Before Creation: Nothing or Something

gnostic said:

But “consciousness” and “intellect” are only thought of by humans.

Click to expand...

And what empowers the human thought? Chemical reactions perhaps?

viole said:

Why not? It is logical. You do not defeat argument X because of argument Y, when you know a lot of X and nothing of Y.

Click to expand...

Simply because one is contingent upon the other. YMMV.

sealchan said:

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.

Click to expand...

It is possible that our human brains just aren't capable (yet, at least) of conceptualizing such things as the origins of the Universe. For example, take the idea of the "beginning of time". For anything to have a beginning means that at some point in TIME it didn't exist, then at some later point in time it did. So the beginning of time could only exist in a conceptual framework where time already exists - so then that point can't be the beginning. In other words, the beginning of time implies that time already started before it "began".

sealchan said:

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.

Click to expand...

What we do know experimentally, is that "Nothing"(the absence of everything), cannot exist. The laws of Quantum Mechanics(standard model), do not allow for "nothing" to exist. Even if we found one cubic mm of space that was a total vacuum, the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics says, that this totally empty void in space is not allowed to sit still. Even without particles, a quantum field can still exist. This field will fluctuate and oscillate according to the rules of quantum mechanics. This can be verified through measurements and experiments(results are almost exactly). It is ironic just how complicated nothingness really is. Now imagine just how complicated a single particle really is? How about all the particles that make up a human being? It is a provable certainty that after the BB, nothingness did not and could not exist. Period. There is no equivocation of the spiritual with the mundane or the actual, unless you are redefining what we call as spiritual?

The reality we see is only the product of 12 matter fields and 4 force fields, continually interacting with each other. These fields are the fluid-like substance that make up the entire universe(except dark matter and energy). Also, by understanding that physical particles are just pockets of discrete energy, or tiny disturbances within the fields, a more realistic view of reality might be achieved. In either case there is no need to insert the spiritual in the standard model.

It is absolutely and totally irrelevant what existed before the BB, for the most obvious and rational reasons(no time, no space). All that matters is what happened after the BB. The few things that science does not understand about reality, does not require the intervention of spirits or the supernatural as part of an explanation. Unless their existence can be verified(like the Higgs) experimentally, then you are correct, it would only be just an "exercise of subjective imagination" to create meaning without falsification.

atanu said:

Simply because one is contingent upon the other. YMMV.

Click to expand...

What is contingent upon what? And what evidence do you have to support your claim, whatever that is?

Ciao

- viole

IndigoChild5559 said:

There is no evidence of ANYTHING before the Big Bang. Indeed science has no way of even testing anything of that nature. The idea of multi-verses is a metaphysical belief of some scientists.

Click to expand...

That’s probably why multiverse models are only theoretical models, and not scientific theory.

The multiverse haven’t met the demand of the scientific method, which require a hypothesis to be:

1. Falsifiable, which is another word that the hypothesis have the potential of being testable.
2. And actually test it or tested, through observation, evidences and experimentation.

The multiverse model isn’t a scientific theory. It is a proposed hypothesis, like a working draft awaiting for official stamp of approval or certification.

And such approvals can only come from evidences to back up the hypothesis.

There other theoretical models, non-multiverse models (eg oscillating model (which is sometimes referred to the Big Bounce), the Big Freeze, the Big Crunch, which are also not scientific theories.

String Theory and Superstring Theory are also theoretical models, not scientific theories.

But you are right, there are not no evidences of BEFORE the Big Bang, because everything before it is speculative, theoretical.

viole said:

1) something that changes all the time. What you lose from view does not exist anymore and what you will see does not exist yet

2) nothing changes. Your consciousness acquires the current snapshot of an immutable outside reality

I believe the 2nd is true ......

Click to expand...

viole said:

What is contingent upon what? And what evidence do you have to support your claim, whatever that is?

Click to expand...

I am referencing your first post again wherein you said: consciousness acquired a snapshot.

So, is the snapshot contingent upon the cognising consciousness or not? And whether that consciousness is separate from the Block Universe?

How the Block Universe Theory handles it?

IndigoChild5559 said:

The idea of multi-verses is a metaphysical belief of some scientists.

Click to expand...

Not really. At least, that's a confusing way to put it.

In reality, scientists don't "believe in" a multi-verse.
Scientists don't "believe in" anything (in context of their science).

A multi-verse, is actually a prediction of inflation theory. Nobody came up with a multi-verse out of the blue. What actually happened was that cosmologists developed inflation theory to explain facts about expansion - just like they would go about developing any other theory.

This inflation theory, again like any other theory, then makes predictions about what else we should or should not find. One of those predictions, is that there is a multi-verse.

"If this and this and this is the case, then that."

That's what the multi-verse is. It wasn't invented out of thin air for any particular purpose. It's just a prediction of inflation theory.

As Lawrence Krauss likes to say:
"We didn't come up with the multi-verse out of the blue... we have been driven to it through the scientific process. And some of us have been driven to it, while kicking and screaming. Like me. I don't actually like the multi-universe. I think it's ugly and I like models to be more elegant. But the universe doesn't exist for me to like it... if the evidence drives me towards that conclusion, that's where I'll go because what other choice do I have? As a scientist, the best I can do is follow the data and evidence..."

atanu said:

And what empowers the human thought? Chemical reactions perhaps?

Click to expand...

The physical brain. Which is ultimately regulated by bio-chemistry, sure.

joe lewis said:

It is possible that our human brains just aren't capable (yet, at least) of conceptualizing such things as the origins of the Universe. For example, take the idea of the "beginning of time". For anything to have a beginning means that at some point in TIME it didn't exist, then at some later point in time it did. So the beginning of time could only exist in a conceptual framework where time already exists - so then that point can't be the beginning. In other words, the beginning of time implies that time already started before it "began".

