God exists as per the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)

Hi cavediver, I have a few questions if you don't mind. I hope they make sense. With these 3 different constants, would that give 3 different models of how spacetime is expanding do to the original amount of vacuum density?In a past thread you said "The dark energy component could well decrease with expansion, such that gravitational attraction once again dominates, and the Universe could well collapse (given sufficient density.)" source - message 26. Does the possible decrease in expantion have to do with the 3 different CC?Do the different CC determine the fate of the universe?Can we be in a universe that has an infinite beginning but a finite end?- Oni

If the Hawking/Hartle no boundary model turns out to be wrong, would the model that ends up being correct still have to solve the indefiniteness of the singularity? - Removing the need for a cause to the universe, no matter what?- Oni

Hi ICANT, You're problem is in the "requires the universe to have a beginning" There's no a priori requirement. You are introducing this requirement because you are misunderstand what GR is saying about the early conditions and do not understand the current big bang model(s).I refer you back to cavediver's Message 68, Message 74 and Message 88.Specifically This:

quote:

---

Everything we have ever thought of as a "begins to exist" is merely a change or shifting of form, whether at the level of mineral, chemical, atomic, sub-atomic, or field. This includes the much mentioned virtual-particles/pair-creation. The only thing that "begins to exist" is our terminology for the new form.

---

and this:

quote:

---

Ever since SR and Minkowski, we have known that our Universe is based upon a four dimensional space, with a non-definite metric: one of the four dimensions appears with opposite sign to the other three in the space-time metric - usually this is the t-time dimension. This indefiniteness introduces a causal structure to space-time. Space-time "evolves" from past to future, always obeying causality: point p can only be affected by events in p's past light-cone and point p can only affect events in p's future light-cone.

​

In a infinite past space-time, there are always past light cones, and no first cause external to the space-time is required.

---

- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Hi ICANT, I guess your coming to that conclusion from this statment:

quote:

---

Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.

---

He follows with this statement:

quote:

---

The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down.

---

[Emphasis added by me]Remember, what is being discussed is dimensional space plus dimensional time. But that's not to say that it was the beginning of everything, as you are calling it.Furthermore, the break down of GR doesn't say anything, rather it says nothing about the small scales/distances, which means that nothing can be described at the singularity using the classic theory.Hawkings says:

quote:

---

We know that General Relativity can not be quite correct on very small distances, because it is a classical theory. This means, it doesn't take into account, the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics, which says that an object can not have both a well defined position, and a well defined speed: the more accurately one measures the position, the less accurately one can measure the speed, and vice versa. Therefore, to understand the very high-density stage, when the universe was very small, one needs a quantum theory of gravity, which will combine General Relativity with the Uncertainty Principle.

---

I don't see what is different. Even if the Hawking 'no boundary' theory is right, it doesn't change the standard model of the BBT. I think this may be where your misunderstanding.Hawkings says:

quote:

---

This is that the classical theory, does not enable one to calculate what would come out of a singularity, because all the Laws of Physics would break down there. This would mean that science could not predict how the universe would have begun. Instead, one would have to appeal to an agency outside the universe. This may be why many religious leaders, were ready to accept the Big Bang, and the singularity theorems.

---

However, we follows with:

quote:

---

If space and imaginary time are indeed like the surface of the Earth, there wouldn't be any singularities in the imaginary time direction, at which the laws of physics would break down. And there wouldn't be any boundaries, to the imaginary time space-time, just as there aren't any boundaries to the surface of the Earth. This absence of boundaries means that the laws of physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time. But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe.

