A Universe from Nothing?

[Ben Dhyan]

Of course i believe in the possibility. POSSIBILITY

That does not mean i believe that's what happened, it means i believe, given the available information that it is a possibility.

Ok, I understand. but you do realize this can be rephrased to say you believe it is possible that the universe did not come from nothing?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And on, and on, and on and on be goes, where he stops (if ever) n o one knows.

Look, it is apparent that both you and gnostic believe it is possible that the universe is eternal, that's a start.

 

[ChristineM]

Ok, I understand. but you do realize this can be rephrased to say you believe it is possible that the universe did not come from nothing?

A negative of course but I have never said otherwise

 

[ChristineM]

Look, it is apparent that both you and gnostic believe it is possible that the universe is eternal, that's a start.

Not this universe, that is impossible.

Assuming a multiverse and assuming new universes are spawned from existing universes then the set of universes of which we are a member has possibly been around for ever.

 

[gnostic]

I understand that you claim you don't think a universe from nothing because there is not enough evidence, but I also understand that you do not rule out the possibility, is my understanding correct?

I don't rule out anything, until there are more evidences can be use against any cosmology, OR that cosmology continue to have absence of evidences.

For instance, the Steady State (SS) model, a cosmology developed by Fred Hoyle in 1948, as competing theory against the Big Bang model.

This model (SS) was debunked in 1964, with the discovery of CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation), by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson using radio telescope.

CMBR was however first predicted in 1948 by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, which started in the Recombination epoch, 377,000 years after the Big Bang. The RC is the result of stable atoms formed the first time, when electrons bonded with ionised hydrogen and ionised helium. This bonding caused photons (or CMBR) to decouple.

Alpher with Russian George Gamow had predicted in 1948, the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), which is a different and earlier epoch than the Recombination epoch. This epoch formed the ionised matters of hydrogen and helium, with nuclei forming cores protons and neutrons (note that, hydrogen has one proton in the nucleus, and no neutron, while helium has 2 protons and 2 neutrons). In another word the fusion of nucleus and protons (and neutrons) during the early universe, before the stars formed.

Eventually, coalesce of stable atoms, mostly hydrogen atoms, gravity from the combined masses, which caused the mass reached critical mass that triggered nuclear fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium atom. All this caused the birth of a star.

The Big Bang include formations of particles into atoms, include knowing the properties in particle physics.

The BBN and RE in 1948 were just the first next step and biggest contribution to Georges Lemaître's 1927 expanding universe model (later called the Big Bang), when he published his paper, Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom.

The 3rd step or 3rd major contribution to the Big Bang, was ΛCDM (Lambda Cold Dark Matter), developed during the late 1990s.

ΛCDM Is considered as the current standard model to the Big Bang, that explained why the universe is currently accelerating in its expansion: the presence of dark matters and dark energy.

The recent WMAP and Planck missions indicated the dark matter and dark energy, now and during the decoupling of CMBR during the Recombination epoch. ΛCDM covered and explained what earlier BB physicists of 1920s and 1948 couldn't explain.

So far, the evidences point to the Big Bang being the correct and verified model to physical cosmology...so far.

What you need to understand that the Big Bang theory is still a young theory, and a theory "in progress" or "ongoing" theory. And it will continue to being contributed as long as there are evidences to be discovered.

It took science 16 years (from 1948 to 1964) to actually discovering CMBR. And it took another 37 and more years to get the new images of CMBR from WMAP and Planck space probe.

What evidences do you have for the eternal universe?

Our technology cannot see beyond the CMBR and Recombination epoch, so we don't have observable evidences to the universe going on indefinite.

And the same limitations that prevent us seeing further in the past for eternal universe, also prevents science exploring further, if the universe formed from nothing.

I won't rule out the universe being eternal, but I don't have to accept your claim, now. Likewise, I am treating the whole nothingness model in the same manner - not accepting, but not ruling out.

And we certainly have no evidences for the incoherent rubbish Thief is sprouting about "spirit first". This, I have already ruled out.

What I find troubling is that you are pressuring me to accept something without evidences.

Until you can present the science and more importantly the evidences to back up your eternal universe, I don't have to accept anything to be true, based on your words alone.

You keep nagging at Christine about not having evidences, and you have yet to present any yourself.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Not this universe, that is impossible.

Assuming a multiverse and assuming new universes are spawned from existing universes then the set of universes of which we are a member has possibly been around for ever.

