Big bang cosmology

@xris,

Let's speculate: The singularity amounts to what David Hume called a 'necessary, continued relation between cause and effect. What preceded the BB was an intensifying series of expanding and contracting stages wherein spacetime, mass, and mind, followed from their simplest possible state, to their greatest possible state =the singularity with zero spacetime and infinite desnity -from which our universe then followed. The Absolute is the First Cause to this intensifying series. The explanation for this follows from the premise that the concept of an absolute void, or nothing amounts to the following:

A) The pure, absolute that exists as a boundless, eternal or constant, state, whole and indivisble ... and:

B) Our internal, finite idea of A.

If anything existed in the ultimate beginning (before all else ... whatever it may be) then it was these two pure, representations ... both A and B. We can call B a dynamic, expanding, force of mind driven towards A as its ultiamte cause; and as A is constant, then the driving force for the emergence of B, is infinite. B must therefore follow, given A. How then do we further define B?

It is possible to give further definition to the concept of such an effect, and also follow a strictly logical line of reasoning to account for the change that must follow with the effect. B implies a certain change. That's the next thing to be understood.

This is the only form of reasoning I think that is possible for us, and it is speculative, but at least it offers something aside from the impasse: That only nothing follows from nothing. This impasse blocked Immanuel Kant from thinking any further than his first antinomy, and he asked his critical reader to take a look at the antinomy, and attempt to overcome the impasse. The idea of the absolute at the ultimate beginning does provide for something other than just a nothing from which only nothing follows. The problem is, if this is an ultimate beginning, then we need to strive in our thinking to understand what we are imagining when we attempt to imagine a 'nothing' at the ultimate beginning of all things. My argument is that as soon as we attempt to think nothing, we think something ... however infinitesimal that thought of nothing might amount to. I settle for the A and B representations, or concepts above. A is the Cause and B is the effect. At least, this allows for a beginning. The other thing is we are speaking here of the most infinitesimal beginnings imaginable, and this I think is the crux of the problem. The difficulty is in coming to terms with our deepest thoughts regarding this problem. Hegel, also spoke of the ultimate beginning of all things, and settled on the Absolute as the answer. He also called this the 'simple immediate' etc., and also equated this simple immediate to God. This still begs the question: What do we mean by God? Is God just the Absolute? Or is he more than just the Absolute. There are endless speculations here because we're speaking of something that transcends finite human experience; but I think it is possible to arrive at some kind of understanding that is more than just a wild conjecture, like our universe is the result of the collision between two other universes, or the universe is the result of a freak quantum vacuum fluctuation (re: John Gribbin's book: "In Search of the Big Bang").

Actually, I've just given you the premise to my 'causal argument for the existence of a supreme being,' which I haven't gotten around to posting yet. It is a reasoned out argument and it is a pure, philosophical argument; but it is the best I can offer. The solution is also universal, and objectively valid ... meaning it's not the result of arbitrary choice. That will be for members of this forum to decide for themselves however, once I get around to posting the argument in its totality.

1 Reply

@SammDickens,

[QUOTE=Samm;95107] 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. [/QUOTE]I just do not know what you are after here, Samm?
In some ways it sounds like the orthodox conception of god immutable, impassive, changeless, eternal, perfection, outside of time and space?
I agree with Whitehead that "god" should be the chief example of your metaphysics not its sole exception.
How can an eternal immutable source be in relationship to a changing world?

[QUOTE=Samm;95107] 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 [/QUOTE]

Samm;95107 wrote:

environment. Samm

I would agree that the "material" aspects of reality do not represent "total reality".
There is a mental (or spiritual aspect) of reality which is not available to the sense perception theory of knowledge (empirical science). I would not agree that the mental dimension of reality does not change or is not subject to process. I would agree that the world is potentiality becoming actuality through creative process.
The world is engaged in a never ending process of creative advance.
The many are increased by one and become one.
The source (for me read god) takes in the experience of the world and patiently persistently and persuasively pushes creation forward to new levels of novelty, creativity and value, struggling and suffering against chaos and disorder.
An eternal, immutable, changeless, impersonal, source seems of no value to a spiritual enchanted responsive universe.

0 Replies

@Shostakovich phil,

Shostakovich;95108 wrote:

Let's speculate: The singularity amounts to what David Hume called a 'necessary, continued relation between cause and effect. What preceded the BB was an intensifying series of expanding and contracting stages wherein spacetime, mass, and mind, followed from their simplest possible state, to their greatest possible state =the singularity with zero spacetime and infinite density--from which our universe then followed. The Absolute is the First Cause to this intensifying series. The explanation for this follows from the premise that the concept of an absolute void, or nothing amounts to the following:

A) The pure, absolute that exists as a boundless, eternal or constant, state, whole and indivisible ... and:

B) Our internal, finite idea of A.

What I have underlined, the premise of an intensifying series of stages building from a minimum to a maximum state, is your(?) conjecture about what may have preceded the big bang, I believe. I've read more of it elsewhere and it seems well-considered, although I don't think I quite grasp it yet.

You say that "the Absolute" is the first cause that initiates the intensifying series, and then you say that the concept of an absolute void (nothing) can be expressed as (A) and (B) from your quote. Your effort there fails me entirely. I read you saying in essence that the concept of nothing includes "the pure absolute that exists..." Absolute what? Whatever it is, you say it exists and you say that the concept of nothing is built around it. But surely the concept of nothing can include no mention of an existence.

Are you familiar with the opening of the Tao Te Ching? "The Tao that can be named is not the Eternal Tao." Nothing is sorta like that, isn't it? "The nothing that can be described is not the true nothing." I think "nothing" usually means emptiness or absence of contents to us in common usage. But what we're talking about is a truer kind of nothing, a nothingness that is the total absence of anything, the antithesis of existence.

