SammDickens
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 08:39 pm
@Shostakovich phil,
I accept the Big Bang theory as remaining inconclusive but having evidence in Hubble's findings about the expanding universe and the discovery of the three degree microwave background radiation. The theory is consistent with an evolutionary view of the universe, and since we find evolution in the history of our planet and the solar system, I expect to find it in the history of the universe too.

I think it highly probable that the universe had a beginning, and that space and time had their beginning with the universe and did not exist prior to it. But did the universe come from nothingness, from non-existence? No it can't. If the universe came from nothingness, then that nothingness must be said to have had the potentiality for the universe, and if it had the potentiality for the universe, then it was not really nothingness, was it?

The apparent nothingness from which the universe burst forth exists independent of space and time. Whatever kind of existence it may be, it incorporates the vast potential required to bring forth our universe, but it has no properties, attributes, or qualities belonging to space or time.

It has no shape or size. It is formless.
It has no inside or outside. It is boundless.
It has no location or process. It is non-dimensional.
It has neither number nor division. It is undifferentiated.
It has no objects and no events. It is indiscrete.
It has neither a beginning nor an end. It is eternal.
It has neither consciousness nor experience. It is ineffable.
It knows neither thought, nor emotion, nor desire. It is incognitive.
It knows neither becomings nor cessations. It is intransiable.
It knows neither choice, nor action, nor change. It is immutable.

Thus, whatever exists "outside" of space and time is one without other and has so many of the characteristics the mystics have attributed to the Brahman, the Tao, to Nirvana, and the Nagual. It is the ground-state of all being, the source of all universes there may be, each with their own native space and time. I call it spirit because it is transcendent and yet immanent, and because it can be what we call God but needs not be so.

If an existence has no beginning or end, then it must simply be and can never not be. This is what philosophers have called "a necessary being," a being the explanation of which is contained within itself.

Samm
Absolution phil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 10:28 pm
@Shostakovich phil,
Well when I was a young physics student, I was very intrigued by the "Steady State" universe theory, that the universe is what it is like now and forever was and forever will be. But then I did calculations using a matter density equation coming from Einstein's theory of relativity and used parameters from the hubbel space telescope, which includes the curvature of the universe as a whole. And when solving these equations it predicts a big bang mathematically, but says nothing about before it. Although string theorists are working on this. So one thing people should keep in mind, science says nothing about theology or metaphysics, and all of its predictions are equal to the questions it arises. Many American physicists call physics a mathematical abstraction of reality, and it is hard to justify it beyond that point.
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 10:53 pm
@Shostakovich phil,
I thought that, from a philosophical perspective, if the universe was a steady state, nothing could ever happen. It is an argument I read somewhere.

Although as regards Samm's post, although I am sympathetic to the sentiment, I am sceptical as to how anyone would know this. (Open to discussion though.)
0 Replies
 
SammDickens
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2009 01:52 am
@Absolution phil,
Hey, Absolution, is there any way science can make predictable theories about a dimensionless realm? I'm thinking that science can't do much to help us understand a dimensionless realm (where number isn't possible), but isn't it possible that the simplest and most primitive state of being is just such a realm of unmanifest but boundlessly potential reality.

Jeeprs, we can't know what existence IS in the absence of space and time, but we can sure know what it isn't. It isn't a large cube because both size and shape require space in which to manifest or actualize. It isn't a spinning top because motion is impossible without space. There are positive terms for all negative qualities. No size or shape is a negative that may be called "formless." And of course, we can know that it has boundless potential because it is the only and ultimate explanation for the space time universe in which we have our existence. Can't we at least surmise these qualities indirectly from what we can know?

