Roger Penrose - Did the Universe Begin?

Free access Closer to Truth's library of 5,000+ videos for free: bit.ly/376lkKN
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?
Watch more videos on cosmic beginnings: shorturl.at/pzAW4
Support the show with Closer To Truth merch from our Bonfire store: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Sir Roger Penrose is an English mathematical physicist, recreational mathematician and philosopher. He is the Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute of the University of Oxford, as well as an Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College.
Subscribe to the Closer To Truth podcast with new episodes every week: 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.

[@andrewmasterman2034]

Of all the truly commendable academics and philosophers that this channel has introduced me to, sir Roger strikes me as the most effective in the sense that he appears to stringently uphold the values and requirements of good science whilst also allowing himself to extend the reaches of what he’s willing to postulate.

[@SamoaVsEverybody814]

Which is exactly what Einstein described as good science; going to the outer reaches of what's known, then extending it a touch further (paraphrasing)

[@falsificationism]

concur

[@siegfriedvaz]

"Beginning" is a concept intrinsic to the time factor.

[@andrewmasterman2034]

Yup, as is the conecept of an end or any measurable point in between.

[@nickb220]

indubitably

[@kidmohair8151]

whose idea was it to employ the sea sick camera?

[@OutHereOnTheFlats]

its terrible - i couldn't😮 watch - just had to listen

[@smokie01uk]

I got a minute into the video n had to stop. Only here to search for other comments that noticed to 😂😂

[@KamramBehzad]

Hmmm. Did not notice it until you pointed it out. Interesting.

[@kidmohair8151]

@@KamramBehzad maybe it's an age specific thing. I'm old.

[@SamoaVsEverybody814]

Sir Roger talking about discussing the Steady State Model with his mates at University feels like a time capsule 😂

[@leeofallon9258]

The JWT forces us to appreciate how little we know about that which we love to speculate endlessly ...

[@taniasara7558]

Thank you very much for the video. "Wonderful reality" so far ❤❤

[@donaldkasper8346]

Really? I feel like a WWII prisoner of war in Germany, lined up against a wall and machine gunned with infinity declarations to explain everything. All of his collapses of logic come from that use. For example, nothing means no mass and no energy and no other particle existence, so how does nothing become something? This proposes for example that nothing is unstable. Then he adds that existence is unstable. Well okay, make something from nothing in a lab and then turn it back into nothing if this is the case. Second, cycling existence does not answer how the first existence from nothing got here. Einsteins relativity says a particle in motion is energy, and so it would have a frequency, but a mass at rest doesn't. So his equivalences were false. Lastly, how motion exists is not explained by such a model. Motion relates to time, not mass. We grab masses to study motion to get units of time, but time is motion, not mass.

[@r2c3]

when searching the space for galaxies and stars we are actually seeing only the galactic structures that have existed during the time segment (temporal frame) that matches our distance from them... we can't observe younger or older star structures beyond that window of possibility... so, what we see in the most remote corners of the universe is not the complete picture but rather one segment of existence during which light has traveled and has reached us in the present... also, recently universe is thought to have diferent rates of expansion in different directions 🤔

[@amraly9640]

Please don't write about science again. What the hell? !!! 😂😂 All what you just said is that we are looking into the past.

[@r2c3]

@@amraly9640 not exactly... you have to use your own understanding more often... what I'm saying is that watching a video of your own birthday party, says nothing about how you were born and what caused you to sing your favorite song... that's all...

[@NafeDev-yo4lo]

We are humans with only 5 senses which we evolved to give us the best chance of survival and reproduction, but not to understand all aspects of the reality we exist in. We can only create tools that allow us to use these 5 primitive senses. Who knows how many things we can't observe and are off limits to us?

[@r2c3]

@@NafeDev-yo4lo that's exactly the point...

[@brianwilson7624]

People are not thinking about the problem correctly. The question is: Is the natural state of the universe "something" or "nothing". And to that I think we can say with 100% certainty that we've really never had any good evidence for nothing. Even if you did assume time began at the big bang that means the variables that allow for time to come into existence existed and however material or immaterial those variables are - They are not nothing if they are required for everything.

[@willdoe7681]

Exactly. Or to elaborate. Nothing can emerge from nothing because nothing has nothing to act upon. We exist therefore existence is the default state. What is always was and always will be in one form or another.

