What came before the Big Bang?

[metis]

Being Christian it's hard to think of multiple Gods. I know I could never be a polytheist my brain just can't grasp that particular idea. For me it's either A God or No God. Lol years of conditioning.

And that's the point. I have not one single problem when one says something like "I believe in one God", but I do cringe when someone says "There's only one God". We're in an area whereas certainty is not to be found even though people want it that way. IOW, we like to think we know because there's some security in that. Saying "I don't know" isn't that good for the ego, and that tends to force us to be in a bit of a quandary.

 

[crossfire]

And that's the point. I have not one single problem when one says something like "I believe in one God", but I do cringe when someone says "There's only one God". We're in an area whereas certainty is not to be found even though people want it that way. IOW, we like to think we know because there's some security in that. Saying "I don't know" isn't that good for the ego, and that tends to force us to be in a bit of a quandary.

I believe in the unknown. I don't know what's there, but I believe in it. {How's that for being certain in my uncertainty?}

 

[metis]

I believe in the unknown. I don't know what's there, but I believe in it. {How's that for being certain in my uncertainty?}

Hey, you got my vote.

BTW, I'm at the point of my life whereas whatever created our universe/multiverse I'll call "God" and pretty much leave it at that.

Shalom, have a great weekend, and I'm outta here 'til Sunday.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

And that's the point. I have not one single problem when one says something like "I believe in one God", but I do cringe when someone says "There's only one God". We're in an area whereas certainty is not to be found even though people want it that way. IOW, we like to think we know because there's some security in that. Saying "I don't know" isn't that good for the ego, and that tends to force us to be in a bit of a quandary.

For me I know it's conditioning on my point.

I'm more on the "We don't know" for me it's not so much the idea that God doesn't exist, given that we are living in a Universe that is so vast that even as much of it as we have explored, and our planet itself is an amazing piece of work, I find that God, be it one or many would be a being so vastly powerful that even attempting to understand what God wants would be alien to us.

 

[gnostic]

Is that so? If there is no 'nothing', then how is it that you can talk about 'something'?

"No nothing" means there is "something". Just that we don't know what that "something" is.

Do you get it?

Multiplying 2 negative numbers, for instance, will give you a positive number.

So saying "no nothing" is the same as saying "it is not nothing".

Yes, that's called the inflationary theory, but some new evidence being advanced by Dr. Roger Penrose suggests a cyclical universe. See here:

Penrose claims to have glimpsed universe before Big Bang - physicsworld.com

The notion of a recurring universe coincides exactly with the Hindu cosmological model, where the worlds manifest themselves over and over again, in-between periods of non-manifestation. Each manifestation consists of four long periods, called kalpas.

Cyclical universe - or the Big Bounce - is just a notion, a supposition, or unverifiable hypothesis. There are no evidences to support the cyclic universe.

I understand what you're getting at, but all of this merely assumes one thing: that what we call 'matter' is real, and being real, the perennial problem has always been, both for theists and scientists, the origin of matter. But if matter is an illusion, or maya, as the Hindus have told us for centuries, then there is no problem of origin. An illusion can come out of No-thing-ness.

I'll leave this matter=illusion or is matter "real" philosophical question to you.

 

[godnotgod]

"No nothing" means there is "something". Just that we don't know what that "something" is.

That's not the issue I raised.

When you say 'there is something', you can ONLY say that against a background of 'no-thing'. You just don't realize you're doing it, because nothing cannot be conceptualized. It's just already present by default. It's 'something' that must be brought into conscious awareness by effort. Were it not for the pre-existing presence of nothing, you would be unable to even think about the idea of something. And so, something is dependent upon nothing. It cannot exist without it, just as the spokes of a wheel can have no function without the empty hub in the center, just as the stars, planets, and galaxies can have no existence without the space surrounding them, and just as sound cannot exist without the always present backdrop of pure silence.

Here's an example to help you understand:

An Englishman and an Indian are sitting in a garden discussing philosophy, and the Indian is trying to explain how the Indian mind sees Reality, so he says:

'See that hedge over there? What do you see it against?", to which the Englishman replies: "I see it against the hills behind it". Then the Indian says: "And against what do you see the hills?", to which the Englishman responds: "I see them against the sky". Then the Indian asks: "And against what do you see the sky?", at which the Englishman fell silent, unable to respond. So the Indian said: "You see it against consciousness."

