Before Creation: Nothing or Something

[Polymath257]

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.

Well, the problem is that time is part of 'something'. So you have to give up time references if you want to talk about there not being anything. At that point, it isn't clear what you even want to say.

We naturally think of every event having some other event before it. But that leads to an infinite regress for time itself. Now, I don't mind that, but it does mean there is no 'time prior to creation'.

The only other option is for there to be a 'first time' and that talking about 'prior' to that time simply makes no sense. No causality, nothing.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

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.

 

[Polymath257]

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

Nope. The term 'singularity' is a way to talk about how certain types of things act *within* the universe as we undergo some limiting process. It does not imply the actual existence of a point of singularity.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Generally, this is dealt with by only talking about 'after the Big Bang', in other words, t>0. Even t=0 is not an actual thing.

 

[sealchan]

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

I keep having the image of the creation and annihilation of virtual particles as a sort of visual model for how the Universe supposedly came into existence out of nothing. In at least one video I saw I see complimentary pairs (pairs that preserve the laws of physics about energy conservation and such) arise and mutually annihilate as a sort of background simmering.

But if this is the case for virtual particles in the existing Universe, how do we, or should we, extend this as a metaphor to understand the origin of the Universe itself? Wouldn't that imply some sort of background (something, rather than nothing) in which electron-positron pairs appear repeatedly because there is a kind of order that allows this?

 

[sealchan]

Generally, this is dealt with by only talking about 'after the Big Bang', in other words, t>0. Even t=0 is not an actual thing.

I see so that in the equations which describe the early Universe we move toward t = 0 but never reach it?

 

[sealchan]

So if we think about virtual particles as a kind of gatekeepers of the edge of the Universe...we believe they exist due to a number of scientific reasons but we cannot directly observe this process. In fact, if I recall correctly the Uncertainty Principle which limits our ability to see the edges of the Universe in detail (to put it creatively) predicts or has helped us to understand that virtual particles are expected in small regions of the vacuum.

So just behind the curtain of what we can directly experience there is an external reality which gives rise to influences on our experience of the reality in front of the curtain. Virtual particles represent a phenomenon that shows us what is outside of the Universe in that sense.

Now if we extend this perspective to the Universe on the whole, can we say that virtual particles model the origin of the Universe? Or is this just an unjustified speculation or over-extension of the understanding of virtual particles?

 

[Salvador]

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.

There was no time before the Big Bang because time did not exist before the formation of space-time associated with the Big Bang... time diverged from a three state dimension - as we perceive time now - after the Universe was at the age of the Planck time. Time gives way to space, such that at first there is only space without time. ....

Hartle–Hawking state - Wikipedia

I understand the Hartle-Hawking no boundary proposal can't yet be tested with current technology, but might possibly be tested with near future technology.

"Hawking's no-boundary the posits that after the Big Bang, the universe went through a burst of rapid expansion called cosmic inflation, amplifying the primordial gravitational waves that emanated from the Big Bang, Hertog said. This ancient echo of the universe's birth is recorded in the faint, cold microwave radiation that permeates every region of our universe, known as cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). If future satellites show that the energy signal in the CMB data matches the inflation predicted by Hawking's model, it could conceivably provide strong evidence for the existence of a multiverse, Hertog said."

Reference: Stephen Hawking's Last Paper (Probably) Doesn't Prove We Live in a Multiverse

 

[Milton Platt]

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.

Define the term "spiritual reality". It seems to be oxymoronic, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

How do you know the universe started from nothing?

We have no example of a "nothing" to examine. How can we determine what "nothing" in the absolute sense can or cannot do?
You are correct, if there was anything before the current iteration of the universe, we have no knowledge of it. It may be entertaining to make assertions about what we wish or think it might have been, but there is virtually no way to get at the answer.

 

[Polymath257]

I see so that in the equations which describe the early Universe we move toward t = 0 but never reach it?

Precisely.

At least, that is how it is in the Big Bang version based on General Relativity. Once quantum effects come into play, it *might* be possible to extend time infinitely far back. That depends on which version of quantum gravity you think it correct.

 

[Ellen Brown]

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.

Following the theory of Entropy, it seems to me for any sort of order or creation to have happened, something must have interfered with the disorder. There is also the conservative Christian idea that Atheism is merely rebellion, since scripture indicates that the knowledge of God is written in our very cells. I've been largely finding my own way since the people who insisted that they have spiritual authority in my life actually violated the very scriptures that they espouse in condemning me. These days perhaps my belief is limited to pleasing that Creator and following him meekly.

 

[shmogie]

Nope. The term 'singularity' is a way to talk about how certain types of things act *within* the universe as we undergo some limiting process. It does not imply the actual existence of a point of singularity.

Then you should take the matter up with the cosmologists who support the BB. The theory proposes that a single point of infinite density existed, before the creation of the universe. There was nothing, no space, no time, no matter, no energy, no heat no cold, nothing but the singularity.

