Roger Penrose - Did the Universe Begin?

[@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.

[@falsificationism]

concur

[@jdavidkatz]

His "aeon" theory is nothing more than the very ancient "turtles all the way down" phenomenon. It's not science. It's laughable on its face. What is driving these processes? How did they come into being? Did they pop out of nothing? Have they been going on "forever"? It's all utter nonsense.

[@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

[@uniplan2]

exactly. It is the concept of time that seems to confound all these explanations. If science could explain the concept of time I think that would be awesome

[@topotheleague]

Keep the camera still! I feel nauseous.

[@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.

[@2x3x7]

Incredibly distracting, I had to stop as well

[@leeofallon9258]

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

[@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.

[@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

[@RobMaskell-r4v]

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.

[@ngcastronerd4791]

@@RobMaskell-r4v the universe being created is a baseless assertion. Cheers

[@cole141000]

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

[@anilmahajan8426]

There is no beginning & end of the universe, as per the ancient Vedic science. This theory seems to be more logical. There may expansion at some part of the universe, and the same time, There may be contraction at the other part. It means There must be number of big bangs. The universe is omni present.

[@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!

[@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.

[@doctorphoton1]

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

[@CameraNostalgiaClub]

How does it go?

[@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.

[@lordemed1]

Sir Roger is right on. He is The Man.

[@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.

[@peep39]

My favorite modern scientific mind

[@Starship_X]

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

[@huhuruz77]

12 years ago, all videos are very old.

[@drewj4297]

I don’t believe nothing is a possible state of existence. So there must always be something. The universe is infinite in time and space.

[@deanodebo]

What determines possibility ?

[@zacatkinson3926]

Definitely not infinite

[@EverythingCameFromNothing]

Why don’t you believe Nothing is a possible state? Nothing is literally the only state that doesn’t need an explanation of how it came to be

[@kappla]

Who are you, and why are your beliefs worthy of consideration?

[@drewj4297]

@@EverythingCameFromNothing Years ago I went on a quest to try and get to nothing. The closest I could get was to emptiness. But emptiness still has spatial properties, making it something. It doesn’t seem you can get less than emptiness. In order for something to exist it needs a property. Even your statement “to be.” In order for something to be it needs a property. I don’t think the absence of properties is logical. Nothing is location dependent.

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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?

[@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".

[@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...

[@r2c3]

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

[@Wishyouwerehere435]

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

[@drbonesshow1]

Wish you weren't here.

[@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.

[@DavidHall-v8d]

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.

[@lorenzomalaguti2250]

The theory he presents at 8:48 must be wrong, because you can think the history of the universe like a circle which repeats itself every a certain amount of time but that circle must have a beginning, to draw a circle you have to start from one single point. According to me We won’t ever understand the universe because we are “special animals” inside it, in fact to study something we must be outside it but since the universe is infinite we cannot do that. For me the real question is why we as human think about things like this instead of only follow natural pulsions like every other animal. The consciousness is the real mistery we can undestand,not now but in the near future.

[@huseyinbarkay5854]

It's pretty insane that no one in the fcking univers know how everything started or what's.happening. We just live without knowing and this explains really well the need for religions to cope with existence. For me the very fact that we must live without knowing is so frustrating but there is nothing better we could do.

[@lorenzomalaguti2250]

@@huseyinbarkay5854 totally agree with that. We believe in god for two reasons: 1) the creation of everything the particles or the energy and the physic rules the govern the universe; 2) we try to give ourselves a meaning. Personally i think that we are special animals because we have consciusness, we are pretty young as a specie so there are many questions we can’t still answer but evolving in the future humanity could find some answers, but not for the foundamental questions.

[@huseyinbarkay5854]

@@lorenzomalaguti2250 exactly buddy. I think it just came naturally. Peopel realised there is literally no sense with the big bang, atleast no sense of rationality Human brain is literally "I see something, this thing I see must have a cause". Literally this is how it works inside and for everything. What would a human brain think, he would say well there must be something that caused it, ie God' But then what created god ? Where does he come from right ? And unfortunately the answer you get is "oh he always existed" , "he is outside of time fyi"... Well how is he achieving that then* As I said, universe is literally the biggest troll and we need atleast 7 Einstein or crazy-powered Nikola Tesla to figure out something

[@peaceonearth351]

I see the eternal creation structured in the Mandelbrot Theory.

