What existed before the big bang? Something must have!

[s.hawkins]

Again, that only increases the size of the problem, it does not solve it. Instead of explaining where a universe comes from, you're now trying to explain where a multiverse comes from.

 

because we are born live and die, we tend to think everything does. the universe has always existed. as it exists outside the concept of time.

[IamChiChi]

We can still detect the echoes of it, in the form of microwave radiation. That's fairly conclusive evidence that there was; conclusive enough, indeed, to convert almost the entire body of physicists who until then had considered the idea a silly one.

 

That doesn't make it true. In 100 years time, scientists may indeed be laughing at our claims of a big bag as idiotic.

[danot]

Reduction ad absurdum - assuming a statement to be true, showing that it leads to a contradiction, and proving that the statement is therefore false.

 

 

Let's assume that "nothing can exist unless something else first caused it."

 

Let's call the Big Bang, event number one (we're going to count in reverse, because it makes the argument easier to follow).

Whatever it was that caused the Big Bang, then, is event number two.

Event number two must have had a cause, and that cause must be event number three.

Event #3 is caused by Event #4.

Event #4 is caused by Event #5 ...

 

...this list can only go in one of two ways. Either it is infinitely long and doesn't have an end at all, in which case, there is no "ultimate cause" because every event always has a preceding event. If this is so, then the initial assumption, that everything must have a cause, is false; because the fact that there's an infinite list of events, does not have a cause.

Or, it comes to an end, in which case, event number forty-seven-trillion-five-thousand-and-six did not have a cause.

 

In either case, the initial assumption, that nothing can ever exist unless it was caused, must be false. It's an uncomfortable conclusion because human experience says that events must have causes, but the logic is completely irrefutable. It simply is not possible for everything to have been caused by something else. We therefore conclude that the Universe does not behave in ways that are comprehensible to humans.

 

So, what was the initial event that had no cause? We might as well assume that the Big Bang was it, since it is the simplest available conclusion.

Having taken another look at the two examples you provided to better explain where the contradictions in my question lie, I'm now left with a niggling feeling that something's not quite right with them.

 

Firstly, I completely understand the reasoning behind the first example; it clearly identifies a paradox due to the need for there to be a cause for every given instance, which obviously challenges the very idea of there ever being a beginning.

 

Having said this, I'm not entirely sure that that in itself would be enough to warrant a complete dismissal of the idea being actually possible. After all, up untill recently, the chicken and the egg have presented us with the very same quandary, so why didn't we accept that either the egg or the chicken just appeared in a puff of smoke?

 

The second example that you used is more peculiar.

 

Before you began to explain the principles behind your examples, you claimed that you could better support your argument and expose the flaws if you presented the process of the big bang in reverse order. You then described the process, in reverse, then claimed that if the universe was destined to end at some point, then the final event would have no cause. But as far as I can see, the only reason it would have no cause in your example, is because you're preceding the actual event because you've reversing the process of things. Whereas if you had not reversed the process of the big bang, the cause would be evident... does that make sense?

[danot]

What do you mean by 'the concept behind the big bang theory raises the question'?

 

If the question is a variation on 'what is space contained in' then it could well be a category mistake.

Not really, because asking the question is warranted.

 

Whereas If it could be proven that matter doesn't require space to expand, then my reason for asking the question would be a needless one, which would indeed make it a category mistake.

[danot]

 

think multiverse, if we live in a bubble (the universe) we are surronded by an unlimited never ending ammount of other bubbles (other universes) prior to the creation of the bubble, space and time does not exist.

You're merely repeating the common theory.. which is flawed.

[danot]

because we are born live and die, we tend to think everything does. the universe has always existed. as it exists outside the concept of time.

It isn't logical for it to have always existed.

[s.hawkins]

It isn't logical for it to have always existed.

 

its a hard concept to grasp, but if you exist out of time, you have always existed.

[danot]

its a hard concept to grasp, but if you exist out of time, you have always existed.

Nothing can have always existed. everything that is, must have at some point become what it is.

[Obelix]

Not really, because asking the question is warranted.

 

Whereas If it could be proven that matter doesn't require space to expand, then my reason for asking the question would be a needless one, which would indeed make it a category mistake.

 

Because although space does expand it does not need space to expand into.

 

It's difficult to explain with an earth bound analogy but image the surface of a baloon as a 2D representation. As the baloon inflates the "space" ie the surface area of the baloon expands and gets bigger. BUT there is not more being added to the baloon - there is no creation of more rubber - yet the surface is getting larger. This is similar in concept to how the Universe is expanding.

[onewheeldave]

Not really, because asking the question is warranted.

 

Whereas If it could be proven that matter doesn't require space to expand, then my reason for asking the question would be a needless one, which would indeed make it a category mistake.

 

If the question is 'what contains space?' then it's a nonsense question- akin to asking 'is bigness big?'

 

'bigness' itself has no size- it's not in that category of entities that possess size- similarly 'space' is not in that category of things that are contained in space.

 

With the proviso that, in some models, one space can be represented as existing within a different form of space.

 

For example, it could make sense to theorise that a space is contained within a space of a higher dimension (this is the premise of the various 'flatland' analogies popular in cosmology to explain how a 3D space can be finite in size, yet lack any boundaries, by using the analogy of a 2D plane curved into a sphere in a higher (3D) space).

 

But, if you're making the claim that every space, by logical necessity, must be contained in a further space, then you're on dodgy ground, because, ultimately, that leads to an infinite heirachy of higher spaces.

 

There has to be some point at which a space simply is- i.e not 'contained' in anything.

 

On that view, space, not only does not require a higher space to contain it, but, cannot be contained, as it is part of the category of things that do not occupy space.

 

For example, to ask where in space is 'redness'- or what contains 'redness' is a category mistake. Similarly, to ask what contains 'space' is a category mistake (unless of course, as above, you're working on a model in which a particular space is contained in a higher dimensional space, or within a different category of space, but, even then, you're simply putting off the inevitable, because, at some point, you're going to have to end in a space which is 'uncontained').