J. Richard Gott - Why Did Our Universe Begin?

[@reversefulfillment9189]

I once figured all of this out when I was on acid, but then I forgot again.

[@FabianReschke]

Does anyone else get the feeling of infinite recursion when tripping hard? I once had this experience on acid and N2O that time is just a loop like in a recursive function but on my trip this recursion got to its end eventually and everything went backwards until it was all gone. Maybe our universe is like this. Just existing, until the calculation is solved. EDIT: Well, not infinite after all.

[@keiththomas3141]

Ahhh hahaha ... that's normal.

[@michelem140]

Haha 😄 once I tripped I never saw the universe the same way again.

[@brubeck1]

never mind u tube will come to the rescue, thats why im here lol.

[@ray1956]

Or cannabis in my college days of 70’s 🤣🤣🤣😂😂. I’m a Biologist 👨🏿‍🔬

[@TheShumac]

The truth is nobody knows. The best thing we can do as humans is be good, be strong, help if we can, don't hate , spread love.

[@hadimahamidh]

Or simply is beyond our mental ability, but we have to try anyway, which is very natural for us as human.

[@neffetSnnamremmiZ]

Truth doesn't fit into world, you can only be that. Like Jesus explained: I don't have the truth. I am the truth!

[@hecticnarcoleptic3160]

@@neffetSnnamremmiZ i like pie

[@kos-mos1127]

@@neffetSnnamremmiZ The world is an objective fact.

[@abelincoln8885]

Wrong. We do know but Man is imperfect ...and free to think, believe, say & do as he wants ... with a Nature that is evil and will corrupt & pervert what is good UNLESS he chooses to have a strong MORAL/ETHICAL guide to do good not evil. This is a fact about Man that he have known throughout history and are seeing today around the world. It's a choice to hate or love, or do good or evil. It's a choice to to make God your moral guide, or something else or nothing at all. Engineers have known for over 120 years ... that the Universe is the only example of an ISOLATED Thermodynamic System with increasing entropy. Every Thermodynamic System originates from the SURROUNDING System which provides the matter, energy & laws of Nature. But every Astrophysicist in the early 1900's believed the Universe was infinite in size and always existed and because most believed life had a natural origin a long time ago. These people objected to the expanding Universe data because it supported a beginning FROM something which also supported Creation. Again. All believed the Universe was infinite in size & ALWAYS EXISTED. They then proposed the BIG BANG with the Universe still being infinite in size .. because the data was showing Earth at the center of the expanding Universe? An infinite Universe means any point in the Universe will APPEAR to be the center. Hmmmmm? What are they up to. But the Universe is not infinite in size because we know for a fact that it is an ISOLATED Thermodynamic System with increasing entropy, and has a beginning from .... Something that it began & is expanding in. An infinite Isolated Thermodynamic System ... will have infinite time & volume ... allowing REVERSIBLE Thermodynamic processes ... causing CONSTANT entropy. We do know the true true origin of the Universe, but most choose to ignore the facts & truths ... for what they freely think and believe, say & do.

[@TehNetherlands]

Us humans have this propensity to think of existence and non-existence in terms similar to those that apply to everyday objects. The table exists or it does not exist, the chair exists or it does not exist. But when the fundamental nature of the universe is concerned, the concept of non-existence might prove meaningless. The most fundamental substrate would serve as the eternal foundation of all emergent phenomenon. This substrate or structure(s) might exist because existence is the default state, and non-existence is an impossible, meaningless concept. Given this potential reality, questions about the ultimate origin of 'creation' may well be meaningless expressions of our ignorance. For instance, one might argue: the chair existed but now it is gone because I burned it to ashes. However, this is technically incorrect. The key thing to realize here is that the chair was an emergent phenomenon. A collection of particles that was temporarily arranged in a specific pattern. The chair never really existed as a separate entity except in some platonic sense. The same applies to everything except that which is most fundamental and elementary. So now take an individual, presumably elementary particle like an electron. You cannot cancel its existence. It just exists. Unless it's a composite entity, in which case one should look at its most fundamental constituents. It may well be that space and time are emergent phenomenon as well, arising from some eternal, fundamental substrate. My point is that perhaps only the most fundamental structure really exist, that existence is its default state, that it could not have been any other way, and that everything else emerges from this foundation - much like patterns arising from the simple rules of cellular automatons or fractal sets. The closer we get to this foundation, the more fuzzy things get, because known concepts break down as we reduce emergent phenomenon to their more fundamental constituents. Finally, the 'root' substrate may well be qualitatively beyond our ability to comprehend.

[@carnap355]

in any world something is going to be fundamental and something - emergent, unless the world is too simple for any emergence. There are many different fundamental substrates that could've existed, each presumably leading to a different set of emergent phenomena. Why would specifically our substrate exist and not a different one?

[@duaneholcomb8408]

Maybe the chair is never really there we just think it exists because we believe our senses are accurate. ,,

[@dreyestud123]

Well said.

[@duaneholcomb8408]

You can't bend the spoon that's impossible but try to realize the spoon was never there to begin with.

[@duaneholcomb8408]

@Neil Steven Hawk a well. Known physicist. Came up with the hologram theory.

[@lesliegreenhill2389]

One of the silliest explanations I have heard for the Big Bang. Nothing becomes something is essentially what he is saying.

[@adamsawyer1763]

There comes a point where I start to think: something coming from nothing is actually less bizarre and unlikely than all the various ways humans have imagined to try to avoid something coming from nothing.

[@juandeleon4429]

Unless, it comes from something, or Someone.

[@adamsawyer1763]

@@juandeleon4429 well yes but there's a philosophical desire to avoid infinite regresses. Logically infinite regress can be avoided by: 1) some sort of circularity of causation 2) some kind of block universe without real time that just is 3) some singular ultimate fundamental thing from which all causes and things emerge 4) many fundamental things which connect to form the universe For both 3 and 4 we could imagine these fundamental things (individual or many) either existing eternally into the past and future or not being eternal. If not eternal and if there are many then relative to each other they will have different moments of spontaneous creation. In that imagined scenario you can think of nothing as being a persistent pool of acausal creative potential. I.e the presence of a fundamental something doesn't prevent the spontaneous acausal appearance of more fundamental somethings.

[@Vatche_G]

"The standard big Bong model" is my favorite

[@gsmith207]

I’m just a regular 55 yo man grew up on a farm and went to engineering school. In 55 years on this planet I figured out 2 things. We are conscious of our own ID and mortality. And we still have no idea “why” the BOOM happened. we are here and don’t know why but we will not give up until we know. That is the human mind. We want to go backwards to know our future and put a formula together to figure it out. We are an Anomaly that exists. Just deal with it! Haaaaa! Love this channel! My mind is stimulated to the nth degree

[@kanyeeast2233]

The look on his face right after he went on that little rant about the guy going back in time and being his own father and mother is priceless. He genuinely confused him and shocked him at the same time.

