Big bang cosmology

@Shostakovich phil,

I've posted something similar in a similar thread. Here goes: Space time and mass and even consciousness are universal concepts. They can be used to explain what took place before the big bang. The big bang was not the first and last event from which our universe arose. The universe arose from an intensifying series of expanding and cotracting stages (stages of expansion and collapse). Each stage intensified from a point approximating an absolute void (but this void still contined the potential that lead to our universe) and incrementally (if i could use the word) intensified through each successive stage within this series to a point of absolute intensity ... and to the absolute or the infinite density contained in the singularity that began our universe. The only driving force that could account for the "Ultimate Cause" of such an intensifying series is the Absolute itself. Take away everything in the universe and there is an Absolute. It is not simply nothing. The absolute is just as the first post that began this thread mentions: It is eternal, immutable, it can never cease to exist, it is if you like ... spirit ... or it is the eternal, indivisible quality from which all that now exists has adopted or taken its form, including our very beings. To call this God would not be a mistake I think, but we lack an adequate, or rational explanation as to just what we mean by 'God.' I think the idea of the Absolute does add some meaning to this idea. It also points the way to an explanation that might be able to account for what prompted the big bang.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris;94802 wrote:

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.

xris, your postulation has absolutely no credibility if you're saying the universe was created, and had to have been created because there was nothing before the universe. If there was nothing before the universe, there was nothing to create the universe. The two premises are contradictory, and that is why I'm saying that it's a bad argument.

No offense meant. I too believe in the Great Goddess. But I do not preface my opinion that She created the universe by proclaiming that She didn't exist before the universe. And I further offer my best arguments for how She happened to exist before the universe, and how She gave birth to this and the other universes of the multiverse. It's okay to postulate creation, but you can't postulate creation from and by nothing. Aside from being extremely illogical, that just doesn't satisfy any definition of "creation".

Can you see what I'm saying?

Samm

---------- Post added 10-03-2009 at 01:34 AM ----------

Shostakovich;94860 wrote:

The only driving force that could account for the "Ultimate Cause" of such an intensifying series is the Absolute itself. Take away everything in the universe and there is an Absolute. It is not simply nothing. The absolute is just as the first post that began this thread mentions: It is eternal, immutable, it can never cease to exist, it is if you like ... spirit ... or it is the eternal, indivisible quality from which all that now exists has adopted or taken its form, including our very beings. To call this God would not be a mistake I think, but we lack an adequate, or rational explanation as to just what we mean by 'God.' I think the idea of the Absolute does add some meaning to this idea. It also points the way to an explanation that might be able to account for what prompted the big bang.

I too have such a concept of an Absolute (I call it spirit), an absolute existence incorporating the limitless potentiality from which this and all other universes in the multiverse (if there are more than one) emerge. I base it on the premise that something cannot come from nothing, and if something exists independent of space and time it cannot have such qualities of space and time beings as size, shape, motion, location, events, beginning, or end (etc.). I usually end up with something that sounds very much like nothing, but also very much like the Hindu Brahman or the Tao. This is your Absolute. (a nice name for it, by the way) Your description of it is spot on.

Samm

0 Replies

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;94849 wrote:

... 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 ...

When you speculate on what might have been there before you need proof of this before, as there is none to look at, then that speculation is even more illogical than a created universe.

---------- Post added 10-03-2009 at 04:15 AM ----------

Samm;94861 wrote:

xris, your postulation has absolutely no credibility if you're saying the universe was created, and had to have been created because there was nothing before the universe. If there was nothing before the universe, there was nothing to create the universe. The two premises are contradictory, and that is why I'm saying that it's a bad argument.

No offense meant. I too believe in the Great Goddess. But I do not preface my opinion that She created the universe by proclaiming that She didn't exist before the universe. And I further offer my best arguments for how She happened to exist before the universe, and how She gave birth to this and the other universes of the multiverse. It's okay to postulate creation, but you can't postulate creation from and by nothing. Aside from being extremely illogical, that just doesn't satisfy any definition of "creation".

Can you see what I'm saying?

