Before Big Bang

[Ben Dhyan]

I readily admit that my brain is unable to grasp these concepts, and I trust and hope that the physicists are keeping each other in line. Your last question makes no sense. to me. Non-existence comes into being?!? Hello, it doesn't exist!

Hi Autodidact, let me say it is refreshing to hear some words of humility, thank you.

Concerning your answer to my question, if "non-existence" never was, then it logically follows that "existence" is both eternal and infinite. If that is the case then a Big Bang is not necessary to explain the origin of the essence of energy and matter of the universe, as it was always there.

 

[Smoke]

If they lack the language or science to describe a scientific model, they should refrain until they have all of their "ducks in a row"

I don't think it's the lack of science so much as a lack of semantic precision. One sees this all the time; for instance, people -- even scientists -- talk about evolution as if it has intent and purpose, and say that such-and-such an organ was "designed" for such-and-such a purpose. It drives me crazy.

what point of reference do you have in an infinitesimal model where time/movement, and space do not exist?

You said you needed a point of reference for the expansion; until you have expansion, however, you don't need such a point of reference. That is, at the point of the Big Bang, you no longer have a singularity, and you do have time and movement.

 

[Smoke]

Concerning your answer to my question, if "non-existence" never was, then it logically follows that "existence" is both eternal and infinite.

I'm not sure whether this is genuine confusion or a deliberate flim-flam.

 

[Amill]

If that is the case then a Big Bang is not necessary to explain the origin of the essence of energy and matter of the universe, as it was always there.

The big bang theory doesn't try to explain the existence of energy, so there ya go.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I have got a bit left behind on this thread but am pleased to have been quoted, challenged and defended. It makes the effort worthwhile. I don't know much about the beginning. I recall being told by an Oxford undergraduate that people can offer approximations of what happened after the first 300,000th of a second of the big bang but I really don't know.

Perhaps there was never nothing. Are you aware of singularities, black holes, space time warping? We could have come into existance as the negative image of another universe. Perhaps there is a flip side or a multi-dimensional context. My point is that as much as I would like an answer, it doesn't drive me into the arms of Jesus because I don't have one.

Hi Bloomdido, enjoyed your post, again refreshingly humble, and essentially agree with you.

Yes, have read about all these arcane cosmic possibilities, but no longer believe anything on authority. Unless it can be understood by me, then consider me agnostic. Yes, it would be nice to get a satisfactory answer, and agree that this is not a question of religion at all, but it does drive me away from the proponents of the theory who merely ask people to accept it on the authority or reputation of "science".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That's what they tell me.

We don't know. Please reference my sig.

Well thanks Autodidact, that is quite clear and understandable and there are no more questions from me.

Respectfully, Ben D.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm not sure whether this is genuine confusion or a deliberate flim-flam.

Let me just reiterate, you said IIRC, that non-existence does not exist, and my reply was "if "non-existence" never was, then it logically follows that "existence" is both eternal and infinite.

Not sure what you are referring to, can you clarify what you find confusing?

 

[Scooby Doo]

Matter materializing from nothing, or an omniscient, omnipotent, amazing, powerful, incomprehensible deity materializing from nothing?

 

[Magic Man]

why would anyone explain something as if it's fact without being entirely accurate?

Because it's the best way to explain it without getting into details that would take several courses worth of study to understand.

 

[Smoke]

Let me just reiterate, you said IIRC, that non-existence does not exist, and my reply was "if "non-existence" never was, then it logically follows that "existence" is both eternal and infinite.

You don't recall correctly.

First question, if there was nothing before the Big Bang, then how did this hypothetical non-existence come to be?

Non-existence comes into being?!? Hello, it doesn't exist!

Concerning your answer to my question, if "non-existence" never was, then it logically follows that "existence" is both eternal and infinite.

You asked, if there was nothing before the Big Bang, how did this non-existence come into being. I have already explained why this is a misapprehension of the idea that there was nothing before the Big Bang, but anyway, you're talking about this specific (supposed) instance of non-existence.

Autodidact pointed out that it was nonsense to talk about non-existence coming into being.

You then said that if "non-existence" never was, then "existence" is both eternal and infinite.

Okay. Now that we recall correctly, let's look at this. Autodidact meant that non-existence, by definition, does not come into being. That does not mean that non-existence is impossible and it certainly does not mean that existence is both eternal and infinite.

My argument is not with your assertion that "existence" is eternal; I think the argument can be convincingly made that "existence" is without beginning or end -- not that that argument amounts to much. My problem is with this harebrained way of ignoring context and meaning to leap to unwarranted conclusions. It makes it very difficult to try to communicate with you.