[@NafeDev-yo4lo]

​@@willdoe7681 We're eternal beings. The matter that makes up our existence has no beginning and no end. There's something poetic about that.

[@por4atko]

We only wish that was the case. In truth science knows with a pretty big certainty that we come from nothing and that we’re a cosmic throw of the dice that never should have happened. Before the Big Bang the universe was nothing - a field of quantum possibilities never to come into manifestation as they don’t have anything to interact with - all of them all in superpositions all at once. However since it is a field of infinite possibilities one of those is that two particles could collide in a superposition. That is the Big Bang, matter manifested. We’re born from the eternal abyss and we’re heading straight back to it as the universe cools down and collapses onto itself. Just an eternal void with nothing ever happening ever again.

[@ngcastronerd4791]

​@@NafeDev-yo4loyou could say the energy is eternal... possibly. Not the matter. We can trace back the creation of the elements that make up your body

[@user-hu6rr1gc7u]

The universe is a creation and hence only exists if the forces holding it in place continue. That is a thought. It is not reality the place where we exist always.

[@peep39]

My favorite modern scientific mind

[@cole141000]

Two people I watch every time they come on no matter what… Roger Penrose and Paul Davies

[@Wishyouwerehere435]

Thank you Robert for dumbing this fascinating stuff down a bit. Wow.

[@drbonesshow1]

Wish you weren't here.

[@personanongrata6249]

That first paragraph of that famous book. Just keeps getting more & more curious to me.

[@CameraNostalgiaClub]

How does it go?

[@HarryNicNicholas]

i'm not sure if aeons is correct, but it does solve a lot of problems, and i don't see anything wrong with saying that at "the end of time" the universe, although expanded to some kind of maximum, has no size. sir roger says that as only photons are left, they travel at the speed of light, from a photons point of view it's existence take no time, and the distance it travels is meaningless because it takes no time, and so, even if the universe is now infinity big, size is meaningless, it is also infinitely small, and we have conditions for a (another) big bang.

[@topotheleague]

Keep the camera still! I feel nauseous.

[@peaceonearth351]

I see the eternal creation structured in the Mandelbrot Theory.

[@metaldisciple]

Yes

[@glacieractivity]

Thank you for providing the correct answer.

[@lordemed1]

Sir Roger is right on. He is The Man.

[@alexbrown1170]

Please ask Penrose if the fine structure constant is the remnant of a former Aeon that , with time , form a basis for proof for his theory. Thanks😊

[@vladimirarnost8020]

How does one take the whole universe and 'just' transform it into its reciprocal? 1/Universe = BigBang? What's the physical process allowing it to happen? Mindboggling... Definitely food for thought.

[@jago76]

It's the old philosophical question of the "First Cause". At this point, it's clearly beyond human understanding.

[@Bobalicious]

'First Cause' seems to me a problem for a child's mind.

[@jago76]

Read a littke pholosophy, if you have an open mind. Otherwise, gfoodbye.@@Bobalicious

[@genghisthegreat2034]

@@Bobalicious and yet great philosophers have debated that question, and thought deeply upon it, despite no longer being adequately equipped with a child's mind.

[@tonyatkinson2210]

So far … we may one day discover it

[@PeterS123101]

The alternative is a universe with a infinite past.

[@PurnamadaPurnamidam]

The ΛCDM model assumes that general relativity is the correct theory of gravity on cosmological scales. It can be extended by incorporating other areas of speculation and research in cosmology, such as cosmological inflation and quintessence

[@JonDisnard]

Eons between black holes merging, and when they merge another eon happens within. The big bang is not a bang, but an implosion, which is really just a hyper sphere twisting and rotating.

[@ZigoMix]

Mass and frequency are equivalents ! Sounds delicious !

[@inregionecaecorum]

But considering that ideas of beginning and ending are human constructs, what if the end of the current universe is its own beginning, an enclosed cycle?

[@Starship_X]

When was this recorded? 7 days ago or 12 years ago?

[@huhuruz77]

12 years ago, all videos are very old.

[@robmccaw9956]

As difficult as it is for minds that have a beginning and an end to comprehend the reality is that something must have had no beginning, and presumably no end, otherwise it is just a series of Russian dolls that STILL must have had either no beginning or else appeared out of nothing and is then into nothing.

[@abhisheksing8379]

You are so right! Perhaps the answer lies in the concepts like infinity and eternity (which is infinity in the context of time). We just can't comprehend infinity. For our minds, it is just a mathematical, theoretical concept.