Samm

---------- Post added 10-03-2009 at 01:34 AM ----------

I too have such a concept of an Absolute (I call it spirit), an absolute existence incorporating the limitless potentiality from which this and all other universes in the multiverse (if there are more than one) emerge. I base it on the premise that something cannot come from nothing, and if something exists independent of space and time it cannot have such qualities of space and time beings as size, shape, motion, location, events, beginning, or end (etc.). I usually end up with something that sounds very much like nothing, but also very much like the Hindu Brahman or the Tao. This is your Absolute. (a nice name for it, by the way) Your description of it is spot on.

Samm

I can see what your saying but you fail to see what i am saying. If you have proof of a previous universe or a physical presence that occupied any space or time, then show me the evidence. The point i am making, is that claiming it was created is no more outrageous than any other claim. Making silly statements about a she goddess only emphasises the problem everyone has on trying to be logical about something that defies logic.

2 Replies

@xris,

xris;94872 wrote:

When you speculate on what might have been there before you need proof of this before ...

... just as you need proof of an absence of a before in order to claim otherwise ... to demonstrate the validity either of these speculations requires seeing beyond the singularity ... since we can't, I don't see either of these speculations as any more nor less far-fetched than the other Smile

...

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;94884 wrote:

... just as you need proof of an absence of a before in order to claim otherwise ... to demonstrate the validity either of these speculations requires seeing beyond the singularity ... since we can't, I don't see either of these speculations as any more nor less far-fetched than the other ...

But there is evidence of an absence or should i say there is no evidence of a before. What else can it be if there is no evidence of a before? The box is empty, you cant say it was ever full, but i will accept they are equally impossible or even possible.

My trouble is that every proposal never considers the consequences, if we assume another universe caused this universe what caused that universe..adinfinitum..What evidence is there of any other of these infinite amounts of universes? If we say this is the first by evidence, then creation is the logical conclusion. What creation means , i have no idea.

1 Reply

@Shostakovich phil,

All statements about the moment of the big bang, before the big bang, etc are speculations. I have nothing against speculation in fact I think speculative philosophy is traditional philosophy. Speculation is not the abandoment of reason or of empirical observation (good speculation takes both fully into account) but it does go beyond what can be said with confidence or demonstrated. Speculative philosophy, like good science, and rational religion are subject to constant modification as the available evidence changes.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris, it happens that I do worship a "she goddess" so please do not refer to that as disrespectfully hereafter. I'm a pagan and choose to see creation as birth, hence the action of the female principle. I know that you meant no disrespect this time.

You say, "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."

I am pointing out that your claim that the universe can be created by nothing is preposterous and that you yourself in this post discredit that claim by saying that "creation might live outside of material existence". First you seem reluctant to say creator instead of creation, but creation is not likely to "live" anywhere. It is an act or event, not a being. And if you propose that a creator existed (as you say, lived) outside the universe he created, well, that's pretty obvious, isn't it. You are basically saying that a creator existed before the universe, and created the universe from nothing. That is an acceptable proposition if you would say it that way instead of trying to say that nothing existed before the universe. Nothing cannot be a creator and cannot accommodate the existence of a creator or explain a creation or other beginning to the universe.

If there were truly nothing existing before the universe, absolutely nothing, then the universe could not have come into being and you and I would not be enjoying our discussion at this time. Therefore, something MUST have existed before the universe, something with the potency to bring the universe into existence. That something may have been a mindless force, a creator God (or Goddess), or perhaps a number of other things. But it wasn't nothing.

Samm

1 Reply

@SammDickens,

Im probably more pagan than you and the ancient spirits still lurk in my landscape.

Not knowing what this creative force was or is does not exclude its possibility nor does it discount the notion that time is of no consequence, to this creative force. Im not at all scared of describing this force, if it was clear to me what it looked like but sadly i only see its possibility.

1 Reply

@xris,

I see not just the possibility, but the necessity, of that creative force or whatever else we may call that existing something that MUST (1) exist before/beyond the universe and (2) incorporate in some manner the potentials made real in the universe. I do not need to see "beyond the singularity" as people here are saying, in order to logically conclude these two certainties whose evidence is the universe in which we have our existence.

Yeah, I know Cornwall is tough living economically, but it's beautiful and ancient land, and I envy you your home there. If you're more pagan than me, I'm "danged" happy to find another pagan whose interested in establishing some solid underpinning for their pagan beliefs. I've known too many pagans who shy away from what the Christians call "apologetics," simply the ability to give a good explanation or defense of your basic beliefs.

