Origins of the universe question...?

You make the same two common flaws that most people make in this argument.

1) The misconception that nothing cannot create something (it might be able to do just that, it turns out), and

2) That the rules PRIOR to the existence of our universe are the same as the rules AFTER the creation of our universe.

In the first case, many modern physicists DO think that nothing can give rise to something. In fact, they think that particles are popping into existence from nothingness all the time and at every point in vacuum-filled space (adding to the accelerating rate of universal expansion). Look up quantum foam theory.

In the second point, we cannot tell what the rules were prior to the "creation" of our universe. Cause-and-effect might only exist within our universe. The rules prior to it may have been so foreign, so alien, that effect preceded cause for all we know. The rules may have made our universe's "birth" not only probable, but mandatory and expected. And since whatever caused our universe would have come before our universe, it would have played by those rules, not necessarily our universe's rules. So you cannot include the creation event in the logic flow of EVERYTHING following that event.

That's the answer--first, that nothing can produce something after all, and second that our universe is most likely a product of rules other than the ones it now plays by so we cannot logically apply our rules to the situation prior that gave rise to our rules.

You wrote, " I realize if you bring God into the picture then this could make sense."

I don't see how. God explains absolutely nothing. Some how people have convinced their selves that God is a meaningful term that somehow explains something about the universe.

All anyone does by citing God is to put one more turtle under the flat earth to hold it up. So what created God, you have to ask, to be consistent with the idea that everything has a cause? And then you are forced to add another turtle to your stack holding the universe up, until you have an infinite number of turtles. An old joke is that "it is turtles all the way down." Down to where?

The only honest opinion is to say that "I don't know." But that is such a hard thing for most people to do!

Obviously there is something wrong with our assumptions. Space and Time must have some properties that we still don't have a clue about yet.

And it seems that the universe must be something that contains itself, or our known universe must be in something that is larger that is contained in itself. And the only thing that makes sense is that non-existence of our universe is a physical impossibility. But this idea is very troubling to anyone who has ever thought about it as our puny minds get caught in a loop that makes us dizzy. Very unpleasant.

Currently this is an unknown and we have no idea whether it is an unknown that we will never know or whether someone will figure things out one bright and shining day. My guess is that someone will stumble across the answer many lightyears away after we learn how to uncurl the other dimensions that lie in the heart of matter and the void. That could take a very long time.

But the universe is NOT something. It is like our concept of "forest" when only the trees exist. The universe is a word that describes the encasement of everything that exists physically or if not defined in such a way is conflated in such a way with the region in space that resulted from the big bang.

You cannot equivocate between the concept of "all that exists" and "our local universe".

Furthermore the invocation of a god does NOT make this sensible. It actually creates a whole bigger mess that must be determined BEFORE it can even be said to solve the problem of origin. Not to mention the logical contradiction of a timeless-spaceless entity creating time and space. Where did it come from? Can god simply create things out of nothing? The invocation of "god" to any equation does NOTHING to solve the predicament.

There are actual infinities, the problem is making "infinity" a quantity. It's not.

I will attempt to answer the question in terms of multiple dimensions:

In the ultimate dimension of time, there is a starting point of the universe, and it is expanding through time.

In the relative dimension of time, the universe has already mapped out its entire existence, and the end of the universe is intertwined with the beginning.

In the interdimensional element of time, the "looped time" (mentioned above) represents an "expansion of time" in a manner which is random, yet still looped upon itself.

So both space and time expand together, and only in the ultimate sense is there a beginning, but really, it is more of a "function of time" to find the "start of time" much like you have a circle remaining fixed, but pi itself is complex and continues infinitely.

So there "is no time" in the highest sense, its an eternal present, and the past is but a mere reflection of a looped future which is also changing as the universe itself expands in its complexity.

The limit set is the speed of light, the fastest that we can perceive there to be change (time) is the speed at which change can occur the fastest (the speed of the movement of light). Therefore, we can never supersede the speed of light as the universe is expanding at the speed of light.

In that sense, we can never possibly "catch up with ourselves" as we can never move faster (in 3D) than the speed of light, and thus never get past the "edge of the universe" let alone see it.

Even if there was an "end" (destruction) of the universe, in reality, it would simply be a new cycle, or a change in the state of the universe, the timeless element still remaining in place.

The big bang is inferred, and it is conceptually correct, however it mixes together the absolute sense of time and the relative sense of time, to give us the impression of a "beginning" and an "end."

In reality, we look out to the stars, and wherever the telescopes point, there are new galaxies upon new galaxies.

So in other words, it is not "the beginning of time" - but rather - the "centre of time" - however, only in the higher dimensional aspect. In "real time" there is a progression of events, however they are all looped together (yet expanding outwards) from the present moment. The boundary of the past, and the boundary of the future, can never be reached as the speed of light itself is a limiting factor.

In our lives, we live in a linear perception of time, a "time slice" averaging 0-120 revolutions of the Earth around the Sun.

Lastly, the stars, planets, life, the structure and composition of the universe, and its physical laws, should be segregated to another field of study. We talk here of the concept of a "universe" - a contained structure of existence.

I can't make an educated guess based on the limits of assumptions you have given me.

What is this bubbled area of universal existance that you define?

Is it just the distance that the large mass of matter is? (all galaxies and such.)

If you identify the creation of the "universe" with a big bang, could there not, given even farther universally proportioned distance away, in the consistancy of the matrix of space, another universe unbeknownst to even the reminants of our universe?

Without infinity, I think that you assume too much.

Infinity is in no way illogical.

The universe came from a concentration of material from other collapsed universes. The big bang was more like the creation of a star on a universal level. Lots of evidence to support this. The fact that galaxies are expanding and acquiring more intergalactic space. That the universe is always growing, expanding, beyond critical level in which it would be contained, and therefor it will spread itself thin and eventually dissolve into other masses. Lots of galaxies have been spotted moving toward our galaxy, some suspect those have strayed from other universes...

Just 1 thing:

The universe is relative, and that is important as it allows it to be infinite. There aren't absolutes in time and space, just relativity. So I think that the premise of the question is wrong.

A car does not drive at 40km/h. It drives at 40km/h relative to the earth, but of course it is more complex than that.

So basically, spacetime is as big as the distances between the furthest particles of energy/matter, relative to eachother.

What I'm saying is that the premise of your question not allowing the concept of infinity isn't right.

Is infinity really just an idea? Take a trip out into outer space and let us know when you get to the end of it!

Any question that is based on the premise to "assume" is flawed at it's root, especially if you are demanding that faith not factor into the equation...which frankly is impossible, for even those without religious beliefs still have faith in science or something else by which such questions find answers for them...me? Why take man's word for it over God's, Who is far more likely to know the truth of it since He was the only One present!

The logic it's for logic immaterial issues, but universe is material.

You need a time machine to return to the time where universe was created, so ask it for Christmas.