[@iamfunnyipromise9605]

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” - Alexander Vilenkin I agree with you, but according to the scientific data we have (as Vilenkin said), the universe has not been here forever, it had a beginning and will most probably have an end. We know that something cannot come into existence without a cause, right? Nothing produces nothing. So, something else, something different than the universe must have caused it into existence and that entity must itself be eternal, without beginning and end, as you stated.

[@KamramBehzad]

Just happy to be alive and watching this discussion. I do believe that existence is eternal and has no need for a creator.

[@mavelous1763]

I’m always amazed that even nonbelievers refer to a creator, and not the potential for creators…… thus polytheism. It’s just as plausible as monotheism

[@TerryUniGeezerPeterson]

"Dark matter/energy is likely just black holes, which some cosmologists estimate, outnumber visible stars, galaxies, etc.

[@tubalcain1039]

In the 1930s , Fritz Zwicky said that the regularity of the Coma cluster of galaxies,if brought about by gravitational relaxation,must be much, much older than the current values usually given.Chandrasekhar pioneered gravitational relaxation in 1943. It was James Clerk Maxwell who first addressed the concept of relaxation of non-equilibrium systems.

[@mavelous1763]

Maxwell was a smart cookie. VERY smart

[@user-pe8gm3ht9p]

O Divine Architect of the Cosmos, In the vastness of Your universe, we find a sacred seed, A genesis that mirrors the Tree of Life in its boundless grace. We stand in awe of the cosmic tapestry You have woven, Where science and scripture intertwine in a dance of divine revelation. We thank You for the knowledge that sprouts from this celestial seed, For the wisdom that grows like branches reaching towards the heavens. May we pursue understanding with the humility of those who came before, Acknowledging our place in the grand design of Your creation. Guide us in our quest to decode the mysteries of the stars, To comprehend the laws that govern the ballet of celestial bodies. Let the pursuit of truth be our holy communion, And the discoveries we make, a hymn of praise to Your name. Bless us with the insight to see Your hand in every atom, And the discernment to weave integrity into our scholarly endeavors. May the unity of knowledge and belief be our guiding star, Leading us to a deeper appreciation of the symphony of existence. Amen.

[@11-AisexualsforGod-11]

0.. static.. or a roar as in unrefined words or forms.. The primordial mud at the bottom of a pond which the lilly seeks to rise above

[@11-AisexualsforGod-11]

The indeterminate as I guess was known to to the Platonists

[@emergentform1188]

love it

[@SuperChickenBurgers]

I am struggling to find when he says *how* things change from massless infinite expansion to a compact 'big bang' into the next aeon

[@KamramBehzad]

I see it as a fractal.

[@mavelous1763]

He explained it in reference to equations that justify it. No mass, no ‘time’, size is irrelevant……funky stuff happens

[@SuperChickenBurgers]

@@mavelous1763 That makes sense now actually. Since space and time are linked, if there is no time then there is no space.

[@DrakeLarson-js9px]

Paul Steinhardt wrote an interesting alternative book, "Endless Universe" counter to the BigBang...we are all more naive than we would like to admit... (human nature)....Roger has a wonderful 'British Style' which makes his Planck's and Einstein's and other current definitions of meters, time, etc. are very informative for physics majors....

[@3D-PHASE]

Don't know what is more blowing my mind; eternity - or aiming that all had a beginning and an end. I think Eternity. Especially when going far.......................

[@HarryNicNicholas]

i don't see a date for when this was recorded, i don't think this is recent is it?

[@ansleyrubarb8672]

...Each and everyone of Man, are Special, having different fingerprints, even Identical Twins. How marvelous, respectfully, Chuck...captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings... . .

[@ZigoMix]

I had this short-thunk theory, 'round 25 years back, about cyclicity - I swear Its not me who started this, I'm sure we can find somebody who'd have thunk it long before I did - which cycles ended with some ultimate being(s) writing some kind of deterministic information into the ending world to try and nudge the next iteration as they would see appropriate, necessary,... - I don't know what can be the adjective at that stage. My friend typically responded, as any Fire sign would, that he'd want to be that being ! Personally (I am a Libra) I feel like I'd appreciate more the opportunity to look back at the whole thing and see what's what from that point, rather then to try at the changing of things, though, maybe, the sight might motivate me to somehow do something about something, but that's just rhetoric, hey, that'll never be "me", my will come long before that !

