Leonard Mlodinow - Did the Universe Begin?

Some scientists claim that the universe did not have a beginning. Some theologians contend that the universe did not need a beginning. Yet the universe is expanding, and so run the movie in reverse and there seems to be a beginning. What stakes are riding on whether the universe had a beginning?

Leonard Mlodinow is a theoretical physicist and author, recognized for groundbreaking discoveries in physics, and as the author of five best-selling books.

Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[JeffBedrick]

So much for the Kalam cosmological argument. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist, therefore..."
"Now hold up there, Bucko..."

[philochristos]

If our universe were infinite, how could there be more universes? Wouldn't our occupy all the space?

[kenosis__]

So, the critique towards the question is that it presupposes the answer and that in a way the question is non-fitting because "time breaks down". In essence, we shouldn't be asking what is North of the North Pole - as that clearly doesn't make sense. But, if you listen to the longer explanation - what he's saying is that in the used model the concept of time breaks down. But the question was never about the concept of time in a particular model - it was about causality.

We live in a universe that is fundamentally causal. The big question is, how can something that is causal, have a beginning in the sense of an "initial event", when everything we know tells us that every event must have a preceding event, so therefore there cannot be an "initial event". Yet, clearly any causal chain, MUST have an "initial event". That's the problematic paradox that lay persons are asking physicists. I'd be perfectly happy if the answer would be: "It makes no sense to us either", but talking about how time coordinates in a certain framework stop working is not a satisfying answer. It doesn't matter which framework you use, the paradox will always remain the same: how can causality "begin"?

I'm just a layperson so maybe I'm missing some steps here. But I wish the question of origins would be addressed in these types of terms, rather than "Well, if we plug the numbers into this framework they come out wonky so the question must be wrong".

[Appleblade]

I like his aside, about 4 minutes in, specifying that he's talking about the observable universe not anything (outside? beyond?) that, because "we believe the universe is infinite" ... maybe that's an important caveat to ask more about.

[Minion-khtq]

When you wish upon a star
Makes no difference who you are
Anything your heart desires
Will come to you

[rc]

7:53 a beginning means that the universe is measurable in a time scale and that time or its application predates the formation of the universe as we know it 🤔

[ronhudson]

The discussion is partly about a very small early universe - grapefruit sized. What was outside the grapefruit. Within what was it so small?

[peweegangloku]

He concluded by saying, "That is just amazing." What is amazing in all that he said? I didn't hear even a whisper of anything amazing in everything he said. Rather he was fighting so as not to be pinned against the wall. People have to fight to avoid self deception. It's a personal choice. It's up to him to choose to think whatever he wants to think.

[michaellewis]

The creation process started and gave rise to the universe. What is the alternative?

[gregbrown]

Coevolution of corpus callosum in tandem with other "parts" of the "brain separate" from the "external universe": led to the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing. "Left hemisphere" analytical dominance. See mcgilchrist master and emissary.

[PeterRice-xhcj]

A billionth of a second is far too fast for us to experience, so it’s fair to say that in that short time interval we don’t have a sense of being. The problem is that the time frame we are aware of such as 1 second feeling like 1 second, is joined together by by extremely short time intervals where we don’t have a sense of being, so how do we have a sense o being at all. We also need to be focusing on a colour to have a sense of being even if we just picture something in our heads. If 100 years go by without us having any sense of being, to us it would seem like a blink of an eye, because we wouldn’t have any memory of not having a sense of being, such as an extremely short time interval.
If a group of people were individual zero dimensional points that mixed together to form one single zero dimensional point without any dimensions, every one would agree with what number they are looking at because every one would be one individual point. If zero dimensional points were not in any particular space or not separated by any space, they would be separated by time, each being zero dimensional universes. Our sense of being is zero dimensional, so does that mean we could be individual zero dimensional points. If we don’t have any sense of being such as in an extremely short time interval, we wouldn’t exist, not even being zero dimensional points. What if only two multi point points exist. One was the digit one that all numbers up the number line really are, and the other was a gap or boundary that separates numbers. How do we stop more than 2 points existing. Now let’s say there are 20 scattered points. Now you are an individual point with a consciousness of 20, so by imagining these 20 scattered points you are looking at yourself as a an individual point with a consciousness of 20. Now let’s say there are 90 other individual points mixed in with you. The 90 other points might also think their the ones theorising 20 scattered points. Now let’s say there are a number of scattered points you don’t know how many. You can’t count something you don’t know is there, neither can you count infinity. You can mix an infinite number of zero dimensional points points together because they are zero dimensional. So if you don’t know how many scattered points there are, dose that mean you a looking at the point your in not as a number conscious point, but looking at it as the fact there might be an infinite number of individual points mixed in. An infinite number of individual zero dimensional points should be able to be mixed in to make one single zero dimensional point. There would be no order of how many individual zero dimensional points would be mixed in to form one single zero dimensional point.

[DRTX]

Videos like these always make my brain hurt 😂 especially when no one truly knows the answer and may possibly never know…

[apparentbeing]

The universe is very suitable for us because we did not come from some other universe.
In the same way, the sea is a very suitable place for a wave.