1 Reply

@SammDickens,

Leaving our pagan understanding for a moment...could you take a little journey with me and explain how you see in real terms what may have been before the BB, with all the evidence that is available? Do you see another universe ? do you see time as a continuum, uninterrupted by the singularity ? Its these preconceptions that manifest themselves in theories that abound about the BB that concern me, no one thinks about the consequences of their theories.

3 Replies

@xris,

xris;94889 wrote:

But there is evidence of an absence or should i say there is no evidence of a before. What else can it be if there is no evidence of a before? The box is empty, you cant say it was ever full, but i will accept they are equally impossible or even possible.

My trouble is that every proposal never considers the consequences, if we assume another universe caused this universe what caused that universe..adinfinitum..What evidence is there of any other of these infinite amounts of universes? If we say this is the first by evidence, then creation is the logical conclusion. What creation means , i have no idea.

... it comes down to an old adage: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." ... since we can't see through the singularity, the only thing we have to base our speculations upon is what we observe about our universe ... that we are finite creatures who have been observing the universe for a finite amount of time can lead to speculations that may seem paradoxical (creation from nothing; an infinite loop of universes; etc.) to finite creatures like us Smile

... but would a hypothetical being that had been observing reality for as long as it has existed see them as paradoxes, or merely as the way things are? ... (that's not to say that either of these speculations is "the way things are"!) ...

0 Replies

@xris,

xris;94929 wrote:

Leaving our pagan understanding for a moment...could you take a little journey with me and explain how you see in real terms what may have been before the BB, with all the evidence that is available? Do you see another universe ? do you see time as a continuum, uninterrupted by the singularity ? Its these preconceptions that manifest themselves in theories that abound about the BB that concern me, no one thinks about the consequences of their theories.

Because I believe that something cannot come from nothing, I believe that something existed before the universe. In other words, our universe is adequate evidence that something existed before our universe. The ramifications of that is that something must always have existed before our universe. More later on that.

I believe that the concept of a multiverse consisting of many universes is tenable given our present knowledge. I believe the concept of an endlessly recurring universe, going from big bang to big crunch to big bang, etc., is another tenable concept. I do not support the latter because the increasing velocity of cosmic expansion suggests that the universe will end in a big freeze, or something other than a big crunch. Some variant of a multiverse theory could be supported by the current "membrane theory" the seeks to unify the four forces (it derives from string theory and supergravity). I'm no scientist or mathematician, so I have to trust the serious stuff to those that know it. I try to remain both, abreast of the latest findings and skeptical of the latest findings.

I don't think it likely that the ultimate origin of our universe is contingent on any other universe, but I wouldn't raise the bet on it.

The big bang theory incorporates the idea that both, space and time, began with the universe and are intrinsic properties of the universe. The singularity of which we speak was the first point of space coming into being. All the graphic images of the big bang on TV or in our popular books show the big bang as a big bang, an explosion in space. But there was no explosion. There was no space outside the big bang, only inside it, and that space was sure as heck not empty. The super-density of the big bang generated inconceivable temperatures. The ambient energy level was so high that nothing occurring during the early big bang was in a range visible to the eyes. (Not that any eyes were there. Smile

) None of us humans find it very easy to conceive a vastly expanding and thinning inside of a bubble that has no outside, do we?

I do not see time as a continuum. I see time as a man-made concept for measuring the cacophony of constant changes always occurring everywhere in the universe. (I probably exaggerate that, but only slightly.) Time is the system of measure whereby we measure and order the changes we observe in our universe. Change is the ultimate reality, I think. Anyway, what we call the immediate future and the immediate past cannot exist in the same way as what we call the present in the present. The nature of the existence of what will be and what has been must differ from the actualized existence of the present; else, we would experience plural changes at once, when often one change builds upon the other. This is a very complex and intriguing issue, but I mustn't converse to much on it. We can continue our discussion on time later.

No, my particular, view of time and the big bang does not include a continuity of time across the big bang event. Time, as it exists in the universe, began with the big bang and did not exist as such prior to the big bang.

