• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Before Creation: Nothing or Something

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
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?

Well, who can say? We know nothing of consciousness.
What we know is that if relativity is true, then the block universe is probably the best way to understand our universe. Quantum gravity seems to go in the same direction. Several physical theories nowadays are timeless.

And if that is the case, then since our brains are also part of the physical, then the way they work must necessarily generate illusory sensations about the world. Like time flow, which, for the above-mentioned physical reasons, does not exist.

Plantinga is right. If evolution is fully naturalistic, then we should not trust our brains. We should not indeed trust our brains alone for what concerns statements about the world.

Ciao

- viole
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
What do you mean by smoothed out?

Well, to be a singularity means that certain variables go to infinity (temperature, density, etc). The quantum effects, primarily because of the uncertainty principle, keep those variables bounded. So there is no longer, strictly speaking, a singularity.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Well, to be a singularity means that certain variables go to infinity (temperature, density, etc). The quantum effects, primarily because of the uncertainty principle, keep those variables bounded. So there is no longer, strictly speaking, a singularity.

You lost me there. It's like to become a singularity means it's no longer singularity?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Plantinga is right. If evolution is fully naturalistic, then we should not trust our brains. We should not indeed trust our brains alone for what concerns statements about the world.

I'm surprised this is regarded as a deep observation. Given how many optical illusions we *know* about, how difficult it is to train to be logical, and how our intuitions fail even for Newtonian physics, this just seems obvious to me.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
You lost me there. It's like to become a singularity means it's no longer singularity?

When quantum effects are considered, the variables no longer go to infinity, so there isn't a singularity. The singularity is a prediction on non-quantum models.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
When quantum effects are considered, the variables no longer go to infinity, so there isn't a singularity. The singularity is a prediction on non-quantum models.

If laws no longer exist in a singularity, how do we know what would apply or if anything applies?
Also being there is no place as no where, can nothingness exist or is there always something. I think there was always something but once the laws break down we can't understand what it was.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
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.

What about the asymmetry in the background radiation or the distribution of matter at the large scale? Is it possible that this might reflect something contextual about the singularity?
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
If laws no longer exist in a singularity, how do we know what would apply or if anything applies?
Also being there is no place as no where, can nothingness exist or is there always something. I think there was always something but once the laws break down we can't understand what it was.

I'm thinking that this is the more elegant likelihood than the nothing.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
If laws no longer exist in a singularity, how do we know what would apply or if anything applies?
Also being there is no place as no where, can nothingness exist or is there always something. I think there was always something but once the laws break down we can't understand what it was.

Once again, when quantum effects are included, the variables that go to infinity in a non-quantum model no longer do so. And, in this case, depending on the specifics of quantum gravity, the laws of physics continue to work through the 'bounce'.

When you say there was 'always something', there is a sense I agree even *if* the quantum effects don't do this. Whenever there was *time*, there was also matter and energy. But time itself is part of the universe (spacetime).
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
What about the asymmetry in the background radiation or the distribution of matter at the large scale? Is it possible that this might reflect something contextual about the singularity?

Asymmetry is mostly due to our peculiar motion.

Matter distribution? yes, depending on which model is accurate. There was even a suggestion a few years ago that some observations could be explained by interaction with other universes gravitationally. That didn't pan out, but there are models of a multiverse that can be tested in this way.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Once again, when quantum effects are included, the variables that go to infinity in a non-quantum model no longer do so. And, in this case, depending on the specifics of quantum gravity, the laws of physics continue to work through the 'bounce'.

When you say there was 'always something', there is a sense I agree even *if* the quantum effects don't do this. Whenever there was *time*, there was also matter and energy. But time itself is part of the universe (spacetime).

Would we need a better working theory of quantum gravity to understand it better?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
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.

Ah, but animals are not consciousness or intelligent in the ways that they would dwell on the subject of the universe and it’s origin.

No other animals on Earth think about the universe. No other animals are attempting to figure everything seemed to work, for they have no interests in the distant stars and galaxies.

That’s the difference between humans and animals.

Yes, animals can be consciousness and intelligent, but this is a subject about the beginning, isn’t it? Do you see any other animals in contention of whether there were “something” or “nothing” at the beginning?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Ah, but animals are not consciousness or intelligent in the ways that they would dwell on the subject of the universe and it’s origin.

No other animals on Earth think about the universe. No other animals are attempting to figure everything seemed to work, for they have no interests in the distant stars and galaxies.

That’s the difference between humans and animals.

Yes, animals can be consciousness and intelligent, but this is a subject about the beginning, isn’t it? Do you see any other animals in contention of whether there were “something” or “nothing” at the beginning?

I have no idea what philosophies chimps or bonobos have.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
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.

Speaking of language...this is sort of where I wanted to head with this thread. When we get to the quantum perhaps we leave behind time and space and see beyond what we, as observers of our environment, are mainly capable of seeing. Perhaps we should draw a dotted line around space-time and think about the formation of atoms and beyond as the story of our Universe and see the seams of the fabric of space-time (its topology, its fields) as having quantum seams which indicate something more fundamental and extra-Universal.

In any layer of physical activity there are primary units (atoms, people). The behaviour of those units may support a higher level of behaviour in certain environments (molecules, societies). It also expresses a layer of behaviour of a lower level (sub-atomic particles, multi-cellular life forms).

I find that stochastic laws prevail at points in a system where one layer transitions to another like atoms/molecules in a gas. If quantum events are often stochastic then does not our experience suggest that there is an orderly layer which is generative of this randomness? And if a signal (the Universe) forms an order out of this noisy background then we should consider that noise as indicative of a "lower layer" of activity. If we cant observe that then that is merely an outcome of ourselves as the limitation of the instrument we use to measure with.

We can analogize then to the many layers of the universe we do have access to and consider that there is another layer. Maybe we can see the classical Universe as "our" layer.

This should be considered alongside the nothing assumption since by analogy we might be able to recognize a distinction thereby between a perfectly, self-explained and presentable universe out of nothing vs a created universe with odd "blemishes" in its presentation that suggest that there is more to its story.

With respect to our need to understand our universe as being created by a "spiritual source" then there is an interesting possibility that science might add where the properties of the quantum become the stand in for the imaginings of the nature of God. The various miraculous qualities of the quantum (non-locality, particle-wave duality, tunneling, etc) would stand in as vestiges of those miracles that throughout time were imagined of the gods.
 

atanu

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

Well I know your viewpoint and I think the material view is baseless. It is a mythical belief.

I am interested to know her viewpoint ( although I guess it will be same as yours).
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
.

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.

I hope people realise that these are all diverse models.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Well, who can say? We know nothing of consciousness.
What we know is that if relativity is true, then the block universe is probably the best way to understand our universe. Quantum gravity seems to go in the same direction. Several physical theories nowadays are timeless.

And if that is the case, then since our brains are also part of the physical, then the way they work must necessarily generate illusory sensations about the world. Like time flow, which, for the above-mentioned physical reasons, does not exist.

Plantinga is right. If evolution is fully naturalistic, then we should not trust our brains. We should not indeed trust our brains alone for what concerns statements about the world.

Ciao

- viole

Good that you speak of Plantinga. :)
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
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.
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.
 
Top