Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?

[Awkward Fingers]

Please reread my comment....you will see clearly you do not understand what is being said to you...when I said that... it was not meant as a prediction, it was an observation based on your your mainly non-contextual responses. Ironically though, your mention of a prediction of being accused of not understanding what is being aid to you was self fulfilling prophecy....you really don't!

Sorry, I'm a bit slow, and trying my hardest to follow along here..
..So, DID you answer his questions? I probably missed it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sorry, I'm a bit slow, and trying my hardest to follow along here..
..So, DID you answer his questions? I probably missed it.

Yes...when i said in my post #343 that I had already answered the questions, I was referring to my explanations given in my exchange with Aupmanyav. I do not care that people disagree, but I have no time to waste on any digression from the salient points I made in that exchange about the infinite eternal universe...

 

[leibowde84]

now you're getting it.

I find it hard to believe that there isn't any evidence that you base your belief in god in.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Is science 100% correct?
Regards

My questions is inapropriate i think. I should have ask, why do you believe what the scripture say is true? How certain you believe it to be true? How does it answer the questions "Who is the ONE" ?

Please answer the question mentioned above.
Regards

 

[Thief]

I find it hard to believe that there isn't any evidence that you base your belief in god in.

The universe (one word) is evidence.
That you fail to associate Cause and event.....is not my failing.

 

[leibowde84]

The universe (one word) is evidence.
That you fail to associate Cause and event.....is not my failing.

So, you do have evidence that you considered. I'm not sure what the rest has to do with anything.

 

[Pudding]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Is science 100% correct?
Regards

Please answer the question mentioned above.
Regards

Science is a process, a person have an idea, conduct an experiment in a logical way, get a result then publish so other people can repeat the experiment and scrutinise him.
The scienctific claims which can be prove by its experiment's result, is to be consider that its claims is correct.
Is it 100% correct? Technically it is, unless someone can use other logical scientific experiment's result to prove him wrong.

And my questions?

 

[Pudding]

Please reread my comment....you will see clearly you do not understand what is being said to you...when I said that... it was not meant as a prediction, it was an observation based on your your mainly non-contextual responses. Ironically though, your mention of a prediction of being accused of not understanding what is being aid to you was self fulfilling prophecy....you really don't!

How and where do i misunderstand your comment? How and where my response to be non-contextual? You can't just said "go reread it and you'll agree with me". If you don't explain your observations in details then how do i know why you think so.

Yes...when i said in my post #343 that I had already answered the questions, I was referring to my explanations given in my exchange with Aupmanyav. I do not care that people disagree, but I have no time to waste on any digression from the salient points I made in that exchange about the infinite eternal universe...

I ask which post of yours have your explanation which can answer my questions (which my questions is regarding the validity of your claims), and you reply to say because i don't understand what you say so it's a waste of time to continue the conversation? I don't follow your logic.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

How and where do i misunderstand your comment? How and where my response to be non-contextual? You can't just said "go reread it and you'll agree with me". If you don't explain your observations in details then how do i know why you think so.


I ask which post of yours have your explanation which can answer my questions (which my questions is regarding the validity of your claims), and you reply to say because i don't understand what you say so it's a waste of time to continue the conversation? I don't follow your logic.

Ok fine..let us start again and see if we can get in sync this time.

Here are a few observations to start the ball rolling....please read these statements and quote the ones you disagree with and provide your explanation as to why?. If you digress from these instructions and start introducing subject matter that I consider not properly addressing my comments or are not relevant, I will ignore them.

I say the universe exists.

I further say that there was never a beginning to the universe because it is not subject to disappearance.

If the universe is not subject to disappearance...it follows that is must have always existed.

I further say that the real can not become unreal and unreal can not become real.

There never was a beginning to the real because the real is not subject to becoming unreal.

Therefore the universe, being real, can not in all eternity have come from unreal...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

if you believe that big bang theory allows an eternal universe....then we are in agreement..the universe is without beginning or end

Strictly speaking the big bang theory allows for other universes but doesn't really allow for them to "have always" existed, and doesn't allow for "the universe" (our universe) to have always existed. There are alternatives to the big bang theory that do this to some extent, but not like this:

....only the manifestation is ever in transformation...

infinity and eternity are concepts abstracted from absolute reality

Let's look at one such abstraction: infinitely many positive temperatures. There is no upper bound on temperature (things can theoretically have any of infinitely many positive temperatures). But clearly nothing is infinitely hot (it would seem), and there aren't actually infinitely many systems that take on these infinitely many possible temperatures.

However, there are systems that are infinitely hot. That is, there are systems which are so hot that you can pick any positive temperature out of the infinitely many that are possible, and these systems will be always be hotter. By systems, I mean physical things in reality (this isn't a thought experiment).

