To say the universe had no beginning is to say that time had no beginning. But time is a vector, which implies it has both a beginning and an end. Time is also according to Einstein relative which means it is tied to what it measures physically. Before existence of matter, or change in the universe, there was no time. At the end of entropy's inexorable decline in thermal emission, there will be no time. Time began when the universe began to explode, and will end when entropy is at its
lowest ebb.
Since entropy is provable (the laws of thermodyanmics) and no mechanism of rebirth of finite energy has been found, then time must end. If that is so, then it must have had a beginning.
In order for things to have begun, the must have either accidentally happened, or they were caused. There is no room for a steady state of primordial matter to have changed state, for if it were to do, so it would not be primordial, but it would have change and progress within it-- and time. You cannot have a beginning before a beginning.
If they were caused then they could not have been caused by something that is of the same stuff of the universe, but something outside it. That thing must have had volition to cause something, as will would be a necessary part of non accidental causation. It does not have to have the same characteristics and stuff of the universe or remotely the same character. It does not have to be matter, for matter needs a cause. It's primary character is that it requires no cause, coming as it does before all causation thereafter. To assume it needs cause is to deny its necessary character. In order to have a prime mover, you assume it has an infinite character like the number of points in a line. If it had a cause, in fact, it would not be primal, defeating its ability to be a prime mover.
The universe came into being if we accept the change in time. (Time is slowing down as the universe ages).
Most religions have the concept of nothingness, before all time etc.. and the universe coming into being with the push of a creator. If time were infinite its tick would be constant, and the universe would have no heat decay. But it doesn't. Time is slowing down, and the entropy is real.
To ask what the cause is, or what is "gawdo", is the same mistake as to ask what is matter. No one knows either answer. "What" is an impossible question. It assumes the metaphoric description sheds light. If one could say what a thing really were, you could create a thing by saying what it is. "What it is" - is really how it can be measured, detected and experienced. How it interacts with other "whats". In fact, why cannot be answered, and how barely. Perhaps no basic question can be answered. What, how, who, where, why, or when. How is what science chases. It finds out how -- comparatively to simpler models than what we see mosaically. It can never find out how intrinsically.
To assume no permanent end of the universe, is to assume a mechanism of rebirth and flux of creating and destruction of the physical system. It is not in evidence of a mechanism of this flux. It is enticing but not yet found. It would also imply a period and cycle of this change. Knowing this we would know the size of the universe and all matter would have a different cycle according to its size. It would have to be finite in size, and also strangely eventually it would run out cyclical energy unless energy and matter has a very different character than we imagine. Perhaps our understanding of gravity is where this all breaks down. We really don't have handle on that yet, despite Einstein. Space and its character escapes us.
EC<;-} |
