Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?

[Ben Dhyan]

The question is unreasonable, though. Our scientific understanding is still in its infant stage, but we are learning more every day. So, the obvious conclusion should be "we haven't figured it out yet". The lack of a presently understood natural explanation doesn't make God more likely. That is literally filling in the present, and ever shrinking gaps with God by default.

"we haven't figured it out yet" ...haha...yes and they never will...

God did not create the universe...the physical universe perceived by mortals is merely the manifestation of God... Star births and deaths are occurring eternally....no big deal.

 

[leibowde84]

"we haven't figured it out yet" ...haha...yes and they never will...

God did not create the universe...the physical universe perceived by mortals is merely the manifestation of God... Star births and deaths are occurring eternally....no big deal.

How do you know what the limits of science will be in the future?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

How do you know what the limits of science will be in the future?

How do you know that future science will not walk away from big bang theory for a more accurate model of reality?

 

[leibowde84]

How do you know that future science will not walk away from big bang theory for a more closer model of reality?

I don't. I never said that it wasn't even likely. Who knows?! I follow the evidence. And that is perfectly fine. That's what's so great about science. I don't want to settle on anything that might be an illusion when the truth might be attainable. Settling on anything as absolute is an unreasonable stance, it seems.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I don't. I never said that it wasn't even likely. Who knows?! I follow the evidence. And that is perfectly fine. That's what's so great about science. I don't want to settle on anything that might be an illusion when the truth might be attainable. Settling on anything as absolute is an unreasonable stance, it seems.

Fair enough...sfaic, the mortal mind is limited by space time constraints....there must be more evolved states of awareness than the human brain mind with its interpreted conceptual representations of the real....and that's my goal...non conceptual apprehension of reality directly!

 

[leibowde84]

Fair enough...sfaic, the mortal mind is limited by space time constraints....there must be more evolved states of awareness than the human brain mind with its interpreted conceptual representations of the real....and that's my goal...non conceptual apprehension of reality directly!

There is no requirement for any understanding of something in order for that something to be true.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There is no requirement for any understanding of something in order for that something to be true.

But I want to understand what and who I really am in the context of absolute existence....it is true that I exist, but so long as I do not understand fully what I am, I can not know fully who I am....destiny awaits...

 

[leibowde84]

But I want to understand what and who I really am in the context of absolute existence....it is true that I exist, but so long as I do not understand fully what I am, I can not know fully who I am....destiny awaits...

That's great!! Me too. But, settling on anything with certainty will only hurt this endeavor. You've got to be willing to accept and work with evidence that disproves commonly held beliefs.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That's great!! Me too. But, settling on anything with certainty will only hurt this endeavor. You've got to be willing to accept and work with evidence that disproves commonly held beliefs.

Yes..its a fine line....but whatever the uncorrected errors of my mind now, I must express myself and function to the best of my ability ongoing, all the time never letting a day go by without deep reflection/meditation aka ongoing error correction...

 

[leibowde84]

Yes..its a fine line....but whatever the uncorrected errors of my mind now, I must express myself and function to the best of my ability ongoing, all the time never letting a day go by without deep reflection/meditation aka auto error correction...

Makes our minds stronger.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Makes our minds stronger.

...and our egos less egoic..

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It's a cop out.....there is no such thing as before the big bang!

Without time, you can't use temporal references. It's like asking what the volume of a line in 2-dimensional space is.

Ok then, what caused the big bang to exist?

Why would it require being caused? And why should we expect that the (already tenuous and unclear) nature of causality should hold in a situation in which there exist no physics, time, or space?

How did existence arise from non-existence?

It may turn out that we can answer this question (either by explaining how or by finding that in fact there was a kind of existence that allowed for the big bang). But quite frequently the more we discover, the more explanations we need for these discoveries. This is because we are often able to demonstrate that something is the case but not why or how it is, from cellular metabolism to nonlocality.

Can the sum total of all mass and energy in existence go out of existence in a reciprocal manner (or any other way) as it came into existence?

No. Apart from anything else, even after the universe began the "laws" of physics still didn't exist the way they do now, and whatever allowed for the big bang is totally different from the conditions even when the laws of physics totally break down (Planck time). However, the big bang occurred, Planck time passed, the differing laws of physics after it "solidified", and here we are.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I think Legion is pointing out that we can't talk about "before" the Big Bang in the same way as any event proceeding it, due to time not existing prior to the Big Bang itself. For all we know, every assumption is out the window "before" that point. What can "be" without time (and, please don't use the usual "god of the gaps" appeal)?