There is only one universe, the prefix uni means one. The next question is to ask is, is it possible universal existence extends infinitely, and I say yes. If there is one infinite eternal existence, then the principle of manifested aggregations such as planetary systems which exist in stellar systems, which exist in galactic systems, may continue in ever larger aggregations going on infinitely. Sure, individual aggregations have births and deaths. but the whole is always in existence.

 

[gnostic]

Christine, conceptual knowledge using mathematical models to represent the idea that the universe came from nothing is far from being substantial evidence.

I agreed that we don't have enough evidences for this universe out of nothing, but there are not enough evidences to support eternal universe too.

These two, plus the other models, eg oscillating universe model (known as the Big Bounce) and the multiverse models - they are all still hypothetical and theoretical.

Even the earlier epochs (before Recombination epoch & CMBR) explained and predicted in the Big Bang model, are still theoretical and hypothetical.

Until we have designed and developed more superior technology that can penetrate past event horizon of epochs before Recombination epoch, we cannot know conclusively what occur before.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I don't rule out anything, until there are more evidences can be use against any cosmology, OR that cosmology continue to have absence of evidences.

For instance, the Steady State (SS) model, a cosmology developed by Fred Hoyle in 1948, as competing theory against the Big Bang model.

This model (SS) was debunked in 1964, with the discovery of CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation), by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson using radio telescope.

CMBR was however first predicted in 1948 by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, which started in the Recombination epoch, 377,000 years after the Big Bang. The RC is the result of stable atoms formed the first time, when electrons bonded with ionised hydrogen and ionised helium. This bonding caused photons (or CMBR) to decouple.

Alpher with Russian George Gamow had predicted in 1948, the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), which is a different and earlier epoch than the Recombination epoch. This epoch formed the ionised matters of hydrogen and helium, with nuclei forming cores protons and neutrons (note that, hydrogen has one proton in the nucleus, and no neutron, while helium has 2 protons and 2 neutrons). In another word the fusion of nucleus and protons (and neutrons) during the early universe, before the stars formed.

Eventually, coalesce of stable atoms, mostly hydrogen atoms, gravity from the combined masses, which caused the mass reached critical mass that triggered nuclear fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium atom. All this caused the birth of a star.

The Big Bang include formations of particles into atoms, include knowing the properties in particle physics.

The BBN and RE in 1948 were just the first next step and biggest contribution to Georges Lemaître's 1927 expanding universe model (later called the Big Bang), when he published his paper, Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom.

The 3rd step or 3rd major contribution to the Big Bang, was ΛCDM (Lambda Cold Dark Matter), developed during the late 1990s.

ΛCDM Is considered as the current standard model to the Big Bang, that explained why the universe is currently accelerating in its expansion: the presence of dark matters and dark energy.

The recent WMAP and Planck missions indicated the dark matter and dark energy, now and during the decoupling of CMBR during the Recombination epoch. ΛCDM covered and explained what earlier BB physicists of 1920s and 1948 couldn't explain.

So far, the evidences point to the Big Bang being the correct and verified model to physical cosmology...so far.

What you need to understand that the Big Bang theory is still a young theory, and a theory "in progress" or "ongoing" theory. And it will continue to being contributed as long as there are evidences to be discovered.

It took science 16 years (from 1948 to 1964) to actually discovering CMBR. And it took another 37 and more years to get the new images of CMBR from WMAP and Planck space probe.

What evidences do you have for the eternal universe?

Our technology cannot see beyond the CMBR and Recombination epoch, so we don't have observable evidences to the universe going on indefinite.

And the same limitations that prevent us seeing further in the past for eternal universe, also prevents science exploring further, if the universe formed from nothing.

I won't rule out the universe being eternal, but I don't have to accept your claim, now. Likewise, I am treating the whole nothingness model in the same manner - not accepting, but not ruling out.

And we certainly have no evidences for the incoherent rubbish Thief is sprouting about "spirit first". This, I have already ruled out.

Ok, I understand you think the science is not settled in these matters, and I agree.

I do not want to get between you and Thief in your debate. Religion is not science and science is not religion, though there is no reason a scientist can't be religious and likewise no reason a religious soul can't be a scientist.

 

[gnostic]

There is only one universe, the prefix uni means one. The next question is to ask is, is it possible universal existence extends infinitely, and I say yes.

Maybe...maybe not.

It is just your words.

Unless you are present something more than your ringing endorsement - "yes", then your claim is not true...for now.

You might be right, like sometimes in the future, but for now, you have nothing but just claims and words.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I agreed that we don't have enough evidences for this universe out of nothing, but there are not enough evidences to support eternal universe too.

These two, plus the other models, eg oscillating universe model (known as the Big Bounce) and the multiverse models - they are all still hypothetical and theoretical.