 

[madhatter85]

Because it's the best way to explain it without getting into details that would take several courses worth of study to understand.

Quantum Physics is not all that difficult to understand ...

 

[Magic Man]

Quantum Physics is not all that difficult to understand ...

For most people and for normal affairs, it's easier just to say it's infinite. If you feel it's easy to understand, then, by all means, look into it and see what they actually mean.

 

[Kerr]

Quantum Physics is not all that difficult to understand ...

Depends on you. The "tunnel effect", or whatever it is called in English, can be hard to understand. Of course, if I actually bothered reading up on the idea it would probably make more sense (it is a theory about how particles can partially move through things they do not move through... to put it VERY simple). Of course, it all depend on who we are talking about, quantom physics can make sense to some, but to most it is a serious brain screwing thing.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The big bang theory doesn't try to explain the existence of energy, so there ya go.

Hi Amill, well thank you, does that imply that the existence of cosmic energy was preexistent to the Big Bang?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Autodidact pointed out that it was nonsense to talk about non-existence coming into being.

She actually said "Hello, it doesn't exist!".

You then said that if "non-existence" never was, then "existence" is both eternal and infinite.

Okay. Now that we recall correctly, let's look at this. Autodidact meant that non-existence, by definition, does not come into being. That does not mean that non-existence is impossible and it certainly does not mean that existence is both eternal and infinite.

OK, if you claim that non-existence is possible, then it follows you are now contradicting Autodidact who concluded that it doesn't exist. And so my next question to you is, if you believe non-existence is possible, how does it..ahem..come to be?

My argument is not with your assertion that "existence" is eternal; I think the argument can be convincingly made that "existence" is without beginning or end -- not that that argument amounts to much. My problem is with this harebrained way of ignoring context and meaning to leap to unwarranted conclusions. It makes it very difficult to try to communicate with you.

So if existence is eternal as you believe it to be, do you not see that it logically follows that non-existence, which you believe is not an impossibillity, can not...ahem...come into being, for if it were to, then existence can't be eternal.

Personally my understanding also is that existence is eternal and hence my interest in trying to understand how Big Bang theory is framed in the context of cosmological conceptual framework of eternity and infinity. So if you would like to be constructive in this undertaking, try to factor this into your answers to my questions.

Thank you in advance for helping to clear up any confusion.

 

[madhatter85]

For most people and for normal affairs, it's easier just to say it's infinite. If you feel it's easy to understand, then, by all means, look into it and see what they actually mean.

as far as i can tell from what i have read is they truly believe it to be infinite in the sense that we understand it to be.

 

[Autodidact]

Hi Autodidact, let me say it is refreshing to hear some words of humility, thank you.

Concerning your answer to my question, if "non-existence" never was, then it logically follows that "existence" is both eternal and infinite. If that is the case then a Big Bang is not necessary to explain the origin of the essence of energy and matter of the universe, as it was always there.

I didn't say that non-existence never was, I said the opposite, that there was nothing. But the Big Bang doesn't actually explain the origin of the essence of energy and matter of the universe (as I understand it) it just explains that at some point in the distant past, it was all jammed into a tiny dot that expanded suddenly and is still expanding today.

I do subscribe to the hypothesis that it's all eternal, but science has not established this.

 

[Autodidact]

Hi Bloomdido, enjoyed your post, again refreshingly humble, and essentially agree with you.

Yes, have read about all these arcane cosmic possibilities, but no longer believe anything on authority. Unless it can be understood by me, then consider me agnostic. Yes, it would be nice to get a satisfactory answer, and agree that this is not a question of religion at all, but it does drive me away from the proponents of the theory who merely ask people to accept it on the authority or reputation of "science".

I completely disagree with this approach. Unless I have at least a Ph.d level of knowledge about something, I don't have enough information to challenge the consensus of those who have devoted their lives to studying it. When I go to the doctor, who tells me to take penicillin, I don't have to go home and undertake a microbiology course; I just take the penicillin. When my mechanic says I need new brake shoes, I have him put them in; I don't learn how to fix the car myself. And when the overwhelming consensus of scientists in a given field accept a theory, then so do I.

 

[Autodidact]

Matter materializing from nothing, or an omniscient, omnipotent, amazing, powerful, incomprehensible deity materializing from nothing?

Or energy/matter always existing in one form or another.

 

[Autodidact]

Quantum Physics is not all that difficult to understand ...

It's darned hard for me.