....tell me how infinite space can be confined to a circumscribed finite volume...

By having a lower dimensionality. An infinite line can not only hit every point in a finite, non-zero volume, but also do this despite having 0 volume itself. Also, the big bang theory holds another mystery. It holds that the universe (all space) expanded. But there was nothing for it to expand into. No space. So finite space can take up all space there is and yet increase.

tell me how eternity can be confined to a finite segment of time with a beginning and an end?

Closed timelike curves. Also, varying reference frames (a singular, finite "amount" of spacetime is eternal, in that it contains an infinite duration of time).

Cosmic absolute existence is infinite and eternal and couldn't be any other way

Why not?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Strictly speaking the big bang theory allows for other universes but doesn't really allow for them to "have always" existed, and doesn't allow for "the universe" (our universe) to have always existed. There are alternatives to the big bang theory that do this to some extent, but not like this:




Let's look at one such abstraction: infinitely many positive temperatures. There is no upper bound on temperature (things can theoretically have any of infinitely many positive temperatures). But clearly nothing is infinitely hot (it would seem), and there aren't actually infinitely many systems that take on these infinitely many possible temperatures.

However, there are systems that are infinitely hot. That is, there are systems which are so hot that you can pick any positive temperature out of the infinitely many that are possible, and these systems will be always be hotter. By systems, I mean physical things in reality (this isn't a thought experiment).


By having a lower dimensionality. An infinite line can not only hit every point in a finite, non-zero volume, but also do this despite having 0 volume itself. Also, the big bang theory holds another mystery. It holds that the universe (all space) expanded. But there was nothing for it to expand into. No space. So finite space can take up all space there is and yet increase.


Closed timelike curves. Also, varying reference frames (a singular, finite "amount" of spacetime is eternal, in that it contains an infinite duration of time).


Why not?

Where is the proof that nothing exists into which the universe is expanding?

Given a multiverse....why would there be ever a time when there were no universes in existence?

Given a multiverse....how would you visualize many individual universes expanding into nothing and nothing in between them ?

Given an observer is looking at the big bang in every direction of the cosmos (the center is everywhere), and the space between all points is expanding , what shape does the universe form?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Where is the proof that nothing exists into which the universe is expanding?

Proof is for mathematics. Arguably (and, I think, correctly), I can prove that I (as self-awareness) exist the way Descartes did, but beyond this everything relies on certain assumptions and arguably even this does. Proofs require formal, closed systems whereby granted axioms and rules allow statements to be necessarily true.

But the "proof" (i.e., the scientific equivalent) is that the universe is expanding and that it makes up all of space (and spacetime). There is no space outside of it, there isn't anything for it to expand into.

Given a multiverse....why would there be ever a time when there were no universes in existence?

Because most multiverse theories don't actually posit multiverses, for one. Rather, the initial big bang expanded in such a way as to allow for "pocket" regions to emerge which differ significantly enough from our own observable region for some physicists to call them "universes" (in a more speculative version, inflationary processes turn these "pockets" into bubble universes which are even more distinct, but not past-time eternal either). Alternatively, the multiverse results from the apparent collapse of the wave function when really each collapse is a new "branch" (universe) in which one of the possible outcomes is observed. However, before the big bang, there were no quantum systems, ergo no eternal multiverse.

Finally, given the most speculative multiverse cosmologies, in which there is an eternal process of bangs and crunches, eternity itself becomes meaningless as time is contingent upon the existence of things like entropy and spacetime.

Given a multiverse....how would you visualize many individual universes expanding into nothing and nothing in between them ?

I wouldn't. In a multiverse in which there are truly causally separate universes, it makes no sense to speak of what the expand into any more than it does our own universe.

Given an observer is looking at the big bang in every direction of the cosmos (the center is everywhere), and the space between all points is expanding , what shape does the universe form?

The center of the cosmos is the center of the universe. Also, I don't think getting into manifolds, Riemannian geometry, and "shapes" in higher dimensional (non-Euclidean) spaces is particularly fruitful here.

 

[Thief]

so 'space'...outside the confines of this universe cannot be observed?
and you think space within these confines CAN be observed?

 

[leibowde84]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Is science 100% correct?
Regards

Please answer the question mentioned above.
Regards

That is a question question that points to a great amount of ignorance as to what science (the scientific method) actually is.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Proof is for mathematics. Arguably (and, I think, correctly), I can prove that I (as self-awareness) exist the way Descartes did, but beyond this everything relies on certain assumptions and arguably even this does. Proofs require formal, closed systems whereby granted axioms and rules allow statements to be necessarily true.

But the "proof" (i.e., the scientific equivalent) is that the universe is expanding and that it makes up all of space (and spacetime). There is no space outside of it, there isn't anything for it to expand into.



