Dissatisfaction

Why is it dissatisfactory to know the working of the universe?

It isn’t the workings of the universe I’m talking about, but the possible reasons why it exists (which encompass the two possibilities mentioned in the OP).

Do the two alternatives encompass possible reasons? Maybe the something from the nothing does. But can't you apply something from the nothing to an infinite universe also. Nothing, and then "logos, bang!"an infinite universe. "Then" not taken literally.

I’ve taken infinite to mean it’s always existed.

Always existed goes with necessity.
Came from nothing goes with brute contingency.

What's the necessity for infinite existence? And what's the brute contingency in the case of coming from nothing? A coming from nothing in the finite case is in need of further physical explanation. An infinite universe delivers such cause. How can a finite universe come into existence without a preceding time?

Can't gods create a spatiotemporally infinite universe from nothing?

Necessity is an explanation you can assert for an infinite universe.

Brute contingency is something you can assert for a universe from nothing.

Both explanations preclude any further explanation.

Then the ultimate reason must be the gods. An infinite universe necessitates previous universes. A finite universe is a brute artifact. Only gods can create an infinite universe. A necessity.

otherwise we have development from infinite stillness, which is not much better than something from literally nothing. — Down The Rabbit Hole

A never ending future is reasonable though - — Down The Rabbit Hole

The past and future could be an infinite cycle if big bangs and big crunches for all we know.

It can be bang after bang too. Without crunch, but more tasty!

"Seems" is a weasel word for perception. Which is dependent on several factors that are ultimately irrelevant to higher understanding. A homeless man high on PCP who runs into freeway traffic thought that avenue "seemed good" at the time. — Outlander

I chose the word "seems" as I wanted the poll to be inviting to everyone, not just those with a reasoned answer (if such a thing exists for this question). It is interesting to see what people perceive to be the most absurd, and as you can see from the results, opinion is split.

You feel the need to quantify "nothing" as in no thing with "literally" perhaps for our benefit sure, as if we are unable to grasp the concept. Perhaps you are projecting your inabilities and shortcomings on us? Granted, it is a mind bending concept for most so moving on. — Outlander

Some people's (most notably Lawrence Krauss's), use of "nothing" excludes quantum fields. I said "literally nothing" and "no-thing", to help express that I am including every-thing, including quantum fields, in my use of the word.

Obviously the "something" was not actually from nothing — Outlander

It's not obvious - around 50% of respondents find "something from literally nothing" the most plausible.

Maybe an interest question too: does an infinite universe exclude creation out of nothing? In other words, can an infinite universe be created by God?

The past and future could be an infinite cycle if big bangs and big crushes for all we know. — Olivier5

It can be bang after bang too. Without crunch, but more tasty! — Raymond

Although this infinite series of bangs runs into the paradoxes, it might be the most plausible option. Sir Roger Penrose seems to think so.

Maybe an interest question too: does an infinite universe exclude creation out of nothing? In other words, can an infinite universe be created by God? — Raymond

I don't see a problem with God creating a universe infinite in size. However, if the universe has existed infinitely long, it had no beginning, and so could not have been created.

I was exactly referring to a temporally infinite one. Why can't that be created from nothing too?

Create means "bring something into existence". This cannot be done for something that has always existed.

Why not?

Dear rabbit, I have personally written a blog or two and collected and published data on the topic (non-being) of nothing. You may also find L.M. Krauss "A Universe from Nothing" an intriguing read.

I have not learned much from reading three pages of comments on here. I will tell you my vote is that time is perpetual and infinite in both directions.

Our newest Telescope, Webb's, will reveal more about the nature of time and the beginning of our universe (cosmology). .

What have you learned from Krauss? I think he talks nonsense and offers no solution for dark energy. What is the nothing he talks about?

Our newest Telescope, Webb's, will reveal more about the nature of time and the beginning of our universe (cosmology). — Josh Alfred

What will it reveal about the nature of time? Ain't that clear?

I tried reading the book, but it was mostly fluff, and the rest was non-sense. I did this years and years ago, when it first was on my library shelfs. I know I didn't get much from it. I bide by the logicians of history, and other scientists when thinking about the nature of time.

I also have some of my own ideas, as classifying time into domains. Such that there is 1) Cosmic time, the Big Cycle 2) Rotation and Revolution Cycles, 3) Relative time 4) Atomic time and 5) Time as a variable that can be reached by mathematical expression and equation.

Did you learn something with your time reading this? Certainly more than you will gain from Krauss's "flat universe" and "zero-point beginnings" concepts.

If I could I would write a polemic against Krauss, spare with him, if you will. But I don't think that's very likely. I am sure you can access positive and negative reviews online, no need to debase the fool further, here.

Can time be a variable? How do you vary time?

Simply, there I mean one of the most fundamental equations in physics that google has here (let me get that) "To solve for time use the formula for time, t = d/s which means time equals distance divided by speed."

Else-while, there is something called time dilation (TD) it works with Einstein's relativistic mechanics. In such a state, my time is a variable of my reference frame compared to the reference frame of some one else. There is a widely known example of this. Its a great thought experiment to run, if you don't want to get into just the hard math, and simply stay with the visual aspects of TD.

With TD in mind, time is "very, very, very, varied." :)

With TD in mind, time is "very, very, very, varied — Josh Alfred

:smile:

I’ve taken infinite to mean it’s always existed. — AJJ

Eternal, perhaps?

Can time be a variable? How do you vary time? — Raymond

Pondering

Pondering — jgill

Ha! Ain't that killing time?

What's the great mystery about time?

To solve for time use the formula for time, t = d/s which means time equals distance divided by speed." — Josh Alfred

Isn't s, the speed, already involving t?

Is this question the same as asking if God exists?

Sure