[@francisoleary7010]

It sounds to me like he’s describing a very long long wavelength oscillation: that the universe itself or rather the series of universes are indeed a long period vibration; and it also rather neatly means that there are nodes in that vibration where there is stillness and no extent. So that rather neatly ties in with this difficult to hold onto idea of a singularity at the beginning of our universe.

[@alexbowman7582]

The biggest evidence of a beginning at least of sorts is that there is a certain amount and type of Red Dwarves, an older Universe would have older different Red Dwarves.

[@brianquinn6014]

Never started and will never end

[@davidlucey1311]

Listening to this makes me understand how Penny on The Big Bang Theory must feel.

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@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

[@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?

[@gordonquimby8907]

If your equations produce nonsense, then perhaps there is something wrong with the equations, or the assumptions you are making that you plug into your equations. At 8:02 Penrose says all you need to do is “put down the Transformations which make infinity squash down and then you take the reciprocal and that's the stretching out which gives you for the Big Bang.” (Oh,...and you need some other equations in there, too.) Infinity magically transforms and squashes down, that is nonsense.

[@gordonquimby8907]

What is squashing it down? No mass, therefore no gravity.

[@deanodebo]

Actually synthesis and analysis in mathematics is how new theorems are born. Your problem may be thinking the scientific theory is true. It’s not. They’re not. They’re models essentially.

[@AliothAncalagon]

If you ask me Penrose just struggled to explain the concept in more simple terms, so he kinda retreated into the equations. There is nothing nonsensical about his proposal. Or at least nobody found a nonsensical element within it yet. And its not even that counter-intuitive how it works. The infinity he talks about effectively comes down to the Law of truly large numbers. If you have a googol years time, even a chimpanzee randomly hitting buttons on a typewriter will eventually happen to write the Lord of the Rings. If you have a googol to the power of a googol years time, Quantum fluctuation will eventually happen to randomly create the physical novels out of nothing somewhere. And if you have a googol to the power of a googol to the power of a googol years time, that might be enough for Quantum fluctuation to create a new big bang.

[@gordonquimby8907]

@@deanodebo Well, mathematics is how new theorems may be born, but there has to be a justification for transforming the infinite expansion into a cataclysmic collapse that then causes a new Big Bang. The photons expanding out to infinity have no mass. Therefore, there is no gravity to cause the universe to collapse. So there must be some errant assumptions in Penrose's equations. One errant assumption he makes is that the cold dark (almost) nothingness of the universe an infinite number of years from now is the same as the absolute nothingness before the beginning of time.

[@deanodebo]

@@gordonquimby8907 keep in mind, scientific theories are only provisional explanations, never proven But the idea is that “distance” and “time” lose all quantifiable meaning at some point. They have no meaningful magnitude. Energy and mass being equal, who knows the process where space and time are “reborn” But to speak of “collapse” is nonsensical just as anything “happening” is - Absent time and magnitude of distance.

[@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?

[@kratomseeker5258]

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

[@mavelous1763]

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

[@tubalcain1039]

In the 1930s , Fritz Zwicky said that the regularity of the Coma cluster of galaxies,if brought about by gravitational relaxation,implied that the universe must be much, much older than the current values usually given,about 13-20 billion years..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

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.......................

[@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.

[@greghicks5960]

I understood some of these words.

[@mavelous1763]

Lmfao!

[@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.

[@TruthWielders]

Mass and frequency are equivalents ! Sounds delicious !

[@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]

[@profroe]

This isn't recent is it?

[@streamofconsciousness5826]

No, Walter passed away last year, August 23, 2013 Before the JWST started sending back images that conflict with the BigBang theory.

[@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.

[@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.

[@BenjaminGoose]

Camera completely out of focus, video skipped.

[@Paine137]

Comment completely dumb, eyes rolled.

[@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 …

[@45IWB]

Surprised I lasted 2 minutes, thanks camera man!