[@846roger]

With all due respect to Dr. Gott, he doesn't explain where the time loop/"something" comes from in the first place and doesn't really answer Kuhn's question: Where did anything, including the time loop, come from in the first place. I think that to ever get a satisfying answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", we're going to have to address the possibility that there could have been "nothing", but now there is "something". Another way to say this is that if you start with a 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with a 1 (e.g., "something"), you can't do this unless somehow the 0 isn't really a 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface. That is, in one way of thinking "nothing" just looks like "nothing". But, if we think about "nothing" in a different way, we can see through its disguise and see that it's a "something". This then gets back around to the idea that "something" has always been here except now there's a reason why: because even what we think of as "nothing" is a "something". How can "nothing" be a "something"? I think it's first important to try and figure out why any “normal” thing (like a book, or a set) can exist and be a “something”. I propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping. A grouping ties stuff together into a unit whole and, in so doing, defines what is contained within that new unit whole. This grouping together of what is contained within provides a surface, or boundary, that defines what is contained within, that we can see and touch as the surface of the thing and that gives "substance" and existence to the thing as a new unit whole that's a different existent entity than any components contained within considered individually. Next, when you get rid of all matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract concepts, laws or constructs of physics/math/logic, possible worlds/possibilities, properties, consciousness, and finally minds, including the mind of the person trying to imagine this supposed lack of all, we think that this is the lack of all existent entities, or "absolute nothing" But, once everything is gone and the mind is gone, this situation, this "absolute nothing", would, by its very nature, define the situation completely. This "nothing" would be it; it would be the all. It would be the entirety, or whole amount, of all that is present. Is there anything else besides that "absolute nothing"? No. It is "nothing", and it is the all. An entirety/defined completely/whole amount/"the all" is a grouping, which means that the situation we previously considered to be "absolute nothing" is itself an existent entity. It's only once all things, including all minds, are gone does “nothing” become "the all" and a new unit whole that we can then, after the fact, see from the outside as a whole unit. One might object and say that being a grouping is a property so how can it be there in "nothing"? The answer is that the property of being a grouping (e.g., the all grouping) only appears after all else, including all properties and the mind of the person trying to imagine this, is gone. In other words, the very lack of all existent entities is itself what allows this new property of being the all grouping to appear. Some other points are: 1. The words "was" (i.e., "was nothing") and "then"/"now" (i.e., "then something") in the first paragraph imply a temporal change, but time would not exist until there was "something", so I don't use these words in a time sense. Instead, I suggest that the two different words, “nothing” and “something”, describe the same situation (e.g., "the lack of all"), and that the human mind can view the switching between the two different words, or ways of visualizing "the lack of all", as a temporal change from "was" to "now". 2. It's very important to distinguish between the mind's conception of "nothing" and "nothing" itself, in which no minds would be there. These are two different things. Logically, this is indisputable. In visualizing "nothing" one has to try to imagine what it's like when no minds are there. Of course, this is impossible, but we can try to extrapolate. If anyone's interested, more details are at: sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/

[@kos-mos1127]

That is where people go wrong when they try to talk about how did something come from nothing. They include the mind's concept of noting which is not the same as nothing itself.

[@846roger]

@@kos-mos1127 I sure agree. Thanks for seeing this! You're somewhat unique. You would think academic philosophers and physicists could see that, but from my limited experience and reading, they're just as susceptible as amateurs and everyone else. We can't get rid of the mind to visualize nothing, but we can try to get close to that point and then extrapolate.

[@sidi4735]

Excellent read Sir.

[@846roger]

@@sidi4735 Thanks! It's been a lifelong interest of mine.

[@Th8Watch]

He did in a sense by paraphrasing Richard dawkins "what is north of the northpole?" Yes, this may not actually answer the question per technicality, but, it gives an understanding of the concept for a "beginning".

[@deepakkapurvirtualclass]

Food for Thought 👍👍 But, questions can never end... a) If You find the most/last fundamental particle... the very next question will be..."From where this last fundamental particle came?" b) If You find God... the very next question will be..."From where God came?" c) If You say this last fundamental particle/God existed always.... the next questions will be... (i) "Who/Which rule decided that the God is to be good/powerful/one etc. (Why not many Gods/less powerful God/evil God)" (ii) "Which rule decided that the last fundamental particle will have these properties only, which it will possess...why not some different properties?" (iii) "How can an immaterial God make something material? What is the process behind this conversion?" (iv) What is the energy source of an immaterial thing by which it can sustain? etc. etc. Therefore in spirituality/Yoga they say that we should focus on achieving Supreme Happiness (Happiness/Bliss that never goes away). Even if we find everything in the universe, ultimately we will achieve satisfaction/happiness. So, they say don't give much importance to knowledge (because questions can never end)...but give importance to the path which leads you to a state of default/supreme happiness, which once achieved never ever goes away.. God is nothing but this state. Once we achieve this state, they say, we are no different from God...then, we become God.

[@907-q7u]

The only way the Universe can possibly exist is if it has always existed without time. We exist in a singular "moment" that has no beginning or ending. You're living in the same moment as when the Universe inflated.

[@joemiller8482]

Very good. . . Explain intelligence. . Ozone layer. .

[@awakenedhigherself9961]

Agreed, we’re all at the core energy oscillation grids spinning at incredibly high speeds

[@altclut]

Well said!

[@heldertorres4296]

Ur not so wrong if you count that what Ur saying is that all the information is here at the same time....

[@uttaradit2]

how can you exist outside time ?

[@jamesmorris201]

As a novice I don’t quite understand the beginnings of the universe. But I’m here and I love the conversations !

[@Writeous0ne]

@SherlockHolmes82 if the universe is expanding outwards then there must have been a beginning, at least to our universe anyway.

[@G_Demolished]

The beauty of this stuff is that nobody is really any further along than you are. 😊

[@GeTtHeDoG1883]

Stack a few of those balls end to end. Big bang, expansion, contraction, Big Crunch, big bang caused by Big Crunch… expansion, so on.

[@dyinteriors]

I have seen this model before and find it somewhat compelling. But as with most of these models, there is little evidence to support it at present. I can only hope that one day, I shall be privy to the next revelation of evidence that supports one of the many proposed models presented by physicists and cosmologists. The future is filled with potential thrilling moments of discovery and observations yet to be told. I, as a fan of minds greater than mine, stay tuned like a groupie waiting for the release of a new album by a favorite musical artist. The latest science makes this moment a thrilling time to be alive indeed!

[@drbuckley1]

Gravitation waves from the beginning of everything may yet be detectable. Gravity precedes the other three fundamental forces, so observation of it holds more promise than particle physics, IMHO, in understanding the earliest moments of the universe.

[@kos-mos1127]

@@drbuckley1 The first force to break free was the color of quarks broke from the electroweak.

[@helbitkelbit1790]

If your good , and your truly sorry for the bad things you've done , you will get to meet the Lord , and you can ask him anything you like . My first question ???........who killed Jon Benet ?

[@drbuckley1]

@@helbitkelbit1790 Mine would, be "So, whaddaya know, you're for real, huh?"

[@eardwulf785]

Well there's this guy called Norris (Floppy Norris to his friends) whom works in Fat Charley's chip shop at the top of Shooters Hill on Saturday nights and he is always lending his voice to the conventional dynamics of Crusty Y-Front theory and the underlying notion that the gaseous clouds that form from the energy (and sometimes matter) released from the local black hole are the nurseries from whence we came. That's what he reckons anyway

[@masummillat]

I have a question ! Can you please explain into what the universe is expending ?

[@semekd4940]

Yes, universe is expanding. It means two static points in space are moving away from each other. You move in space but space can also move itself. You cannot move faster than speed of light but space can expand faster than speed of light between two points. You can never reach that point because your movement is limited by speed of light. Something similar happens in black hole where space collapses faster than speed of light. So you can never escape black hole if you go close enough where space collapses faster than speed of light

[@keiththomas3141]

What this guy is creating is nothing more than a "reality construct" that makes him comfortable and secure. To each his own.