Samm
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2009 02:15 am
@Shostakovich phil,
I don't know, to be honest. I am wrestling with Paul Davies' descriptions of modern cosmology at the moment. I believe certain things about it intuitively but at the same time, the concepts involved are mind-boggling. So I am afraid at the moment, on this matter, I am agnostic.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2009 04:11 am
@jeeprs,
If the evidence tells us there was nothing can we deny this evidence? Till we ,if ever, find an alternative to these findings, we are stuck with a created universe.
manored
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2009 02:16 pm
@SammDickens,
Samm;94515 wrote:

It has no shape or size. It is formless.
It has no inside or outside. It is boundless.
It has no location or process. It is non-dimensional.
It has neither number nor division. It is undifferentiated.
It has no objects and no events. It is indiscrete.
It has neither a beginning nor an end. It is eternal.
It has neither consciousness nor experience. It is ineffable.
It knows neither thought, nor emotion, nor desire. It is incognitive.
It knows neither becomings nor cessations. It is intransiable.
It knows neither choice, nor action, nor change. It is immutable.
I mostly agree with you, except for this bit. While I do agree that a totally unreachable "base" to the universe exists, I do not think we can be sure its right "under" our particular piece of reality or if our piece of reality isnt just standing on top of another, possibly acessible.

So while we cannot know the whole of the universe, there is an infinite number of things to know. We may one day find where the Big Bang came from but then we will have something analogous to the Big Bang to deal with.
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2009 02:26 pm
@xris,
xris;94544 wrote:
If the evidence tells us there was nothing can we deny this evidence? Till we ,if ever, find an alternative to these findings, we are stuck with a created universe.


But no one has ever witnessed creation, at least not in the sense you're using it. All humans have witnessed is changing particles. We've never actually created something from thin air.

So, why are we stuck with a created universe if we don't even know if that sense of creation exists?
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2009 04:56 pm
@Shostakovich phil,
Its a funny show in a take advantage of the stereotype sort of way.
0 Replies
 
prothero
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2009 05:34 pm
@Shostakovich phil,
The fact that the big bang constitutes an event horizon beyond which we can not see does not mean that the universe came from nothing.

The mere fact that we can not see beyond a certain point does not mean that there is nothing that lies beyond, for instance the event horizon of a "black hole"

Our particular universe may have a beginning and an end but current theories are compatible with the notion of many universe (multiverse theories).

The most current versions of the theory of everything M theoires imply that our universe and the big bang may be the result of the collision of two other universes.

The notion that because we can not percieve something or conceive of something and that therefore it does not "exist" is the worst kind of anthropomorphism.

Yes it appears our universe had a beginning and that it will have an end but the notion that our universe is not the only universe is alive and well.
0 Replies
 
SammDickens
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2009 08:22 pm
@jeeprs,
Some people have urged great caution in accepting all of what Paul Davies and some other writers write about science. Victor Stenger is one who urges caution in taking what Davies and some other "imaginative" writers convey about science. For example you can really be led along some wild tangents following science theories that are seen as quite baseless among mainstream scientists but are presented as tantalizing possibilities by the science writer who is after a buck presenting wild conjectures as real possibilities.

I don't want to spread rumors, which may not be true about Mr. Davies or John Barrow or any other popularizers of complex and intriguing science. But Dr. Stenger's warnings are well taken and convincing. I guess I'm just saying, don't be as gullible as I have been (and probably still am).

Samm

---------- Post added 10-01-2009 at 09:41 PM ----------

manored, I agree with what-I-think-you're-saying, which is that the "underlying" basis of our universe may not be dimensionless reality--although I find the idea intriguingly like the concept of nothing discussed under a thread involving Hegel and suggesting how the appearance of nothing may lead to the emergence of something.

"M-theory" (membrane theory) for example may truly explain the emergence of our universe in a space-time continuum of eleven dimensions. The math is way beyond me.

But membranes live in their own continuum of space-time, with some form of beginning and end, some temporal process of change that occurs. I think we will always find that world in motion, be it our universe or the realm of membranes, must have an explanation for its being that is beyond all space-time continuums, existing in a realm without space or time and having essentially such a nature as I describe, indeed such a nature as mystics have long ascribed to such an axis mundi.

Samm

---------- Post added 10-01-2009 at 10:20 PM ----------

And the multiverse theories suggest that all the universes of the multiverse have their own unique space-time continuums (or similar dimensional realities allowing conscious beings to share the same reality. Thus, we cannot say they all exist together and we can't say they all exist apart, nor can we say that they exist in a sequence or temporal order. I love multiverse theories. I always thought the Thomas Covenant sci-fi series suggested a connection between worlds in separate universes. It seemed a good premise for his story line.

