time big bang

@xris,

xris;96595 wrote:

Oh for goodness sake how many times must i ask you to give it your best shot..come on what better explaination is there.. NO quotes or links ,your proposals based on your own thoughts or those you have accepted as possible..come on, i will ask one more time..

You need to come down, and think rationally about what i am saying to you. My purpose is not to advance a solution. My reply to you is only to show how your idea suck compare to other better solutions. example: The bb was a result of a quantum fluatution is plausible, and does not make your bb look like a supernatural event. Do you get it, or do you want me to say it again? Let me say it one more time in abbrivation:

Quantum fluatuation+ inflation===> the BB is a natural event.

Your theory==> BB is a mysterious event. :poke-eye:

Come on, man. get it. Will you!

1 Reply

@vectorcube,

Ok what was there before the BB othere then this immense dense compact thingy of energy, I mean what surrounded that? Hmm?

0 Replies

@vectorcube,

vectorcube;96663 wrote:

You need to come down, and think rationally about what i am saying to you. My purpose is not to advance a solution. My reply to you is only to show how your idea suck compare to other better solutions. example: The bb was a result of a quantum fluatution is plausible, and does not make your bb look like a supernatural event. Do you get it, or do you want me to say it again? Let me say it one more time in abbrivation:

Quantum fluatuation+ inflation===> the BB is a natural event.

Your theory==> BB is a mysterious event. :poke-eye:

Come on, man. get it. Will you!

Quantum fluations ,is that it? is that the best you can do? Where have i mentioned it at as supernatural? now please point that out if you can.

Now to get back to these fluations, give me a while, to be honest ive never heard of them. Fluations.

Ive just realised what you are trying to say..Quantum fluctuations..the temporary appearance of energetic particles, that come from NOTHING..oh you are funny..

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;96735 wrote:

Quantum fluations ,is that it? is that the best you can do? Where have i mentioned it at as supernatural? now please point that out if you can.

Now to get back to these fluations, give me a while, to be honest ive never heard of them. Fluations.

That is not funny. If you can` t figure out "fluation" is "fluctuation", then that is really sad.

Quote:

Ive just realised what you are trying to say..Quantum fluctuations..the temporary appearance of energetic particles, that come from NOTHING..oh you are funny..

Many people think that the particles came from nothing, but this is a misreading of the actual physics. In QM, there is something described by a wavefunction. In any physical system, there associated with it is it own particular wavefunction( say W). Associated with W is a set of energy levels( Say E0, E1,......En). The energy associated with W is supposed to take on exactly one energy level. Physics label E0 as the gound state energy level, and E0 is know as the "zero-point energy" of any physical system. Physicists found that E0 is positive, and nonzero. The standard theoritical interpretation comes from the uncertainty principle described by
(dE)(dT)>= h/2, where dE, and dT is the standard deviation of energy, and time associated with an physical system. For smell enough time, or smell dT, there assicate with it a tiny bit of energy dE in the mircophysics of reality. This is associated with the creation of particle, and antiparticle pairs. This particles are victual, in the sense that they violate the 1 law of themodynamics of energy conservation for smalll dT.

These particles come into existence, and go away. All of this is empirically verified. Now, according to QM, the state of "nothing" is suppose to be described by a wavefunction, with energy E0. This is hardly "nothing". There are full of particles constantly coming into existence, and go away from existence. There is fields present even in this supposed state of "nothing". My point is that it is not really "nothing".

Here is a video link from steven weinberg( nobel prize winner, and probable the most respected living physicists today) : universe coming our of nothing!

Similarly, Quentin smith say the samething about something from nothing.

It is a stupid "myth". thanks for carrying it forward. :nonooo:

1 Reply

@vectorcube,

You are waffling and dont we know it, you put up the only reason for this BB to be induced by a previous event and all you could come up with was a vague QM experiment that claims energy can appear from nothing. Now you are disputing accepted science, it is becoming a bit of a joke and you tell me im not applying logic.