It is the same with something/nothing. The background to something, to existence, is no-thing, and it is nothing that is consciousness itself. It has no beginning or end, is without time, space, or causation, and all that emerges from it is temporal and illusory, and then returns to it. This explains how something can come out of nothing. An illusion has no enduring reality. It is empty.

 

[godnotgod]

Cyclical universe - or the Big Bounce - is just a notion, a supposition, or unverifiable hypothesis. There are no evidences to support the cyclic universe.

No, it is more than just a notion. I gave you a reference for Penrose and the discovery of traces of microwave background radiation left over from previous universes.

 

[Heim]

I do believe in the Big Bang. And by saying that I mean that I believe the scientists who have researched this and reached that conclusion.

I don't know if you can actually truly speak of what came 'before' our universe. The concept of 'before' implies a time dimension, which is something found 'inside' (space, another problem) our universe, but doesn't necessarily apply to elsewhere.

 

[YmirGF]

I am more intrigued by the idea of multiple big bangs, some of which are happening ... now ... though branes are a bit hard to wrap ones brain around.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

When you say 'there is something', you can ONLY say that against a background of 'no-thing'. You just don't realize you're doing it, because nothing cannot be conceptualized. It's just already present by default. It's 'something' that must be brought into conscious awareness by effort. Were it not for the pre-existing presence of nothing

You're being mislead by language. Don't worry, you're far from the first that has been misled by the word "nothing"- indeed, you're in good company; there are entire schools of thought founded upon this bit of linguistic mischievousness.

"Nothing" appears to be a noun, like "something", "anything", and so on- that is, its a word that picks out some object in the world, sort of like a label. But appearances can be deceiving. This is to misunderstand the usage of this word, what it does in a sentence or proposition- it stands for negation. Nothing is not some other thing, like a something, it is the lack or negation of any somethings. Nothing is not an entity- it is the lack of an entity. Nothing can be present only in the sense that a something is NOT present. When I say "nothing is here", I am NOT asserting that there is a thing here, namely nothing, but rather saying that there is NOT a thing here at all.

Cyclical universe - or the Big Bounce - is just a notion, a supposition, or unverifiable hypothesis.

No. It is an unverified hypothesis, but not an unverifiable one, and it is not "just a notion". Many current hypotheses in cosmology are credible- neither confirmed nor refuted- including big bounce/cyclical models, Hawking's/Hartle's "No Boundary" proposal, the Zero-Energy proposal favored by Krauss and others, and so on.

 

[godnotgod]

You're being mislead by language. Don't worry, you're far from the first that has been misled by the word "nothing"- indeed, you're in good company; there are entire schools of thought founded upon this bit of linguistic mischievousness.

"Nothing" appears to be a noun, like "something", "anything", and so on- that is, its a word that picks out some object in the world, sort of like a label. But appearances can be deceiving. This is to misunderstand the usage of this word, what it does in a sentence or proposition- it stands for negation. Nothing is not some other thing, like a something, it is the lack or negation of any somethings. Nothing is not an entity- it is the lack of an entity. Nothing can be present only in the sense that a something is NOT present. When I say "nothing is here", I am NOT asserting that there is a thing here, namely nothing, but rather saying that there is NOT a thing here at all.

I think you've still got it wrong. Nothingness is not dependent upon something, as you imply. But everything IS dependent upon nothing. IOW, nothing is not the "lack of an entity, or present only only when something is not present". It is not a RELATIVE condition. It is an ABSOLUTE. You are referring to EMPTINESS, rather than NOTHINGNESS. As Ray Griggs of 'The Tao of Zen' tells us:

"The extension of emptiness is nothingness, the condition of total negation, the no-concept of no-concept. It is emptiness at its most allowing......whereas emptiness is relative, nothingness is absolute, a notion that cannot be conceived and does not have a conceivable counterpart."

...or, more simply, as the Buddha says:

"Negate negation"

 

[Enai de a lukal]

But everything IS dependent upon nothing.

Why? How?

IOW, nothing is not the "lack of an entity, or present only only when something is not present".

At least in English, that's exactly how the word "nothing" is used.

It is not a RELATIVE condition. It is an ABSOLUTE. You are referring to EMPTINESS, rather than NOTHINGNESS.

Um, no, although the two are clearly similar in many contexts.

As Ray Griggs of 'The Tao of Zen' tells us:[/COLOR]

"The extension of emptiness is nothingness, the condition of total negation, the no-concept of no-concept. It is emptiness at its most allowing......whereas emptiness is relative, nothingness is absolute, a notion that cannot be conceived and does not have a conceivable counterpart."