Because most multiverse theories don't actually posit multiverses, for one. Rather, the initial big bang expanded in such a way as to allow for "pocket" regions to emerge which differ significantly enough from our own observable region for some physicists to call them "universes" (in a more speculative version, inflationary processes turn these "pockets" into bubble universes which are even more distinct, but not past-time eternal either). Alternatively, the multiverse results from the apparent collapse of the wave function when really each collapse is a new "branch" (universe) in which one of the possible outcomes is observed. However, before the big bang, there were no quantum systems, ergo no eternal multiverse.

Finally, given the most speculative multiverse cosmologies, in which there is an eternal process of bangs and crunches, eternity itself becomes meaningless as time is contingent upon the existence of things like entropy and spacetime.


I wouldn't. In a multiverse in which there are truly causally separate universes, it makes no sense to speak of what the expand into any more than it does our own universe.


The center of the cosmos is the center of the universe. Also, I don't think getting into manifolds, Riemannian geometry, and "shapes" in higher dimensional (non-Euclidean) spaces is particularly fruitful here.

Yes....theory all way down....but the universe of which I speak is real...not theory. I have nothing against theorizing...but I expect there is much which is beyond the mortal mind's apprehension..

And so before the big bang...in what form was the sum total of mass and energy that constitutes the universe?

So tell me....in an expanding universe, where is the junction of space time and spacelessness?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes....theory all way down....but the universe of which I speak is real...not theory.

You can't prove this. Theory can be as close to proven as can your statement that the universe is real. You are mistaking an inability to prove with theorizing in the vernacular sense. I can "prove" that unicorns exist rather easily, and hosts of other absurdities, because proof is a formal procedure and what can be proven specified by individual, formal systems.

And so before the big bang...in what form was the sum total of mass and energy that constitutes the universe?

"Like any sensible person you will ask the question, 'What was the state of affairs before the Big Bang?', to which you will receive the answer, 'There is no such thing as before the Big Bang because time did not exist until the Big Bang occurred.' You might try again with the question, 'Into what did the Universe expand?', to which the answer is, 'There was no space for the Universe to expand into since the only space that existed was what it created as it expanded.'”
Woolfson, M. M. (2009). Time, Space, Stars and Man: The Story of the Big Bang. Imperial College Press.

So tell me....in an expanding universe, where is the junction of space time and spacelessness?

You are asking for spatial coordinates where none exist.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You can't prove this. Theory can be as close to proven as can your statement that the universe is real. You are mistaking an inability to prove with theorizing in the vernacular sense. I can "prove" that unicorns exist rather easily, and hosts of other absurdities, because proof is a formal procedure and what can be proven specified by individual, formal systems.


"Like any sensible person you will ask the question, 'What was the state of affairs before the Big Bang?', to which you will receive the answer, 'There is no such thing as before the Big Bang because time did not exist until the Big Bang occurred.' You might try again with the question, 'Into what did the Universe expand?', to which the answer is, 'There was no space for the Universe to expand into since the only space that existed was what it created as it expanded.'”
Woolfson, M. M. (2009). Time, Space, Stars and Man: The Story of the Big Bang. Imperial College Press.


You are asking for spatial coordinates where none exist.

It's a cop out.....there is no such thing as before the big bang!

Ok then, what caused the big bang to exist?

How did existence arise from non-existence?

Can the sum total of all mass and energy in existence go out of existence in a reciprocal manner (or any other way) as it came into existence?

 

[leibowde84]

It's a cop out.....there is no such thing as before the big bang!

Ok then, what caused the big bang to exist?

How did existence arise from non-existence?

Can the sum total of all mass and energy in existence go out of existence in a reciprocal manner (or any other way) as it came into existence?

I think Legion is pointing out that we can't talk about "before" the Big Bang in the same way as any event proceeding it, due to time not existing prior to the Big Bang itself. For all we know, every assumption is out the window "before" that point. What can "be" without time (and, please don't use the usual "god of the gaps" speal)?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I think Legion is pointing out that we can't talk about "before" the Big Bang in the same way as any event proceeding it, due to time not existing prior to the Big Bang itself. For all we know, every assumption is out the window "before" that point. What can "be" without time (and, please don't use the usual "god of the gaps" speal)?

Perhaps so, but it is a cop out to use this as a way to avoid having to explain how all the mass and energy of the universe came into existence?

 

[leibowde84]

Perhaps so, but it is a cop out to use this as a way to avoid having to explain how all the mass and energy of the universe came into existence?

The question is unreasonable, though. Our scientific understanding is still in its infant stage, but we are learning more every day. So, the obvious conclusion should be "we haven't figured it out yet". The lack of a presently understood natural explanation doesn't make God more likely. That is literally filling in the present, and ever shrinking gaps with God by default.