These two links gave me the impression you were trying to prove my point. One guy admitted knowing nothing and the other flapped around struggling to answer his interviewer, who was not convinced. I am not making it into a creational engineered universe, nor will i oppose that notion. I am making the comment that the observed facts tell us and MY LOGIC begs the question, why should it not come from nothing, when it appeared from nowhere.

Expand your QM logic and give me the circumstances prior to the BB that encouraged this event. I doubt we will but im hoping something will come from nothing.

1 Reply

@ACB,

ACB;96197 wrote:

But "no evidence at all" is not the same as "evidence that there was nothing".

I don't think we can say anything, either positive or negative, about what (if anything) preceded the BB until physicists can give a clear description of the BB singularity itself, not just the situation a fraction of a second after it. To do this they will need a theory supplementing general relativity. Then they may discover all sorts of things that will throw new light on the problem. In particular, the claim that "there was no time or space before the BB" may turn out to be false, or at least an over-simplification. In the meantime, we must keep our minds open; I don't think "there was nothing" is justified as a default position.

Personally, I have a problem both with the "something from nothing" concept and with the idea of an infinite number of universes. Firstly, as has often been said, if something came from nothing, then "nothing" would have the potential for giving rise to something, so it would not truly be "nothing". Secondly, I can only conceive of "infinity" as an abstract concept signifying the absence of a mathematical limit. To apply it to a complete set of actually existing entities strikes me as incoherent, and leads to paradoxes. If mathematicians want to think of infinity as "real", that is one thing, but in physics it seems problematic.

Obviously, if "nothing" is the name of something, then it cannot be nothing. So, maybe, "nothing" is not the name of something. And that leads me to think that "nothing" is not a name at all.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris;96753 wrote:

You are waffling and dont we know it, you put up the only reason for this BB to be induced by a previous event and all you could come up with was a vague QM experiment that claims energy can appear from nothing. Now you are disputing accepted science, it is becoming a bit of a joke and you tell me im not applying logic.

"accepted science"?
QM mechanics never say something can from nothing! QM does say something can come from state of zero point energy. Get it?
One more time:

state of zero point energy==> something

nothing==> something ( fantasy)

This is real QM, and not something your read from pop science magazine written by writers with majors in journalism, or communication.

Man, get it, please! :shifty:

Quote:

These two links gave me the impression you were trying to prove my point. One guy admitted knowing nothing and the other flapped around struggling to answer his interviewer, who was not convinced. I am not making it into a creational engineered universe, nor will i oppose that notion. I am making the comment that the observed facts tell us and MY LOGIC begs the question, why should it not come from nothing, when it appeared from nowhere

Because it is stupid:shifty:

In all seriousness, QM does not say things really come out of a state of pure nothing. It does say there exist a physical state with minimum energy
that physicists label as nothing, but is not really pure nothing. Steven weinberg ( in video) here said that a state of pure nothing is inconsistent with the principle of QM. In the beginning of the Quintin smith video, he said that often times, people define nothing as this "thin layer of something". God, damn it. Man, please understand! It is so sad:bigsmile:

Look:
Quentin smith:

"thin layer of something" = "nothing"= no really nothing!

Steven weinberg:

A state of pure nothing = "inconsistent with the principle of QM".

Get it? Come out, Get it!

---------- Post added 10-11-2009 at 02:13 PM ----------

Quote:

Expand your QM logic and give me the circumstances prior to the BB that encouraged this event. I doubt we will but im hoping something will come from nothing.

The reason why the bb happen is because there are quantum laws, and probable a background space-time before the bb. In other words, your universe is the result of quantum laws, and mother universe. It is plausible!

1 Reply

@vectorcube,

It is not plausible, otherwise your wise guys in their interviews would have admitted as much, so your waffling is pointless.

Come on explain your reasoning without posting some others vague notions of stuttering inconsistencies. Show me that something comes from something and that the appearance of the bb was an event with proven causes. I will allow you to quote unproven QM theoretical theatre as long as it recognises the fact. Now for the umpteenth time , give it your best shot.