[PeterRice-xhcj]

Let’s say you have two colours that exist on one side of the tennis court, and the other side of the net you have two colours that don’t exist. Each colour one side of the net could each be part of two systems. Each colour that exists could also be a colour that was originally a colour that never existed that has has already crossed over the net from the other side to become a colour that does exist. So the two colours that exist could be part of two systems. The two colours that don’t exist the other side of the net could also be part of two systems. If we look at the two colours that exist from above the court with our head pointing away from the other side of the court, we may see red on the left and blue on the right. But we don’t see the spaces they take up because the spaces don’t contain any colour. What if the space the red colour was in on the left was the blue colour on the right, and the space the blue colour on the right was in was the red colour on the left. And what if the empty spaces thought they were the colours and the colours were the empty spaces they were filling up. Their is on point to make here. Both the empty spaces and colours that are filling them up are both from two systems, the empty space originating from the other side of the net as a colour that does not exist to cross over the net to become a colour that does exist, and the colour that is filling the spaces up is part of the system that is home on the side of the net it’s on. There is also two colours that don’t exist the other side of the net that is also part of the same two systems. The reason the empty space the red colour on the left is in could be the blue colour on the right, is because a colour can’t fill up a space that is the same colour as it is. So we are looking down at the two colours that exist with the top of our head Pointing away from the other side of the net, and we see a red square on the left and blue square on the right. Now if we look at the two colours that exist from underneath the tennis court still with the top of our head pointing the same direction, could we now see a blue square on the original left and red square on the original right, now seeing the empty spaces being the actual visible colours. Now when the two colours switch spaces with each other, in a way the spaces are moving to because they are now entering different colours thinking they are different spaces. A way we can see the two colours one side of the net and spaces they fill all move together without seeing the spaces still, is if the two colours move over the net in a straight direction, and the two spaces they leave move diagonally over the net to the other side of the court. But shouldn’t the two colours now be two colours that don’t exist? If the two colours and new spaces they are in turn into each other once they cross the net, the colours now being spaces will have to change colours because a colour can’t fill an empty space that is the same colour. The side of the net the colours and spaces have crossed over to becoming each other in the process are meant to be for colours that don’t exist, but now becomes the side of the net for colours that do exist. The original two colours that don’t exist and the spaces they fill, and the two colours that do exist along with the spaces they fill, have all crossed the the net to opposite sides, thus the opposite becoming original sides.
So if we look down on the court and see red on the left and blue on the right, then we look from underneath the court and see blue on the original left and red on the original right because we are now focusing on the empty spaces as being the colours, is that because by actually observing from underneath the court we are causing the colours and spaces to cross the net turning into themselves. When we see some thing cross the net we observe the outcome. But by observing the two colours from underneath the court and seeing the outcome (if) the two colours cross over the net, could we be actually causing the two colours to cross over the net. Therefore by looking underneath the court, we are actually looking across the net to other side of the court. The structure of the theory is an empty space can’t be the same colour as the colour that fills it up. If we look at the two colours from above the court, could the reason that we can’t see the empty spaces be that we are looking at the future where the other side of the net is on, and where the two colours that don’t exist are located. which are two colours that don’t exist that are at the other side of the net as the two colours that do exist are on their side of the net. They say particle physics is based on symmetry. What kind of symmetry? If you have 10 different things, what makes them the same thing is that they are all in the same category as being a different thing. All numbers are really just a digit one a certain way up the number line. But the gaps or boundaries in between the numbers look like a truly different thing altogether. Logic is based on numbers, but can we create a new kind of logic based on gaps and boundaries in between numbers.

[feltonhamilton]

The universe came into existence through the fabric of life the same way an electron did. for example when the universe contracts everything inside it responds to a pulling force passing through the microscopic level down to the plank level this contraction is also good for the nucleus because it helps generate energy around the nucleus outer shell because otherwise if the universe did not contract the nucleus would not have an input output mechanism and therefore cannot generate energy for itself, the universe contracting turns the space inside each particle into a graviton to help generate different electric frequencies around the nucleus I also believe the bigger the space inside each particle will also help increase their wavelength around the nucleus but here's the thing without space and vibration and the contraction of the universe all particle wave function would collapse, this is true on all levels of measurements even on the galactic level
The fabric of life is everywhere and if you could pull it out from thin air with your hands it would vibrate in your hands or if you were in a rocket you will feel the fabric of life pressing against your body. This amazing fabric supports everything and without it everything will collapse even the air you breathe.

[kylebushnell]

He said we can prove inflation because of the cosmic microwave background. That’s just not true. The cosmic microwave background required a theory, that is inflation, and it doesn’t work well.

[PeterRice-xhcj]

We could be part of one zero dimensional point where one second seems like one second. A physical system like a hurricane or falling line of dominos could be an intelligent being and be another zero dimensional point where one week feels like one second. The two zero dimensional points we are part of and the physical system are part of can be two zero dimensional universes separated by time, but both still existing simultaneously. If we are a zero dimensional point where one second feels like one second, and another intelligence is part of another zero dimensional point separated by time, where one week feels like one second, it makes sense for both points to be separated by time but still both exist simultaneously.

[zurc_bot]

If there was no beginning, what is the MBR?

[mikeys]

The fact that the universe was once finite (the size of a great fruit in the first nanosecond) and could now be infinite is quite a concept. I don’t understand how that could happen, even with inflation and with 13.8 billion years.

[Mentaculus]

8:44 IF U SAY SO, entertaining like starship launches.