In The Beginning. there was no beginning

It’s no secret that I’ve been a fan of science ever since I can remember.  It has lead to so many advancements, so many inventions, and really opened our eyes to what reality actually is. 

But it seems that nothing can ever be perfect.  No matter how good anything may seem, there will always be problems.  Ironically, the problem with science is that it’s too perfect.  Every mystery has been uncovered.  Except for one.

Now hold on there a second.  That statement is at best misleading and at worst flat out incorrect.  But this is precisely what I’m going to talk about.  When I say every mystery has been uncovered, I mean that there is at least a scientific acknowledgement of it.  Dark matter and dark energy may be things that we no next to nothing about, but we can at least acknowledge them.  The same goes for anything that has yet to be discovered.  Anything we observe will be placed in a scientific context, where it will wait to be tested theoretically and experimentally.

So I’m not saying that 21st century science has figured out all there is to know.  I’m not saying that science has already advanced to the level of providing objective truth.  I’m talking about the advancement of science as a field.  And not just science has a whole through history, but the specific type of science that is practiced today.  The science that must be experimentally or theoretically testable and be falsifiable.  The science that is based on observation and not assumption.  The science that created a system in which theories are created, shot down, revised, and shot down again.

Most people don’t understand that scientific understanding did not always work this way.  Aristotle, a man considered the expert in nearly every field during his time, produced many ideas on physics, astronomy, and biology.  But these ideas were nothing like the theories of science of today because they were full of assumptions that required the Earth and humans to be central to the universe for no reason whatsoever.  This carried on until the Renaissance, during which it was decided that a more objective understanding of the universe is better than random assumptions.  This goal for an objective understanding is the sole reason for the various technological and economic booms that followed.  It vastly improved the fields of engineering and medicine and continues to find ways to improve them even further.  Whenever there’s a problem, the world turns to science.

While this is seen by many to be a good thing, science cannot answer everything.  Indeed, this is the mystery I am referring to.  But let’s talk about what it can answer first.  A lot of people think that science cannot answer questions of the subjective.  Which song is better, Tangled Up in Blue or Through the Fire and the Flames?  Which color is the best?  Am I a good or bad person?  What these people fail to realize is that science can easily answer these questions, but I’ve framed so that it seems like science cannot.  It is true that science does not concern itself with subjective matters, but the rest of the world does not have to either.  If specific, scientific definitions are provided for “better,” “best,” “good,” and “bad,” science can easily answer those questions within an objective framework.  For example, if by “better” it is meant which song can garner a stronger emotional connection, science can answer this question by saying emotional connections such as these are determined by genes, which are different in every individual.  Therefore, Tangled Up In Blue is better to people with this type of gene, and Through the Fire and Flames is better to people with this other type of gene (though it is more likely that a cascade of genes containing the potential for various environmental triggers is responsible for something as complex as an emotional response from a song).  This is not to say the answer will be correct, just like the hypothesis that the energy distribution from an oscillating electron should be continuous was not correct (current theories show that this energy distribution is quantized).

But there is one question which science absolutely cannot answer.  Let’s go back to the article where I talk about the illogical.  If we look at that chart again, we can see that the natural sciences are the combined product of math (including logic) and natural observation.  Therefore, anything truly illogical cannot be part of the scientific realm.  This problem is avoided most of the time because we only concern ourselves with reality, where the illogical does not appear to exist.  (Remember, anything that would appear to be illogical in reality can be put in a scientific framework and therefore cannot be illogical). 

ASIDE: Concerning ourselves with the unreal would indeed cause quite a few problems but it is pointless and might even be impossible.  How does one discuss anything that has no presence in reality?  Fictional universes don’t count because they do exist if only fictionally.  We cannot discuss the unreal because we make them real by virtue of having the discussion, assuming of course we are discussing this in reality, which we are because of the first part of this sentence.

But as mentioned at the end of the illogical article there is one specific thing that is both illogical and takes place in reality.  What I’m referring to of course is the creation of the universe (which would also be the creation of time).

Let’s go backward on a journey that you all know too well.  We age backwards.  You live out your childhood in reverse.  We go back to the time before you are born and then switch our perspective to showcase the entire Earth.  Generations of humans go backwards, until we reach our point of speciation.  This leads to a long evolutionary path, run backwards, simultaneously with every living creature on Earth.  We reach the point of the last universal common ancestor until it too breaks apart into its constituent molecules, a DNA double helix, a long phospholipid, and other organic compounds.  There is no life, but Earth is not silent.  Storms, tidal waves, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes run in reverse, vastly changing the landscape of the Earth.  We change our perspective to include the scope of the solar system, right at the moment the Earth breaks apart into dust and rocks, swirling in the reverse direction of what they originally did soon after the sun was formed.  The sun then rips apart into its constituent molecules as we change our perspective to include the entire galaxy, where we follow these constituent molecules as they inhabit various generations of stars, some of which undergo a supernova in reverse.  We follow them back until a large, energetic, bulge is the image of our galaxy, which is now a quasar.  We change our perspective to the entire universe, observing quasar formation in reverse.  It is not so long before we see the universe collapsing in on itself at a rate faster than the speed of light.  During this time space is filled all sorts of exotic material with matter-antimatter collisions happening readily.  The entire universe is soon incredibly dense and hot as the electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear force are forced to become one.  Pretty soon the strong nuclear force is forced to join them in a holy trinity.  Soon after gravity is included to create the fantastic fources and the universe is condensed to a single point. 