2 Replies

@xris,

xris;96766 wrote:

It is not plausible, otherwise your wise guys in their interviews would have admitted as much, so your waffling is pointless.

Come on explain your reasoning without posting some others vague notions of stuttering inconsistencies. Show me that something comes from something and that the appearance of the bb was an event with proven causes. I will allow you to quote unproven QM theoretical theatre as long as it recognises the fact. Now for the umpteenth time , give it your best shot.

The question is a metaphysical one, though some might argue. I think where physics leaves off (the singularity) is where metaphysics begins (if we speak of a regression of events ... before the big bang). It may seem illogical to speak of an event before the big bang ... thought to be the beginning of time; but here is where I think critical thinking and philosophy are left as our only tools. There is no science, because science deals with observed, concrete realities. The singularity, or the condition/noncondition from which the bb was triggered, was a zero condition of spacetime, with infinite density. This begs the question: From where this infinite density?

Something else to think about: Evolution regresses to ever simpler and simpler forms, regressing backwards in time. The universe decreases to an ever smaller volume the further back in time we go.

So my best shot is this: The infinite density contained in zero spacetime regresses priori to the big bang to a less dense/intense mass through a series of expanding and contracting stages, all the way back to a point approximating most closely, nothing at all.

At least this falls in line with what we know: That is, that all things regress backwards to ever greater simplicity; so why not take this direction ... as pointed out by the evidence ... as far back as our reasoning allows and postulate that alll things began from a state approximating most closely, nothing at all.

This then begs the question: Is this state truly equivalent to a 'nothing' from which only 'nothing' follows?

I'd say no. It must amount to something more from which the series followed forward in time, towards greater and greater complexity.

What I think is lacking in so much of the argument back and forth in this thread is one noteworthy feature of our universe ... even evolutionary theory depends upon it ... and it is that this regression back in time towards greater simplicity is the most telling feature of all, and it needs to be taken into account when speaking of an ultimate beginning to the universe, for this regression to further and further simplicity points back to just that: an ultimate beginning ... in which space, time, mass, and everything else is condensed/regressed back to some ultimate indivisible, unified state.

One other factor to consider: Isn't it our own innate tendency to press the question of origin as far as possible? If we begin with some condition, concrete or otherwise, can we beg the question as to the origin of that condition? If so, then isn't this innate need to press the question further an indication that we haven't really begun at an ultimate beginning? Our need to press the question points us back to the same conclusion: That the universe began from some state that, were we to come to terms with it in our understanding, would not leave us begging the question.

It appears then that the most logical point from which the universe must have begun, is nothing, for nothing does not leave us begging the question: From where this nothing?

The question then becomes: How do we define nothing?

Immanuel Kant dismisses here, any appeal to what he calls 'the magic wand of so-called common sense.'

He calls for a critical exercise of reason.

So is it possible to give nothing a critical definition that goes beyond the ordinary/practical definition of nothing?

I think it is, because if we take away all that exists, we are left with a condition that can rationally be defined as an infinite, indivisible, boundless state, and hence, as an Absolute state.

It is not nothing ... but it is an Absolute ... that we must come to terms with in our thinking.

This incidentally, is exactly where Hegel begins in his philosophy and his attempt to answer Kant. I know of no other philosopher other than Hegel who begins with the Absolute, and at least, attempts to give it further definition.

I believe Hegel was on the right track here. I think it must be the Absolute that somehow gives rise to everything that now exists.

What we lack, is the understanding of that process.

Any arguments?

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;96766 wrote:

It is not plausible, otherwise your wise guys in their interviews would have admitted as much, so your waffling is pointless.

Come on explain your reasoning without posting some others vague notions of stuttering inconsistencies. Show me that something comes from something and that the appearance of the bb was an event with proven causes. I will allow you to quote unproven QM theoretical theatre as long as it recognises the fact. Now for the umpteenth time , give it your best shot.