I think one thing we don't think of often is that the universe as it began would have been seen by us as a tiny particle of immense density and energy. I believe that I read that the universe expanded by the end of the first minute to a point where its density was equal to that of our atmosphere. (That seems extremely quick for it to have become that low in density, and I wonder how big it was at that time.) Anyway, this tiny and dense particle became a bigger and bigger object as its density became less and less. But still, when you think of it, the universe is a single large body grown very tenuous over the ages of its expansion, but nonetheless a single, vast body.

Samm

1 Reply

@SammDickens,

[QUOTE=Samm;94961] Because I believe that something cannot come from nothing, I believe that something existed before the universe. In other words, our universe is adequate evidence that something existed before our universe. The ramifications of that is that something must always have existed before our universe. More later on that. [/QUOTE] One can easily enter a series of infinite recursion no matter how one approaches the problem. It is quite simply beyond conception no matter how you approach it. God created? Who created God? Two universes collide to form our universe. Where did those universes come from?

[QUOTE=Samm;94961] I don't think it likely that the ultimate origin of our universe is contingent on any other universe, but I wouldn't raise the bet on it. [/QUOTE] Other universes could have fundamentally different universal constants and physical laws. It has been proposed gravity leaks into our universe from other dimensions (mind bending stuff really).

[QUOTE=Samm;94961] The big bang theory incorporates the idea that both, space and time, began with the universe and are intrinsic properties of the universe. The singularity of which we speak was the first point of space coming into being. All the graphic images of the big bang on TV or in our popular books show the big bang as a big bang, an explosion in space. But there was no explosion. There was no space outside the big bang, only inside it, and that space was sure as heck not empty. The super-density of the big bang generated inconceivable temperatures. The ambient energy level was so high that nothing occurring during the early big bang was in a range visible to the eyes. (Not that any eyes were there. ) None of us humans find it very easy to conceive a vastly expanding and thinning inside of a bubble that has no outside, do we? [/QUOTE] I kind of like the multi-verse vision of universes as expanding bubbles, New bubbles form. Two Bubbles collide. Bubbles expand till they disappear, collide or pop. An infinite sea of bubbles.

[QUOTE=Samm;94961] I do not see time as a continuum. I see time as a man-made concept for measuring the cacophony of constant changes always occurring everywhere in the universe. (I probably exaggerate that, but only slightly.) Time is the system of measure whereby we measure and order the changes we observe in our universe. Change is the ultimate reality, I think. Anyway, what we call the immediate future and the immediate past cannot exist in the same way as what we call the present in the present. The nature of the existence of what will be and what has been must differ from the actualized existence of the present; else, we would experience plural changes at once, when often one change builds upon the other. This is a very complex and intriguing issue, but I mustn't converse to much on it. We can continue our discussion on time later. [/QUOTE] If time were a continuum there would be an infinite number of points between any two observed events, rendering the concept of the "next" point meaningless. Continuity is "achieved" by incorporating elements of the past into each new occasion or moment of experience. Time is discontinuous in the same sense that quanta are discrete not continuous. Fundamentally the universe is discrete, quantitized not continous, a series of discrete events not inert particles. The notion that space and time are continous is an illusion compatible with human expereince and with newtonian mechanics but not with quantum mechanics.

[QUOTE=Samm;94961] No, my particular, view of time and the big bang does not include a continuity of time across the big bang event. Time, as it exists in the universe, began with the big bang and did not exist as such prior to the big bang. [/QUOTE] Do you mean time in this universe? There can be no time in this universe before the universe comes into being (because there is no process or change) but if multi-verse theories are considered one might reach a different conclusion?

1 Reply

@Shostakovich phil,

Theists like myself often take it upon themselves to find an opiate to explain existence. Of course, we refer to god, but what is god? God can be anything, so it would be impossible to disprove a god. A wise thing a Catholic Cosmologist (ironic, yes) said was that god may have only created civilisation recently, but that does not mean there wasn't anything before then. He went on to say that the big bang theory often infuriates devout christians, when it indeed follows along with everything the christians do.

Who wouldn't subscribe to this theory? We exist, therefore we were created, and since we were created we must have a creator. What our creator is is questionable, but the theory hasn't been disproven.

---------- Post added 10-03-2009 at 11:11 PM ----------

Time is simply not applicable before the big bang, you can't say there was time before it, and time as we know it is not the only time. Imaginary time flows perpendicular to real time at the point of the big bang. These aren't my words, so don't attempt to disprove me.