[@adelinrapcore]

Scientists try to come up with solutions. This is one of them. You can come up with an answer too. What would be your answer?

[@keiththomas3141]

@@adelinrapcore Home, I understand science. I've been an amateur astronomer since 1965. Built telescopes ... astrophotography. Also was a science major in college. But when you ask me what I think I would have to be honest with you and tell you that I don't really know. I don't think humans have the capacity to understand things out to that level. It would be pure speculation. What irritates me is when someone is so sure of themselves. It's their ego taking over where their brains leave off. I'm just being honest with you so you don't get decieved.

[@chmd22]

@@keiththomas3141 It is also your ego that made you watch the video, get irritated at the self-assurance of the guy, and reply to Home Cuisine. And yes, I too am reacting from ego, wondering if I should, but accepting in the end that that's where I'm at.

[@keiththomas3141]

@@chmd22 No, it's not ego. What I said was to qualify myself. I've had a lot of science professors who thought they were gods. The younger students usually bought what they were saying hook line and sinker. But non-traditional students didn't. We don't just accept what they're saying. My college professors weren't gods by any means. They're in love with themselves and like to hear themselves talk. Full of hot air!

[@he5975]

@@adelinrapcore Turtles all the way down.

[@dbrodbro1]

I think we have to learn more before we speculate about whether the universe even had a "beginning" or will have an "end". I see us struggling to explain, and contorted arguments made in effort to figure it out. Speculation runs rampant. "Be a lamp unto thyself." SGB

[@retrochannel5665]

the ultimate question that will be left unanswered at any minds is what caused all that precursors to begin

[@theinformationcenter1248]

Very bright and interesting conversation.

[@longcastle4863]

2:06... _Standard Big Bong Model of the Universe..._ : )

[@tenrsounds]

How do I see the end of the conversation?

[@EP4LFC]

Incredibly patient and stimulating explanation. Really enjoyed this one

[@gregdemeterband]

Did you hear, Roger Penrose version? He really gets into the mind of God, so to speak...

[@Writeous0ne]

@@gregdemeterband but still, you will never leave one of these videos and feel fully satisfied. no one can ever and will ever answer what we want to know.

[@plumleytube]

It is not an explanation ... it's a wild theory that attempts to explain the universe without a creator. Astounding trash speculation.

[@Writeous0ne]

@@plumleytube are you saying that any explanation must include a creator? for me any answer to the questions we ask is only speculation because there is no proof or logic that can answer them. if you believe there was a creator that doesn't explain how there can be an infinite being or that there was a beginning etc

[@Bingbangboompowwham]

@@plumleytube Creationism is the laughing stock of the scientific world, so please don’t expect your trolling to have any impact here

[@spacesciencelab]

These are the questions that should be asked!!!! Very fascinating! :)

[@nedegt1877]

I believe mankind has a limit in what it can understand. For example nobody can understand what time actually is, or consciousness, or even energy. Those are "things" that just happen to be, we can make use of them, describe them in full details, understand their properties but we can not exactly tell what they are nor how they exist. That is why I believe that there is "something" that's beyond our physical universe we will never understand because we don't have any reference to them for they are "outside" our physical real and beyond our brain capacity. We were not designed to understand them. I believe the universe was created by a much higher intelligence who lives? in a totally unimaginable form of reality that goes far beyond physics, math or anything our brain can come up with.

[@phild249]

Even gravity is not really understood, we see the effects throughout the universe including the earth, but no one really understands it.

[@nedegt1877]

​@@phild249 That's another great example! And also some other cosmological constants. Those are "hard coded" numbers, can't just happen by chance. I'm a computer programmer, to me the universe is very suspicious :)

[@nedegt1877]

@DieselPower Well prove it then. It's soo "silly" to say " You're wrong" without any proof or argument or whatsoever. You might just keep quit then.. :)

[@jeroenbrons]

Humans have continuously expanded their capability to discover and increase their understanding, we don't know the limits of human growth yet, if there are any at all. So it's a limiting belief to say that 'we are not designed to understand xyz', history has proven that one wrong time and again

[@nedegt1877]

​@@jeroenbrons Well the thing is that humans can only understand something by reference, that's just the way our brain works, we just process data. Sure if you have enough Bio knowledge you could alter DNA and create super humans but still, some fundamentals exists outside the concept that forms us. We will never be able to reach nor understand them. 3D is a limitation for us, no matter how intelligent you are, you will never experience anything else but a 3D Physical world. Imagine our ears being able to hear every possible frequency, you'd go crazy and have a brain overload in seconds. So some things are limited for a reason, and so is our understand of some concepts. The entire Universe wouldn't make much sense if we could understand how to "break" it. So no, we will never understand the force, thing, intelligence or what ever it is that "wrote / designed the rules" for our Universe to be able to function. Everything is so precise, if you believe in Magic, the Universe is the Magic it self.

[@mikefinn]

Randomness (superposition), branches (new bubbles arising from black holes?) and weak feedback loops. These seem to be basic to the structure of the Universe. I love Dr. Gott's model and his solution for what came before rapid inflation so much that I'm not going to think about it anymore.

[@Graybeard_]

When the question is asked: What came before the big bang, the answer should be "Something!" When scientists refuse to go "there", it is often viewed that they are saying "we can't know so nothing". This impacts the perception of credibility. Everything didn't begin with the big bang. Only our "everything began with the big bang." Until we have evidence to the contrary, everything originates from something. Let's leave it at that until we discover A. what came first or B. we discover that nothing came first. Then we update the results. 8-)

[@subsonicwarthog]

My theory is called the Black hole recycle theory. After big bang and expansion the end results in black holes. A super massive black hole which devours all others brings the expansion back in to a singularity. The process starts over

[@theinformationcenter1248]

We are living in a Black Hole.

[@carnap355]

An issue with this is that there is an infinite amount of possible worlds where such causal loop exists, and if it is an explanation for our worlds existence, it must also predict that all those other possible worlds exist as well.

[@carnap355]

@championchap it is an objection to his argument against quantum tunneling, causal loops still suffer from the same "where do laws of physics come from" question

[@ruseriousdownunder4888]

@@carnap355 Our only objective truth is that our universe exists. Our best answer so far is that space and time “began” together so there it is no before the Big Bang. I think that a self-consistent solution (or solutions) are the best we can hope for. This seems to be one attempt at that.

[@carnap355]

@@ruseriousdownunder4888 and a casual loop wouldn't solve anything here. Space and time having the same cause is also just a continent feature consistent with our models of the universe, and it doesn't seem give any insight on the why question either. In other words there could be a world where that wasn't true and it wouldn't be any more perplexing. Space couldn't begin before time by definition, that is the only necessary statement I can think of, but even then we can get into ambiguous cases where it is unclear if a given structure can be called space/time or not.

[@duaneholcomb8408]

@@ruseriousdownunder4888 another. Theory is that we are in,an,a simulation of some sort. And we only think what we see is real. And what we touch. Etc, is actually there,,, and it is very compelling. And plausable,,

[@ruseriousdownunder4888]

@@carnap355 I am not sure what you mean by “solve”. If there really is a self-causal loop, then the universe is the cause of itself and there is no WHY, there just is the self-evident IS because our universe is objective fact (unless you resort to solipsism). Unless we can show evidence of something beyond the universe, it seems to me this is where we are at.