[@tubalcain1039]

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

[@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 ...

[@patsprankcalls]

I know I'm OCD but I'm sure the background is a green screen and it's really off putting.

[@crabb9966]

I think so

[@jasonwiley798]

You are CDO. OCD IN ALphabetic order

[@patsprankcalls]

@@jasonwiley798 Tf are you on about. I dont actually have it btw its just a figure of speech 😂😂😂

[@jasonwiley798]

@@patsprankcalls it's a joke/ Some people have no sense of humor.

[@TerryUniGeezerPeterson]

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

[@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....

[@HarryNicNicholas]

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

[@darelvanderhoof6176]

So how do you get existence from absolute non- existence?

[@gilberttello08]

👍👍hello fr Philippines

[@tbone9603]

No beginning No end

[@zealman79]

cause on my love, you can depennnnnnnnnnnnnddd

[@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.

[@OrthodoxJoker]

Yes

[@glacieractivity]

Thank you for providing the correct answer.

[@sourcecode6467]

The concept of existence presupposes parameters of reality, such as time, space, and consciousness. However, these parameters themselves are constructs within the framework of existence. If nothing can exist, it implies the absence of these parameters, rendering the very notion of existence null and void. Therefore, the argument suggests that nothingness is the only conceivable state, as any concept of existence relies on conditions that cannot themselves exist without presupposing existence.

[@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

[@han-chan872]

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

[@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? 🤔

[@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 !!

[@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.

[@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.

[@michaeldonofrio6759]

As always is the case, the distinguished gentleman tells us how the universe may have grown--not how it began. The universe is physical and material. No matter how infinitesimal it might have been once, it was still physical and material. All things material had a measurable beginning. I, too, would like to know how something material that was not there in one instance, was suddenly there in another instance.

[@johnpublic168]

Humans always project. Thus a beginning

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

Did the universe begin...? Its very difficult to accept any answer for this question....

[@dougthompson1598]

The answer is either "yes" or "no." Nether one is satisfactory.

[@erbsbischof]

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?

[@logiclingo]

Turtles all the way down...

[@antoniorosales136]

I’ve seen the turtle

[@AloofAvocado]

A'Tuin

[@420hillage4]

I like turtles 🐢

[@colehutzler8743]

😂😂

[@MCsCreations]

Turtles are good people.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

(8:30) *RLK: **_"But there's no beginning to the whole sequence."_* ... To which Penrose agrees, and this is where we part ways. Any existential proposition that relies on there being _"no beginning"_ or something having an _"infinite origin"_ cannot be supported by logic. Once you throw your hands up and boldly shout *"Infinity!"* you've officially given up on your search for understanding. Nothing we've observed in nature presents an _infinite origin_ - not you, not me, not planet Earth, not dinosaurs, not galaxies, nor anything else. Yet for some reason, we'll happily toss out _"infinity!"_ for explaining the existence of universe.

[@robertstan2349]

you've made an error. fallacy of composition. you should not argue attributes from the members of the totality of 'Nature' to the totality itself

[@gallinho7268]

If you think about it philosophically it has to be infinite. If it wasn’t infinite it means our universe came from nothing, absolute nothing, no vacuum, no quantum fluctuations, no nothing. Which is impossible, but if I grant you that it is possible then why would it happen only once? It could happen an infinite number of times. But if you agree with me that it is quite impossible for something to come out of absolute nothing then given that there is now something it means that there never was absolute nothing. There always was something, there had to be, to whatever degree, a quantum soup maybe but there has to have always been ‘something’.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@robertstan2349 *"you've made an error. fallacy of composition. you should not argue attributes from the members of the totality of 'Nature' to the totality itself"* ... Great! All you need to do now is state the demonstrable difference(s) between the set called "nature" and its set members and you'll be golden!