[@kratomseeker5258]

this is my favourite scientist. i also think the same way he does.

[@Dan-zq5wt]

After this video I went back and derived the equations - watch out for sign errors - and Sir Penrose is right! It makes a heckuva a lot of sense!

[@rocknrolladube]

I don’t think time is a fundamental dimension. You don’t need it as an input if you model differently.

[@leonardgibney2997]

I wonder what Professor Penrose makes of an experiment conducted by the BBC science unit some years ago in which they used the microwave background radiation to see whether the universe is unbounded or bounded in the four dimensions. The result was indeed a cosmos unbounded in the three dimensions of space and one of time. It did not begin and has no edge they said. Werner Heisenberg said once "the Universe isn't as strange as we can imagine but it is far stranger than we can imagine".

[@cahlendavidson2921]

I've been doing a ton of video editing over the last year. This isn't a criticism it's just a, huh? Why did you blur the first 10 seconds of the video? Because he used the word focus? 🤔

[@jeromehorwitz2460]

There is no sign that reality has any ultimate beginning. Beginnings and endings are literary devices only, stories are just the way we describe reality to ourselves. Time is not an underlying grid against which we can judge everything, reality extends beyond it.

[@falkomatzler271]

It's hard to picture a time *before* when in the supposed infinite mass of singularity time was practically not moving. So no *before*, only an ever evolving, accelerating *after*. Is this a legitimate assumption?

[@walterfristoe4643]

So, the entire sequence of aeons is kind of like "punctuated equilibrium." 🤔

[@scrimmo]

This man is a God who walks among us. We are lucky as a species to have such a wonderful mind share itself with everyone.

[@tubalcain1039]

Maybe the Universe is divided into parts that started at separate times. What is the 'universe' exactly?

[@deaner6944]

What an amazing person. Thx so much for explaining :) Infinity hmm :)

[@ciarandevine8490]

No big bang, no start, no finish. Universes are constantly passing through each other occasionally causing another Universes and all in the eternal moment of NOW. In this single moment there are infinite dimensions giving the illusion of linear time. 💥

[@mavelous1763]

Infinite dimensions? They can’t even prove more than 4, thus string theory problems

[@Michael_X313]

What is the nature of a point?

[@DarkSkay]

Renting a house with an address, but no rooms

[@Ellier215]

@@DarkSkayohhhh! That’s a good one.

[@seanhewitt603]

There is no mention yet of how light or time are altered by light passing through time. Both allegedly have presence, like substance, but noone has questioned whether or not light affects time, plenty of theories about light not experiencing time. This can't be right. If light can move objects by striking them, it has mass, inertia. If things age, then time also has mass, inertia and can affect matter (nuclear decay)... Please explain this discrepancy between observable physical phenomenon and scientific inquiry?, seems solving for what time actually is, it's kinda important to science.

[@peweegangloku6428]

How did the monotonous rejuvenation of universes begin?

[@brianwilson7624]

Your question presumes "there was once nothing" which I assume comes from your religious upbringing. There is no evidence that there was once nothing and then something. As it were, something (rather than nothing) is likely the natural state of the universe.

[@NafeDev-yo4lo]

Something coming from absolute nothingness is far stranger than an eternal something. @@brianwilson7624

[@peweegangloku6428]

​@@brianwilson7624Your assumption about my question is totally wrong. I don't believe that there was ever a state of absolute nothingness. On the other hand, to claim that a system expands to total dissipation spare photons and later reassemble (re-emerge) forces, hence raw materials, as postulated in CCC, describes an unstable system that is subject to obliteration. Such a system could hardly have existed eternally. An eternally existing system will be methodically unyielding and perfectly stable.

[@brendynmiller239]

​@@brianwilson7624what do you assume immediately that because he is asking a legitimate question that he has a religious upbringing? Do you know him personally? If not, it appears you are making assumptions and discriminating against these kinds of questions based on your anti religious personal views

[@watgaz518]

Maybe the universe was built in stages? First BB brought about the dark vastness of space. The second BB brought enigmatic forces. The third BB gave it dimensions. The fourth BB saw it littered with black holes. The fifth BB produced our CMB and the visible matter needed to create all we see before us today?

