How did [it] all begin. It's is a question that is instinctively woven into our minds. Most Physicists will commence conversation of the 'Big Bang', however modern cosmology has had several large blunders, and thus one may conclude that our models simply aren't working. Of course the religiously inclined will rush forward and say this is proof of god! The God of False Predictions. If you asked me, "How did the Universe begin?" I would reply "How do Vector Spaces begin?" They don't. They are a collection of vectors with certain mathematical relations that give them a particular structure. You would reply, "Are you saying the universe is a vector space?" I respond, "The Postulates of Quantum Mechanics states that all information that can be known is contained in the wavefunction. The wavefunction is a vector in Hilbert Space. Hilbert Space is a complex linear vector space, it is a metric space, it is complete, and it is uncountably infinite. The distinction most Physicists make is that Hilbert Space is not real, it is a mathematical abstraction. However, if all that can be fundamentally known about the universe is an element of Hilbert Space then why not conclude the universe is isomorphic to Hilbert Space?" Of course you would reply, "You Fool! You speak nothing but nonsense."
I think it has always existed, I also believe most people will have an issue with that because they latch to time, and that alone makes it hard for them to understand that idea.. Space and time are not one and the same, they're two different dimensions... Look, humans will never understand this, this question birthed string theory and m-theory... If I could answer your question and prove I am right then I would be on the cover of Time and be considered a scientific "God"...
..must be a popular subject.. i've seen several of this same thread in the last week or so. In the other 2, i made my arguments, & don't really feel like repeating myself, but i can summarize: There are 2 basic options for origins. 1. Naturalistic processes formed all that exists. 2. Supernatural processes did it. There is NO empirical evidence for either, & both of them are purely BELIEFS. Science is no help to us here.. it *could* validate or invalidate either 'theory' but it does not. All we have are speculations about what might have happened.. there is no consensus.. no empirical evidence, & no way to extrapolate something of this magnitude given our pathetic, limited data set. I know, this does not deter many from dogmatically declaring their OPINION as absolute Truth, but it is not. They cannot prove their theories or even show reasonable plausibility, without making huge assumptions.
IMO, there was an objective reality. ..it had to be either natural or supernatural processes. That we don't know just shows our limits. Humans are not as omnipotent as they believe. Perhaps we will never know. Perhaps we will discover the absolute truth next week. But at this time, we are no closer to solving the mysteries of HOW, WHEN, & WHY than we were a thousand years ago. We have speculation from esteemed experts, which is all we ever have.
Okay...objective reality. We do not know, but there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate a supernatural creation of the universe and is data to deny the existence of the thousands of "One Gods" simply because there are thousands of them. There are many theoretical possibilities as to how this universe came about, but none have the data to make any one of them accepted reality.
` We Don't Know sounds good to me. When it comes to quantum physics, the more we learn, the more new questions arise hence the less we know....abstractly speaking.
I still see them both the same. There is 'no evidence whatsoever of a naturalistic creation of the universe', either. Maybe it was by some unknown, unrepeatable, natural phenomena, or maybe the universe was created by an intelligent Being or beings. Both are beliefs, with no empirical evidence. This is not satisfying to those who feel they must have all their ideological ducks in a row, so they usually fill in the gaps of their understanding with assumptions, speculation, & imagination. The mind of man is a fascinating thing..
Perhaps time is simply what happens when particles have an internal clock as a degree of freedom. Indeed, this is where Quantum Field Theory is leading to. You see, we have Causality all wrong.
That's because the very foundation of asking the question is inherently flawed. That was the precise point of my argument. It is nonsensical to ask how do Vector Spaces begin. It's an ill-defined and inconsistent question since a Vector Space is a collection of vectors with certain relations that give them a mathematical structure. 'Beginning' and 'end' are relations that do not exist with respect to a Vector Space. The only solution to your 2 option dilemma is that the Universe is a Mathematical Structure -- perhaps Hilbert Space, or perhaps some other structure. The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH) cleanly gets rid this nuance.
How do you justify the partitioning of reality into 'natural' and 'supernatural'? Indeed, how do you define the two?
Well, there is no evidence to suggest matter has a beginning or an end.... Sure math will suggest that it does (the big bang/black holes) but it's never been proven or observed...