You put it brilliantly.

 

[Desert Snake]

It's a cop out.....there is no such thing as before the big bang!

Ok then, what caused the big bang to exist?

It's a theory

How did existence arise from non-existence?

It didn't

Can the sum total of all mass and energy in existence go out of existence in a reciprocal manner (or any other way) as it came into existence?

...

 

[Desert Snake]

You put it brilliantly.

Am I supposed to adhere to your lack of logical inference? No, I do not think so.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Without time, you can't use temporal references. It's like asking what the volume of a line in 2-dimensional space is.


Why would it require being caused? And why should we expect that the (already tenuous and unclear) nature of causality should hold in a situation in which there exist no physics, time, or space?


It may turn out that we can answer this question (either by explaining how or by finding that in fact there was a kind of existence that allowed for the big bang). But quite frequently the more we discover, the more explanations we need for these discoveries. This is because we are often able to demonstrate that something is the case but not why or how it is, from cellular metabolism to nonlocality.


No. Apart from anything else, even after the universe began the "laws" of physics still didn't exist the way they do now, and whatever allowed for the big bang is totally different from the conditions even when the laws of physics totally break down (Planck time). However, the big bang occurred, Planck time passed, the differing laws of physics after it "solidified", and here we are.

Ok...there is now physics, time (persistence), and space.....but we don't yet know the cause, if any, for why they came into existence, ........now that is a hole you could drive a universe though..haha

So if there is no requirement for a cause of the big bang.....and this universe just popped into existence for no particular reason, it follows that there are no constraints for other big bangs popping into existence without reason or cause...in fact if this is true, they could be infinite in number yes?

So what about higher dimensions.....does science know all dimensions and can explain their role in cosmic existence? Did all dimensions also emerge from the big bang or could some have preexisted it?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It's a theory

It didn't

...

I know it's a theory....and not one I have confidence in...but I can't be bothered to add a caveat to that effect on my every post...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Ok...there is now physics, time (persistence), and space.....but we don't yet know the cause

We don't know the cause (or indeed how their could be one) behind instantaneous interactions between space-like separated systems. We don't know how best to conceive of causes and a number of approaches in e.g., biology (especially systems biology and relational biology) ascribe ontic properties to functional processes. There is no universally accepted model of causality.

So if there is no requirement for a cause of the big bang.....and this universe just popped into existence for no particular reason, it follows that there are no constraints for other big bangs popping into existence without reason or cause

The big bang didn't pop into existence, as it is a process (an explosion). Also, in a very real sense existence popped into existence at this point. Once we have existence (the universe), then it doesn't follow whatsoever that other existences can start existing. We now have causes and effects, space, etc., in which everything that is actually "is".

...in fact if this is true, they could be infinite in number yes?

No.

So what about higher dimensions

I wrote a blog post explaining the misconceptions about dimensions here: A note on nature of spacetime dimensions (and more!)

.....does science know all dimensions and can explain their role in cosmic existence?

For the purposes of your understanding, yes.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It's a theory

Yay. The classic creationist defense ("Evolution is just a theory...").

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We don't know the cause (or indeed how their could be one) behind instantaneous interactions between space-like separated systems. We don't know how best to conceive of causes and a number of approaches in e.g., biology (especially systems biology and relational biology) ascribe ontic properties to functional processes. There is no universally accepted model of causality.


The big bang didn't pop into existence, as it is a process (an explosion). Also, in a very real sense existence popped into existence at this point. Once we have existence (the universe), then it doesn't follow whatsoever that other existences can start existing. We now have causes and effects, space, etc., in which everything that is actually "is".

No.


I wrote a blog post explaining the misconceptions about dimensions here: A note on nature of spacetime dimensions (and more!)


For the purposes of your understanding, yes.

What does it matter if there is no accepted model of causality.....you've already earlier asked why the big bang even requires being caused?

You say it does not pop into existence, it is an explosion...fine let me rephrase it....this universe just exploded into existence for no particular reason...so pray tell why this is the only possible big bang in existence?

At this stage I must confess to becoming bored....if I had very low confidence in the theory before, I now have none...