Even the earlier epochs (before Recombination epoch & CMBR) explained and predicted in the Big Bang model, are still theoretical and hypothetical.

Until we have designed and developed more superior technology that can penetrate past event horizon of epochs before Recombination epoch, we cannot know conclusively what occur before.

I beg to differ, I can see all the science and logic in the world to support an eternal universe for the reasons I've given consistently throughout the thread, but if you believe that there is a real possibility of it coming from nothing, I will respect your position.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Maybe...maybe not.

It is just your words.

Unless you are present something more than your ringing endorsement - "yes", then your claim is not true...for now.

You might be right, like sometimes in the future, but for now, you have nothing but just claims and words.

It matters not to me whether others are undecided on the matter, it is their call. I do not do consensus reality. and have reached an understanding that is right for me.

 

[gnostic]

Ok, I understand you think the science is not settled in these matters, and I agree.

Finally...now you are getting the picture of where I stand in the matters of cosmology.

I do not want to get between you and Thief in your debate. Religion is not science and science is not religion, though there is no reason a scientist can't be religious and likewise no reason a religious soul can't be a scientist.

Now, you are on the roll.

Yes, I agree that science is not religion. I have never claim they were ones and the same.

And I agreed that religious people can be scientists.

Scientists are people who work and research in science, regardless of whether they be atheists, theists or agnostics.

HOWEVER...and I must stress the "BUT", here...creationism and Intelligent Design are science.

There is no such thing as Creation Science; that's oxymoron. The so-called "Creation Science" (as well as Intelligent Design) don't use scientific method to test or to find evidences for this Creator (or Designer). They merely presume and assume these magical beings exist. Such assumptions are not evidences.

Creation Science (or Creationism or Young Earth Creationism) and Intelligent Design are pseudoscience; they are religious groups or organisations (like the Discovery Institute for ID) are religions masquerading as science.

 

[Thief]

As usual you read what you want then ignored the point of the paper. Let me continue where you bottled out...

"In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE). Explicit solutions of the WDWE for the special operator ordering factor p=-2 (or 4) show that, once a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum, it can expand exponentially no matter whether the bubble is closed, flat or open. "

....a shallow assumption on your part
and to offer a report to support your discussion....and that report begins by saying....

no rigorous proof

was a grave error on your part.

back to the beginning
where all we get to do is ...choose

Spirit first?
or substance?

 

[Darkstorn]

....a shallow assumption on your part

Talking about shallow assumptions:

and to offer a report to support your discussion....and that report begins by saying....

no rigorous proof

was a grave error on your part.

No. It was a grave error on your part to focus on that and ignore the rest: Don't judge a book by its cover. Right now it makes you look like a simpleton who cannot read. YOU assumed based on the beginning of the text. You did not read the rest of the text. And now you're trying to defend your position by admitting to that...

You are not as deep or smart as you seem to think you are. You are completely incapable of arguing for your own stance or agenda. You cannot stand on your own two feet: Now you even admitted that you're too ignorant to understand the text you are quoting.

Spirit first?
or substance?

What do you mean by spirit? What do you mean by substance?

 

[DavidFirth]

There had to be a something because nothing always comes from nothing.

Right?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Finally...now you are getting the picture of where I stand in the matters of cosmology.



Now, you are on the roll.

Yes, I agree that science is not religion. I have never claim they were ones and the same.

And I agreed that religious people can be scientists.

Scientists are people who work and research in science, regardless of whether they be atheists, theists or agnostics.

HOWEVER...and I must stress the "BUT", here...creationism and Intelligent Design are science.

There is no such thing as Creation Science; that's oxymoron. The so-called "Creation Science" (as well as Intelligent Design) don't use scientific method to test or to find evidences for this Creator (or Designer). They merely presume and assume these magical beings exist. Such assumptions are not evidences.

Creation Science (or Creationism or Young Earth Creationism) and Intelligent Design are pseudoscience; they are religious groups or organisations (like the Discovery Institute for ID) are religions masquerading as science.

Creationism and Intelligent Design are another subject, let's stop and enjoy the moment while we are in agreement. No doubt we will have the opportunity to find further disagreement on topic on this and other threads going forth.

 

[gnostic]

It matters not to me whether others are undecided on the matter, it is their call. I do not do consensus reality. and have reached an understanding that is right for me.

Good for you, Ben.

But that just is, Ben, reality exist, and the only way to determine if such a reality is fact, is through "verifiable evidences"...if you want to be objective. Reality is not about logic alone, not about maths alone, and certainly not about belief or personal preference.

Your understanding is reach through belief and faith, not through evidences.