0 Replies

@prothero,

prothero, a quick response on one part of your message. You say, "One can easily enter a series of infinite recursion no matter how one approaches the problem. It is quite simply beyond conception no matter how you approach it. God created? Who created God? Two universes collide to form our universe. Where did those universes come from"

That is the excellent thing if we consider that there is existence outside of space and time. Suppose that something exists outside space and time. How big is it? It can have no size because it exists outside of space. How old is it? It can have no age because it exists outside of time. There are many things something outside of space and time cannot have, but the most interesting is that it can have no beginning and no end. To begin or end is to experience a state transition, a change, and change is impossible outside of time. This means that whatever exists outside of space and time always is and never can not be.

So the problem of infinite recurrence no longer exists once you reach a source that is outside space and time. You may ask, but how can a universe come from such a source without changing it? It is the universe that changes, you see, and not the source. It's being is unchanged, it potentials undiminished. (Infinity minus one is infinity; infinity minus ten thousand billion is infinity.)

Samm

2 Replies

@SammDickens,

i dont like to mention this but you are coming to the same conclusions as me, if you dismiss time as a necessary event then everything makes just a little more sense. The problem is as creatures of time we cant imagine events without time.

I think also, its agreed, if you invent another universe to explain this one you have to invent an infinite amount of universes and this in my mind discounts the notion of countless universes bouncing into each other. If you place them in differing times, parallel you ours, you accept this notion of time being engineered, not constant.

When science tries to explain how this universe came to exist they explain the mechanics not the motives or the engineer who might of conceived this event. We all need to examine our motives and try to admit that science is lost the other side of that singularity.

0 Replies

@SammDickens,

Samm;94999 wrote:

That is the excellent thing if we consider that there is existence outside of space and time. Suppose that something exists outside space and time. How big is it? It can have no size because it exists outside of space. How old is it? It can have no age because it exists outside of time. There are many things something outside of space and time cannot have, but the most interesting is that it can have no beginning and no end. To begin or end is to experience a state transition, a change, and change is impossible outside of time. This means that whatever exists outside of space and time always is and never can not be.

So the problem of infinite recurrence no longer exists once you reach a source that is outside space and time. You may ask, but how can a universe come from such a source without changing it? It is the universe that changes, you see, and not the source. It's being is unchanged, it potentials undiminished. (Infinity minus one is infinity; infinity minus ten thousand billion is infinity.)
Samm

what i have underlined is what i would have said but you already have. i see no problem in these concepts, no reason to believe they are not possible...in fact, this is my present understanding of reality.

and as far as the concept of creation or creator, it is only a matter of semantics. the universe was created from itself, that is the way i would articulate it...not necessarily 'by' itself, but of and from itself. it is a creation of attributes limited by time and space constraints for sure, extrapolated from an unlimited and unchanging source. what i dont know is was it intentional or a natural occurrence. you as a pagan worship a she goddess, so i assume you feel she created the universe intentionally? if so, for what purpose?

i tend to believe it was a natural occurrence, and since the source (or goddess) has no attributes, why would she have any intention or desire? or is she something that was also created as a result of the singularity expanding rather than the essence of the singularity itself?

0 Replies

@xris,

xris;94929 wrote:

Leaving our pagan understanding for a moment...could you take a little journey with me and explain how you see in real terms what may have been before the BB, with all the evidence that is available? Do you see another universe ? do you see time as a continuum, uninterrupted by the singularity ? Its these preconceptions that manifest themselves in theories that abound about the BB that concern me, no one thinks about the consequences of their theories.

Evidence is not necessary, its mathematics:

0 + 0 =\ 1

1 + 0 == 1

As you can see, something cannot come from nothing =)
So, the only thing we can be certain about the origin of the universe is that it has none: It always existed. Infinity seens more logical than something bursting out of nothingness, because with infinite you never reach the "wall where logic ends", and with things bursting out of nothing you do.

Samm;94961 wrote:

No, my particular, view of time and the big bang does not include a continuity of time across the big bang event. Time, as it exists in the universe, began with the big bang and did not exist as such prior to the big bang.