At least with bb coming from QM is more plausible, then with bb coming from nothing. The latter is like saying "2+2=56". It is a retarded position. :brickwall:

---------- Post added 10-11-2009 at 09:20 PM ----------

Shostakovich;96807 wrote:

The question is a metaphysical one, though some might argue. I think where physics leaves off (the singularity) is where metaphysics begins (if we speak of a regression of events ... before the big bang). It may seem illogical to speak of an event before the big bang ... thought to be the beginning of time; but here is where I think critical thinking and philosophy are left as our only tools. There is no science, because science deals with observed, concrete realities. The singularity, or the condition/noncondition from which the bb was triggered, was a zero condition of spacetime, with infinite density. This begs the question: From where this infinite density?

Something else to think about: Evolution regresses to ever simpler and simpler forms, regressing backwards in time. The universe decreases to an ever smaller volume the further back in time we go.

So my best shot is this: The infinite density contained in zero spacetime regresses priori to the big bang to a less dense/intense mass through a series of expanding and contracting stages, all the way back to a point approximating most closely, nothing at all.

At least this falls in line with what we know: That is, that all things regress backwards to ever greater simplicity; so why not take this direction ... as pointed out by the evidence ... as far back as our reasoning allows and postulate that alll things began from a state approximating most closely, nothing at all.

This then begs the question: Is this state truly equivalent to a 'nothing' from which only 'nothing' follows?

I'd say no. It must amount to something more from which the series followed forward in time, towards greater and greater complexity.

What I think is lacking in so much of the argument back and forth in this thread is one noteworthy feature of our universe ... even evolutionary theory depends upon it ... and it is that this regression back in time towards greater simplicity is the most telling feature of all, and it needs to be taken into account when speaking of an ultimate beginning to the universe, for this regression to further and further simplicity points back to just that: an ultimate beginning ... in which space, time, mass, and everything else is condensed/regressed back to some ultimate indivisible, unified state.

One other factor to consider: Isn't it our own innate tendency to press the question of origin as far as possible? If we begin with some condition, concrete or otherwise, can we beg the question as to the origin of that condition? If so, then isn't this innate need to press the question further an indication that we haven't really begun at an ultimate beginning? Our need to press the question points us back to the same conclusion: That the universe began from some state that, were we to come to terms with it in our understanding, would not leave us begging the question.

It appears then that the most logical point from which the universe must have begun, is nothing, for nothing does not leave us begging the question: From where this nothing?

The question then becomes: How do we define nothing?

Immanuel Kant dismisses here, any appeal to what he calls 'the magic wand of so-called common sense.'

He calls for a critical exercise of reason.

So is it possible to give nothing a critical definition that goes beyond the ordinary/practical definition of nothing?

I think it is, because if we take away all that exists, we are left with a condition that can rationally be defined as an infinite, indivisible, boundless state, and hence, as an Absolute state.

It is not nothing ... but it is an Absolute ... that we must come to terms with in our thinking.

This incidentally, is exactly where Hegel begins in his philosophy and his attempt to answer Kant. I know of no other philosopher other than Hegel who begins with the Absolute, and at least, attempts to give it further definition.

I believe Hegel was on the right track here. I think it must be the Absolute that somehow gives rise to everything that now exists.

What we lack, is the understanding of that process.

Any arguments?

Another one!

Well, given me evidence of a state that is truely nothing? You have no evidence whatsoever. You postulate the existence of such as state is as ridiculous as the positing of superman.

1 Reply

@vectorcube,

Well, given me evidence of a state that is truely nothing? You have no evidence whatsoever. You postulate the existence of such as state is as ridiculous as the positing of superman.[/QUOTE]

I'll repeat that I'm in agreement with Kant. Throw out the 'magic wand of so-called common sense.' It's of no use with regard to these metaphysical speculations. We're no longer in the world of the practical/common sensed experiences we live our daily lives by. We're reflecting on an ultimate beginning. You haven't given me a good philosophical argument to reject the judgment that everything must have had an ultimate beginning, and that our intuitive sense is to question every possible 'condition' from which the universe arose (to avoid begging the question: from where did this 'condition' originate).