[@tierramatriz]

Note how speculation is presented at times as speculation and at other times as a fact. Model-building is speculative by nature. Barely any facts were presented here to support the speculative model. The host kept attempting to keep the model-building real ["backward causation", etc.], but speculation carried the day. Kudos to the host; most impressive.

[@fparent]

For me, this is the first explanation of the true beginning of the universe (before the big bang) that stands on its own. Interesting.

[@carnap355]

here is an issue - there is an infinite amount of possible worlds where such causal loop exists, and if it is an explanation for our worlds existence, it must also predict that all those other possible worlds exist as well.

[@drbuckley1]

@@carnap355 Perhaps those worlds exist, but they cannot be observed and therefore beyond scientific explanation. Sort of like intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. It probably exists but we may never be able to observe much less interact with such life.

[@carnap355]

@@drbuckley1 most of the universe cannot be observed but we do assume it exists. We didn't have to go to mars and observe to know that there is sand there

[@drbuckley1]

@@carnap355 We may not be able to observe something directly but we can observe its effects on other things. We cannot observe everything in the past but we cannot explain things that cannot be observed (directly or indirectly). "Assumptions" are fine but not very good science.

[@carnap355]

@@drbuckley1 so how do we observe causal loops?

[@richardwaldron1684]

I've watched this clip many times trying to find the point in his explanation that makes sense, but I don't know where to begin..

[@betsyr4724]

Neither doe he

[@keiththomas3141]

I don't know how these people can think they have the Universe figured out. It's amusing to see just how far they will go.

[@johnzientek735]

I wonder how many tax dollars go to fund these ridiculous ideas that some of these "scientist" come up with.

[@longcastle4863]

Don't know if you've been paying attention, but scientist have figured a hell of a lot out in the little time they've been at it.

[@johnzientek735]

@@longcastle4863 I've been paying attention. I'm a science geek from way back. And the fundamentals of most if not all of our technology we have today is well at least in our modern era were known 100-150 yrs ago. Processes of production have steadily gotten better so now we have more compact tech so that's an improvement obviously. Four of the most influential scientist were Heavyside, Maxwell, Steinmetz and Tesla. Also I believe that mainstream science jumped the shark when they got rid of the aether and then replace it with spacetime, quantum foam, Higgs field or any number of names that still refer to a medium in which everything exist. They could have figured out why the couldn't detect aether without eliminating it but apparently in their minds it was easier to replace it with something else and claim everything's because of bumping particles and quantum fluctuations.

[@keiththomas3141]

@@longcastle4863 Yes, with superficial things that is true. But understanding the Universe is not realistic. It's like an ant on a sidewalk understanding what's going on in the stock exchange. I've been an amateur astronomer since I was about 10 years old. I was a science major in college. I love real science, but as flesh and blood humans we are limited in what we can understand. I can see that but these egomaniacs can't see it. They let their egos blind them with feelings of self-importance. We aren't going to be able to understand everything!

[@JustAnswers359]

Notice he never said "I don't know" once. No science can explain the cause of specific properties of the standard model of particles other than "This's the world we live in", and saying they just exist is not a scientific explanation. He didn't explain what gave the universe these laws and said a spacetime loop just existed itself. He should've said we don't know. At least you can justify God with philosophy, injustice, and conciousness, while his answer had no science nor philosophy to back it up

[@StevenE-xg7jw]

The more I hear him "Try" to answer the gentleman's question about how can you get something from nothing the more intelligent design seems to make more sense. He never gets to the heart of the question with an answer. He only theorizes about a loop. But even loop has to have started with something somewhere. Although his glass figurine would make an awesome bong, His loop is a dead end. The question is left nervously unanswered as always.

[@boom9999]

Interesting theory, but what brought the time loop into existence?

[@TehNetherlands]

It may well be the case that the loop itself is an eternal structure. That it exists with all of its properties because that is the fundamental nature of reality.

[@mockupguy3577]

Itself. Difficult to grasp

[@kwillie999]

the time loop brought it into existence!

[@oscarbaezsoria1650]

Always been there......

[@abelincoln8885]

It's a load of BS. Engineers have known for over 120 years ... that the Universe is a FINITE Isolated Thermodynamic System with increasing entropy. All Thermodynamic Systems originate from ... the SURROUNDING System that it is in. The Universe was never infinite & always existed as BELIEVED in the early 1900's when the expanding Universe data came out. The Universe is absurdly huge but finite and began & is expanding in a INFINITE Unnatural System. The expanding Universe is just like an expanding baloon ... as both a Thermodynamic Systems ... made by an intelligence. Man is the intelligence of the Natural System( eg Atmosphere) that the balloon began & is expanding in. God is the intelligence of the Unnatural System that the Universe began & is expanding in. There are only two existences/realities: Physical ( ie Universe) & Abstract ( ie Mind of an intelligence). Everything comes from the mind of an intelligence.

[@namthainam]

What a Sales man all the way through. I was sold 😅

[@gr3ywolf144]

This model is something similar to what I had thought up many years ago, in which effect preceeds cause.... But after thinking on it, I realised that it just doesn't work, and its the same here. The issue is that there must be a first event, and (from a scientific perspective) it must occur from nothing, and you cannot have a time loop if there is no time. Which means that something must come from nothing (which is not possible) for some reason in order to create time for said time loop to begin - and it doesn't matter how quickly the time loop starts after this initial event occurs, the fact is that this initial event happens before any time loop can occur, it must, else it doesn't work. Also, you cannot actually begin with nothing, as nothing is all that you would ever have (not that you can 'have' nothing). Therefore you must begin with something, and whatever this first something was/is, it must exist neccessarily and is uncreated/has always existed. Also the movie he is referencing is called Predestination - which, while fascinating, also doesn't work.

[@gr3ywolf144]

@Jurgen van Gestel You cannot travel back to before time initially began. Even if I were to grant that there is more than one universe (to which there is no evidence). Fact is that there must have been an initial universe, and thus a point in which time itself also initially began, and it is this point which you could not travel back before, as you can't time travel to a point in which time didn't yet exist.

[@PrinceBlake]

I am very fortunate to be married to an artist from a famous line of Japanese potters. Furthermore, she is an expert on an ancient style of script-writing that is all but lost in Japan today. To our surprise we stumbled upon this ancient script on our honeymoon in San Antonio, Texas in 1994. It turns out the script-writer, Shiga Shigetaka, was on a citizen diplomat's personal mission to keep the American-Japanese relationship on solid-footing, on the straight-and-narrow path, so to speak. Fortunately for us, a San Antonio newspaper did a wonderful job of recording the toasts and conversation from the reception held in his honor at the St Anthony hotel. And, in another good fortune, a historian named Masako Gavin in Australia wrote his biography available online subtitled The Forgotten Enlightener. In yet another synchronicity from this period in 1914 we can compare the intertwined timelines of Shiga and his former student Noguchi Yone through many sources as Shiga was an editor and contributor to Japan's most popular magazine. Shiga, in his wisdom sought to keep Japan projected towards a path of solidarity with England and America and as far away from the culture of glorification of the suicidal death poem as possible. When Noguchi was young, Shiga implored him to strive to leave a legacy in English lasting 500 years, leaving in the dust the genre that so captivated the ancient way of the warlords. He identified a potential cultural problem and sought out a solution with his gift to the Alamo. He turned the code of the Asian warrior and the raw courage of the Alamo defender, into a universal appeal to celebrate the heroism bridging our two peoples with stories having startling parallels, thus overcoming the vast differences in space and time. My grandfather, being a colleague of Einstein's at the Naval Ordnance Laboratory, and his cellist wife, a colleague of Eleanor Roosevelt, connected our union to another trajectory towards scholarship and peace. My grandfather wrote his thesis on Origins of Functionalist Theory leading to a career as critic, poet, and art historian. He took a keen interest in my wife's pottery, script-writing and other artistic pursuits. She has published a monthly manga for more than 15 years. One mathematically curious fact has emerged from the great war between us and relates to the dates of the beginning and end of the war; Dec 7th and Sept. 2nd; and the celebratory dates of our respective foundations: Feb 10 (the eve of Japan's Foundation Day often celebrated with a night parade), and July 4. Each of these days when converted to the day of the year, (41, 185, 245 and 341), has a square foundational sum of 42 since the sum of each numbers' two closest factors is equal to 42. As a foundational sum, 42 appears at the head position (101 position) of the arrow of time's orbital path three consecutive times with every two orbits. It may be surprising to learn that the wave function has the semblance of a brain and a place opposite of regeneration but it would tend to explain a lot of the incredible synchronicities in space and time that give shape to this universe, and, one may presume, billions of others. This arrow of time was discovered by my wife Kumiko Krchnak and is called 935-QKK.

