Before Creation: Nothing or Something

[shmogie]

We can't know through direct experience, but our mathematical theories reach out far beyond our direct experience and seem to be telling us that there is something outside of our local Universe.

I guess I am slow, but it seems to me that mathematics is something within the universe, so, as far as they can go beyond the universe is just mathematical speculation, no ?

 

[Bethsheba Ashe]

Btw... the explosion known as the big bang has not ended. At this very moment we are inside the explosion as it continues.

 

[ChristineM]

Right and through mathematical theory we are thinking about the qualities of this something. We do not have to concern ourselves over the time qualities of this something just this somethings apparent physical qualities.

that is why I think of the Planck length as a kind of "edge" of the Universe. At this scale a lot of the physical laws cannot be applied.

Now to make things even more interesting, I suspect that the Planck length is both a quality that is true beyond this Universe but also it may be partially defined by this particular Universe. As such it reflects qualities of both this local Universe and whatsoever is the ground beyond this Universe.

That is more than we can know, perhaps, through experimentation. But it is par for the course when you look at things like atoms which are both a product of sub-atomic particles and are also not fully predictable as outcomes of sub-atomic particles alone without additional environmental (and hence local universe historical) considerations.

Interesting,

 

[ChristineM]

Btw... the explosion known as the big bang has not ended. At this very moment we are inside the explosion as it continues.

Not an explosion but a very rapid inflation

 

[BilliardsBall]

Wrong on both accounts. To be eternal just means the rate of entropy growth decreases into the past in such a way that entropy is always positive. This is easily done.

And to have creation ex nihilo *would* be a violation of the conservation of mass/energy. What is required to avoid violation of that conservation law is either that things be universal or that time does not go infinitely into the past. Both are possibilities.

Also, the law of entropy is a stistical law, not a fundamental one. It can be and has been seen to be violated. In an eternal universe, it would be violated infinitely often.

"Easily done" must be why nearly zero cosmologists subscribe to a steady state or oscillating universe. Thanks for solving the universal laws of entropy! I smell your Nobel Prize award!

 

[Bethsheba Ashe]

Not an explosion but a very rapid inflation

Yes, my bad. Thanks.

 

[Polymath257]

"Easily done" must be why nearly zero cosmologists subscribe to a steady state or oscillating universe. Thanks for solving the universal laws of entropy! I smell your Nobel Prize award!

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*.

 

[sealchan]

I would agree that some hypothesis entertain the multiverse idea

Thanks for this acknowledgement.

So to loop back to my OP, what I was wanting to get at is that in our experience of the Universe as so many emergent layers of phenomenon, it is more elegant to think of the Universe itself as an emergent phenomenon out of an extra Universal reality than it is to consider it as a Universe which arose out of nothing.

In other words it is more elegant to say it is emergent layers of activity "all the way down".

 

[sealchan]

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*.

Is the law of entropy preserved on the whole in the Universe? Is this determinable or estimable?

Entropy is one concept which forces us to look at any given physical event within a boundary. But no physical event can be fully enclosed as being causally independent from the rest of the Universe in some manner.

So is it possible to determine if the entire Universe has a net increase in disorder?

 

[Polymath257]

Is the law of entropy preserved on the whole in the Universe? Is this determinable or estimable?

Entropy is one concept which forces us to look at any given physical event within a boundary. But no physical event can be fully enclosed as being causally independent from the rest of the Universe in some manner.

So is it possible to determine if the entire Universe has a net increase in disorder?

Entropy is a strange beast. On a quantum level it is defined in terms of how a collection of objects is distributed in their energy and how probable that distribution is. The Second 'law' of Thermodynamics then says that things evolve towards more probable states.

For systems that interchange heat or information, there is a modified version of the second law that describes heat loss across any boundary you choose.

But we have seen violations of this 'law' in small systems. In small systems, the probability of violations is larger. Because it is a statistical 'law' there is nothing other than low probabilities that says it cannot be violated.

Now, because any macroscopic system has a *huge* number of atoms, the associated probabilities are *incredibly* small. So, for all the molecules in a room to be on one half of the room at the same time spontaneously is (1/2)^N where N is larger than Avogadro's number. This is why we don't see this happening spontaneously in the real world and under human time scales.

But, in an eternal situation, it would not only happen, but it would happen infinitely often.

