Before Creation: Nothing or Something

[sealchan]

One of the anchors of a spiritual world view is to tie in the spiritual reality to the practical, physical one via that which existed prior to creation. The understanding is that the ultimate mystery of the origin of anything and everything is a logical opening through which the spiritual can be equated with the mundane and actual.

In my study of science I have long been fascinated by the idea of a self-created Universe whose laws explain its origin. I assumed some such explanation was possible and elegant. But now I wonder at whether such a belief is elegant at all. Starting with nothing how do we reason regarding the plain facts of the actuality?

If we look at the origin of anything we will find a complex, creative background (whether conscious or not) out of which that thing has arisen. Then wouldn't the most elegant assumption be that the Universe as a whole did the same?

The irony here is that the Universe is usually defined as that which includes all we know, so if there was a something before the Universe then we would not know about it by the definition of the term and the question I have asked would become unanswerable except as, perhaps, a useful exercise of the subjective imagination creating meaning.

So can we know whether there was nothing or something prior to the existence of the Universe?

I have a middle ground idea which I will introduce, if appropriate during the course of conversation.

 

[viole]

One of the anchors of a spiritual world view is to tie in the spiritual reality to the practical, physical one via that which existed prior to creation. The understanding is that the ultimate mystery of the origin of anything and everything is a logical opening through which the spiritual can be equated with the mundane and actual.

In my study of science I have long been fascinated by the idea of a self-created Universe whose laws explain its origin. I assumed some such explanation was possible and elegant. But now I wonder at whether such a belief is elegant at all. Starting with nothing how do we reason regarding the plain facts of the actuality?

If we look at the origin of anything we will find a complex, creative background (whether conscious or not) out of which that thing has arisen. Then wouldn't the most elegant assumption be that the Universe as a whole did the same?

The irony here is that the Universe is usually defined as that which includes all we know, so if there was a something before the Universe then we would not know about it by the definition of the term and the question I have asked would become unanswerable except as, perhaps, a useful exercise of the subjective imagination creating meaning.

So can we know whether there was nothing or something prior to the existence of the Universe?

I have a middle ground idea which I will introduce, if appropriate during the course of conversation.

What on earth is the spiritual reality? Sounds like the mother of all oxymorons.

By the way, things like “before” , “after”, “origin”, “end” ,”starting” etc. are deprecated in modern physics.

Ciao

- viole

 

[WalterTrull]

One of the anchors of a spiritual world view is to tie in the spiritual reality to the practical, physical one via that which existed prior to creation.

I did not know that. (Best Johnny Carson imitation)
Do you assume a temporal universe?

 

[Quintessence]

On the whole, I am not that interested in creation mythologies. Or rather, my interest in them relates to what the stories people tell themselves relate to how they view their relationships. That's one of the main purposes of mythologies after all. They are not so much about conveying some literal truth as they are about orienting a people within the world to guide standards for relationships and values. So when I look at creation mythologies, I ask what the "moral" of the story is, so to speak. What does the story tell us about how these people relate to the world? Those are the truths worth seeking.

In my own tradition, I don't really address the question of "what came before the universe (if anything)" or "how was the universe created." That I don't address it is a direct reflection of the focus of my tradition - the here and now. Whether or not the universe was created or how is a question so far removed from the here and now that the answer is irrelevant. Within the context of my own experiences, the universe was simply always here and will continue to be here. Instead I focus my attention on things that do change and transform within my life experiences, like the changes in weather or seasons. And while I tend to be of the view that the "creation" of the universe follows these same cyclical patterns, that mythology is an extension of my focus on the here and now.

 

[PureX]

"Nothing" and "something" are both imposing a biased/baseless criteria. In so doing it then presumes that the mystery is not so profound.

We humans really like to imagine that we can know everything, and thereby gain some sense of control over it. But in this instance the mystery is profound beyond any human understanding, because we are contained within the question. And the answer is beyond that containment.

 

[osgart]

Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

This theorem establishes that there must be a cosmic beginning.

 

[WalterTrull]

theorem establishes

Well.. maybe theorizes.

 

[Polymath257]

So can we know whether there was nothing or something prior to the existence of the Universe?

If you can talk about 'prior', then time existed.

 

[Woberts]

Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

This theorem establishes that there must be a cosmic beginning.

>creationwiki
Excellent post, good sir.

 

[sealchan]

What on earth is the spiritual reality? Sounds like the mother of all oxymorons.

By the way, things like “before” , “after”, “origin”, “end” ,”starting” etc. are deprecated in modern physics.

Ciao

- viole

By spiritual reality I was reaching for a term that would be accepted by both believers and non-believers. If I recall correctly, the great scholar of the world's religions, Huston Smith, once wrote that the one thing in common with all religions was the notion of another reality in which one must invest one's self. This could include the Kingdom of Heaven, God's Will, any sense of a realm of gods or spiritual powers beyond the mundane.