For unknown reasons unknown, the singularity banged, and created the universe.

The singularity existed outside and before the universe.

 

[shmogie]

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.

Of course from my perspective of theology, there was an ultimate first cause.

 

[PureX]

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?

The "what ifs" are endless because the mystery is total. That's the point. Our speculations don't tell us anything about the nature of existence so much as it tells us about us.

 

[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.

Eistein was right. The Newtonian idea that there is an external time, during which the events of the Universe take place, is a stubborn illusion.

We know today that this idea is obsolete. There is no objective flow of time, nor present, nor future nor past. Time, or better, spacetime, is not an abstract concept, but a real physical thing which can bend, have a geometry, etc.

Now, it is left as an exercise to you to define what it means for spacetime to have a past, a future, to have begun, or to change in any way or form. You will realize immediately that using tensed verbs, for instance, is meaningless. Spacetime is, for all practical purposes, eternal and unchanging.

If you want to learn more, I suggest to read what scientists like C.Rovelli, S. Carroll or B. Greene have to say about the subject. I believe they have some cool youtubes. Check out for “Block Universe”.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Polymath257]

Then you should take the matter up with the cosmologists who support the BB. The theory proposes that a single point of infinite density existed, before the creation of the universe. There was nothing, no space, no time, no matter, no energy, no heat no cold, nothing but the singularity.

For unknown reasons unknown, the singularity banged, and created the universe.

The singularity existed outside and before the universe.

Well, I have studied the BB scenario in classes on cosmology using the detailed mathematical theory. The 'singularity' is a way of describing a limit of what happens in the universe. It is not an object or event outside of the universe.

For example, as we go back in time, under general relativity, the expansion factor for space decreases. The limit as we go back to t=0 is that the expansion factor is 0. But, t=0 is not an actual time or event in the model. Only t>0 is actually in the model. The 'singularity' is a way of saying that certain parameters (like curvature, density, etc) get larger and larger without bounds as t gets closer to 0.

And, when quantum effects are brought it (which they have to be at some point), it is quite possible there is no 'singularity' at all: that these parameters hit a maximal value and decrease as we go back further in time (which, with no singularity, is possible).

 

[Polymath257]

Of course from my perspective of theology, there was an ultimate first cause.

Certainly theists believe such, I agree. At this point, it is an open question.

 

[Polymath257]

Eistein was right. The Newtonian idea that there is an external time, during which the events of the Universe take place, is a stubborn illusion.

We know today that this idea is obsolete. There is no objective flow of time, nor present, nor future nor past. Time, or better, spacetime, is not an abstract concept, but a real physical thing which can bend, have a geometry, etc.

Now, it is left as an exercise to you to define what it means for spacetime to have a past, a future, to have begun, or to change in any way or form. You will realize immediately that using tensed verbs, for instance, is meaningless. Spacetime is, for all practical purposes, eternal and unchanging.

If you want to learn more, I suggest to read what scientists like C.Rovelli, S. Carroll or B. Greene have to say about the subject. I believe they have some cool youtubes. Check out for “Block Universe”.

Ciao

- viole

It seems difficult for people to accept spacetime as a unit (which is typical of cosmology) that simply exists. That time is *part* of the universe. Part of it is that most people have trouble imagining four dimensions, let alone four *curved* dimensions.

 

[ChristineM]

Then you should take the matter up with the cosmologists who support the BB. The theory proposes that a single point of infinite density existed, before the creation of the universe. There was nothing, no space, no time, no matter, no energy, no heat no cold, nothing but the singularity.

For unknown reasons unknown, the singularity banged, and created the universe.

The singularity existed outside and before the universe.

There are at least 28 hypothesis of what caused the BB, not a single theory as you state.

If you day so, there may be a Nobel prize in it for you.

Did it?

One thing is sure about the BB... Nothing is known about it. All knowledge on the BB is projected from what happened after. Which is why cosmologists are not as sure if what happened as you seem to be

 

[Native]

@sealchan

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?

In the most specified and detailed ancient cultural Myths of Creation tellings, there are NO beginning and NO end at all.

When we in the Western cultures thinks otherwise, this derives from the biblical interpretation which is disconnected from the astronomical and cosmological locations, which is described in the more precise other cultural tellings.

Take for instants the Egytian story of creation (The Ogdoad) which specifically is connected to the Milky Way formation via the Egyptian goddess Hathor. In this story everything is said to be eternal but with eternal changes between formation, dissolution and re-formation.

When ascribing this Egyptian story to the Milky Way, our Egyptian ancestors just desribes the "beginning" pre-conditions and factual formation of the Milky Way and everything in it, which was the ancient world picture. So this story don´t deal with any beginning or end of the entire Universe at all.

And if you study Comparative Mythology and Religion you´ll discover why these are very similar, just using some different local symbolics for the very same story, the creation of the Milky Way in where we all live.

That is: The ancient world picture really confirms your:

In my study of science I have long been fascinated by the idea of a self-created Universe whose laws explain its origin.