Now, when we go to the universe as a whole, there are significant definitional problems. First, because of relativistic effects, the energy distribution depends on the observer and also on the curvature. So even defining global values for entropy is problematic. Usually, physicists talk about local entropy flow to avoid this.

So, the simple answer to your question about universal randomness decrease is that it may not even make sense.

 

[ChristineM]

Thanks for this acknowledgement.

So to loop back to my OP, what I was wanting to get at is that in our experience of the Universe as so many emergent layers of phenomenon, it is more elegant to think of the Universe itself as an emergent phenomenon out of an extra Universal reality than it is to consider it as a Universe which arose out of nothing.

In other words it is more elegant to say it is emergent layers of activity "all the way down".

I think it was lee smolin who calculated there were 3^10^10^10^10^10^10^6 universes (approximately). Others say there are infinite universes.

 

[viole]

Hmmmm. If time wasn´t linear, then I, a child of the sixties who was going to stay young and party on, wouldn´t be hobbled with arthritis,and bald and grey. Each time my cells reproduced, they became a little less efficient than the cell before, leading to damage and loss of function.

It was time, and time alone that caused these particular cell failures.

If I were still twenty, it would have never happened.

Einstein proposed that increased speed would slow time, this has been proven by using nuclear clocks one at speed.

So time is somewhat malleable, but is still linear,

Spacetime, and time are not the same thing.

Spacetime has been likened to a fabric, which can be warped, folded back on itself, etc., etc.

Nevertheless, it is inherent to the universe, as is matter and energy. No universe, no spacetime, not anything.

Spacetime and time are not the same thing? Of course not, the former is objective the latter is not.

So, anything else you would like to add concerning something that does not objectively exist, apart from your god?

On a side note, why is that important to the Christian? You must believe to have enough evidence of people walking on water, turning water into wine, rising from death and such... so why are you concerned about ontologies of time, cosmology and such?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Etritonakin]

Yes, but I think that the nature of parts and systems in the Universe itself gives us clues to how we might actually see beyond the edge of the Universe in those extreme circumstances of the physics of the very large and the very small.

In fact, this is my new paradigm which is a systemic paradigm and I think gives us a more elegant explanation of the origin of the Universe than a self-created out of nothing model can or will provide.

Everything is connected -everything different is also similar in some way -so we do have what it takes to see beyond what we can "see" -when we have one piece of the puzzle, it tells us about surrounding pieces, etc....
But the things which allow us to see the farthest are the most basic and least complex truths which always apply.

We have the rules of the language of reality, as it were, even if we do not know a particular word yet.

I believe we can know absolutely that "out of nothing" is an impossibility.
However, I believe we can also know absolutely that "self-creation" was definitely what must have happened -whether referring to a self-aware, intelligent creator or not.

That which existed previously obviously became that which is -and continues to do so.

"Elegance" -as I see it -is essentially math and logic doing what they do when simple things become more intricately-arranged by some dynamic force.

We know that is has led to self-awareness and creativity, but I see sufficient evidence to indicate we are not the first example of such -and such must have preceded the universe.

From our own example, however, we can see that creativity is applying decisions to naturally-occurring things and forces -by those who are made possible by those things and forces.

It is wrapping one's head around that which naturally occurs -even including the self -and subduing it unto one's self.

(God -at least of the bible -did not actually claim responsibility for first cause -but said "I AM THAT AM" -that which was,miss and will be, etc. -so a "self-creating" God - everything developing naturally to the point of creating as a self-aware creator -would not be contrary to scripture.)

 

[sealchan]

Everything is connected -everything different is also similar in some way -so we do have what it takes to see beyond what we can "see" -when we have one piece of the puzzle, it tells us about surrounding pieces, etc....
But the things which allow us to see the farthest are the most basic and least complex truths which always apply.

We have the rules of the language of reality, as it were, even if we do not know a particular word yet.

I believe we can know absolutely that "out of nothing" is an impossibility.
However, I believe we can also know absolutely that "self-creation" was definitely what must have happened -whether referring to a self-aware, intelligent creator or not.

That which existed previously obviously became that which is -and continues to do so.

"Elegance" -as I see it -is essentially math and logic doing what they do when simple things become more intricately-arranged by some dynamic force.

We know that is has led to self-awareness and creativity, but I see sufficient evidence to indicate we are not the first example of such -and such must have preceded the universe.

