Since time didn’t exist until the act of creation

Time doesn’t exist anyway, it’s rather a man-made construct, don’t you think?

I’m still trying to work that last one out.

Aren’t we all

Here is a really good cosmology tutorial that explains this stuff.

The universe is flat in shape, not spherical. Spherical geometry corresponds to a finite universe that will eventually collapse on itself. Our universe, according to recent data, is flat and infinite.

There are three different models for the universe:

Hyperbolic: open and infinite

- Negative curvature to space — geometry is saddle-shaped (or banana-shaped, I guess)

- universe has sub-critical density — this means there isn’t enough stuff in the universe to gravitationally halt the expansion

- expansion of universe will reach a terminal velocity and continue expanding at that rate forever.

Spherical: closed and finite

- Positive curvature to space — geometry is spherical (or orange-shaped, to keep the fruit theme)

- universe has super-critical density — this means there’s enough stuff in the universe to gravitationally halt the expansion

- expansion of universe will eventually slow down, stop, and reverse — “big crunch.”

Flat: open and infinite

- No curvature to space — geometry is flat (or, uh… no fruit analog)

- density of the universe = critical density — this means there is exactly enough stuff in the universe to gravitationally halt the expansion at infinite time

- expansion of universe will continue until infinite time.

Current data (from the WMAP experiment) sez we live in a more-or-less flat universe, which is infinite in time.

The way you framed the question of what was around before the big bang — i.e. if the universe is 13.7 billion years old, what was around 15 billion years ago — is a non-sequitur.

I disagree. There was a point when there was no universe (you can measure it in time or pickles, it doesn’t matter to me), so what was there? And where was it? Also, you implied earlier that the universe was infinite and spherical. If it’s infinite, can it really have shape? I was googling and, apparently, current thinking is that the universe is either:

infinite
spherical
saddle shaped (sort of bananacal)
flat

I’m not trying to be a smart ass, i’m just curious.

The curvature of space is determined by the density of “stuff” in it. Cosmologists have used finely detailed measurements of the cosmic background radiation (the echo of the big bang) to determine the density, which, it turns out, corresponds to a flat geometry. The universe will expand forever. This explains the idea a bit.

As for the time thing, my phrasing was inelegant. In the big bang model of the universe, time simply did not exist before we had matter. This is very troubling to some people, because, as humans, time is intrinsic to our existence in the universe, like water is to a fish — it’s the only thing we’ve known and it’s hard to imagine anything else. The way you framed the question of what was around before the big bang — i.e. if the universe is 13.7 billion years old, what was around 15 billion years ago — is a non-sequitur. However, you are correct that we can speculate about what exists beyond the four dimensions of spacetime, but not in the physical/temporal way in which we consider events within them (hence, no speculating about what was around at T-1.3 billion years). Gerald Schroeder, a physicist and theologian, explains it in his book, The Hidden Face of God

The further philosophical problem of there having been a beginning arises with the idea that the beginning of our universe marks the beginning of time, space, and matter. Before our universe came into being, there is every scientific indication that time did not exist. Whatever brought the universe into existence must of course predate the universe, which in turn means that whatever brought the universe into existence must predate time. That which predates time is not bound by time. Not inside of time. In other words, it is eternal. If the laws of physics, or at least some aspect of the laws of physics, did the job of creation, those laws by necessity are eternal.

So, yeah, that’s what I was trying to lead up to before. If we have a beginning to the universe, that necessarily points to something outside of the universe that is eternal.

To me, there are some things that are beyond reason. I look not just at myself, but at my kids, as I’m sure you do. I wonder…are they just chance?

Are the things I feel, like love, just an accident…random products of colliding forces? I can’t believe they are.

Uncle, I believe in purpose and significance. You might pick up a C.S. Lewis book sometime. I say this not to try and persuade you…but because he was a life long atheist and he asks some of your same questions. He’s an intellectual like yourself, and though you may disagree with him, but he might offer some other questions to ponder.

Are you sure you didn’t get it from a Monty Python skit?