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@gallinho7268 *"If you think about it philosophically it has to be infinite."* ... Let's test that: Without saying, _"it just does,"_ how can something exist without coming into existence? *"If it wasn’t infinite it means our universe came from nothing, absolute nothing, no vacuum, no quantum fluctuations, no nothing."* ... False conclusion. I have an entire book dedicated to how "Existence" can have an origin point that absolutely doesn't involve _"something from nothing."_ It's what the human mind can come up with when we don't take the easy way out and simply shout "Infinity!" *"But if you agree with me that it is quite impossible for something to come out of absolute nothing then given that there is now something it means that there never was absolute nothing."* ... And I do agree, but only up to a point. You can have *potential existence* (somethingness) indefinitely existing in an inconceivable state, and the instant it renders itself conceivable, it then exists as a conceivable "something." That's why the 1st Law of Existence states, "Only that which is logically conceivable can exist."_ The only question that remains is how something that is inconceivable can render itself conceivable, correct?

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@tcl5853 *"Just because something is inconceivable for you to understand, doesn’t really mean anything at all."* ... That's absolutely incorrect. Anything deemed "inconceivable" cannot exist. That's a fact! If you wish to challenge that, then simply name something that exists that's inconceivable and you'll be golden. *"The idea that human beings could fly to the moon was certainly inconceivable not too long ago didn’t prevent human beings from making their way to the moon anyway."* ... That was deemed "improbable" (or "impossible") back then and not "inconceivable." We were landing on the moon in movies, songs, and literature well before we ever physically landed on the moon. We can very easily "conceive" traveling faster than light even though we can't. What you cannot conceive is a square-circle, limited-infinity, and a married-bachelor. *"I could make a very long list of what was considered “inconceivable” at one moment in time only to become a mere steppingstone to even greater knowledge."* ... Your list would be chock full of "improbable" and "impossible" things, but not "inconceivable" things. It's okay, though, because most people have never really considered the importance of conceivability in regard to "Existence." Someone trying to conceive a square-circle 1000 years ago, today, or 1000 years from now will run into the exact same inconceivability roadblock. *"Consider quantum mechanics and before that Newtonian physics, inconceivable for most of human history. All inconceivable ideas until they weren’t."* ... The "rules of conceivability" apply to the quantum world just as much as the macro world. If there is a *logical barrier* attached to something being proposed in quantum mechanics, then it's only a matter of time before that proposition gets debunked and restructured. "Conceivability" is the #1 prerequisite for "Existence."

[@tedgrant2]

I hope the universe began to exist, otherwise I must be dreaming.

[@GatorMcClusky]

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

[@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.

[@Android480]

Not being able to measure time doesn’t mean not having it

[@millepill]

When there is no change there is no time.

[@matthew-xl4od]

We began

[@JoaoCosta-pn9im]

The question thus is: has the beginning actually begun?

[@adamhughes4442]

Isn't death a state of nothing?

[@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?

[@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.

[@AfsanaAmerica]

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

[@andrewmasterman2034]

@NafeDev-yo4lo why would you even feel any inclination to suppose a genuine contributor to the state of new universes might be randomness in any true sense. Can you think of a single example of true randomness arising in this universe? It seems to me that that’s the one characteristic these universes can’t contain.

[@rhwinner]

The universe began before records were kept. No one has ever seen it, and if they claim they know they are lying.

[@tonyatkinson2210]

You are aware that most science discoveries where made by inference aren’t you . If it was the case that we can’t know what happened if nobody saw it then we’d have to throw out our entire legal system . Nobody would be convicted of murder if there had to be witnesses other the the perpetrator

[@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.

[@walternullifidian]

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

[@antea9055]

The universe did not begin. There are valid perspectives outsise our shortsighted linear one in which our Universe makes complete sense!

[@TruthWielders]

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 !

[@baladi921]

The universe is forever.

[@andrewmasterman2034]

So infinite?

[@mavelous1763]

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

[@Mike-vd7ee]

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

[@IAMJ1B]

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.

[@tubalcain1039]

Should the universe pick a given 'time' to "begin"? It's too speculative.

[@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

[@davidwalker5054]

Begin and end are human concepts that are hardwired in our brains. You are born the beginning you die. The end. Everything in our life starts and ends so when we look for an explanation of the nature of the universe we have already subconsciously predetermined that at some point the universe came into existence. Hence the big bang. it's the only way we can mentally accept. Try to get your head around a universe with no beginning your brain can't cope with that concept

[@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