[@AfsanaAmerica]

If we can look back at previous universes, is it similar to the current universe or is there a law that states it must be different and do not repeat events/certain events?

[@NafeDev-yo4lo]

Even if each new Universe is different / random, there may be trillions of different Universes after ours, but if this process goes on forever which I think is likely, then a Universe identical to ours will appear again, with matter arranged exactly as it is now. And if consciousness is a biological phenomenon, then its likely we've experienced our lives the same way infinite times before and will do infinite times again.

[@AfsanaAmerica]

@@NafeDev-yo4lo but if the universe is infinite then there are infinite combinations.

[@AfsanaAmerica]

​@@NafeDev-yo4lobut if the universe is infinite then there are infinite combinations.

[@NafeDev-yo4lo]

@@AfsanaAmerica That's true. And we would experience all those combinations too, infinitely.

[@AfsanaAmerica]

@@NafeDev-yo4lo A person would have to be immortal/infinite to do that.

[@michaeltrower741]

Fascinating!!

[@matthewbryant958]

I dont belive the universe has a end, i mean does it just stop at a certain point? Can we not move past a certain point? I highley doubt it but hey im not expert

[@user-io1bo5gr2m]

I am developing initial conceptual designs for a graphic novel with much of Sir Roger Penrose 's hypothetical cyclic system . The Book is a dark fantasy! ♤♤♤

[@sonarbangla8711]

Why Penrose's CCC keep producing the same universe over and over again, may have an explanation in Lee Smolin's landscape that make possible for natural selection tat produce better living conditions with better fine tuned constants of the parameter space. In the next Aeon we may have a more intelligent life form.

[@SqueakyChase]

For us to explain the beginning of the universe is like a blind person, who has never had eyesight, describing the color 'green'. If we were equally as blind, the discussion would seem a waste of time to many but some might find comfort in believing that they understand the color green.

[@jimyguitar3177]

We are in the middle of the universe because the CMB is the same distance in all directions and we are at the edge of the universe because all known time is behind us.

[@theintel5694]

Two incredibly intellectuals!!!! Einstein and Sir Pennrose

[@abhisheksing8379]

😂

[@tonyatkinson2210]

Not quite . I don’t see any of penroses work having any of the impact Einstein has had

[@TheHsubh]

The part that I understand is the infiniteness of the "older Universes" and the way that size becomes almost redefined or non-existent in these. The part that is mind-boggling is that it leads me to picturing space as we know it being somewhat like a fractal, but more like a breath that expands and deflates.

[@xl5man]

One ancient philosophical idea was that the universe was like a ‘giant ‘ cell that oscillated over eons of time from a small size .. expanding until all the energy was at the peripheral then contracting.. all the energy gradually moving to the centre again .. like a magnet whose centre alternates between positive and negative states …

[@greghicks5960]

I understood some of these words.

[@mavelous1763]

Lmfao!

[@matthew-xl4od]

We began

[@shankarbalakrishnan2360]

It's waves from one to another a political wave a mobile wave etc and even being blessed by someone is a wave❤❤🎉🎉

[@nyckhusan2634]

Exponential expansion of Universe in all directions on 3-dimensional sphere S^3 with eventual loss of mass of matter must led to a radiation loops that are closing on themselves, i.e. to a singularity.

[@nyckhusan2634]

Cycles of eons cold be : B (bubble)^0 ( singularity)> B^1( time born)- boundary S^0(string)>B^2-S1(disc)> B^3-S^2(2-D sphere)>B^4-S^3( 3-D sphere)>B^0. We live on 3-D sphere X^2+Y^2+Z^2+t^2=1

[@SHADOW.GGG-]

@@nyckhusan2634 made up words made up numbers

[@alex79suited]

I could go into this in depth but at a later time, perhaps. It's correct, regardless of when it's done. So let's look at the great attractors as prior events to our own blacksphere event. Or Andromeda's blacksphere event. I don't believe we would be here without those prior events happening. It trickles down and up from our perspective, really. I also believe we will find more of these great attractors as our ability to peer improves. It's an exciting time right now in science, I think. And with EMFSYSTEMS just getting started, the future is quite bright for the next generation of scientific research and discovery. EMFSYSTEMS will be leading us into the infinite ♾️ vacuum space. Wanna go for a ride? Peace ✌️ 😎.

[@kimsahl8555]

Universe - well, we imagine the space. So a new term (Nature) will do it: Did the Nature begin? Now, you can start the reflection (start with definitions of beginning and ending).