No, I swear I read that in A Brief History of Time. But my memory is bad so I may have made it up.

astrophysicists do not believe that the universe is closed. The best evidence at the moment sez that the geometry of the universe it is very nearly flat, and that means the universe will continue to expand until infinity. It also means the “big crunch” scenario is out. The universe had a definite beginning point, and it will likely continue on forever.

And how exactly do we know all that? It does contradict what I’ve read but, as I said, I read it all long ago.

There was no such thing as time until we had matter in the universe, which was created as a result of the big bang — so you can’t ask what came “before” it.

Err, yeah I can. That no time thing is a cop out. There was a point where there was no universe. So, what was there? And where was it?

Interesting post. But I’m curious how recently you read this “banana” thing. Are you sure you didn’t get it from a Monty Python skit? Anyway, a finite, or “closed,” universe is spherical in geometry, not bananical, and astrophysicists do not believe that the universe is closed. The best evidence at the moment sez that the geometry of the universe it is very nearly flat, and that means the universe will continue to expand until infinity. It also means the “big crunch” scenario is out. The universe had a definite beginning point, and it will likely continue on forever.

Since it’s really, really old, what was around before it was? You know, what was here, say, 15 billion years ago? Just a big ass thing and some space?

That’s the thing with this kind of speculation, Uncle. There was no such thing as time until we had matter in the universe, which was created as a result of the big bang — so you can’t ask what came “before” it. And since space was created in the big bang, you can’t speculate about what was “there” “before” the big bang either. (Which is why Genesis begins with the beginning, by the way.)

Which makes me not insignificant, after all there are an infinite number of me’s out there.

I’d be careful with this line of reasoning. Why should someone care, e.g. if he runs you over with his car while you’re crossing the street — unless you can convince him that there is something unique and therefore worth preserving about the particular you who happens to be crossing the street at that moment. Out of an infinite number of Uncles, that probability goes to zero.

Now consider this, puny human:

Now we may look at the most important simple fact aout knowledge or thought — reflected in languages — namely its absolute, incredible limitation to the terms of our organic existence, that is, matter, space and time…

Ways of thought are embodied in the ways of language, and all languages have the same parts of speech: nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs. Language can be improved to express thought quite closely, but it never goes beyond the same parts of speech and never creates new ones. It is a virtual miracle that peoples who never even heard of each other maintain the same laws in their languages without failing once…

But there is an absolute proof for [the generality of the laws of language]. All the philosophers, scientists and linguists of the world, laboring together, could not invent one word that would not be a noun, verb or other part of speech and would still have meaning. [Yada yada and a snipe at Chomsky (this book was written in 1979)].

— D.G. Garan, The Key to the Sciences of Man

Anyway, I find this stuff to be very fascinating. We’re all a bunch of simps, and don’t even know it. Garan goes on to say:

…because of the relativity of cognition, any knowledge that explains most or satisfies best seems meaninglessly simple or blank [e.g. the garbage is smelly --ed] …Conversly, cognition seems richest where it is deficient, or acutely busy, where the nonknowledge, needs to know or questions are most extensive [how big is the universe and why am I a puny human?] …the deepest, most “philosophical” and fruitful truths are those which are so simple, or commonplace that they are never seen by philosophers as being worthy of their attention.

Anyway, strive onward, puny human! Just know that your striving is amusing to the creator, much as our children amuse us when they try to understand where babies come from. Heh.

I prefer The Horrendous Space Kablooey as championed by the eminent thinker Calvin (that would be the Calvin of Calvin and Hobbes, not John Calvin…)

I’ve never understood the desire to anthromorphize the universe into “start” and “end” states, but that’s just me.

Anyway, the point of the religions creationism is to postulate a situation where there aren’t any paradoxes : god doesn’t need to come from anywhere, he/she/it could have always been around, or have just naturally formed. If a God can transform water into a wine or create a universe, it’s fairly obvious conservation of energy and matter doesn’t really apply. Meanwhile, Big Bangist theories tend to rely on a swarm of energy splitting off from a different membrane/string of reality, or just ignoring the question of where it all came from.