[@shaunpatterson87]

Are mind aren’t capable of finding the correct explanation,there could be something other than nothing but are minds don’t allow that logic,I do think we are part of recurring event though,and my mind is obsessed with symmetry and patterns,we are in a microcosm of something much larger and we also are a universe of things much smaller.

[@fluentpiffle]

Existence does not depend on whether a human being makes a 'model' of it, or not.. We have to re-learn, how to think from an existentialist perspective, not a human-centric one. To do this we have to ask the kinds of questions that are relevant in existential terms. This is not just about 'physics', because we know the universe is far from purely physical, whatever ideas we have been indoctrinated with.. So, why is it necessary to have a 'beginning'? There is nothing in science to say that 'beginnings' are a necessity.. So the question does not belong to what currently passes for 'physics'.. spaceandmotion

[@gr3ywolf144]

@@fluentpiffle "Existence does not depend on whether a human being makes a 'model' of it, or not.. " - Agreed "So, why is it necessary to have a 'beginning'?" - its necessary for the universe to have a beginning because if said universe had always existed, then an infinite amount of time would have already past, in which, every possible thing that could possibly happen would have already happened an infinite amount of time ago - including us not being here to have this conversation. I would say that it is not possible to exist within an infinite timeline, infact, the concept of a timeline would no longer have any meaning. So it is precisely because there cannot be an infinite amount of time, that shows why the universe must have a beginning, including time itself. Also, you must have time, space and matter coming into being simultaneously, so you cannot have a universe without time. "There is nothing in science to say that 'beginnings' are a necessity" - That's because science cannot deal with anything beyond the physical universe; science is simply a tool that is used to try to learn more about the physical universe in which we live.

[@vhawk1951kl]

If it has a beginning or an end, it cannot possibly be "the universe", but before you speak of the universe, you must set out exactly what you seek to convey by the word universe

[@thomasnaas2813]

A highly dodgy and controversial question, and as soon as we figure out who's responsible they shall be duly taken to task...unless the 'ol cosmos is a self starter, in which case I have to give it some cred. Love this series. The title reflects my own view, that ultimate truth can be approached, but never attained, the important thing is to keep looking, listening, asking.

[@paulevans8295]

the apparatus you got specially made up would make a very good bong - I'll get my coat!

[@markbickerton2717]

We will never know for sure the answers brings more questions it really depends on what you believe

[@silversteel6312]

Robert’s hair here is as perfect and inspiring as any universe birth👏👏👏👏👏 In all seriousness though, why doesn’t the question, what made the elements that made the elements that caused the Big Bang?

[@altclut]

There was no beginning!

[@ichtus1]

funny that we exist then ha? :D

[@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices]

Sings: “It ain’t necessarily so...” 🎤

[@altclut]

@@ichtus1 No, not at all! We have always existed!

[@altclut]

@@ichtus1 Incidentally, what does ‘D’ mean? If you’re being insulting I can beat you in that game! What does ‘D’ mean?

[@altclut]

@@ichtus1 The One has no beginning and no end and has always existed. The Big Bang is a modern myth.

[@luisdasilva3879]

When trying to explain the origin of the universe outside of creation, the confusion is such that anyone is left exactly as if he had not heard anything.

[@yinYangMountain]

It seems the question, “Why Did Our Universe Begin?” is misleading at best and possibly malformed. Why? Because it assumes a beginning based upon our current concept of time and general physics. In the end, from nothing (an absence of ‘absolutely all’ things), nothing comes. Thus, Our Universe ‘sprang’ / ‘expanded’ from a previous thing. It’s time (a form of) / matter turtles all the way down.

[@maxwellsimoes238]

Before big gang true was inside funcions in conscieness. Stoping thinks how figuret out big bang conscieness are empting in his process.

[@juandeleon4429]

Or correctly stated. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause." You know the argument.

[@hachwarwickshire292]

Always start with the easy questions to settle your guest.

[@YogeshPatil-lq1gi]

Sir, Request you kindly use English Subtitles for easy to understand

[@petercheney8316]

click on the CC icon at the bottom of the screen

[@MrSanford65]

All the cells in my body are drifting apart from each other, but that doesn’t mean my body is expanding.Also I assume each point in the universe probably has the same point of view of separation as we do , So different points of views would cancel each other out. I think the most simplest answer is that there was never a beginning of the universe . Our finite Brains can’t conceive eternity, so we automatic believe everything has a beginning

[@SauravsFishkeeping]

"Our finite Brains can’t conceive eternity, so we automatic believe everything has a beginning" -> This is one amazing sentence of wisdom.

[@con.troller4183]

Our local space/time event had a beginning but the greater universe it came from doesn't need a beginning.

[@MrSanford65]

@@SauravsFishkeeping well it is amazing how little of time we know between memory and the present. We don’t even know the future. Such a tiny little slice of time, such a tiny little slice of understanding…

[@ili626]

I find it funny how we want to know what started it all, yet there were numerous conditions afterward, that had they been slightly altered, we wouldn’t exist to even ask this question.. like the chixlubulux meteor’s timing and event itself.. yet the reason we are interested in knowing how the universe began is because we exist…but the universe’s existence is only the first among many events leading to that….so all the earliest events could have happened and we wouldn’t exist if not for many other events after those early ones..

[@artwatch-y9j]

Why is Video not complete. He was cut off

[@AscendWithAnna]

What about the torus? Mystics have experienced the Void, timelessness, the Cosmic egg, the Tree of life, multiple big bangs, etc... for millennia. Until physicists consider Consciousness, understanding will be incomplete. It's all about the evolution of Consciousness. Consciousness is all there is. The physical plane is but a tiny portion of existence.

[@907-q7u]

As much as I want to say consciousness is just a synchronizing of physical layers/senses within the body creating the conscious experience, there is more to consciousness than just what's within ourselves. I can reverse an executive function disorder on demand, when I'm trapped in my limited state, the world is very, very different than when my mind is wide open and all my layers and senses are functioning together, the world becomes deeper, even the people I've known my entire life are deeper than I had ever realized, almost as if we're finally synchronized when I'm not in my limited state. I'm convinced we're connected. I've experienced weird moments on consecutive days with a co-worker as we were carpooling to a site for a project. I would be thinking about something completely random and obscure that happened days before that the co-worker also experienced, we would be driving in silence for 15-20 minutes and both times he would spark up a conversation with what I was thinking about. The odds of that happening just one time was very slim, but on consecutive days driving through the exact same location during a 1.5 hour drive.