On the same grounds, the Absolute does provide a possible beginning where the practical everyday commonsensed ided of nothing leads to Kant's first antinomy (the impossibility of thinking how something comes out of nothing). The first antinomy is grounded upon the common sensed presumption that nothing only leads to nothing (just as you have it). Metaphysical speculation, which is all that this amounts to (and that's the best we have when we go beyond the concrete bounds of science) demands that we use critical reasoning, and leave common sense behind us (to decide what we'll have for supper today ... and whether we'll use a knife or a fork to eat it with). So what have you against using critical reasoning to the end of providing this starting point with a definition that allows for something other than just (the practical definition of) nothing?

2 Replies

@Shostakovich phil,

Shostakovich;96842 wrote:

Quote:
Well, given me evidence of a state that is truely nothing? You have no evidence whatsoever. You postulate the existence of such as state is as ridiculous as the positing of superman.

I'll repeat that I'm in agreement with Kant. Throw out the 'magic wand of so-called common sense.' It's of no use with regard to these metaphysical speculations. We're no longer in the world of the practical/common sensed experiences we live our daily lives by. We're reflecting on an ultimate beginning. You haven't given me a good philosophical argument to reject the judgment that everything must have had an ultimate beginning, and that our intuitive sense is to question every possible 'condition' from which the universe arose (to avoid begging the question: from where did this 'condition' originate).

On the same grounds, the Absolute does provide a possible beginning where the practical everyday commonsensed ided of nothing leads to Kant's first antinomy (the impossibility of thinking how something comes out of nothing). The first antinomy is grounded upon the common sensed presumption that nothing only leads to nothing (just as you have it). Metaphysical speculation, which is all that this amounts to (and that's the best we have when we go beyond the concrete bounds of science) demands that we use critical reasoning, and leave common sense behind us (to decide what we'll have for supper today ... and whether we'll use a knife or a fork to eat it with). So what have you against using critical reasoning to the end of providing this starting point with a definition that allows for something other than just (the practical definition of) nothing?

I don ` t care what your rational is. If you say " something can come out of nothing", then you are wrong. You can think of nothing as defined by the empty set. How does an empty set, an abstraction of humen thought come to produce concrete material things? It can ` t. It as stupid as to maintain that 2+2=4 produce a car.

1 Reply

@Shostakovich phil,

Shostakovich;96842 wrote:

Well, given me evidence of a state that is truely nothing? You have no evidence whatsoever. You postulate the existence of such as state is as ridiculous as the positing of superman.

I'll repeat that I'm in agreement with Kant. Throw out the 'magic wand of so-called common sense.' It's of no use with regard to these metaphysical speculations. We're no longer in the world of the practical/common sensed experiences we live our daily lives by. We're reflecting on an ultimate beginning. You haven't given me a good philosophical argument to reject the judgment that everything must have had an ultimate beginning, and that our intuitive sense is to question every possible 'condition' from which the universe arose (to avoid begging the question: from where did this 'condition' originate).

On the same grounds, the Absolute does provide a possible beginning where the practical everyday commonsensed ided of nothing leads to Kant's first antinomy (the impossibility of thinking how something comes out of nothing). The first antinomy is grounded upon the common sensed presumption that nothing only leads to nothing (just as you have it). Metaphysical speculation, which is all that this amounts to (and that's the best we have when we go beyond the concrete bounds of science) demands that we use critical reasoning, and leave common sense behind us (to decide what we'll have for supper today ... and whether we'll use a knife or a fork to eat it with). So what have you against using critical reasoning to the end of providing this starting point with a definition that allows for something other than just (the practical definition of) nothing?[/QUOTE]You are as close to my nothing as you can get. I have pondered on this nothing for hours and hours, no books or others views gave me any clue to my questions. If you ask how it might have been caused all the theories fall at the first fence. If you start by admitting that nothing is an illusion and it can not be possible how do you have something that appears at a point in time and there is no time before. We have to admit that the something we have is a measurement of nows and as you cant measure infinity as infinity like nothing, does not exist, only our relationship to now. When that is accepted then you see we have to accept this is it, we dont have nothing and we dont have eternity. We only ever have something and it came from that illusion nothing. sorry but i find it almost impossible to explain even though it very clear to me.