Now this does not have to be considered as a literal reality. We could add any sort of "literary universe" as another example if it were seen as part of a world view whether religious or not. There are many fictional shared universes that multiple stories can be seen to participate in which create another reality in which one might find it easier to contemplate certain questions of meaning or value.

One could argue for or against their being a literal "spiritual reality" even in terms of the space in which human consciousness can create or invent and otherwise alter the nature of their own physical reality. Virtual reality is an obvious example of this and the more immersive that reality becomes the more that reality will seem to rise in value in our estimation.

I understand that time is included in the equations of how the early Universe developed and that my question is limited in the sense that it is based on an assumption of an immutable time against which all else takes place. But can you offer an alternative was of asking the question I am asking?

Another way to approach this thread might be to ask whether our experience of the origins of things "within the Universe" is the best starting point for our assumptions regarding the origin of the Universe itself or not.

 

[sealchan]

I did not know that. (Best Johnny Carson imitation)
Do you assume a temporal universe?

Yes. But I do not mean to necessarily.

See my response to viole.

Can we rephrase my question without reference to time?

Origins: From Nothing or Something...?

 

[sealchan]

On the whole, I am not that interested in creation mythologies. Or rather, my interest in them relates to what the stories people tell themselves relate to how they view their relationships. That's one of the main purposes of mythologies after all. They are not so much about conveying some literal truth as they are about orienting a people within the world to guide standards for relationships and values. So when I look at creation mythologies, I ask what the "moral" of the story is, so to speak. What does the story tell us about how these people relate to the world? Those are the truths worth seeking.

In my own tradition, I don't really address the question of "what came before the universe (if anything)" or "how was the universe created." That I don't address it is a direct reflection of the focus of my tradition - the here and now. Whether or not the universe was created or how is a question so far removed from the here and now that the answer is irrelevant. Within the context of my own experiences, the universe was simply always here and will continue to be here. Instead I focus my attention on things that do change and transform within my life experiences, like the changes in weather or seasons. And while I tend to be of the view that the "creation" of the universe follows these same cyclical patterns, that mythology is an extension of my focus on the here and now.

Approach this then from a scientific point of view...if things within the Universe arise from "something", then is it more or less elegant to conclude that the Universe as a whole arose from nothing or something.

If this, too, is too remote a consideration, consider how people use this "gap" in our knowledge to justify their own knowledge and to argue for or against scientific knowledge. That might make it relevant to you.

If not, then thank you for your reflections!

 

[sealchan]

"Nothing" and "something" are both imposing a biased/baseless criteria. In so doing it then presumes that the mystery is not so profound.

We humans really like to imagine that we can know everything, and thereby gain some sense of control over it. But in this instance the mystery is profound beyond any human understanding, because we are contained within the question. And the answer is beyond that containment.

I agree with this but I am coming to a more gray area understanding that intrigues me and feels in line with what is the experience of science...what if the Universe is not really a perfectly closed system with what is knowable within it and what is unknowable neatly sealed out? What if aspects of our Universe that are true externally to the Universe are visible to us?

 

[sealchan]

If you can talk about 'prior', then time existed.

Good point. Help me, if you please, to rephrase the OP title. I have made an effort in responding to others with the same critique.

 

[Quintessence]

Approach this then from a scientific point of view...if things within the Universe arise from "something", then is it more or less elegant to conclude that the Universe as a whole arose from nothing or something.

If this, too, is too remote a consideration, consider how people use this "gap" in our knowledge to justify their own knowledge and to argue for or against scientific knowledge. That might make it relevant to you.

These sorts of questions fall into the realm of mythology too. For context, remember that when I say "mythology" I don't mean "lies and falsehoods" I mean "sacred stories or tales that are important in articulating cultural values and philosophies (aka, way of life and relationships)." Sciences get mythologized just like everything else - we tell stories about what science is, what it does, what it says, what role it has, our relationship with it, and so forth. Some do this more than others, depending on how interested they are in the scientific approach to myth making. Each to their own as far as that is concerned. Like I said, I find the ways folks mythologize things interesting, even if I'm not personally that excited about creation mythos.

I mean, if where you were going with this is the "some people tell the story that there are knowledge gaps and that this gap is something they call their god," yeah, I get that. It's weird, but I get it. Or if it is the "some people tell the story that there are knowledge gaps and that this is okay and we shouldn't make speculations outside of our capabilities," I get that too. Also it's own sort of weird, but I get it. Then there's the whole "per the rules of logical argumentation given these premises and such, this is the only logical conclusion" which can be tailored however we want to get entirely different conclusions. A nice formal exercise, if nothing else, I suppose.

 

[sealchan]

Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

This theorem establishes that there must be a cosmic beginning.

There is certainly the perception of a cosmic beginning in that the Big Bang is regularly described as having occurred at a particular time in the past.