[@ThePhysicalReaction]

Our perception of causality (speed of light) going forward only doesn’t necessarily mean that it is the only way. Jaime, pull up that DMT video from the other week.

[@un_lucio]

Loved the answer and how the guy delivered. When it comes to someone asking "what happened before" I suggest to answer with a choice: if you're genuinely interested at investigating what it might have happens, then let's have a pleasant discussion, otherwise if it's just an excuse for gotachas and plugging in your god of choice, then there's no value in asking.

[@theinformationcenter1248]

Right

[@michaelkennedy320]

Well...you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.

[@ronmexico5908]

Listening to physicists explain creation is sad if it wasn’t so funny. The mental gymnastics to get around what was before the BB just sets our understanding back further

[@hecticnarcoleptic3160]

Retired or returded?

[@johncarter1150]

@@hecticnarcoleptic3160 LOL... both!

[@euclidofalexandria3786]

this being true implies that life itself can be transported beyond cause and effect.

[@-JSLAK]

Title of the video should be "HOW did our universe begin?" as opposed to why.

[@mockupguy3577]

It began so that I could write this comment 13 billion years later.

[@abelincoln8885]

Not necessarily. The Universe either has a natural origin with no reason ... or ... and unnatural origin by an intelligence where there will be a reason. This video has simply taken the popular answer that there is no reason. It just naturally happened.

[@Bearkat87]

His little glass thing resembles the directed graph of the 3x+1 problem, where everything always lead back to 1

[@hecticnarcoleptic3160]

Sky Daddy puffed the Universe into existence! Every troll knows that!

[@razimusfatimuskitchinus7447]

So where did the initial “loop” come from?

[@gurkan2202]

All this profound explanations, if this is the best we got, makes me believe god will stay for a long time.

[@KilliK69]

sooo where did the time loop come from? did it exist forever? so does mean that time has no beginning, thus it extends before t=0?

[@markfischer3626]

First of all we don't know if the universe even had a beginning, not in the sense we understand beginning. What came before the big bang? We don't know. The big crunch of the prior configuration of matter and energy? Is it perpetual with no beginning or end? We don't know. Why does it exist whether there is a beginning to it or not? We don't know and probably never will. There is a real possibility that there is no reason, it just IS. That's a scenario that is totally unacceptable to human emotions. That's one reason humans invented god, to give existence a reason. Does that sound stupid to you? It does to me.

[@PaulHoward108]

It's not possible to make a complete and consistent theory to explain everything without God. The existence of meaning requires opposites, and the resolution of all opposites only occurs in the Personality of Godhead.

[@markfischer3626]

@@PaulHoward108 You think there must be meaning, purpose to existence. That's a mistake. Why should there be meaning? It may not be possible to create a complete consistent theory of everything. Therefore this in your mind justifies the invention of God. I've heard this same argument endless times in my life in phrases like how do you explain everything around us without god? Frankly I have no emotional need to and so I don't need a god to explain it. If this is your emotional crutch you can give your priest all of your money, all of your time and energy, and even go off to war to fight and die against the infidels happy in the knowledge that you will spend eternity in heaven. How do you know? That's what the priest told you and god speaks through him. Of course if you were on the others side with the infidels they have their own god and their priests of their religion would tell you exactly the same thing.

[@con.troller4183]

@@PaulHoward108 "It's not possible to make a complete and consistent theory to explain everything without God." Sure it is. Existence just exists. Done. "The existence of meaning requires opposites, and the resolution of all opposites only occurs in the Personality of Godhead." You talk about meaning as if it were an objective existence thing. But does meaning exist as anything other that a human value judgement? You are anthropomorphizing and projecting.

[@PaulHoward108]

@@con.troller4183 Existence is an aspect of reality, along with cognition and emotion. Just saying existence exists is a circular claim that doesn't explain anything. If meanings were not objective realities, it would not be possible to create them or to perceive anything. Perception involves identifying, distinguishing, sequencing, and labeling, which are not possible without awareness of meanings. I'm not anthropomorphizing; the reality is ultimately a person and persons. Objects exist only because of persons making choices.

[@PaulHoward108]

@@markfischer3626 Without real meanings, there would be no objects to perceive. Meanings are necessary for identifying, distinguishing, sequencing, and labeling things. Everything is created from meanings, as in a dream. My primary emotional need has been simply to understand reality, and I'm extremely satisfied with my progress. The lack of emotional need to understand the reality as a whole is how people reincarnate as subhuman animals. A priest? I don't follow any of the Abrahamic religions, which are ridiculous. I only say "God" because few people here understand the Saṁskṛt words that are more accurate.

[@georgeadkins2021]

How did 'our' universe begin is a better question than how did 'the' universe begin.

[@ichtus1]

all the comments that suggest "there was no beginning" ... no logic, sorry peoples ;)

[@PaulHoward108]

Why is a beginning necessary?

[@martinshannon7632]

Thanks from uk

[@WingsOfDay]

There is no such thing as nothing as there has always been something. To watch mere Earthly mortals with their degrees try to figure this stuff out is rather amusing.

[@longcastle4863]

If you think scientist don't know what they're talking about, please, throw your cell phone away and get back to us when you invent your own internet.

[@hecticnarcoleptic3160]

Wow thats really deep! When will you collect your Nobel, genius?

[@PaulHoward108]

@@longcastle4863, Scientists are utterly clueless. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems show mathematically that a physical theory can never explain everything, which means the physical theories are ultimately false. Stephen Hawking practically admitted defeat to Gödel in a talk he gave titled, Gödel and the End of Physics, retreating to his enjoyment of doing physics as the justification for continuing it. The Vedas present a holistic theory that explains how everything emerges from meanings. The modern scientific method of reducing whole objects to component parts discards meanings, which leads to logical conflicts in their creation of theories, preventing their unification. The usefulness of science is not an indication of truth, for if usefulness implied truth, lies could never deceive anyone. Science, and the math and logic it uses, assume the universe is consistent, but it is not. Meanings cannot be expressed from consistency (like an alphabet with only one letter), instead requiring contrast or opposites, like hot and cold, good and bad, right and wrong, etc. Also, things are defined in part by what they are not, which puts inconsistency in every object. Logic also cannot handle object qualities changing with time, as they do in the world. Logic, math, and science are designed for a quantitative world that people have imagined, but it is unlike the qualitative world we're inhabiting.

[@Tzimiskes3506]

@@hecticnarcoleptic3160 lol.

[@longcastle4863]

@@PaulHoward108 Your jealousy at your religion's inability to ever accomplish anything useful for the species is palpable. You life deniers always hate human accomplishments -- as it goes against the grain of your wish for it all just to go away.

[@theeaskey]

This reminds me of listening to two drunks in a smokey bar early in the morning, talking about things they have no knowledge of. There convinced they have the answers to all the questions, when in fact they are the problem.

[@ammaralnashed]

Something from nothing…makes perfect sense

[@sikandar.201]

I take it as a sarcasm 😝

[@ammaralnashed]

@@sikandar.201 😅

[@PaulHoward108]

"The happiness (of each person) is the main goal." Vedānta-sūtras 3.3.11 (371) आनन्दादयः प्रधानस्य ānandādayaḥ pradhānasya

[@johncarter1150]

"Happiness is a delicious cookie that the brain/mind bakes for itself." J. Bach

[@specialrelativity8222]

whose happiness?? because hindu dharma talks about happiness of only brahmins, ksatriya and vaishya. These three groups are very small in population. Largest population is called shudra. Shudras are considered the lowly beings(like slaves) , they have to just obey the the three groups. Shudras don't have permission to live free. They're not happy.

