Before Creation: Nothing or Something

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

You are playing semantics games. While technically you may have a case, you know very well that when people say "always" they mean an infinite amount of time. If time began with the Big Bang, it had a beginning, and is therefore not infinite. Thus, it is NOT what people mean when they say that the universe has 'always' existed, and so what they are saying would not be true.

And now I do not trust you, because you are a twister of words.

 

[gnostic]

The teaching of Vedanta is that the reality of us is unborn-unformed. Just the reverse of what you think.

Consciousness isn’t unborn, nor is it unformed.

 

[atanu]

Consciousness isn’t unborn, nor is it unformed.

Then you know it not. Let us agree to disagree.

 

[gnostic]

If time began with the Big Bang, it had a beginning, and is therefore not infinite. Thus, it is NOT what people mean when they say that the universe has 'always' existed, and so what they are saying would not be true.

The Big Bang is only a scientific theory or scientific explanation of what occurred AFTER t = 0 second, explaining the evolution of the universe, from how 4 fundamental forces separated and how particles from the singularity, to the formation of the earlier stars and galaxies, to the very present, some 13.8 billion years after the initial expansion.

The BB cosmologists only speculate on the singularity as being infinitely hot and dense, but other than that, it doesn’t explore.

In no part of the theory, does say anything about nothingness. No where in the BB theory does it postulate or predict that universe come nothingness.

If the singularity do exist, that singularity is a “something”, not a “nothing”. The only problem is that we don’t have any info on what exactly is this singularity.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The Big Bang is only a scientific theory or scientific explanation of what occurred AFTER t = 0 second, explaining the evolution of the universe, from how 4 fundamental forces separated and how particles from the singularity, to the formation of the earlier stars and galaxies, to the very present, some 13.8 billion years after the initial expansion.

The BB cosmologists only speculate on the singularity as being infinitely hot and dense, but other than that, it doesn’t explore.

In no part of the theory, does say anything about nothingness. No where in the BB theory does it postulate or predict that universe come nothingness.

If the singularity do exist, that singularity is a “something”, not a “nothing”. The only problem is that we don’t have any info on what exactly is this singularity.

That is not how my Aunt, who was one of Hubble's tech's, explained it to me, and I had the opportunity to ask her many questions in order to clarify. I'm satisfied that I have a grasp of the situation.

 

[Polymath257]

You are playing semantics games. While technically you may have a case, you know very well that when people say "always" they mean an infinite amount of time. If time began with the Big Bang, it had a beginning, and is therefore not infinite. Thus, it is NOT what people mean when they say that the universe has 'always' existed, and so what they are saying would not be true.

And now I do not trust you, because you are a twister of words.

I disagree. When I say always, I mean 'for all time'. And that is the case whether time is finite or not.

So, what wording *would* you use for saying that the universe has existed for all time when time itself is finite?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I disagree. When I say always, I mean 'for all time'. And that is the case whether time is finite or not.

I can't tell you what you mean. I'm simply saying that most people have an idea of the infinite in their heads, of time stretching on endlessly, and THAT is what they mean when they say the universe has always existed.

I won't reply again. It's a silly semantical game.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Multi-verse theory did not come out of the blue. It came out of the inability for many scientists, especially atheist ones, to accept the fact that something came from nothing.

Good job ignoring the point made in the post you are replying to.

I am not saying one way or another that other universes exist or not. I'm simply saying that such conjecture is no different than saying heaven or purgatory exists.

I just explained to you how it is not conjecture but instead a scientific prediction from inflation theory.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are playing semantics games.

Yes, that's the amusing part... it ties into how our spoken language falls completely short of describing objective reality - which is a lot weirder then we can possibly imagine.

While technically you may have a case, you know very well that when people say "always" they mean an infinite amount of time

No. That would be "eternity".

If time began with the Big Bang, it had a beginning, and is therefore not infinite. Thus, it is NOT what people mean when they say that the universe has 'always' existed, and so what they are saying would not be true.

And now I do not trust you, because you are a twister of words.

Apparantly prefixing half a joke with "it's amusing", followed by "lol", is still not enough.