I don't see how prima facie false bare assertions are any better being quoted from an author than they are simply being made by you. Why would we accept what this guy has to say, especially when it seems trivially false?

...or, more simply, as the Buddha says:

"Negate negation"

Negate negation. That's great. Mmmk! (and there's nothing profound about double negation- a simple logical operation anyways)

As I said, you, and the folks you're quoting (the "good company" I mentioned, seemingly) are reifying nothing, and without warrant. It is not an entity, there's no reason to think its an entity, and the idea that nothing is an entity, rather than a lack of entities, is self-refuting, hopelessly confused, and contrary to how the word "nothing" functions in language.

 

[godnotgod]

Why? How?

Because, when you think 'everything', it is conceived against a passive background, a field, if you will, of not-everything, and not-everything, is no-thing. There is no possible way for you to envision 'everything' without some reference. The reference is unnoticed, because it is already there, just as the sea is already there to the fish born into it. He does not know he is in the sea.

At least in English, that's exactly how the word "nothing" is used.

Right, but it is a relative nothing. There is an Absolute Nothingness.

I don't see how prima facie false bare assertions are any better being quoted from an author than they are simply being made by you. Why would we accept what this guy has to say, especially when it seems trivially false?

If you read carefully, and follow his explanation, you can see what he is saying as valid.

Negate negation. That's great. Mmmk! (and there's nothing profound about double negation- a simple logical operation anyways)

Maybe simple, but not so easy for the rational mind. Negation of negation is the negation of the negation of the idea of something.

As I said, you, and the folks you're quoting (the "good company" I mentioned, seemingly) are reifying nothing, and without warrant. It is not an entity, there's no reason to think its an entity, and the idea that nothing is an entity, rather than a lack of entities, is self-refuting, hopelessly confused, and contrary to how the word "nothing" functions in language.

I had agreed with you about that, and Griggs pointed out that nothing cannot be conceptualized. What more do you want? Just stop, OK?

As long as the notion of 'something' is still held in mind, we have not yet arrived at nothingness. It is still seen as a relative value, a duality.

 

[gnostic]

Were it not for the pre-existing presence of nothing, you would be unable to even think about the idea of something. And so, something is dependent upon nothing.

You don't know stupid all this sound?

How could any of this "pre-existing presence of nothing" do anything, let alone "do something"?

Seriously, "nothing" cannot create "something".

And a "presence" cannot be made out of nothing.

And btw, what's presence of nothing is or was "pre-existing"?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Because, when you think 'everything', it is conceived against a passive background, a field, if you will...

How so?

... of not-everything, and not-everything, is no-thing.

Well no, not necessarily- not-everything needn't be nothing; a something is still not everything (provided it isn't the only something). But perhaps by "not everything" you don't literally mean not everything, but rather mean "not any somethings". But once again, the fact that the absence of any somethings can be opposed to the presence of any particular something doesn't mean that this absence is itself a something- indeed, that's precisely the opposite of what it is, by definition.

There is no possible way for you to envision 'everything' without some reference.

I don't know that its possible to envision everything in any unqualified way. But regardless, "everything" is a term which is given reference by context; when I say "everything in the garage has to go in the back of the truck" , the reference of "everything" is determined by two things, neither of which are any mystical entity called "nothing"- 1. the linguistic conventions governing use of the term "everything" (as well as all the other words in the sentence, but they aren't what we're concerned with here), such that "every" denotes universal quantification, and 2. certain facts about the world, namely, what stuff happens to be in the garage.

Right, but it is a relative nothing. There is an Absolute Nothingness.

No, there doesn't seem to be, as that would be self-contradictory.

If you read carefully, and follow his explanation, you can see what he is saying as valid.

No, and that's the problem- prima facie, it seems trivially false.

 

[godnotgod]

You don't know stupid all this sound?

It only sounds stupid because man's concepts about the nature of Reality does not match Reality itself. When you see into the true nature of Reality, and try to express it, it sounds stupid to the rational, conceptualizing mind, partly because the conceptualizing mind assumes it has the right view.

How could any of this "pre-existing presence of nothing" do anything, let alone "do something"?

It doesn't do anything. It only appears as if it does. That is the nature of the illusion you think is real.

Seriously, "nothing" cannot create "something".

It doesn't, but everything comes out of it, just as sound comes out of silence.

And a "presence" cannot be made out of nothing.