And then the point exists.

We theorize that all of this happened.  We have built up an enormous pile of evidence for all of these events taking place.  But, we cannot go beyond the point.

But we can try!  Still running time in reverse, we see the point expand, faster than the speed of light where all of the forces are separated again and take on the familiar roles we see them in today, or take on completely different roles entirely.  These forces are able to rebuild the entire universe to produce what we see here today, or they produce something else entirely.  Pretty soon, the universe seems endless in three dimensions or two dimensions of 5 dimensions of 2423 dimensions.  Still running time in reverse, the universe again collapses in on itself until it is a single point, once again.

And then the point exists.

We theorize that all this may have happened, though we have strong doubts.  There is minimal evidence for all of these events taking place.  But we cannot go beyond the point.

But we can try again!  Still running time in reverse, we see an infinite number of these cycles.  The universe continues to expand and contract, in a simple harmony.  We are in an oscillatory universe.

And then the oscillatory universe exists.

We do not theorize that this happened and have no evidence supporting it.   Only arbitrary assumptions.  This is no longer science.  So let’s get back to the point.

The fundamental problem here, if it’s not already obvious, is time.  We can continue to go further and further “back” in time until we reach the point.  At this point, time was created.  Therefore, going back further past the point creates a big problem.  The article about illogicality showed that logic stems from causality.  Logic is also a fundamental component of science.  So science must also stem from causality.  But causality stems from time, or rather, our perception of time.  Everything has a cause and an effect.  This view presents time as continuous and linear.  Therefore, time must be infinite.  But current scientific models show that time, in our universe, is finite, beginning at the creation of the universe.  Furthermore, science never deals in infinities.  So we have the problem of both understanding time and putting it in a scientific framework. 

 

Time as continuous and linear. The future and past are absolute and extend to infinity.

Now there are several questions that arise.  How can time be created?  Creation implies something that consumes time.  So how could something be created when time didn’t exist if time is essential for something to be created?  Again, this is cause and effect.  But without time, there can be neither.

But that might be a good thing.  Creation, cause, and effect, all need time to occur, but they also need a starting point.  There has to be an initial creation, or initial cause, for everything else to follow in the same manner.  This can be seen when we went backwards in time.  Humanity, the Earth, our galaxy, were all created by means of cause and effect.  They all had a starting point for their creation which included a cascade of causes and effects.  But their “creation” was from things that already existed.  Therefore, it wasn’t really a starting point.  The starting point is found only when we go all the way back and find the point.  This point is the beginning of everything.

 

    

Time as linear and finite. There is a distinct beginning, or starting point, while the future extends to infinity. Both past and future are still absolute.  

 

So we reach the problem of creation and causality at the point. Namely, how was the point created?  If the point is the starting point, it has to be created.  But here we reach quite possibly the greatest problem of all time.  How can something be created from nothing?  This problem would be irreconcilable in normal circumstances.  But we are not in normal circumstances because we are at a point where time does not exist.  We are in an illogical state of the universe.  Since the idea that something cannot be created from nothing (the conservation law) is purely based on logic, it is irrelevant in this circumstance.  Therefore, something can easily be created out of nothing.

And this is where the failure of science is apparent.  In order to make sense of things, we have to conceit the starting point is illogical.  Since science, which is based on logic, can explain everything but the illogical, we must accept the idea that science will never be able to explain the starting point or how time was created.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

 

The correct scientific model for the origin of time.  It cannot be explained. 

This allows us to conclude that science will never be able to explain the origin of the universe (if we definite it to also be the origin of time).  To summarize:

1.  Science is based on logic.

2.  Logic is based on causality.

3.  Causality is based on the nature of time.

4.  Science cannot deal in infinities and current models of science show that time is finite, having a starting point at the creation of the universe.  Therefore, if time was infinite, it could not be put in a scientific framework.  We then assume time is finite.

5.  If time is finite, it must have had a starting point.

6.  Before the starting point, time did not exist.  When there is no time, causality does not exist.

7.  If causality does not exist, the conservation law is easily broken.  In other words, when causality does not exist, something can be “created” from nothing.  This allows time (and the rest of the universe) to be created.

8.  If causality does not exist, logic does not exist.

9.  If logic does not exist, it is illogical.

10.  Science cannot explain the illogical.

11.  Science can never explain the origin of time or the universe.

 

But everybody already knows that.

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------