---

I think you may have confused what I meant. The universe, as in 4D spacetime, expanded from the BB singularity 15Bya. The universe cannot be described in any other form.I hope this clears it up a bit for you.- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

Not necessarily. (I'll attempt to explain. Cave for my own understanding can you correct where I've made a mistake, please?)The singularity is described as having infinite curvature, which means that no point is bound. Here is where he (Hawking) uses the analogy of the Earth - a complete circle that is unbound. It is also small, beyond Plank scale small, which means that it has no forward or backward time dimention (this is known from QFT), thus he uses imaginary time to establish a moment where the expansion "began."Once the universe breaks symmetry, (which is what cavediver was refering to when he said "a change or shifting of form, whether at the level of mineral, chemical, atomic, sub-atomic, or field") we begin to have spacial dimensions, and thus time, as we describe it in the foward direction, also "begins." But it "begins" as a dimension and does not exist in the foward direction before the expansion. So refering to a time before the expansion is nonsensical.This is what Hawking means when he says:

quote:

---

So real time would still have a beginning.

---

Real time is in reference to the foward directional time that begins once the expasion begins. Prior to that there is no spacial dimension and thus no forward time dimension that can be refered to as beginning.I hope I explained it right.- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

And thus we get to the crux of the matter. Before the expansion there is NO forward or backward time dimension that can be a starting point. He states that real time had a beginning. In other words, the forward time dimension that we all experience began once the expasion began. That is what he means by time began. The inflationary period has nothing to do with spacetime beginning. It refers to something that had to take place after the BB to explain the homogenous tempurature we observe in the universe. But how can you have a cause when there is no foraward/backward time dimension?The whole point is that you are sticking to the human concept of foward/backward time, that within that concept has a property of "beginning" and "end." However, without any spacial dimension this time concept does not exist. Therefore there is no "beginning" and "end" property that can be ascribed to it. Thus no need for cause, because "cause" is a property of forward/backward time, and no "beginning" to anything before the expasion.- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

Let's not get philosophical about this and confuse the issue completely.Real time, as Hawking mentions, is in reference to the forward time the you experience. This time we experience is a property of the spacial dimensions that we also experience. From that we can understand that without any spacial dimensions, forward time that you experience cannot exist, since it is a property of the spacial dimensions. That is why it is refered to as spacetime.Without losing focus on what the above is implying about time being a property of space, lets answer this: If we start to work our way back from now, back to 15 By ago, our spacial dimensions are described in terms of smooth curved space - using GR to describe the geometry of these curved spacial dimensions. However, if we continue working our way backwards, we reach a point so small were there are no more spacial dimensions that can be described by GR; general relativity breaks down. Since, as explained in the above paragraph, we know that time is a property of space, if there are no spacial dimensions there is no time dimension, either.Therefore, before the expasion, when there are no spacial dimensions, time in the forward direction that we experience, does not exist. So no point in time for a beginning can be assigned. The BB is the moment of expasion and thus is refered to as the "beginning" of space and the "beginning" of the forward time (or real time, as Hawking refers to it) that we experience, that carries with it the properties of "beginning" and "end."The expasion, (the BB), is a change from one state to another, called spontaneous symmetry breaking. Thus the BB is not the "beginning" of everything. It is only the beginning of our 3 dimension space, and because we know that time is a property of space, it is also refered to as the "beginning" of time, but time as in the forward time that we experience. What Hawking called real time.There is also no need for an outside cause to this expasion since it is the break in symmetry from one state to the other. The state being refered to pre-expasion, or pre-BB, is ultramicroscopic (Plank's length) and obeys the laws of QM, which incorporates the uncertainty principle, and thus the notion of left-right, front-back, up-down and before and after lose all their meaning, as we experience them.I hope I have explained it the right way. Cave?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

Then you are not talking about anything in cosmology, described by Hawking or otherwise, or anything related to any theory that describes our universe.I do not know what "time as a temporal segment for the benefit of man" means. I thought this discussion was about the BBT, and time as described by cosmology. If you are going to intoduce a relgious definition then this is no longer a scientific discussion. No, it is not, at all, and you have not understood what time as a dimension means. I can understand cavedivers frustration. You don't seem to read to understand and ask questions accordingly, you just seem eager to prove something about your belief by picking and choosing certain scientific terminologies that you think you understand. ICANT, please try to understand. If it refers to a moment when it "began," then it has everything to do with time in the forward direction that we all experience. These are just religious wordings that describe absolutely nothing about reality.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