And btw, what's presence of nothing is or was "pre-existing"?

Two things:

One, you most likely have not kept up with the latest ideas in theoretical physics, in which 'a universe out of nothing' is being proposed, here:

[youtube]0ZiXC8Yh4T0[/youtube]
Krauss '09: "A Universe From Nothing" - YouTube

Secondly, what if there is no 'creation' at all? That is to say, what if what we call the material world is but an illusion, but one on a higher level than how we understand illusion in the ordinary sense? If that is the case, nothing is actually created, but instead is only manifested, or projected. This idea also accounts for the origin of the material from which the 'creation' is made, because there is no actual material at all. To date, modern physics has failed to uncover the basic building block of 'matter', it being mostly empty space, and, as Einstein put it:

"What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.”

re: presence: is your consciousness present?

The empty hub of a wagon wheel does nothing, and yet, the wheel cannot function without it.

Stars, galaxies, planets, etc. could not exist were it not for the nothing between, around, and inside them.

Everything comes out of Nothing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssf7P-Sgcrk

 

[metis]

Please do not confuse "nothingness", as found in dharma, with nihilism because they are not one and the same.

 

[godnotgod]

How so?

Well, you tell me: how is it that you can conceive of something, if not against some field against which it is seen, or understood? You make out shapes via seeing them against either non-shapes, such as a shapeless background, like a wall, or against other shapes.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

...Everything comes out of Nothing. [link]

Godnot, I clicked on the video presentation by Mr. Kraus, introduced by some self-important person, and found it to be little more than one mocking insult of religion after another. It was a real disappointment -- I had hoped to hear something intelligent.

Your quote from Albert Einstein about the nature of matter was interesting. I used to do atomic force microscopy; and came to the realization that there is no such thing as "contact" -- objects simply get close enough that their mutual repulsive forces are greater than the external force applied.

We live in a universe that has definite limits, beyond which we cannot perceive anything. The "Big Bang" is one such limit. What we call the "Present" is the other. Scientists so-called make predictions of the future, by extrapolating the past; but they do not indeed know what things lie ahead of us. On the other hand, they stop in their backwards extrapolation of time, because they are all too obviously ignorant of what that will lead to. Like our known universe, their minds are locked in a box, beyond which they dare not tread.

The Bible says,

Psalms 14
[1] The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good...

I cannot improve on that scripture.

Shalom shalom

 

[godnotgod]

Godnot, I clicked on the video presentation by Mr. Kraus, introduced by some self-important person, and found it to be little more than one mocking insult of religion after another. It was a real disappointment -- I had hoped to hear something intelligent.

One of Kraus's pet indulgences outside his field of theoretical physics is to aggressively mock religion, unfortunately. While I do find it distasteful, and while I am neither atheist nor theist (how can THAT be?) I must admit I DO find many of Mr. Dawkins points re: religion to be valid. Krauss is less successful in his presentation. He should stick to physics. However, there are other videos by Krauss on the same topic where he is less indulgent. If you can somehow ignore these types of comments, I think you will find the basic ideas about a universe emergent from a state of nothingness quite intriguing. Personally, I subscribe to the Hindu view, of a universe that is both the Absolute and maya at once.

"The universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivikenanda

Your quote from Albert Einstein about the nature of matter was interesting. I used to do atomic force microscopy; and came to the realization that there is no such thing as "contact" -- objects simply get close enough that their mutual repulsive forces are greater than the external force applied.

Also, here is Max Planck on the subject:

As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.

I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.

We live in a universe that has definite limits, beyond which we cannot perceive anything. The "Big Bang" is one such limit. What we call the "Present" is the other. Scientists so-called make predictions of the future, by extrapolating the past; but they do not indeed know what things lie ahead of us. On the other hand, they stop in their backwards extrapolation of time, because they are all too obviously ignorant of what that will lead to. Like our known universe, their minds are locked in a box, beyond which they dare not tread.

It's just the current paradigm. Religious control of the human spirit was the previous paradigm. Both are extensions of our own human consciousness that makes God and the Universe an 'other'. Man won't be free, nor have a transformed vision of himself or of his world until he sees that there is no 'self and other'. But it's all part of the cosmic game of "Hide and Seek", in which the divine nature is playing all the parts of 'creation' simultaneously, having forgotten that it is doing so.

The Bible says,

Psalms 14
[1] The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good...

I cannot improve on that scripture.

Shalom shalom [/QUOTE]