Samm
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2009 10:49 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;94625 wrote:
But no one has ever witnessed creation, at least not in the sense you're using it. All humans have witnessed is changing particles. We've never actually created something from thin air.

So, why are we stuck with a created universe if we don't even know if that sense of creation exists?
The facts are agreed, at this moment, there was absolutely nothing before the BB, a BIG nothing. Now if anyone wants to speculate on another dimension or another parallel universe , let them, but lets not forget thats all it is ,speculation. We have a universe that occupies a space that has never been occupied before, so this universe was created from nothing, as far as cosmology defines nothing. Now if you have absolutely nothing, then everything, its a reasonable statement to make that the universe was created. So if anyone wants to tell me the proven alternatives let them speak.
SammDickens
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2009 01:04 pm
@xris,
xris, I think you are making significant leaps as if you want the universe to be created and are going to see it so in any condition you may observe. There is by no means any evidence that the universe was created.

If it was created, it would be created BY someone or something, and that someone or something would necessarily have to existed BEFORE the universe. Hence, your statement that "We have a universe that occupies a space that has never been occupied before, so this universe was created from nothing, as far as cosmology defines nothing." is clearly based on a false premise, e.g. that there was nothing before the universe.

I would further point out that it is incorrect to say that the universe "occupies a space that has never been occupied before". The universe IS the space-time continuum occupied by its materials and activities. There was no space or time, as we know them, prior to the big bang birth of the universe.

Also, we have no evidence that the universe is created from nothing. In fact, a very strong argument can be made that true nothingness, the absolute absence of any existence cannot have existed before the universe because non-existence cannot provide adequate explanation for a subsequent existence, e.g. something cannot come from nothing. If something DOES emerge from nothing, then it is obvious that what appeared as nothing (having no observable or detectable qualities) must at least have had the potential to bring forth the something that came from it; therefore, it was not nothing but only appeared so to the senses or other means of detection.

Finally, you ask if anyone wants to tell you the proven alternatives. That request would only make sense if your own proposition were proven, which it is not and which, in my opinion, it never can be because it is simply wrong. None of us can do more than conjecture about what was or wasn't before the big bang. The membrane theory, at least, is based on mathematical propositions that have predictable consequences in our universe, but even that theory remains highly speculative.

Samm
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2009 01:34 pm
@SammDickens,
I know full well that this space was created by the BB, but it also infers nothing including space was created before this event. If you can postulate on possibilities, then so can we all but if we look at the available evidence then my proposition has more credibility than yours.

I am not making claims who or what this creation is or was, only that the evidence points to the fact that the universe came from nothing so the only logical conclusion at this moment is it must have been created. You cant say thats impossible because this creation might live outside of material existance and decided to create reality. You dont make the possibilities that are feasible, its beyond anyone's understanding.
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2009 01:55 pm
@xris,
xris;94786 wrote:
The facts are agreed, at this moment, there was absolutely nothing before the BB, a BIG nothing. Now if anyone wants to speculate on another dimension or another parallel universe , let them, but lets not forget thats all it is ,speculation. We have a universe that occupies a space that has never been occupied before, so this universe was created from nothing, as far as cosmology defines nothing. Now if you have absolutely nothing, then everything, its a reasonable statement to make that the universe was created. So if anyone wants to tell me the proven alternatives let them speak.


But how can creation be an alternative when we haven't even proven creation, itself, exists? It seems like a wild speculation, but you're right, I guess most alternatives are speculations at this point.

Personally, I don't even know what it means to be "created". How do you make something out of nothing? Then we can ask what is nothing, what is something, and other metaphysical questions. If we anthropomorphize a "God" and then give him all these omni-qualities, sure, but then we're just entering into fantasy land. I only like to enter fantasy land for entertainment purposes, like gaming, or movie-watching.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2009 02:13 pm
@Zetherin,
Just as we dont know the reasons for this creation, so we cant speculate on who or what... Im not describing this creative force, only making an observation on the available evidence.