---------- Post added 10-12-2009 at 05:44 AM ----------

vectorcube;96844 wrote:

I don ` t care what your rational is. If you say " something can come out of nothing", then you are wrong. You can think of nothing as defined by the empty set. How does an empty set, an abstraction of humen thought come to produce concrete material things? It can ` t. It as stupid as to maintain that 2+2=4 produce a car.

I will ask you a question, do you see this universe giving birth to another universe. Can you give me a clue on how you see the event that gave birth to this universe ? If it is a constant chain of events, whats missing in our observations to conclude that there is no evidence of another universe prior to this one. I am desperate to find what drives you to believe we have a constant chain of causes and events, what evidence is there of a constant chain of universe. If you have one following another is there this nothing in between them? but you cant have nothing, can you? so why not a constant universe? You cant really have it both ways can you? you cant have a space of nothings in between somethings, not unless it comes from that nothing , that does not exist.

1 Reply

@xris,

You need to calm down, and take your time to formulate your question.

Quote:

I will ask you a question, do you see this universe giving birth to another universe. Can you give me a clue on how you see the event that gave birth to this universe ?

I don` t know. I am just telling you that something coming from nothing is as stupid as denying 1+1=2.

Quote:

If it is a constant chain of events, whats missing in our observations to conclude that there is no evidence of another universe prior to this one.

Even if there is no evidence for a proposition P. This does not follow that P is false. It seems plausible that our universe comes from another given the laws of nature that we have.

Quote:

I am desperate to find what drives you to believe we have a constant chain of causes and events, what evidence is there of a constant chain of universe.

I don` t have evidence for P. It does not follow that P is not plausible. Our universe coming from another is very plausible.

Quote:

If you have one following another is there this nothing in between them? but you cant have nothing, can you? so why not a constant universe? You cant really have it both ways can you? you cant have a space of nothings in between somethings, not unless it comes from that nothing , that does not exist.

calm down. There is no "nothing" in between. Whatever the hell this means. You need to realize that the laws of nature allow our universe to come from the space-time manifold of another parent universe. A state of "pure nothing" is inconsistent with our laws.

2 Replies

@vectorcube,

vectorcube;96844 wrote:

I don ` t care what your rational is. If you say " something can come out of nothing", then you are wrong. You can think of nothing as defined by the empty set. How does an empty set, an abstraction of humen thought come to produce concrete material things? It can ` t. It as stupid as to maintain that 2+2=4 produce a car.

Even quantum physics tells us that matter is composed mostly of empty space ... and there is a related thread on the divisibility of matter ... everything you think is 'concrete' is actually mostly empty space, and the atoms etc., that make up the matter can be reduced to something more and more removed from matter. Cosmologists tell us that the big bang is their best theory for the beginning of the universe, and the laws of physics begin at the Planck time ... so postulating an intensifying series of expanding and contracting states all beginning from an apparent void and intensifying to the point of the big bang is not all that irrational. There is the question of Cause here, but this can be answered. I have a 'causal argument' that provides an answer. I haven't presented the whol argument anywhere on this forum, but I may. But the thinking reflected here is also driven not just by philosophical speculation, but by what science has discovered about the universe ... that the further back in time we go ... the smaller it gets ... the more dense matter becomes as its compressed into a smaller and smaller volume ... until it reaches infinite density at the beginning.

You should keep in mind that this is a philosophy forum is because it's meant for people who like to discuss philosophy. Simply stating that an idea is 'stupid' is not a philosophical argument against any philosophical position, and it drives a wedge between you and anyone whose ideas you attempt to label by calling them stupid.

So here are the questions for philosophical debate for those who are mature enough to accept philosophical debate as worthwhile (for those who don't they should try other forums of some other kind):

Is it rational to propose a series of intensifying stages of expansion and contraction predating the big bang? Why is it irrational?

