Far out cosmology (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, February 09, 2014, 19:56 (3729 days ago) @ George Jelliss

dhw: Each human birth is a beginning, but nobody would dream of saying nothing preceded it. The origin of life is a beginning, and we're still searching for what led to it. Why, then, should anyone assume that nothing preceded the birth of our universe?-GEORGE: What I am saying is that the primordial state of the universe was a kind of nothingness - a void. Nothing could have preceded it because there was no time at that time! There was nothing for the nothingness to come from.-Let me see if I can summarize this theory. There is no such thing as "pure nothingness". The universe, which came into being some 14 billion years ago, was initially a "kind of nothingness" that consisted of positive and negative energy (which = zero energy). This chanced to separate (for no known reason) and thus produce the energy which in turn has chanced to give rise to all the materials and organisms which we now know and which never existed before because there was no before.-dhw: As I see it, there is simply no escaping the chain of cause and effect.
GEORGE: Why is there no escaping it? Only be cause it is one of your axioms.-But you have offered us a cause: the separation of positive and negative energy 14 billion years ago (if we can trust that figure). What you have not offered us is an explanation of how your "zero energy", which clearly contained the potential for the production of all the materials and organisms we now know, happened to "be". You "suspect that there was a certain amount of time and space before that [the "big bang"] for a short while." Why only for a short while? Why would primordial positive/negative energy not have existed for a long while? In fact, for ever and ever? (See the next set of comments.)-dhw: I see no reason why anyone should assume that throughout eternity until 14 billion years ago, energy stayed at zero. 
GEORGE: Here again you are unable to escape from your idea of Newtonian unending time.-Why do I need to escape from it? The argument that nothing could have preceded the universe because there was no before because there was no time seems to me to be based on nothing but assumption. Please don't misunderstand my motives here. Like yourself, I am looking for explanations I find convincing, and this whole (for me very interesting) discussion is an attempt to understand the thinking behind the different theories. I don't understand why you are so convinced that energy ... which we all seem to agree is the force that produced our universe ... did not exist until approx. 14 billion years ago. Your only answer seems to be that the Newtonian concept of time is wrong. Is it not possible in your view that positive/negative energy HAS existed for ever and ever ... as opposed to your rather mysterious "short while" ... and that the Newtonian concept of time as a constant flow from past to present to future is as valid as your own concept (which I think you have defined, though I can't locate your definition).-dhw: Secondly, I do not see how one can speak of "always" or "eternal energy" without linking it to time. "Always" entails reaching back into an endless past. 
GEORGE: It is not me that is saying this.-My apologies. This was meant to be a comment on David's acceptance of your concept of "time". It seems to me that one cannot believe in eternal energy without believing in a form of time (Newtonian) that includes an endless past.