The problem with a beginning to the universe is that it presumes a causal origin in space-time. This prescribes that space-time are a priori when in fact they are a posteriori concepts derived from creation after the fact. The origin of space and time themselves must be answered and this obviously cannot be done in terms of concepts that are inconceivable before a beginning. The evidence for a big bang still hinges on very flimsy evidence. There may be alternate explanations for both red-shift and background radiation.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by subversion Figuring out a TOE is just like figuring out a big cosmic riddle. Barring laughter, this riddle may be the calling of the human race, the much sought after "meaning of life" that philosophers have always pondered.
It is the purpose of this thread to argue that the cosmic riddle can be boiled down to one simple question. How did the universe start?
The big bang, as it is called, confounds our puny minds; we seem aghast when considering the prospect of actually figuring it out. The big bang itself is an act of God, so we would do muchto elucidate its mechanism.
The problem should be approached like a riddle. As many have stated on this board, all the cards are out, we have all the pieces of the puzzle we need, we just have to fit it together. All it takes is a good guess, a guess I have made.
But before I start preaching I want to know people's opinion. Is the question of how the universe started, once answered, the cornerstone to the TOE? Do you think if somebody guessed how the universe started that all other conclusions would follow? |