Everything science tells us about the past history of the earth and the universe, says that order has arisen out of chaos after the big bang and through the inflation/expansion of spacetime. Complexity has in short, emerged from less complexity and unity (if time is pushed all the way back to a singularity ... which is itself defined as a zero condition of spacetime with infinite density). This is the rational behind postulating the above series. What is it that is irrational about taking what science has offered us, and pushing the logical deduction as far back as possible to an ultimate beginning ... approximating nothing at all?

Another reason for holding to the judgment: It is our intuitive sense that compells us to ask 'from where did this condition originate, with which you begin all things?'

There is no 'condition' except the non-condition of an absolute void (absolute in the sense that there simply is nothing else but the void) and hence, this non-condition suggests itself as the most logical ultimate beginning to the beginning of the universe (all other 'conditions' beg the question).

I would like a rational argument against this position if you have one.

Calling this kind of reasoning stupid doesn't count.

1 Reply

@vectorcube,

Our greatest collapse is the thought we manifested in our minds to believe law and order. What if there was never a big bang. I have a theory: This empty space filled with hydrogen and energy, as we should know hydrogen is 75% of the make up in the universe, the lightest element and the building block for any other element. So these hydrogen and energy is just sitting here in this empty thing called space, it begins to collapse from significant amounts of energy and becomes very very dense. Then the hydrogen is steadily converted into helium through the process of nuclear fusion. I believe this universe was created the same way a star is in our universe, it makes complete sense, but at the time of the creation, there was just more amounts of energy and hydrogen to create such a big explosion. I don't believe in the big bang theory because it seems to hard to see something that is smaller then the smallest thing known, a half an atom? How can a singularity even exist? I don't know im just putting out thought provoking idea's. :brickwall:

1 Reply

@I am question,

I am question;97349 wrote:

Our greatest collapse is the thought we manifested in our minds to believe law and order. What if there was never a big bang. I have a theory: This empty space filled with hydrogen and energy, as we should know hydrogen is 75% of the make up in the universe, the lightest element and the building block for any other element. So these hydrogen and energy is just sitting here in this empty thing called space, it begins to collapse from significant amounts of energy and becomes very very dense. Then the hydrogen is steadily converted into helium through the process of nuclear fusion. I believe this universe was created the same way a star is in our universe, it makes complete sense, but at the time of the creation, there was just more amounts of energy and hydrogen to create such a big explosion. I don't believe in the big bang theory because it seems to hard to see something that is smaller then the smallest thing known, a half an atom? How can a singularity even exist? I don't know im just putting out thought provoking idea's. :brickwall:

I am question: See my post above.

Your suggested beginning for all things begs the question: From where did the originating initial conditions originate?

If we begin with God ... from whence this God?

1 Reply

@Shostakovich phil,

Shostakovich;97350 wrote:

I am question: See my post above.

Your suggested beginning for all things begs the question: From where did the originating initial conditions originate?

If we begin with God ... from whence this God?

But you just can't have a definite answer for that. That question will always be questioned until we find out if we do. We can be absurdist and ask what created the universe, god, what created god, jubba, what created jubba, it will just keep going on and on and on until your head explodes from insanity. And to question what created that singulairty to begin the universe is more of what you want it to be, every answer will be right because we don't know.

0 Replies

@Shostakovich phil,

Shostakovich;97348 wrote:

Even quantum physics tells us that matter is composed mostly of empty space ... and there is a related thread on the divisibility of matter ... everything you think is 'concrete' is actually mostly empty space, and the atoms etc., that make up the matter can be reduced to something more and more removed from matter. Cosmologists tell us that the big bang is their best theory for the beginning of the universe, and the laws of physics begin at the Planck time ... so

Laws of physics began at the Planck time? How did that happen?

Quote:

I haven't presented the whol argument anywhere on this forum, but I may. But the thinking reflected here is also driven not just by philosophical speculation, but by what science has discovered about the universe ... that the further back in time we go ... the smaller it gets ... the more dense matter becomes as its compressed into a smaller and smaller volume ... until it reaches infinite density at the beginning.