Now you're going to start acting like a dick when all I'm trying to do is help? Wtf, dude? What does that mean? There is observational evidence for everything I have stated, just ask me to show you proof for specific things and I will. I just don't know what you're grasping or not, so I don't know what you need help with. I explained it. The 3 dimensional universe that we are in was caused by the break in symmetry from it's quantum state, which lead to the expasion of space and the introduction of time, as we experience it.I wrote this in the post you quoted. I thought your next question would be, what caused the symmetry to break? Which would have meant that you at least read and understood what was being explained. The 3-dimensional universe that we are in did begin to exist, it expanded from a quantum state. Quantum states are too small to have describable spacial dimensions, and thus is not a universe by any known description. However, to change from it's quantum state to the dimensional space described by GR, it did not need an outside causal agent, as I described it, spontaneous symmetry breaking. This is a reslut of quantum fluctuations when compressed to ultamicroscopic scales (sort of, but in greater detail). Ok, I'll bite. In what form? Describe it in the same way that it is described today, using dimensions. Are you saying that the universe existed without any dimensions? How can it be a universe if it has no dimensions?- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

You have not understood what "imaginary time" means, how can you use it to represent anything. Let alone a meangless thing like 'eternity'. You could have equally said "my eternity is equivilant to super duper time," it would have meant the exact same thing.Put it this way, if eternity is the same as imaginary time then 'eternity' doesn't exist, it represents absolutely nothing in reality. What!? I'm not even going to ask... No, this is wrong. Very wrong, but too wrong to explain again. Very good. That actually makes sense. It was billions of years before man saw the universe, too. Don't see anything to disagree with. Define "exist," give it a physcial property, a dimension. Explain what the 'anything' is refering to, just pick something, anything you want at random. And define where it will be existing in. That way I'll know if the laws of physcis apply or not.You can't just ask that without some description of the surrounding space it'll be existing in. If by universe you mean the 3-dimensional space we exist in, yes. If by time you are refering to the 1-dimensional, forward time that we experience, yes.- Oni

ICANT, do you understand that your "something" in that question is relevant to the "what can begin without a cause" question?If you're talking about day to day stuff, turning on a car, making a cake, breaking a window, yes, the laws of physics apply. A watch doesn't come into existance without someone making it. We get it.But this discussion is about the universe, so your blanket question doesn't apply in the general sense that you are asking it.It should ask, can the laws of physics arise from a non-dimensional, point?It isn't just, can something begin that doesn't need a cause? Because at that point we can begin the process of going back to see when the first something came from nothing; but we can't cause it needs a cause, so what caused it. This covers god as well. Who made god, and so forth. Infinite regression that you happen to stop at god, because due to a huge misunderstanding you feel it's the same as Hawking's imaginary time.So ask the question properly. Can the laws of the universe arise from a non-dimensional point that has no time dimension?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

This to me sums up the reason your question makes absolutely no sense. You want me to tell you how "something" that you can't describe, can't even imagine, you don't even know what it is, can begin to exist? ICANT, what do you want me to describe to you that is coming into existance? How do you not understand that this makes your question nonsensical?I started talking to you about this by simply refering you to one of cavedivers early post that reveal the nonsense in the question right off the bat. And we come back to it again: Message 68

quote:

---

We have yet to experience anything that "begins to exist" so to claim that all things A such that A "begins to exist", implies A "has a cause for its existence" is simply making propositions about fairies' wings.

​

Everything we have ever thought of as a "begins to exist" is merely a change or shifting of form, whether at the level of mineral, chemical, atomic, sub-atomic, or field. This includes the much mentioned virtual-particles/pair-creation. The only thing that "begins to exist" is our terminology for the new form.

