably mysterious universe, the human species not knowing why we exist nor where we came from, and with us all not even knowing if our thoughts are ours to have, ... it might be that "Existence" can't even answer that question. Maybe humanity emerged to help "Existence" find the answer to the question?
Isn't that what we do every day?
No, it does not assume that.
'Why' questions have meaning in the context of the universe. That is, one thing in the universe is explained by other things in the universe. So I contend, since the universe is not just another thing in the universe, 'why' questions do not apply to it. To believe that that is a meaningful question is to be fooled by the fact that you have heard and asked those kinds of questions a thousand times before----meaningfully. But the universe is not just another thing in the universe.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 *"So I contend, since the universe is not just another thing in the universe, 'why' questions do not apply to it."*
.... That's your reason? Because the universe is a "collection of all things" and not the individual pieces, then the universe is *automatically exempt* from any "Why?" questions? That's it? I'm sorry, but a set is representative of its set members, so all questions apply to both.
By your thinking, atheists shouldn't be asking theists, "Why is there evil?" because "evil" represents the "set of all evil deeds," and is therefore exempt from any "Why?" questions that the individual evil deeds must face.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC A set called X is a representative of all its members. Is X a member of set X? If it is, then X is just another member of that group and what applies to the members applies to it. If X is not a member of that group, then what applies to the members will not apply to X.
Hahahaha!!
Oh - he was serious? So where did the stuff come from that circled back on itself?
Read about timeloops or closed time, it is a logical possibility in our current physical theories
@@Robinson8491 Sure, but where did the physical stuff come from?
@@ricklanders in the theory it always existed because it's a time-loop
@@tschorsch Right, but time doesn't create matter, does it?
self
So he is saying that the universe started as and is a perpetual motion machine. Talking about time travel is a way to say we do not know what time is. If time had a beginning, when was that beginning? What came before that beginning? Why is it that we are capable of counting time beyond that point based on our current system of timing? If time had a beginning, it would be impossible to count time beyond that point of beginning. If time travel were true or put another way, if time is relative, why is the age of the universe calculated to be 13.8 billion years? Why is it not relative? It shouldn't be 13.8 years across the board. In fact by that concept, the universe has not formed yet! How do the current laws of physics fare under the reversing force of time?
Jugglery without value - we should believe that everything can happen without any begin, without any start.
I don't see this theory gaining any traction. These theories always start with a tiny bit of matter...where did that come from? Itself? X can not create X.
It only assumes spacetime is a real thing and that our current physical laws are correct, that is all
If you asked newton that we would understand the laws of physics to such a degree that a candidate explanation for the universe could begin with just a tiny bit of matter at the beginning , his eyes would out .
And yet you say “yeah, but “
If this pans out - it will be remarkable. the single most impressive scientific advance in our history . “Yeah , but it doesn’t explain everything does it “
you assume that matter had to be created, in these theories, energy always existed (which includes what is now matter). The problem for most people is they think linearly and need to understand before and after which may have no meaning at these levels.
By the way the reason no God currently exists that's better than me is because all gods are made up by mere people as myself....
Nothing wrong with God as long as it is understood that there is only God.
@@waldwassermann how do you know only one god is possible ?
BS
Bollocks!
This is a loopy theory ...
Sorry, I don't buy it not for a second. This is nothing but an argument that he can argue with others of his ilk. It's nerd-on-nerd cosmology. That model would make a pretty cool bong though.
I’m interested in your theory (not opinion). I would like some data to support. I might buy it for a second.
Also, I rather the “nerds” think rather the alternative.
@@hssnjhnsn I'm not a mathematician in any sense, so there's no way I'm going to argue nose-to-nose against any cosmologist. They have the numbers and equations, I guess, to back up their arguments. It's all very much like people arguing the finer points of polo or something equally esoteric. It's doesn't translate to the world everyone else lives in. And, yes in my opinion, it's absolutely incorrect. My theory is that we, meaning everyone, is wrong about it. You, me, the nerds, the eggheads, the religious icons, we've all got it wrong.
Only the bong tells the truth.
@@stevefaure415
Yeah but it’s fun trying to find out .
@@stevefaure415 Your answer is perfect from the beginning to word “argument”. The rest is a bit silly. The bong is probably best for song writing, not black holes, dark matter, gravitational waves, or theories about the beginning of all things based on observations, not barbiturates.
Thanks for the chat. Have great day/night.
It's a hypothesis that they're proposing, they're not even claiming it's theory. In order to advance science, many hypotheses will need to be proposed until the next theory is found. Of course, physicists argue with each other until they come up with evidence to get to theory. That's how discovery works. No one is asking you to buy it.
that answered nothing
What a total nonsense.
Being real. Now that's a rare.
you're comment? True.
🤔…..his “space/time diagram” looks like a multi-user crack pipe 👀
which…wait a minute! 😳
….I think I know where his theories originated.
Oh my…..
We used to change the model to match the physics. Now we change the physics to match the model hence this garbage.
Fail.
Lol
Howcome?
that comment is a fail
And they the nerve to call Jesus an imagination
Jesus is just a lazy imagination.
This imagination has maths to back it up.
Still, probably nonesense.
Jesus has no scientific evidence, the cyclic universe model is a solution to Einsteins field equations, which are very well proved. The cyclic model itself may not be the correct way to go, but it has a lot more evidence to back it up than any imaginary magic like Jesus
Jesus is hardly any better than this. Who created Jesus? God? So who created god? And so on. Religion just conveniently ascribes to god whatever properties it needs to to avoid dealing with any of the niggling questions such a being gives rise to, such as by just defining god as uncreated by pure fiat. Well if you get to conveniently define god as uncreated, we could just as well just define the universe as uncreated by cutting out the god step. Neither makes any more or less sense than the other. As the guy above said, Jesus is a lazy explanation. It's explanation that specifically sets out to shut down as many questions as possible. At least scientific explanations try to avoid such pandering by demanding rigorous logical validity as well as empirical proof to be accepted.
They didn't claim that this is theory yet and there's much better evidence than the abrahamic god and his pointless child. There may have been someone that the mythology of Jesus was written around, but there is no evidence of a supernatural god or a supernatural Jesus existing, Those were almost certainly tales invented around him to fulfill prophecy.
@@tschorsch Satan
This is what happens when you deny God.
What's that?
@@CesarClouds
Wacky mythology about the beginning to attempt to make sense of it
@@deanodebo Thanks.
As we keep telling you - science is limited to methodological naturalism as a foundation .
It’s not s question of “denying god” , it’s just that supernatural causes cannot be a part of any scientific theory .
There is nothing in this hypothesis that denies a god isn’t possible.
@@tonyatkinson2210
The point is the beginning becomes an imaginary story with zero scientific basis. It’s a synthesis from the mathematical models of relativity. There’s no hope for experiments or prediction - so why categorize this as science?
Time loop geometry! Seems like mere sophistry to me, why don't we just admit that we do not know and may, probably will never truly understand, and the religious explanation is as plausible as anything science has to offer.
That’s fine . Science of offering naturalistic candidate explanations . But it isn’t saying this is *the* explanation and it cannot rule out supernatural explanations
Religions on the other hand demand that their explanation is *the* explanation . And offer eternal reward for accepting it.
Big difference.
Also I’d argue - no religion truly offers a real explanation. They never explain how god did it
It’s makes no sense on a infinite scale the universe is a collection of pipes . That’s a bad way to visuslqine it