Get a grip dude.

Meanwhile, the universe "always" existed. ;-)

 

[Polymath257]

Multi-verse theory did not come out of the blue. It came out of the inability for many scientists, especially atheist ones, to accept the fact that something came from nothing.

I am not saying one way or another that other universes exist or not. I'm simply saying that such conjecture is no different than saying heaven or purgatory exists.

No, that is NOT where multiverse scenarios come from. They tend to arise naturally from attempts to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics (and have a significant place in quantum mechanics through the Everett interpretation already). This unification of GR and QM has been a goal since the two outlooks have been around. The idea is that there shouldn't be two opposing sets of physical laws, but only one set for which GR and QM are approximations.

Why do multiverse theories arise so naturally in this context? Primarily because QM forces a probabilistic aspect to the geometry of the universe, which means there is more than one parallel version of the universe.

This isn't an atheistic/religious distinction. That is NOT what drove this idea. What drove it is the desire to understand how two very different, but very good descriptions of the universe could be reconciled.

 

[sealchan]

No, that is NOT where multiverse scenarios come from. They tend to arise naturally from attempts to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics (and have a significant place in quantum mechanics through the Everett interpretation already). This unification of GR and QM has been a goal since the two outlooks have been around. The idea is that there shouldn't be two opposing sets of physical laws, but only one set for which GR and QM are approximations.

Why do multiverse theories arise so naturally in this context? Primarily because QM forces a probabilistic aspect to the geometry of the universe, which means there is more than one parallel version of the universe.

This isn't an atheistic/religious distinction. That is NOT what drove this idea. What drove it is the desire to understand how two very different, but very good descriptions of the universe could be reconciled.

This sound analogous, in one respect, to how one person can favor one color and another favor another color. That there might be two simultaneous ways of understanding something for which there is no objective reason to choose, that sounds to me like a ground in which subjectivity becomes crucial. Why this outcome versus another? There may be no objective reason, only a subjective outcome. If our particular universe goes left when it might have gone right, this suggests that there is a something outside of the universe which allows for more than one way forward. Which way our Universe goes is determined by that ground and has an inaccessible objective context. But if that ground is not accessible to us as an observer then it would appear to be an irrational fact without a law to fully predict that particular event as an outcome even as it did not violate any law in making that "choice".

Without disobeying any laws, our Universe "chose" a path, one among many. And so we have some "evidence" that the Universe has a subjective history against a deeper objective background. I think that this might have been Einstein's and Bohm's root assumption. I think that we can accept it more readily if we look at the way in which the many layers of our Universe are experienced.

 

[cladking]

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.

Now there's some irony.

They are suggesting entire universes spring from nothing at all (As big bangs perhaps). Not only entire universes but an infinite number of them. One must be awestruck at the machinery that makes this system operate. Can math make a universe so large that math itself can't explain it? As though this isn't bad enough almost all these extra universes will kowtow to our beliefs about the "laws of science" and all our beliefs. We now know there are an infinite number of earths with an infinite number of pyramids built with ramps. But is there a universe anywhere where there are no other universes and where pyramids aren't like what we believe them to be?

Cosmology has become caught up in nonsense. Few scientists understand that our tool (metaphysics) defines what we find. Most of modern cosmology is just producing nonsense derived from mathematics which embraces non existent concepts like "infinity" and "1 / infinity". Infinity doesn't exist so they insert their beliefs where it appears in equations.

 

[Polymath257]

Cosmology has become caught up in nonsense. Few scientists understand that our tool (metaphysics) defines what we find. Most of modern cosmology is just producing nonsense derived from mathematics which embraces non existent concepts like "infinity" and "1 / infinity". Infinity doesn't exist so they insert their beliefs where it appears in equations.

How much modern cosmology have you studied? Which books did you use? Might I suggest 'Cosmology' by Weinberg? You might have a different notion afterwards. If you can understand any of it.