[@mavelous1763]

I’m smart enough to know this: I like this Penrose guy!

[@chrisrace744]

Argument by infinite regression... doesn't solve anything only moves the problem deeper.

[@pmm1963]

Exactly. This theory it's a postulate evading the real debate.

[@karl5395]

10:28 'Why was that structure there? If there was nothing before (the big bang) its hard to answer that question' Indeed it's hard to answer because of a presupposition of a natural material worldview bias.

[@deanodebo]

That’s exactly right. And ironically the materialist can’t actually justify the external world. Nor can they justify logic, numbers, etc Oh but they’re happy to use them

[@zacatkinson3926]

There is something before it’s not understood fully yet

[@deanodebo]

@@zacatkinson3926 “before” doesn’t make sense with relativity. But I don’t claim relativity is true. What makes you think there’s a “before”?

[@AppealToTheStoned]

No need to 'justify' an external world,@@deanodebo If one exists, 'material' science is the way to understand it. If one does not exist, the materialist is in precisely the same untenable position as everyone else.

[@deanodebo]

@@AppealToTheStoned fair enough. What are numbers made of? Let’s take 3. What is 3 made of, and where is it?

[@jimliu2560]

How does Penrose explain Entropy increasing and decreasing in his cyclic universe theory…?

[@wthomas5697]

Infinite time and space allow for patterns to develop, even against the probability of randomness.

[@skwalka6372]

I think entropy gets reset in the conformal mapping that connects the eons. When you emerge from one semi-infinite into the start of another semi-infinite period, the mapping interprets the infinitely dissorderly state of the previous eon into a refeference state for the current eon. That is how I understand it.

[@helderalmeida2790]

​@@skwalka6372Aeon!

[@zacatkinson3926]

@@wthomas5697it’s definitely not infinite

[@AliothAncalagon]

Basically the "Law of truly large numbers". Entropy does increase and decrease all the time. A large decrease is simply not very likely. But if you wait long enough even the most unlikely scenario will eventually happen, as long as its not entirely impossible.

[@robskyful]

What was the first thing to ever die ?

[@skyline.....]

we could be inside a blackhole and every blackhole could have its own universe inside it with more blackholes ,three is no limit to how slow time can go and how small matter can be as spacetime srinks or gets compressed by gravity

[@tbone9603]

No beginning No end

[@zealman79]

cause on my love, you can depennnnnnnnnnnnnddd

[@ejenkins4711]

Sometimes thats the wrong question. Sometimes it might be right I know the answer 4 the Time Being 0.07 john E

[@JoaoCosta-pn9im]

The question thus is: has the beginning actually begun?

[@saramolet3614]

I just did a lil math in my note book and came up wit a finenight universe. Even when i switched up a couple variables and da math still add up2 a finenight universe.da math dont lie bra! Da universe ant infinite 💯

[@hermeschains]

appreciate u doing the math brodie 💯

[@aaronrobertcattell8859]

Begin if it did then where's the end ? more like a ring round and round?

[@baladi921]

The universe is forever.

[@andrewmasterman2034]

So infinite?

[@mavelous1763]

Some ‘forevers’ are longer than others….just like infinities

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

could quantum gravity make infinitesimal from infinite? how could such quantum gravity start?

[@45IWB]

Surprised I lasted 2 minutes, thanks camera man!

[@yclept9]

Time has to be finite going backwards because if it were infinite we couldn't have gotten to this time we're at.

[@ready1fire1aim1]

Feels like nobody is considering the difference between zero and nonzero numbers. Zero is not-natural and nonzero numbers are natural. Numbers do have geometric counterparts.

[@Hyperion1722]

Good. if you inherit 1,000,000 USD, we just lop off the zeros as these are not natural and you just get 1 USD.

[@mikeb2777]

If our only view is of the universe then it had a beginning. If our view is of eternity and infinity then our universe is one occurrence.

[@KamramBehzad]

I believe our universe is a leaf growing on a branch, of a tree, in a forest, on a planet, in universe2, that is a leaf growing on a branch .... That's why I'm fascinated by watching fractal images zoom in and in and in ...

[@johnpublic168]

Humans always project. Thus a beginning

[@abhisheksing8379]

I think that the universe is infinite (infinite in the spatial sense) and eternal (infinite in the temporal sense). We just can't wrap our heads around the concept of infinity. For us, it is just a mathematical concept.