Click to expand...

And this is how human spoken language falls short of the weirdness of reality.
We humans have developed our language for communication within a space-time continuum on a macroscopic level dealing with sub-light speeds and medium gravitational forces.

This is why ever sentence contains a verbe. Because everything we know and experience, exists and happens within a context that has temporal condition and where stuff "happens".

The very foundation of our language and communication, is temporal by nature.
This is also true for the way we think about things.

It's perfectly normal and to be expected that humans aren't capable of wrapping their minds around things like atemporality, quantum mechanics, side effects of approaching or even achieving lighspeed,... even just the concept of the relativity of time sounds completely absurd to our human brain. It is all very counter intuitive.

But one has to remember that the only reason it is counter intuitive, is because our intuition has been trained and evolved to only deal with medium gravity and medium speed under temporal conditions.

Had you been a mosquito, then your brain wouldn't have been trained and evolved to deal with gravity in the same way that we humans have to deal with it. Instead, your intuition would be geared more towards dealing with things like surface tension.





As a sidenote, what I find quite amusing with this whole "time is an inherent property of space-time itself", is that it is perfectly accurate to say "The universe has always existed".

Since "always" means "for all of time". And if you take any moment in history (in "time"), then the universe existed. When there is time, there is a universe. So the universe always existed. Perfectly accurate statement. Lol.

joe lewis said:

It is possible that our human brains just aren't capable (yet, at least) of conceptualizing such things as the origins of the Universe. For example, take the idea of the "beginning of time". For anything to have a beginning means that at some point in TIME it didn't exist, then at some later point in time it did.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

The Big Bang cosmology for example, is only the beginning of the universe that we know of, starting with the Planck Epoch. It may give us the finite beginning, it doesn’t mean that time doesn’t exist before the Big Bang’s t = 0 sec.

The t = 0 and greater is everything that the BB theory trying to explain, from the earliest subatomic particles forms to the atoms to star and galaxy formations; the Big Bang theory explained the evolution of the universe.

We simply don’t have enough data and evidences to know much about the universe before BB. The only things that BB cosmologists can determine about the universe as a singularity, is that it infinitely hot and dense.

atanu said:

Why not? I want to learn and understand how our consciousness fits in Block universe model.

Click to expand...

Well, consciousness is a material process that is part of the matter/energy of the block universe. I don't see the problem.

gnostic said:

But “consciousness” and “intellect” are only thought of by humans.

Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? Are other animals not conscious? Not intelligent?

It seems to me that consciousness and intelligence are emergent properties when matter achieves a certain complexity of structure.

And since I see all religions and all philosophies are of human-construct, whether it be theistic or not, dharmic or non-dharmic.

Hence Brahman is anthropomorphic of the human conditions.

Click to expand...

Yes, if dogs were religious, their deities would be in the shape of dogs.

gnostic said:

Not necessarily.

The Big Bang cosmology for example, is only the beginning of the universe that we know of, starting with the Planck Epoch. It may give us the finite beginning, it doesn’t mean that time doesn’t exist before the Big Bang’s t = 0 sec.

The t = 0 and greater is everything that the BB theory trying to explain, from the earliest subatomic particles forms to the atoms to star and galaxy formations; the Big Bang theory explained the evolution of the universe.

We simply don’t have enough data and evidences to know much about the universe before BB. The only things that BB cosmologists can determine about the universe as a singularity, is that it infinitely hot and dense.

Click to expand...

The big bounce theory is about the universe expanding, collasping, repeat.
What evidence would we expect to find if the universe expanded, then collapsed and then re-expanded? Or would there be any way to tell?

TagliatelliMonster said:

As a sidenote, what I find quite amusing with this whole "time is an inherent property of space-time itself", is that it is perfectly accurate to say "The universe has always existed".

Since "always" means "for all of time". And if you take any moment in history (in "time"), then the universe existed. When there is time, there is a universe. So the universe always existed. Perfectly accurate statement. Lol.

Click to expand...

Exactly. You can even say it is 'eternal' for the same reason.

We Never Know said:

The big bounce theory is about the universe expanding, collasping, repeat.
What evidence would we expect to find if the universe expanded, then collapsed and then re-expanded? Or would there be any way to tell?

Click to expand...

That depends on the specifics. In some scenarios, there is information transfer across the 'bounce'. We don't have a tested theory of quantum gravity, so saying anything more goes beyond what we know.

joe lewis said:

It is possible that our human brains just aren't capable (yet, at least) of conceptualizing such things as the origins of the Universe. For example, take the idea of the "beginning of time". For anything to have a beginning means that at some point in TIME it didn't exist, then at some later point in time it did. So the beginning of time could only exist in a conceptual framework where time already exists - so then that point can't be the beginning. In other words, the beginning of time implies that time already started before it "began".

Click to expand...

Nothing exists independently...if we imagine moving back in time we must do so with something (a photon) as our proxy. The freedoms of that proxy become our freedom to follow time backwards. If the universe changes in such a way that our proxy ceases to exist before we reach the "first moment" then the borderline of the universe remains intact.

Polymath257 said:

That depends on the specifics. In some scenarios, there is information transfer across the 'bounce'. We don't have a tested theory of quantum gravity, so saying anything more goes beyond what we know.

Click to expand...

I was thinking if everything collapsed back down to a tiny hot singularity that everything/all information would be annihilated from the heat and pressure.

We Never Know said:

I was thinking if everything collapsed back down to a tiny hot singularity that everything/all information would be annihilated from the heat and pressure.

Click to expand...

That depends, in part, in how much that singularity is 'smoothed out' by quantum effects.

Polymath257 said:

That depends, in part, in how much that singularity is 'smoothed out' by quantum effects.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by smoothed out?