As for math 'embracing' such concepts as infinity and 1/infinity, the main times you see either of those in physics is in limiting processes where it is understood that approximations are being made. And why you think that they are 'non-existent concepts' is beyond me. Mathematicians work with infinite sets every day without issue. They are now well established and accepted. It is only a few hold-outs that seem to think there is a problem.

 

[cladking]

How much modern cosmology have you studied? Which books did you use? Might I suggest 'Cosmology' by Weinberg? You might have a different notion afterwards. If you can understand any of it.

As for math 'embracing' such concepts as infinity and 1/infinity, the main times you see either of those in physics is in limiting processes where it is understood that approximations are being made. And why you think that they are 'non-existent concepts' is beyond me. Mathematicians work with infinite sets every day without issue. They are now well established and accepted. It is only a few hold-outs that seem to think there is a problem.

I haven't studied much cosmology since the '60's and '70's and my calculus was not real strong.

Everything we can identify in the real world is unique and can be counted. I don't know why the entire universe wouldn't be the same.

Mathematics is just quantified logic but our entire math is based on symbolic concepts like "points", "numbers", and "infinity".

I believe that the numbers generated by the real world are for all practical purposes greatly in excess of "infinity". The odds of any given collision taking place in some specific way are astronomical yet all of reality is based on the sum total of every collision that has ever occurred. Even such prosaic numbers as the requisite number of monkeys and typewriters to write War and Peace (42 x 10 ^ 799,999) is minuscule (infinitesimal) compared to the odds against it having been written a century earlier in Norway by Ernest Hemingway.

Reality must unfold in specific ways and no amount of "infinity" could ever change it. This seems rather obvious to me and ancient people who took reality as being axiomatic.

 

[BilliardsBall]

For example, an exponential decrease into the past will do this.

But again, for an eternal universe, we can and do expect the 'law of entropy' to be violated infinitely often because it is a statistical law and not a fundamental one.

For example, the likelihood that all the molecules in a roomful of air will gather in a small corner is *very* small. But it is expected to happen infinitely often in an eternal universe.

NB: The steady state was shown wrong by the existence of the CMBR. Oscillatory universes are *possible*.

Okay:

1) When did the oscillatory universe begin?

2) How did the mass/energy of the oscillatory universe come to be?

3) Who can I go to with these questions, since you cannot answer them in any satisfactory way?

 

[Polymath257]

Okay:

1) When did the oscillatory universe begin?

2) How did the mass/energy of the oscillatory universe come to be?

3) Who can I go to with these questions, since you cannot answer them in any satisfactory way?

In most oscillatory universe models, the oscillations have been going on for an infinite amount of time.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I may be wrong but I sense that when questions are beings raised in the context of BB, the answers are given using concepts that lead to Block Universe or Multiverse etc..

And . . . as soon as someone CAN give a satisfactory alternative to a creator God that isn't eternal matter/energy that disobeys the Law of Conservation of matter/energy . . . !

 

[Polymath257]

And . . . as soon as someone CAN give a satisfactory alternative to a creator God that isn't eternal matter/energy that disobeys the Law of Conservation of matter/energy . . . !

Why do you think the formation of the universe violates conservation of energy?

In particular, the energy associated with gravity is *negative* and exactly cancels the energy associated with matter. What that means is that the total energy balance of the universe is *zero*. And that means there has been no violation of the conservation of energy, even if time is infinite into the past. If it isn't, there are other considerations, including that the conservation law relates the total energy at one *time* to the total energy at another *time*.

 

[BilliardsBall]

In most oscillatory universe models, the oscillations have been going on for an infinite amount of time.

You're missing my point--explain the infinite amount of time via . . .

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why do you think the formation of the universe violates conservation of energy?

In particular, the energy associated with gravity is *negative* and exactly cancels the energy associated with matter. What that means is that the total energy balance of the universe is *zero*. And that means there has been no violation of the conservation of energy, even if time is infinite into the past. If it isn't, there are other considerations, including that the conservation law relates the total energy at one *time* to the total energy at another *time*.

In lay terms, matter/energy cannot be added or created to the present extant universe we live and move in. HOW DID IT GET HERE is the question since it CANNOT be "added to or subtracted from".