[@iamfunnyipromise9605]

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a COSMIC BEGINNING.” - Alexander Vilenkin

[@ethereal8743]

As I understand it 'infinity' is a trait of space and 'eternity' is a trait of time. Are these two human notions -constructs, if you will; not sufficient to describe the conceptual operation of what we can observe in this universe? It is compelling me to use a tool -my imagination which can be infinite but unreal. Pardon my confused brain. 10:56

[@shirk_slayer]

Remember the day when We shall roll up the heavens like the rolling up of written scrolls. As We began the first creation, so shall We repeat it; a promise binding on Us; that We shall certainly fulfil.” [Quran 21:105] And the heaven We built with Our own powers (aydin) and indeed We go on expanding it (musi’un).” [51:48] Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass, then We clove them asunder. And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?” [21:31]

[@alonzoingram6755]

Only God has these answers! All mankind has is a theory ! When I listen to these talks it makes me realize that there is much more that we don’t know than what we know !!

[@Hyperion1722]

I prefer his theory rather than the limiting big bang theory. Something happened before the big bang and it is up to theorists to expound further.

[@glenfoord]

Just imagine that most redshift is just a consequence of distance through space that light has travelled. No big bang, no inflation, no increasing expansion. simple.

[@MERLE1593]

That would require credible evidence to support it. A you'll need to submit a scholarly paper to the appropriate scientific journals for peer review. Go for it!

[@jimris4170]

Do this mean that there is perhaps different realitys? Im having problems getting my head around this. I think som shrooms would help.

[@georgesheffield1580]

Yes ,those you cannot imagine too.

[@GatorMcClusky]

The Universe comes from "something" which is infinitely small. Therefore there was no beginning that science can ever measure or describe.

[@pablocopello3592]

Consider all the strictly positive real numbers. There is not a first strictly positive number. So time could be finite to the past, but this does not imply that there is a "beginning", that is, even though time is "finite" to the past, for every instant, there exist previous instants, that is, there would not be an "initial instant" without previous instants that "cause" that instant, there would not be an initial not causal instant and there would not be a "creation" from nothing. That is, the strictly positive real numbers are "topologically" equivalent to the entire set of real numbers. Do not confuse finite with "limited" these are two very different concepts. You don't even need a "continuous" time, not even a "dense" time for this to be true, even for "discrete" time finite does not imply "limited" (the minimum amount of time between 2 different instants could decrease as we go back in time). Said that, to assign a linear time for the entire universe, we should be able to synchronize the clocks. But not all space-times allow such a synchronization, the usual space-time models used in cosmology DO allow that synchronization, but those models simplify space-time as absolutely uniform, that is not the real case (with stars, black-holes, galaxies etc.). The real space-time is NOT synchronizable, so the very idea of finite past or limited past is not even a well defined concept (it could be defined in many ways and have different answers). If we go deeper, General Relativity alone is not enough, quantum effects cannot be ignored, and we do not have a coherent quantum gravity theory, so, anything said is pure speculation. If we go further, space-time is the structure of causality (in the classic framework) but entanglement demonstrates that there is a causality that do not follows the space-time structure, so, it is clear that in a more deeper understanding, space-time should be an emergent concept, that will loose its meaning for very early times (that is, we follow causality backwards in time, but at certain point, the approximation that causality follows time is not a good approximation anymore). Going further, no concept or idea has a meaning outside a testable model, future models will not be space-time based, the question of the "beginning" of time will loose any meaning.

[@mickeybrumfield764]

Infinite creating more infinity. Infinite in all directions. No doubt humans are prejudiced towards self-preservation.

[@Ellier215]

Oh. That’s interesting. Self preservation in an infinite universe.

[@gtziavelis]

CCC FTW (conformal cyclic cosmology)

[@han-chan872]

The universe is eternal, it has always been here, only consciousness has a beginning

[@saelaird]

The camera dolly got USED

[@thegreatestlight1]

And abused. Just because you have one doesn't mean you have to use it. Managed to get the mic in shot too

[@Mike-vd7ee]

We'll never know for sure..impossible to prove..the universe will keep this secret forever

[@jibijacob0001]

Woo woo woo u will know it

[@wilhelmvonn9619]

And it used to be believed that we could never know what the stars were made of.