Science, and in the case of this thread, physical science (astronomy, astrophysics, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, particle physics, etc), not life science (like biology) and not social science (like politics, economics, psychology, anthropology, cultures, ethic, law, etc)...physical science are not concern with "personal belief" or "what is right for you", or "what you feel good".

Physical science is about explanations and predictions, and then repeatedly test them, until you have data to analyse, to reach the conclusion.

The conclusion should be dependent on the all the test results.

If the higher number of tests were successful than fail ones, then you could conclude it is probable. Then you would refine the hypothesis, and even do more tests.

But if there are more fail tests or more inconclusive results than success ones, then the hypothesis is improbable.

Science deal with what is probable or improbable, and like I said in my previous reply, probability relied on statistics.

Such statistics and probability don't take into account "a person's preference" or "what is right" to the person or "what feels right" to the person. That's more ego, not science. Science is not about stroking one's ego.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Good for you, Ben.

But that just is, Ben, reality exist, and the only way to determine if such a reality is fact, is through "verifiable evidences"...if you want to be objective. Reality is not about logic alone, not about maths alone, and certainly not about belief or personal preference.

Your understanding is reach through belief and faith, not through evidences.

Science, and in the case of this thread, physical science (astronomy, astrophysics, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, particle physics, etc), not life science (like biology) and not social science (like politics, economics, psychology, anthropology, cultures, ethic, law, etc)...physical science are not concern with "personal belief" or "what is right for you", or "what you feel good".

Physical science is about explanations and predictions, and then repeatedly test them, until you have data to analyse, to reach the conclusion.

The conclusion should be dependent on the all the test results.

If the higher number of tests were successful than fail ones, then you could conclude it is probable. Then you would refine the hypothesis, and even do more tests.

But if there are more fail tests or more inconclusive results than success ones, then the hypothesis is improbable.

Science deal with what is probable or improbable, and like I said in my previous reply, probability relied on statistics.

Such statistics and probability don't take into account "a person's preference" or "what is right" to the person or "what feels right" to the person. That's more ego, not science. Science is not about stroking one's ego.

Wrong, understanding is just that, understanding. Understanding in not a belief, nor is it faith, it is a realization. A realization is the evidence of the understanding, and the evidence is the realization. Such realization can not be conveyed or transmitted to another as it is not a conceptual thing. As I said, it matters not to me that you are skeptical or disbelieve even, for non-dual reality is forever on the other side of conceptual interpretation of reality. The scientific method can never prove non-duality for obvious reasons.

 

[Thief]

Talking about shallow assumptions:



No. It was a grave error on your part to focus on that and ignore the rest: Don't judge a book by its cover. Right now it makes you look like a simpleton who cannot read. YOU assumed based on the beginning of the text. You did not read the rest of the text. And now you're trying to defend your position by admitting to that...

You are not as deep or smart as you seem to think you are. You are completely incapable of arguing for your own stance or agenda. You cannot stand on your own two feet: Now you even admitted that you're too ignorant to understand the text you are quoting.



What do you mean by spirit? What do you mean by substance?

i see nothing but redundancy

the text someone else offered begins with a one liner that declares ....no rigorous proof...

I don't need to accept that.....now DO I?

and that you come to a religious debate not knowing the difference
Spirit
or substance

seems you are not up for this discussion

 

[Thief]

But not reading further and making your assumptions about the text makes you a fool. No way around this fact. You didn't read the text, you read until you thought it would support your point. It doesn't.

Your assumption makes you look like a simpleton who is incapable of reading. Nothing more.



This thread is also about science debate. It's still not your exclusive club, sorry. Again, i'm Buddhist. That's a religion according to some. And your arguments are not convincing even when looking from my "spiritual" standpoint.



What do you mean by spirit, what do you mean by substance?



I am, if you were to elaborate your silly empty question. I'm prepared to debate your point the moment you somehow manage to distance your question from your subjective assessment. I am convinced you do not know what substance means, and that you haven't shown the spirit to be a factor in any way.

You are incapable of arguing your own stance. I keep repeating this. Maybe it'll sink in at some point.

/E: I don't think you are smart enough to argue for your own claims. You don't even understand that as long as "spirit" exists, it must be "substance."

the definition of substance

Synonyms for substance can include such things as reality, essence, significance. Most creationists would argue that "spirit" would be substantial, and of significance. I.E that it exists.

You make a claim so whacky it's not even wrong. Your premise is faulty.

and making assumption of what I read and didn't read......makes you a simpleton
on a grander scale

I need not accept a text that admits to it's own lack of......rigorous proof