Give me one explaination that has any more proof or does not create even more questions than it answers. I have listened to scores of alternative theories but they all need massive leaps of faith. With this one momentous event everything else becomes defined but we are totally bemused and completely ignorant of its origin. How can this unbelievable incredible universe originate from the singularity and have no idea of its cause? If you try and explain it, it becomes even more unbelievable, so why is it wrong to say it was created?
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2009 02:49 pm
@xris,
xris;94805 wrote:
Just as we dont know the reasons for this creation, so we cant speculate on who or what... Im not describing this creative force, only making an observation on the available evidence.

Give me one explaination that has any more proof or does not create even more questions than it answers. I have listened to scores of alternative theories but they all need massive leaps of faith. With this one momentous event everything else becomes defined but we are totally bemused and completely ignorant of its origin. How can this unbelievable incredible universe originate from the singularity and have no idea of its cause? If you try and explain it, it becomes even more unbelievable, so why is it wrong to say it was created?


I'm not saying it's wrong to say it was created, I'm saying I don't even know what being "created" means.
0 Replies
 
manored
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2009 05:05 pm
@SammDickens,
Samm;94700 wrote:


manored, I agree with what-I-think-you're-saying, which is that the "underlying" basis of our universe may not be dimensionless reality--although I find the idea intriguingly like the concept of nothing discussed under a thread involving Hegel and suggesting how the appearance of nothing may lead to the emergence of something.


Yep, thats what I was trying to say.
Samm;94700 wrote:

But membranes live in their own continuum of space-time, with some form of beginning and end, some temporal process of change that occurs. I think we will always find that world in motion, be it our universe or the realm of membranes, must have an explanation for its being that is beyond all space-time continuums, existing in a realm without space or time and having essentially such a nature as I describe, indeed such a nature as mystics have long ascribed to such an axis mundi.

I agree

Zetherin;94810 wrote:
I'm not saying it's wrong to say it was created, I'm saying I don't even know what being "created" means.
Indeed, what "created" means here is a bit confusing. If it was created by a conscious being, we can say it was created... if it was created by a conscious being who played dice, can we? And if it was created by a conscious being who was created by randow change in an universe "decided by dice"? And if it was created by a conscious being who played dice in a planned universe?
0 Replies
 
Absolution phil
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2009 06:50 pm
@SammDickens,
Samm;94540 wrote:
Hey, Absolution, is there any way science can make predictable theories about a dimensionless realm? I'm thinking that science can't do much to help us understand a dimensionless realm (where number isn't possible), but isn't it possible that the simplest and most primitive state of being is just such a realm of unmanifest but boundlessly potential reality.


This might be a bit of a ramble, but I will type as my thoughts go. So Physics bases itself on mathematics, which can be argued to have no dependence on dimensionality. But what physics does require is some sort of measure. So if you are talking about a physical dimension of no spacial dimensions that actually has been used in physics. Actually it is quite useful and is represented by what we call a delta function, you can even take time away. The measure in this case is often energy and is used often in quantum physics. You can have energy without a spacial or temporal element (although it may be argued that temporal element is assumed, but you can redefine energy without having that). All you really require is a measure of some sort, and it doesn't even require an exact number. You may only need to measure changes. It can be argued though if the dimension exists such that no measure is possible what so ever, that no one would be able to observe anything, as observation is measure. So it may be difficult to really establish what a measureless dimension may be. And in such a realm everything we hold now, even logic, could be useless and/or meaningless.
0 Replies
 
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2009 08:26 pm
@xris,
xris;94805 wrote:
How can this unbelievable incredible universe originate from the singularity and have no idea of its cause? If you try and explain it, it becomes even more unbelievable, so why is it wrong to say it was created?


... I don't think it's wrong to say that it's a possibility - but aren't there other possibilities? ... for example, here we are in a universe of space and time looking backward at a singularity and what we see on the other side is "nothing" ... but is it really "nothing", or is it only "nothing" when viewed by beings in a universe of space and time? ... it is possible to imagine beings in an exotic universe of we-know-not-what facing the demise of their universe in an impending cataclysm the other side of which appears to them to be "nothing" (but which appears to us as our universe of space and time)? ... in which case those beings see their universe as ending in nothing, we see our universe as beginning from nothing, but what has actually occurred is a conservative (yet violent) phase transition from a universe of we-know-not-what to a universe of space and time ...
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Big bang cosmology
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 10:37:19