---

- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

Describe this universe, the one that has always existed. Describe it physcially, what does it look like? Does it have dimensions, how many, does it have a time dimension? If it doesn't have any of these then what does it look like? Is it in a quantum state? Describe this state.Give me something, anything, anything at all to describe this universe that has always existed. Since you don't understand the concept of what 3-dimensional space means, how it is described in relativity, what hapens at Plank length, there is no reason to answer this...again. Re-read all of the past post, the answers are there. How can you seriously make statements like these having had these conversations for over 2 years now?"Something supplying the materials?" - Supplying them from where? And, begin to exist where?Your questions make no sense. A quantum state, from which our 3-dimensional state changed from, are not describable in spacial dimensions that we recognize. This is the problem; there is no "where" in QM.When we use the term "where" we are describeing a point in space and time. More specifically, we are describing a 3-dimensional space at a point in 1-dimensional forward time.Quantum states do not exibit these dimensional properties, ergo there is no "where." Remember I stated in the other post, the concepts of - forward/backward, up/down, left/right, before/after - have no meaning. It exists, but not in any way that would make sense to us. (NOw calm down before you say "Ahah, that's what I meant by always existing"). It is not existance as we understand it, it has no time dimension that has forward progression, it is as close to nothing as we can possibly describe, but yet itstill IS.To go from this quantum state that I just described, to the 3-dimensional universe with the time property, is what I was explaining to you by spontaneous symmetry breaking. There is no NEED for an outside agent to cause anything to happen, it is a natural function of this qunatum state to break symmetry. NO CAUSE NEEDED. 'No one' will answer 'this' because it makes absolutely 'no sense'. And 'you' don't seem to want to 'understand' why it's 'nonsense'.- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

You are not making sense, ICANT. It may be best for you to read this stuff and try to understand it before you try to present an argument against it.The universe IS space and time. The universe IS existance. It makes no sense to point to a moment in time where there is no universe, since time is a property of the universe. The 2 cannot exist independent of the other.If there is no spacial dimension or time dimension there can't be a "where" for something to exist in. FFS ICANT, if you have the "absence of anything" you don't have a self sustaining UNIVERSE because to describe it as a universe gives it SPACIAL PROPERTIES. Nor can you point to a time at any point in history where there is an "absence of anything," the universe IS. Lets see if you can see where you're misunderstanding, what is the BBT describing? The beginning of our universe, right? How many spacial dimensions does our universe have? 3, right?So if the universe has 3 spacial dimensions, it can be said that the BB is the beginning of 3 dimensional space, right?A property of 3 spacial dimensions is forward (real) time, right?SO, if we can say that the BB is the beginning of 3 spacial dimensions, AND, forward time as we experience is a property of the 3 spacial dimensions, it can be said that the BB is the beginning of 3 spacial dimensions (space/universe) and forward time.That is what is meant by the "beginning" of space and time - the beginning of 3 space/1 time - in the BBT.Have you understood that so far? If you mean the universe, do you mean that 3-dimensional space begins to exist due to some unknown cause?Is this cause outside of space and time? Where would it be then?Can this cause, since it doesn't rely on spacial dimensions or time, exist in a quantum field? It's a religous term that is meaningless.If you're saying that the universe is eternal in some form, then describe that form. The universe that we exist in with 3-dimensional space is finite, it has a beginning. It existed in a quantum state before that, that is undescribable, yet. But it is not defined as a UNIVERSE.So what are you saying is eternal, the universe, the 3-dimensional universe? Or simply the quantum state from which the universe emerged from?If it's the quantum state, then that is not the universe, so you can't continue to say "the universe has always existed in some form." There is the universe described by GR, then there is a quantum state described by QM. The transion between the 2 is known as the BB. The transition is the birth of our 3-dimensional universe, thus the beginning of space and time. Is there any reason why you believe this transition from one form to the other needs a cause outside of itself?If I can explain how it happens naturally will you see no reason to invoke any need for a causal agent? Roughly translated you are describing a quantum state. Is that what you're saying is eternal, some kind of quantum state? Note: this quantum state cannot be refered to as "the universe" because the universe has dimensional space, the quantum state does not.Is that what you're describing as being eternal, the quantum state from which the universe emerged?- Oni

Explain.- Oni