Can the initial model of the universe be calculated? The answer is Yes.

Dear Şeyda Bostancı

I did it, see Preprint The Metric Universe

Initial conditions are, by definition, arbitrary. They aren't calculated, they're imposed. However they only make sense within a class of mathematical descriptions-and what the appropriate class might be for the universe isn't known, because a theory of quantum gravity isn't known.

Dear Şeyda Bostancı, it is certainly possible to implement a model of anything, since physics and philosophy have the same primary objective. In fact, both philosophy and physics study the structure and functioning of the universe, from the infinitely small to the infinitely large. Philosophy uses logic (pure thought) as a tool of inquiry, while physics uses mathematics as a tool of inquiry. For this reason, everything that is philosophy today tomorrow will be physics, that is, science, once it has passed the Galilean test (repeatability, verifiability, and falsifiability). In implementing a model and formulating a theory, necessarily philosophical at first, it is necessary to know the parameters and variables on which the model depends. In the case of the universe, it is certainly necessary to know at least: what time is, what it is made of, how it works, when it was born, and what existed before the birth of time; what space is, what it is made of, how it works, when it was born, and what existed before the birth of space. Unfortunately, to date we do not know what time is and what space is, nor do we know what was there before the beginning of time and before the birth of space.

For all these reasons, it is certainly possible to implement a model of the beginning of the universe, but perhaps it is impossible to test it in the Galilean sense and find confirmation.

This

“....it is certainly possible to implement a model of anything, since physics and philosophy have the same primary objective....[etc.].”

- is , if is about mainstream philosophy and physics, really senseless claim, if relates to the thread question “Can the initial model of the universe be calculated?”,

- since in the mainstream philosophy well more two thousand of years, and in mainstream physics, till now , the fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter” [in the mainstream “Universe”], “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational - while really they all can be scientifically defined only together. Correspondingly any attempt in the mainstream to elaborate really scientifically rationally any really fundamental problem – as the thread ‘s one – completely logically inevitably can result only as some transcendent mental construction; and really result - in the physics there exist a lot of such “models” now.

The phenomena/notions above can be, and are, rigorously scientifically defined only in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s really philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

Compact, but essentially clear and rather in detail introduction in the conception see in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387933457_A_response_to_question_What_is_the_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception.

In the conception it is rigorously scientifically proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set. The Set exists absolutely objectively, because of it fundamentally – logically - cannot be non-existent and so exists absolutely eternally, having no Beginning and no End;

- while the utmost general scientifically rigorous definition of the so absolutely fundamental phenomenon/notion “Information” is:

“Information is something that is constructed in accordance with the set/system of absolutely fundamental Rules, Possibilities, Quantities, etc. – the set/system “Logos” in the conception”.

More see the links, here a few notes that directly relate to the thread question. First of all - really Matter and any, including human’s one, Consciousness are informational systems/ the Set’s elements, while “Space”, “Time”,, “Energy”, “Logical Rules”, etc. , are “Logos” elements,

at that Matter and any Consciousness are fundamentally different the Set’s elements.

So in this case we have the scientific answer to the really main – and really unique – question in Epistemology “for what reason, why, and how, humans [really humans’ Consciousnesses] can obtain any information about environment, including Matter?

- that is since Matter and the human’s consciousness are made from the same one stuff – “Information”, there is nothing surprising in that one informational system can obtain some information from/about other informational system.

However humans can obtaion any really new information about Matter only experimentally, and if we say about Matter’s Creation/Beginning, that is evidently impossible. So all what is possible is composing scientifically rational models. Now there exist only one such model – the SS&VT initial cosmological model, see the first link above, section 8. “The problem of Beginning and evolution of Matter”, where, including, completely rationally is grounded that at least Matter was designed and created by some the Set’s element “extremely mighty Consciousness”; and the model is proposed how the design was realised as the existent Matter.

Cheers

Dear Sergey Shevchenko, today we know how to measure time, we know that time depends on velocity, and we know that time depends on the force of gravity, therefore on matter and energy (given the equivalence between mass and energy).

Furthermore, a few months ago, quantum physicists discovered negative times, see:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a65593746/time-travel-in-the-quantum-realm/ .

Unfortunately, despite all this, we don't know what time is.

Therefore, first we need to answer the very simple question: "What is time?"

First from a philosophical perspective, and then from a scientific one.

Dear Leonardo Cannizzaro,

- you quite rationally wrote in your post’s end passage that

“....Unfortunately, despite all this, we don't know what time is. Therefore, first we need to answer the very simple question: "What is time?" First from a philosophical perspective, and then from a scientific one....”

- besides, of course the wording “the very simple question: "What is time”” - this question isn’t simple, and so by no means is answered really in mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics. And fundamentally by no means it can be answered in the mainstream, since in the mainstream all fundamental phenomena/ notions, first of all in this case “Matter” [in the mainstream “Universe”], “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational - while really they all can be scientifically defined only together.

Correspondingly all what you wrote in the post’s first passages:

“....today we know how to measure time, we know that time depends on velocity, and we know that time depends on the force of gravity, therefore on matter and energy (given the equivalence between mass and energy).

Furthermore, a few months ago, quantum physicists discovered negative times, see:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a65593746/time-travel-in-the-quantum-realm/ .....”

- really isn’t correct. Really time – and space – fundamentally cannot, and so don’t, depend on velocity, on the force of gravity, on matter and energy, etc. Though all this indeed is/are postulated in mainstream physics SR and GR theories, really these postulates fundamentally are only illusory interpretations of experimental observations, of the authors that had only transcendent – and fundamentally wrong - imagination about what “space” and “time” are.

And that “a few months ago, quantum physicists discovered negative times” is quite incorrect, really this “discovery” is some rather, if full stop, strange mental construction.

Again – see SS post above - the fundamental phenomena/notions above can be, and are, rigorously scientifically defined only in the SS&VT really philosophical2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, the links to corresponding paper see SS post above.

More concretely about what exists and happens in Matter, including, say, what are “time dependences on velocity and of gravity force” – really that are illusory interpretated indeed real slowing of internal processes in particles and bodies, etc. if a particle, body, etc., moves in the absolute 3DXYZ space of Matter’s utmost universal fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), [in mainstream physics Matter’s spactime are Minkowski/ pseudo Riemannian spaces with metrics (ict,X,Y,Z), where really space cτ-dimension is illusory postulated as the time dimension]

- see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, which is based on the conception, two main papers are https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391209088_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics, [ in the paper secton 2.9 “Mediation of the forces in complex systems” can be passed since this is more comprehensively given in section 6.“Mediation of the fundamental forces in complex systems” in other paper below] , and

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395113364_Planck_scale_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics

Recent SS posts in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_limit_to_gr-based_cosmology_given_General_Relativitys_local_character#view=68bae5061e2e950d7d0f7700/1/2/2;

and series of SS posts, pages 3, 4 in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Velocity_of_Light_and_Incorrectness_of_Special_Relativity_theory#view=68a657a5d42104f5e604f647

- are relevant to this thread question.

Cheers