[@SOGGYSOUP_VR]

We really can’t explain it….we just like to pretend we can, and find ways to fit the “answers” into our narrative… Humans do everything possible to deny God as our creator, and the creator of the universe. The ignorance of mankind is what’s truly astonishing. May God have mercy on us all.

[@BauriBob]

God doesn't answer this question any more than cosmologists. Exactly what is God? How did God come into existence? What existed before God created the universe? Did God exist alone for an eternity before deciding to create the universe? Really? and if so, how do you know this? Science seeks answers and does not fall back on faith. God must have been very bored before he created everything. What did God do 'all day' before creating the universe? If God is all knowing/powerful/etc., I'd love to ask God what his first thought was! He knows everything, so there would have to be an answer. So how did that first thought form? What was it? And what was going on in his 'head' before he had that first thought? An empty head and then he started to think? Really? God is a simplistic cop out to a complex question that we humans may never be able to answer.

[@michaelknapp8961]

Hi Sarah. I totally agree with you. We have to find a way to get it through our heads that there are just things that we humans don’t know especially when it comes to the origins of the universe. It’s perfectly ok with me if a person of science says he or she doesn’t know. It’s an answer. I talk with people all the time that seem kind of arrogant, WE KNOW EXACTLY HOW THE UNIVERSE WAS FORMED - no they don’t. WE HAVE A GOOD IDEA THAT THERE IS AN ENDPOINT TO THE UNIVERSE. They don’t. WE KNOW HOW OLD THE UNIVERSE IS. We don’t. I believe in God and I’ve found a balance between God and science, I believe God created the universe and creates the science.

[@SOGGYSOUP_VR]

@@michaelknapp8961 Thank you! You explained this beautifully… I am in the same boat lol. While I believe in science I also believe that there are things that we don’t know, and we’re not meant to know… I believe in God the creator of all (whoever that may be), and I believe in science. You are way better at explaining things, so I’m not gonna say too much because I think you said it perfectly. I really appreciate your comment, it’s nice to know that I’m not alone…. Finding comfort in the unknown is always a hard pill to swallow. Thank you!

[@SOGGYSOUP_VR]

@@BauriBob That’s very interesting and really made me think. My husband and I enjoyed a nice conversation about your comment. I would love to know the answers to your questions. Who knows what all the answers are…. I’m sort of an optimist, and I have sort of a crazy belief system as it is so I suppose anything is possible.

[@BauriBob]

@@SOGGYSOUP_VR there is nothing wrong with hoping for the best. Faith is a feeling. I don't believe in god but I do have spiritual feelings. I am not sure what they are, but I stop short of believing that there is a robe-wearing God sitting on a throne somewhere. Feeling good is not a bad thing! However, keep an open mind. Critical thinking and doubt are good things if we truly want answers. The universe is a mystery; a wonder. That's kind of cool even without all the answers.

[@gibbogle]

The most valid response to such an unanswerable question is "Why not?"

[@jollygreen9377]

God wanted to.

[@21Rodge]

Where did god come from

[@jollygreen9377]

@@21Rodge God is described as I AM and the Alpha and the Omega in the Bible. Meaning he’s always existed without a cause. That may sound crazy to you or it may not make sense but that’s how He’s described.

[@serenityindeed]

@@jollygreen9377so God has always existed without a cause, but the universe can't have always existed without cause in his stead. Gotcha.

[@jollygreen9377]

@@serenityindeed Gotcha? Curious? You don’t know that there was a beginning to the Universe? Have u ever heard of the Big Bang? ALL available evidence points to ALL matter and space/time having a definitive beginning. Yes, there’s THEORIES of multiverse’s and other ones negating a beginning but they’re just that…theories. So for now, the Universe HAD a beginning. When u have proof of it not having a beginning…talk to me. 😉

[@Dr.Bong_]

2:06 the standard big bong model? My kinda thing 😉😉

[@codycharles7798]

Nothing is forever except 1 thing. So simple. So True

[@jamesgardner9583]

Good thoughts.... Brother James 🙏

[@chrisgriffiths2533]

Interesting Explanation. But Where does Time come from to Start the Universe ?.

[@muhannadalnabulsi4266]

Amazing

[@stevefaure415]

This explanation gives me a cold chill

[@stevefaure415]

@Ali Al-Mahdi You just whipped that right out, didn’t you?

[@abelincoln8885]

It's nonsense. Engineers have known for over 120 years that the Universe is the only example of a FINITE Isolated Thermodynamic System with increasing entropy. All thermodynamic Systems are in a SURROUNDING System that must provide the matter, energy & laws of nature. The Universe is like "all of" a balloon as both are thermodynamic systems, made in a surrounding System ... by an intelligence.

[@kiernanwalker3852]

The rtitle of the video is incorrect. The question is not why, but how.

[@bahloolvoghouey9009]

So the concept of infinity and nothing which is rooted in our mathematics is the base of the problem which we can not even imagine

[@abassett22]

1:30... we understand the universe will continue to expand? Where is that from?

[@johnrohde5510]

The argument of consistency, that no photons could go to the past because it would destroy the model and we don't find photons going to the past, is surely circular? It is only an explanation of the arrow of time if we accept the model in the first place.

[@gtensor]

Best response to this question from him would be: "I have no Idea".

[@bybeach4865]

Though I am the farthest thing from a trained mathematician, or even competent with math in general, the approach I take is to label what is prior to something not as 'nothing' but rather 'null'. There is no absence of something, it's 'no concept' or 'no condition'. The very potential of a label does not exist You cannot derive something from this kind of null. No space, and no potential of space, say. Probably what would help understand what I am saying might require a good dose of religion, describing how God is everything, but going backwards to beyond a fault. But I have an intuition that there might either never be true 'null', or perhaps that despite 'no potentiality' on an eternal scale, something does break or does change. Something changing seems to correlate with a concept of time

[@ThatTaRaGiRL]

Religion has NOTHING to do with this. PLEASE...spare onlookers the same boring 3000 year old garbage.

[@bybeach4865]

@@ThatTaRaGiRL Thats because I wasn't citing religion as a contributor . It was an analogy to a process of thinking for establishing values of absolute. When one tries to describe the 'everything' of God, definitions are produced so as one may comprehend the 'everything' of God. Or at least it's direction. What I wanted to consider is some same kind of logic to comprehend in reverse, to a point where even definition does not occur, an absolute non-existence of definition. Null, so to speak. No one(on my end) is trying to give you a religious example or explaining by religious dogma.

[@esstee9595]

Ahhh...finally a viable explanation at 2:07: "...the standard big bong model..." Now I get it. :-)

[@BSwenson]

The title is incorrect. This is all a speculative conversation about HOW…not why.

[@daveyboyr7580]

If the big bang was the result of collision of black holes which progressively collide, then multiple universes are continuously formed at varying rates.

[@Tamim-uTube]

What caused the loop to begin with?

[@Buzz_Kill71]

In the end, the answer we seek is a big spirit in he sky who has always been and will always been! 😳🔱😮

[@JohnNHenning]

Now we are getting somewhere.

