time big bang

It occurs to me that you might be interest in Lucid Dreaming -- Dream Views


I am interested in dreams myself, but i do not see dreams as being philosophy.

The concepts of space and time before the big bang are still relevant. We just haven't come up with the kind of science of metaphysics that Kant postulated as a possible means of solving such questions. Read Kant's "Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics That Might be Brought Forth as a Science." Kant speaks about the pure concepts of space and time, and he challenges speculative philosophers to come up with a science that would answer such questions as: "Did the universe have an ultimate first beginning?" The only reason we get bogged down in our thinking about such things as 'time before the big bang' is because we have no solution such as demanded by Kant. How about postulating a series of big bangs before the last big bang? What if this prior series of big bangs descended in intensity to the point of an absolute void (I mean by this, conversely, an intensifying series of expanding and contracting stages, all beginning with a singularity ... as the point from which these expansions began, and the point to which each expanding stage in this series, collapsed, only to expand again?) This would not be similar to the speculation of cosmologists regarding a bouncing universe. One that exapnds to a point and then collapses back to the state it began from. What I'm implying is an intensifying series of expanding stages (of space time and mass) all beginning with a singularity, and eventually leading up to the big bang that began our universe.

The concepts of space and time before the big bang are still relevant. We just haven't come up with the kind of science of metaphysics that Kant postulated as a possible means of solving such questions. Read Kant's "Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics That Might be Brought Forth as a Science." Kant speaks about the pure concepts of space and time, and he challenges speculative philosophers to come up with a science that would answer such questions as: "Did the universe have an ultimate first beginning?" The only reason we get bogged down in our thinking about such things as 'time before the big bang' is because we have no solution such as demanded by Kant. How about postulating a series of big bangs before the last big bang? What if this prior series of big bangs descended in intensity to the point of an absolute void (I mean by this, conversely, an intensifying series of expanding and contracting stages, all beginning with a singularity ... as the point from which these expansions began, and the point to which each expanding stage in this series, collapsed, only to expand again?) This would not be similar to the speculation of cosmologists regarding a bouncing universe. One that exapnds to a point and then collapses back to the state it began from. What I'm implying is an intensifying series of expanding stages (of space time and mass) all beginning with a singularity, and eventually leading up to the big bang that began our universe.

Cosmolgists tell us there is no evidence of anything before. If we believe what we see and nothing more, then we must assume that as there was nothing before then this universe commenced, at the start of time and nothing preceded it. We cant speculate without answering certain questions that those speculation pose.

Actually, the bb theory never say anything about the actual singularity, or what is "before" the singularity. The BB theory is a theory of what happen after the singularity. Alot of people like to lanch on about the universe coming from nothing. This is completely retarded. Saying that the universe come from nothing is not derivable from our natural laws. General relativity breaks at the singular. To ask about what happen before the BB is a question without any sense from the stand point of GR.

Once again you make assumptions that i dont know that , my point was that any who try to use science to explain what preceded the BB are just as inaccurate or accurate as any lay reasoning. By the evidence there was nothing , no time , so what is your reasoning?

Once again you make assumptions that i dont know that , my point was that any who try to use science to explain what preceded the BB are just as inaccurate or accurate as any lay reasoning. By the evidence there was nothing , no time , so what is your reasoning?

I am saying that it makes no sense to ask what is before the bb from the stand point of general relativity. Even declaring that there was nothing before the bb is itself without sense from GR. GR don` t tell us anything before the bb, nor does it say there was nothing before the bb.

Ah so I'm not allowed to say there was no before but also not allowed to say there was nothing. Now you tell me your theory and please don't mention before the bb as you have admitted there was no before. You make claims that you know what caused the bb but refuse to elaborate, now i would ask you to speak up and be more constructive.

You give me the evidence that confirms there was something, considering QM has made the claim that the universe could be a present from nowhere.

Look, i did not make any claims at all about what cause the bb. You did. I am telling you what you say cannot be supported by GR. Get it?

It is true that some physicists say the universe come out of a quantum fluctuation. This is different from saying GR implies there was nothing before the bb.

I don t know why you want to bring in QM. This is completely unrelated to your comment that the universe came from nothing. If you think a quantum vacuum is nothing, then you are wrong. A quantum vaccum is fill of virtual particles, quantum fields described by quantum mechanics. To even think this is nothing is laughable. What is good about the QM explanation is that it makes the bb a natural event comforming to the laws of quantum mechanics. This is good. You explanation postulates a state of nothing, which seems intuitively plausible, but an emprically falsified idea. There is simply no evidence of a state of pure nothing. This is no different from saying god created the bb. There is no evidence for god.

You must remember also that the laws of nature could have been created at the bb, it gives no inclination that those laws existed before.

It is a matter of musing not concluding and my only argument that all are relevant and also logically impossible. No one has the whip handle, no masters in physics can conclude better than anyone else.

It is conceivable something comes from nothing.

Try to imagine this appearance of the bb does it come from somewhere else ? Where could all of the universe be transferred from, in an infinitesimal amount time? Its just as mind blowing as saying it came from nothing?

Can you explain to me why a mass so dense so compact that it could stop time or space escaping, could it not be seen as nothing? What is nothing? if you imagine this mass as nothing, in a constant state of nothingness, then it never existed except in its own being. We cant imagine nothing so why cant we imagine something occurring from an unobserved nothing.

You are jumping to conclusions, i have never pronounced that it comes from nothing only that it is perceived as nothing and it begs the question what is nothing and what is seen as nothing. If the two are undetectable or are the same how can you say the bb did not come from nothing. The laws of QM do not describe gravity at this event, the singularity, so to claim they do is false. All cosmologist can tell us that the laws of physics break down and QM has not resolved these problems, yet.

Sorry, but saying that it is "perceived as nothing" is as absurd as saying there was nothing. Since there is no evidence of "pure nothing", then whatever it is cannot be perseived.

You comment about the laws of physics break down at the bb in completely unrelated to the QM origin of the universe. In fact, all we need is QM + inflation. What QM tells us is that whatever that can happen will happen, thus, producing the initial amount of energy, forming the potential field that allow inflation to take over. There is no need for a theory of quantum gravity in this story. This is a self-consistent story. Of course, there are other stories.

Then tell me what evidence is there that there was something before, not supposition on unproven theories of QM, that allowed the sequence to develop. You have to explain your views before long or your credibility will start to fail, sitting on the fence giving varied views of others will not do.

This is not my view. I am just telling you that the QM view of the origin comes from presupposing the existence of the laws of QM, and inflation in order to make it work. I am supposing that there was something before, namely, the QM laws and inflation. This is at least better than your view of supposing that the bb is some sort of mysterious event.

It is a mysterious event if you cant prove it did not come from nothing.

I don ` t need to prove it. You need to know that there are better explanations that do not make the bb out to be some mysterious thing that came out of some mysterious state( Eg: nothing).