While I agree, I think something analogous to time existed before the big bang and allowed it to happen, some form of "hyper time". As an example, if our universe is a simulation in a computer, time passes then the simulation is running. If it is paused, time stops, but "hyper time", that is, time in the world where the simulation is taking place, continues.

prothero;94969 wrote:

I kind of like the multi-verse vision of universes as expanding bubbles, New bubbles form. Two Bubbles collide. Bubbles expand till they disappear, collide or pop. An infinite sea of bubbles.

Would be fun to be a fish in that sea =)

Maybe I could make bubbles of my own...

Leonard;94983 wrote:

Who wouldn't subscribe to this theory? We exist, therefore we were created, and since we were created we must have a creator. What our creator is is questionable, but the theory hasn't been disproven.

If christianism stopped here, it would indeed make sense, but it doesnt stops here and incorporates several logical impossibilities along its ideologic way. So I dont think just this is enough to make people consider christianism as a valid option... but people seem to construct their ideas about the universe from the "end" to the "beggining", that is, they assume their christian end is true and construct the rest to fit into it, rather than determining the most logical beggining and seeing if it fits into the end.

Hum... The last bit after the "..." is making quite a lot of sense to me, anyone else thinks that may be a nice explanation as to why some people have religions, while others think religions are absurd?

Samm;94999 wrote:

So the problem of infinite recurrence no longer exists once you reach a source that is outside space and time. You may ask, but how can a universe come from such a source without changing it? It is the universe that changes, you see, and not the source. It's being is unchanged, it potentials undiminished. (Infinity minus one is infinity; infinity minus ten thousand billion is infinity.)

I disagree, winhout infinite recurrence, the "source" is always the same, if the "source" is always the same, the universe is immutable. Winhout time or recurrence, the source could not exist before our universe, and as our universe had a beggining, that would mean the source has not always existed, and thus is not the true source.

xris;95016 wrote:

I think also, its agreed, if you invent another universe to explain this one you have to invent an infinite amount of universes and this in my mind discounts the notion of countless universes bouncing into each other. If you place them in differing times, parallel you ours, you accept this notion of time being engineered, not constant.

We can have both simultaneously: Off course there isnt more than one universe because the word "universe" means "everthing that exists", and you cant have two everthings, but we can have many "bubbles of reality".

xris;95016 wrote:

When science tries to explain how this universe came to exist they explain the mechanics not the motives or the engineer who might of conceived this event. We all need to examine our motives and try to admit that science is lost the other side of that singularity.

Only until we get there =)

And, off course, we wont get there waiting for it to happen, so we need to keep ramming science against the wall until it breaks.

2 Replies

@manored,

Your post is really confusing. Evidence is not necessary , necessary for what , what are you trying to prove ? without proof..

You are certain of what? the cause? the time it took? or we have no multi verses or bubbles of space. I am afraid your not answering my question... What do you imagine with your logic that occurred before this singularity? Mathematics will tell us, I cant wait..

1 Reply

@manored,

manored;95042 wrote:

Evidence is not necessary, its mathematics:

I disagree, without infinite recurrence, the "source" is always the same, if the "source" is always the same, the universe is immutable. Winhout time or recurrence, the source could not exist before our universe, and as our universe had a beggining, that would mean the source has not always existed, and thus is not the true source.

The source IS always the same, immutable. The universe is not the source; it is only a product of the source. The universe is not immutable; the universe is constant flux.

The source exists outside the space-time bubble of the universe. There is neither space nor time nor recurrence in the source. The source does exist outside the universe. Once again, THE UNIVERSE IS NOT THE SOURCE AND THE SOURCE IS NOT THE UNIVERSE, (he yelled!) The source exists forever because it exists outside of time. Time is in and of the universe. The source is a sheet of paper. Draw a circle and call it the universe. Write the words "time" and "space" inside the circle of the universe. That's as easy as I can make it. The universe comes from the source, but is not the source. Time and space are the skin and bones of the universe, but they don't exist elsewhere.

The universe may mean everything in some dictionary definition, but you gotta know that the universe isn't everything. Please tell me you don't really think the universe is everything that exists! The source, on the other hand, really is everything that exists; it is existence itself. Existence, being, has neither a beginning nor an end, because it is independent of time. Therefore, true being is eternal...but not eternally manifest. In the source, all being is potential rather than actual. Universes are the only places where potential being may become manifest and actual in a space-time environment.

Samm

1 Reply

Big bang cosmology

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know