[@shiddy.]

this one got deep

[@carminefragione4710]

It is all like the double slit quantum physics experiment . When an intelligent observer is watching the stream of particles they behave one way, but if no one of any sentient power is watching, the particles behave a different way. This sensitivity to the factor of an intelligent observer, seems to weigh heavily in favor of requiring some sort of God for the Universe to have begun and behaved . So it is either Chaos Theory or Intelligent Design. The double slit experiment famous in Quantum Physics seems to say if there is an intelligent observer , the behavior is determined in sight of it.

[@serenityindeed]

The double slit experiment doesn't require the "observer" to be intelligent or sentient, so does not lean towards favoring a god like you say. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of quantum mechanics.

[@carminefragione4710]

@@serenityindeed Without an observer with sentient capacity , the world itself does not exist . The term "EXIST" remains defined as an observable phenomenon , that "Exist" does not mean "particular". it means it can be observed. So, this is a metaphysical question, does the world exist if no one of any capacity to observe the world, is coupled in the phenomenon ? The answer is no, even if God as a singular absolute something was without any observation, there would be no meaning to define God as "EXISTING". To exist implies a primal relationship, there is a giver and taker , sort of a binary resolution. If you used artist's paint but never put the paint on a canvas to allow an empty space to spread out the work, it has no form, it just some sort of dangling metaphor, useless , and thus without purpose, even a single particle you think exists, where nothing exists with it to play the divine thinking part, that particle, empty of any complexity of a relationship to anything else having the ability to observe the first part, such does not exist, and so the issue here is , among many of your "Woke" people, you do not know the real definition of "EXIST".

[@innertubez]

“Time is a flat circle.” - True Detective

[@stevemcdonald3766]

The main problem with focusing on a creation of the universe is that you miss, or don’t take into account the possibly that maybe the universe has always been here! And if not, then what was the universe expanding into? Think about it.

[@suatustel746]

The universe is not expanding something into? It is creating its own space...

[@Ofer_Davidi]

Snails are created from within a snail female (sometime time there is no male around) So why can't the universe create itself the same way?

[@suatustel746]

@@Ofer_Davidi why don't you take into account an androgynous animal (only) such as Sea Horse... More interesting than your snails.

[@stevemcdonald3766]

If the Universe is creating its own space(which I agree with) it still needs a “space” to expand into. The model often used to show the expansion theory is drawing dots onto an empty balloon, and then blowing it up showing the dots are now further away from each other,but, remember the balloon is already in the space surrounding it.

[@suatustel746]

@@stevemcdonald3766 well if we assume the big-bang theory correct,and sprung into existence from singularity then singularity must Belong the another realm simply big-bang. Not only created the matter but space-time as well possibly singularity remnant from the big-crunch. Would you like to discuss the shape of the universe?

[@dlsamson]

The challenge in this situation is the arrow of time. If one can imagine a reality outside of time, it changes the possible solutions. For the universe to come in to existence, the potential for the universe's existence had to be available. This implies a steady state "void" with the possibility of a disruption to the steady state which would produce our present universe. There are only two things which seem to contradict the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, albeit only locally. These are the force of gravity & another "force," the force represented by consciousness (not necessarily {only} human consciousness)

[@Writeous0ne]

gravity isn't a force though

[@dlsamson]

@@Writeous0ne Actually, it is very much a force. It is one of the four fundamental forces of nature: electromagnetism, strong, weak & gravitational forces. This is just basic physics. I will note that some some theories have pared it down to two by combining the weak & strong forces with the electromagnetic force.

[@irnbrubhoy]

Yeah I totally got all of that.

[@zapatoak]

thanks. all clear now. that settles that

[@subaholics]

Here is how I see things. J Richard has a "theory", Steven Hawkins had "theories", Einstein had "theories", I have "theories" and so can you have "theories" and the list will grow. But none of us have facts that are not based on "theories" which is okay and that is as close as we will ever get to understanding "Why are we here?" or "how are we here?"

[@amossimon3438]

Some.people say someday we will be able.to contact the dead.The reason we haven't because no one has been smart enought to as of yet.That day will come.we should keep trying harder.That could them put our minds at ease.The word impossible don't have same meaning any more.our dead brother could be a tiger in Africa.

[@jamespattenden605]

If we knew why the universe began, would we then know why we are here and what for and where we go when we leave ? . If we did would we want to be here in the first place, you don't ask to be here, yet when we are we have to accept the fact we are going to die ?

[@infiniteuniverse123]

A black hole is simply a minimum entropy star. It is invisible because all it emits are optically invisible gamma rays. It is made of nothing but quarks that have been separated and uses dark matter as the catalyst. Once the quarks have been separated from a sufficient enough collision, it is the sheer density and pressure of the dark matter of space that keeps the quarks apart indefinitely. As a result of this separation, the dark matter is thrown out of the reaction as gamma rays. That is where all the cosmic and gamma rays come from in our universe. Space is made of extremely pressurized electron neutrinos. A black hole starts transforming itself into potential energy by first fusing the electron neutrinos of space and the quarks to create the first neutrons the mass will possess. This turns the black hole into a neutron star but the neutrons are only a thin layer on the surface of the quark plasma. This gives the mass its first optical light as well. The neutrons naturally break down into the first hydrogen the mass will possess. The constantly forming neutrons then fuse with the hydrogen to form the first helium using the beta minus decay, neutron capture method. This is the true fusion of the universe and has absolutely nothing to do with creating energy. It is only a method of turning kinetic energy into potential energy. That is why fusion has never, and will never work for energy production. Quark plasma is what scientists seek. The beta minus decay reaction continues creating heavier elements making the star darker until a crust forms and the light is extinguished. At this point, an atmosphere is allowed to develop since the surface is now protected from the quark plasma underneath. The endless quark plasma energy is what allows all the reactions to take place. We live on an ex-black hole. Gravity is created from a manipulation of the electron neutrinos of space. The energy of a mass breaks down electrons at the core and turns them into electron neutrinos. These particles are shot from the mass gravitationally invisible. They push out on the natural pressure of space to cause gravitational lensing since it is all the same matter. Gravity is created as the natural pressure of space pushes through the outgoing matter to react with normal matter as gravity. At absolute zero, this manipulation stops and so does gravity no matter what the size of the mass may be. Gravity had nothing to do with the energy we see because a massive collision in space created the galaxies as quark plasma shrapnel. The reason the force of gravity remains unexplained is because a cloud of gas and dust must be able to transform itself into a star. This assumption completely disregards 95% of the mass of our universe. Our galaxy was spinning when it was born in the collision. Quark plasma is invisible and can make shapes. The centrifugal force created a massive disk with a bulbous center. The center separated from the disk and our black hole was formed. The remaining quark plasma disk was left to create all the solar systems. Each one was created with a single mass of quark plasma as well. Our solar system did exactly what our galaxy did. A disk with a bulbous center was formed by centrifugal force. The center separated from the disk and our Sun was born as a black hole. The remaining quark plasma disk was left to create the planets and their corresponding moons and rings. Even our planets were formed exactly like our galaxy and solar system was. This is the Theory of Everything. All laws are consistently followed. No stone is unturned. Our universe is very understandable. All it takes is going back to what Edwin Hubble discovered and realizing that it was only the galaxies expanding, not the universe. Hubble never believed in the expanding universe theory but nobody listened. Georges Lamaitres primeval atom theory was accepted immediately and set into stone. It was the biggest mistake science has ever made.

[@robdee2924]

I understand on how the universe was created. I can see it in my head but I can’t explain it. 🤷🏼‍♂️