From our own example, however, we can see that creativity is applying decisions to naturally-occurring things and forces -by those who are made possible by those things and forces.

It is wrapping one's head around that which naturally occurs -even including the self -and subduing it unto one's self.

(God -at least of the bible -did not actually claim responsibility for first cause -but said "I AM THAT AM" -that which was,miss and will be, etc. -so a "self-creating" God - everything developing naturally to the point of creating as a self-aware creator -would not be contrary to scripture.)

I think I am following you here...I have spoken often recently of the problem of self-reference where logically constructed arguments de-construct themselves naturally in the course of following out their logical consequences.

One interesting line in Genesis has stood out for me but could just be a bit of bad translation or an unrecognized moment of literary brilliance:

Genesis 18:17-19

17Then the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?18Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. c 19For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.”

Here God seems to be considering, in a moment of free will, whether or not to tell Abraham something. Given how Abraham actually argues, even chastises God in what follows, it is perceptive on God's part to have paused to reflect. God reasons, here, in a circular fashion it seems to me...Abraham will become great and bless all nations. This is because God chose him and God chose him so that the promise would be fulfilled. Choosing Abraham to become great so that Abraham will teach the Lord's greatness as a way to be followed which will ensure his people remain great. I AM made him/them great so they will be great.

I find my mind wants to resolve this into a more rational statement but the sheer fact that this internal conversation in God's head is presented here only raises the stakes that this is a moment of indecision and that God is needing to stop and think before proceeding. Given His I AM nature, the reasoning can only come off as unnecessary and circular. It is as if there is this little speck of self-doubt that the authors are painting into God due to, perhaps, what is about to happen next...Abraham actually negotiating with God and getting him to "lower his price" for the transgressions of a pair of towns. But by sending His angels he seems to have changed the circumstances so that he could get his full asking price by removing that which Abraham had chosen (Lot) from the equation...which was, probably, the reason why Abraham dared to argue with God in the first place.

 

[atanu]

Well, the issue is whether every event does, in fact, have a previous event. If so, then there cannot be a 'first'. And since causality is interwoven with time, we probably also have to give that up as well.

Yeah. The first cause could be beginning-less?

 

[atanu]

Wrong on both accounts. To be eternal just means the rate of entropy growth decreases into the past in such a way that entropy is always positive. This is easily done.

I do not understand this. What about Big Bang?

And to have creation ex nihilo *would* be a violation of the conservation of mass/energy. What is required to avoid violation of that conservation law is either that things be universal or that time does not go infinitely into the past. Both are possibilities.
.

Same question as above.

 

[sealchan]

I do not understand this. What about Big Bang?



Same question as above.

The Big Bang is merely an asymmetry in the shape of our four-dimensional Universe in that if one looks in a certain space-time direction this is what is seen. That is my educated guess as to how to understand the Big Bang from an "eternal" perspective. It is like a North Pole of the Universe but really it has no special qualities except that perhaps of being a subjective outcome of human-style cognition.

 

[atanu]

It is difficult to convey what the new ontology of time we get from relativity entails. For instance, when I say the universe is eternal and immutable, the layman thinks I am crazy. How can it be immutable if things seem to change all the time?

However, once we realize that spacetime is not an abstract context anymore, but a real physical manifold, then things should become easier.

Let me see if I find an analogy. It is like travelling in a train and you can see only through a window to the outside. What you see ouside can be interpreted in two ways.

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 for the Universe too. Our past still is, and our future already is. It is our consciousness that plays games making us believing that the past is gone and the future is open.

Ciao

- viole

What do you mean by ‘our consciousness‘?

 

[atanu]

"Easily done" must be why nearly zero cosmologists subscribe to a steady state or oscillating universe. Thanks for solving the universal laws of entropy! I smell your Nobel Prize award!

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..

 

[Polymath257]

I do not understand this. What about Big Bang?

What about it? A great deal of the universal expansion is adiabatic, meaning the entropy doens't change.

For those models with time going infinitely into the past, the Big Bang is a type of phase transition, but it isn't the beginning of the universe (depending on how you define 'universe').

Same question as above.

Again, what about it? Either time begins at the Big Bang, in which case, there is no violation of the conservation laws (which relate the total energy at two *times*). Or time goes infinitely into the past and energy has always existed, in which case there is no violation of the conservation laws.

The main point is that whenever there has been time, energy and matter have also existed and vice versa.