Are you sure it is infinite? Really? Do we use transfinite numbers or what?

Quote:

You should keep in mind that this is a philosophy forum is because it's meant for people who like to discuss philosophy. Simply stating that an idea is 'stupid' is not a philosophical argument against any philosophical position, and it drives a wedge between you and anyone whose ideas you attempt to label by calling them stupid.

Sorry, but i did not call anyone stupid. I called an idea stupid. And yes, in philosophy, intuition is very important, and certain intuition is more important than anything.

Quote:

Complexity has in short, emerged from less complexity and unity (if time is pushed all the way back to a singularity ... which is itself defined as a zero condition of spacetime with infinite density). This is the rational behind postulating the above series. What is it that is irrational about taking what science has offered us, and pushing the logical deduction as far back as possible to an ultimate beginning ... approximating nothing at all?

First off, the universe did not began at planct time. The universe bagan with a bb, and stortly after, inflation started. Inflation is the "key" that explains why the universe was ordered. It is oppose to your thinking that it was "chaos", whatever that means.

Second off. No, you are not allow to move all the way back in the deduction because our physical theory breaks down. Get it? Why? maybe because you never study anything beyond basic physics, but as you study more physics, you notice that even basic theories have their domain of applicability. I can have an equation that describes how the forces relates to the distence between masses, but the equation tell you to divide by zero onces you have the two mass touch. Our theory is beautiful, and predictive, but it is wrong, because in reality, nothing goes to infinity or else we all die.

Quote:

There is no 'condition' except the non-condition of an absolute void (absolute in the sense that there simply is nothing else but the void) and hence, this non-condition suggests itself as the most logical ultimate beginning to the beginning of the universe (all other 'conditions' beg the question

Sorry, but saying it is the "void" , "non-condition", or the "ultimate" does not make it less stupid. What you mean might be "there is no state of affair for time=0". Perhaps, you want to make it profound by giving it a fancy name, and by making it completely absurd to wow me. If so, then you really impress me with the absurd part.

Quote:

Everything science tells us about the past history of the earth and the universe, says that order has arisen out of chaos after the big bang and through the inflation/expansion of spacetime. ).

Curious, but where does this coming out of "chaos" mean? What theory, equation do you use? Where did this idea come from?

Quote:

I would like a rational argument against this position if you have one.

Calling this kind of reasoning stupid doesn't count.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but a argument needs to be 1) valid, and 2) the premise need to be true.

You don` t have a deductive struture, so you don` t have 1 as far as i can tell.

You don ` t have 2, because all your premises are falses.

The universe started in planct time? No

The bb is when things get to infinity? No

The laws of physics began at some point ? no

The universe started in chaos? very "mystical", but no.

You are not even doing philosophy. You know why? I read academic philosophy papers, and the style and rigor that is being put in is impressive. The modern era is dominated by philosophy in the analytic tradition, and focus on clear by precise thinking. I don` t see the rigor , or attention to detail reflected in your writing. In fact, you write like you know nothing about modern philosophy.

1 Reply

@vectorcube,

vectorcube;97341 wrote:

You need to calm down, and take your time to formulate your question.

I don` t know. I am just telling you that something coming from nothing is as stupid as denying 1+1=2.

Even if there is no evidence for a proposition P. This does not follow that P is false. It seems plausible that our universe comes from another given the laws of nature that we have.

I don` t have evidence for P. It does not follow that P is not plausible. Our universe coming from another is very plausible.

calm down. There is no "nothing" in between. Whatever the hell this means. You need to realize that the laws of nature allow our universe to come from the space-time manifold of another parent universe. A state of "pure nothing" is inconsistent with our laws.

Your refusal to accept that no given laws are adequate to describe the bb is the big problem. You will not answer my questions but continue to say they are silly. Ive been trying to tell you we cant have nothing, its the only way i can try to explain, if you have an event without a visible cause, what does that infer? I will ask again when do we ever see an event without a cause? Chains of causal events are never witnessed and this universe shows no sign of given birth to an equal in size universe.

2 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know