Maybe someone can explain how cosmological theory explains the creation of time while also accounting for the creation of the Universe having taken place at a particular moment in time?

That seems to be a problem in self-reference.

 

[shmogie]

What on earth is the spiritual reality? Sounds like the mother of all oxymorons.

By the way, things like “before” , “after”, “origin”, “end” ,”starting” etc. are deprecated in modern physics.

Ciao

- viole

Events in history have a before, and after. The big bang is a historical event, so there was an after, and logically, a before. There was a first cause, and it was before.

Physicists may not use these words, but cosmologists do.

 

[sealchan]

These sorts of questions fall into the realm of mythology too. For context, remember that when I say "mythology" I don't mean "lies and falsehoods" I mean "sacred stories or tales that are important in articulating cultural values and philosophies (aka, way of life and relationships)." Sciences get mythologized just like everything else - we tell stories about what science is, what it does, what it says, what role it has, our relationship with it, and so forth. Some do this more than others, depending on how interested they are in the scientific approach to myth making. Each to their own as far as that is concerned. Like I said, I find the ways folks mythologize things interesting, even if I'm not personally that excited about creation mythos.

I mean, if where you were going with this is the "some people tell the story that there are knowledge gaps and that this gap is something they call their god," yeah, I get that. It's weird, but I get it. Or if it is the "some people tell the story that there are knowledge gaps and that this is okay and we shouldn't make speculations outside of our capabilities," I get that too. Also it's own sort of weird, but I get it. Then there's the whole "per the rules of logical argumentation given these premises and such, this is the only logical conclusion" which can be tailored however we want to get entirely different conclusions. A nice formal exercise, if nothing else, I suppose.

I am certainly one to appreciate the value of a mythology. I am just re-watching Bill Moyer's interview of Joseph Campbell The Power of Myth.

I am attempting here to leverage, perhaps, that mythologization of science as having determined that there is Nothing outside of the Universe and that the Universe's origins are from nothing as the laws of physics identify a perfectly closed system. Perhaps there is a paradigm in physics that assumes that "math tells all" and if we can come up with a relatively elegant mathematical model of the Universe that leaves out the need for anything other concept, then we can safely assume that there is nothing outside of the Universe.

The elegance of mathematical equations are, perhaps, in this paradigmatic view like slices of seedless watermelon. But I suspect that there will always be seeds in the form of a need to explain "subjective", incidental, historical assymetries in how the Universe actually has formed that will keep the dream of the mathematically seedless watermelon from ever being realized.

 

[shmogie]

These sorts of questions fall into the realm of mythology too. For context, remember that when I say "mythology" I don't mean "lies and falsehoods" I mean "sacred stories or tales that are important in articulating cultural values and philosophies (aka, way of life and relationships)." Sciences get mythologized just like everything else - we tell stories about what science is, what it does, what it says, what role it has, our relationship with it, and so forth. Some do this more than others, depending on how interested they are in the scientific approach to myth making. Each to their own as far as that is concerned. Like I said, I find the ways folks mythologize things interesting, even if I'm not personally that excited about creation mythos.

I mean, if where you were going with this is the "some people tell the story that there are knowledge gaps and that this gap is something they call their god," yeah, I get that. It's weird, but I get it. Or if it is the "some people tell the story that there are knowledge gaps and that this is okay and we shouldn't make speculations outside of our capabilities," I get that too. Also it's own sort of weird, but I get it. Then there's the whole "per the rules of logical argumentation given these premises and such, this is the only logical conclusion" which can be tailored however we want to get entirely different conclusions. A nice formal exercise, if nothing else, I suppose.

The rules of logic are to test the validity of a proposition, not to determine truth. Nothing cannot create anything, every thing exists, therefore God created everything. Or, I cannot see God, everything that exists can be seen, therefore there is no God. Is the proposition sound based upon the logic used ? The first yes, the second no, because everything there is cannot be seen.

 

[shmogie]

I am certainly one to appreciate the value of a mythology. I am just re-watching Bill Moyer's interview of Joseph Campbell The Power of Myth.

I am attempting here to leverage, perhaps, that mythologization of science as having determined that there is Nothing outside of the Universe and that the Universe's origins are from nothing as the laws of physics identify a perfectly closed system. Perhaps there is a paradigm in physics that assumes that "math tells all" and if we can come up with a relatively elegant mathematical model of the Universe that leaves out the need for anything other concept, then we can safely assume that there is nothing outside of the Universe.

The elegance of mathematical equations are, perhaps, in this paradigmatic view like slices of seedless watermelon. But I suspect that there will always be seeds in the form of a need to explain "subjective", incidental, historical assymetries in how the Universe actually has formed that will keep the dream of the mathematically seedless watermelon from ever being realized.

The alleged singularity before the big bang was outside the universe.