If we start from such a nothing that is the antithesis of existence, how does your understanding of things envision us getting to a nothing that is pregnant with potential for awakening into a newborn universe? Or must we start with a "seeded" nothing that already has the potential to be intensified into such a pregnancy of potential? And if such changes as you envision precede the singularity, are you suggesting that time will begin before the singularity announcing the big bang and the birth of space first appears?

Shostakovich;95108 wrote:

If anything existed in the ultimate beginning (before all else ... whatever it may be) then it was these two pure, representations ... both A and B. We can call B a dynamic, expanding, force of mind driven towards A as its ultimate cause; and as A is constant, then the driving force for the emergence of B, is infinite. B must therefore follow, given A. How then do we further define B?

It is possible to give further definition to the concept of such an effect, and also follow a strictly logical line of reasoning to account for the change that must follow with the effect. B implies a certain change. That's the next thing to be understood.

How can "our internal, finite idea of the absolute" (your (B) above) exist before all else, that is before we exist to have such an idea? See? This is why you have to be careful how you say things. There are morons like me lurking about ready to jump at every possible misunderstanding of your words. :brickwall:

Shostakovich;95108 wrote:

This is the only form of reasoning I think that is possible for us, and it is speculative, but at least it offers something aside from the impasse: That only nothing follows from nothing. This impasse blocked Immanuel Kant from thinking any further than his first antinomy, and he asked his critical reader to take a look at the antinomy, and attempt to overcome the impasse. The idea of the absolute at the ultimate beginning does provide for something other than just a nothing from which only nothing follows.

I think it is true that only nothing may follow from nothing, if we start with the true absolute nothing I mentioned above, the antithesis of existence. I think there are many things that may exist invisible to our observation, leaving us with the impression that nothing exists, and some such undetectable existences can perhaps exist outside of space and time. I believe the idea of what you are calling "the Absolute" existing at the ultimate beginning meets the requirement I am talking about. And I don't believe we need to explain how such an Absolute can come into being, since it must exist (else we would not be here to explain its absence) and since it exists outside of time and therefore cannot begin or end.

Shostakovich;95108 wrote:

The problem is, if this is an ultimate beginning, then we need to strive in our thinking to understand what we are imagining when we attempt to imagine a 'nothing' at the ultimate beginning of all things. My argument is that as soon as we attempt to think nothing, we think something ... however infinitesimal that thought of nothing might amount to. I settle for the A and B representations, or concepts above. A is the Cause and B is the effect. At least, this allows for a beginning.

I agree that it is difficult to imagine nothing as something more than mere emptiness or absence.

Shostakovich;95108 wrote:

The other thing is we are speaking here of the most infinitesimal beginnings imaginable, and this I think is the crux of the problem. The difficulty is in coming to terms with our deepest thoughts regarding this problem. Hegel, also spoke of the ultimate beginning of all things, and settled on the Absolute as the answer. He also called this the 'simple immediate' etc., and also equated this simple immediate to God. This still begs the question: What do we mean by God? Is God just the Absolute? Or is he more than just the Absolute. There are endless speculations here because we're speaking of something that transcends finite human experience; but I think it is possible to arrive at some kind of understanding that is more than just a wild conjecture, like our universe is the result of the collision between two other universes, or the universe is the result of a freak quantum vacuum fluctuation (re: John Gribbin's book: "In Search of the Big Bang").

I don't think that it is requisite that our explanation make reference to "God", although I believe in deity. I think I give greater credence to an explanation that doesn't necessarily impose my point of view. I think that all we can say about God as creator or first cause is that it is absolute existence. Personalizing such a deity is difficult at best.

Shostakovich;95108 wrote:

Actually, I've just given you the premise to my 'causal argument for the existence of a supreme being,' which I haven't gotten around to posting yet. It is a reasoned out argument and it is a pure, philosophical argument; but it is the best I can offer. The solution is also universal, and objectively valid ... meaning it's not the result of arbitrary choice. That will be for members of this forum to decide for themselves however, once I get around to posting the argument in its totality.

We have discussed deity in another group I'm in, and our agreement is that the deity that best explains the universe is quite abstract and transcendent, while the gods and goddesses to whom we pray and on whom we rely are personal deities, often culturally specific, who intercede in human history and answer the prayers of the humblest worshiper. We figure that people reach for the transcendent, although it is immanent within us, and comprehend it imperfectly, like the blind men feeling the elephant, and that we create our gods and goddesses as avatars of the transcendent, but limited and misunderstood in accordance with our own limitations.

Samm

---------- Post added 10-05-2009 at 03:33 AM ----------

prothero;95119 wrote:

I just do not know what you are after here, Samm?
In some ways it sounds like the orthodox conception of god immutable, impassive, changeless, eternal, perfection, outside of time and space?
I agree with Whitehead that "god" should be the chief example of your metaphysics not its sole exception.
How can an eternal immutable source be in relationship to a changing world?

prothero, that response was not addressed to you. "manored" had misunderstood an earlier post and said that the universe and the source were the same thing, and I was only trying to correct him. Please do not suppose that I am talking about God. Drop God from this. I am talking about being (existence) which some mystics identify as God, and that's fine for them, but I'm talking about existence, especially existence outside of time.
[/COLOR]

Quote:

I would agree that the "material" aspects of reality do not represent "total reality".
There is a mental (or spiritual aspect) of reality which is not available to the sense perception theory of knowledge (empirical science). I would not agree that the mental dimension of reality does not change or is not subject to process. I would agree that the world is potentiality becoming actuality through creative process.

Neither would I agree "that the mental dimension of reality does not change or is not subject to process." The mental realm is outside of space, but not outside of time.

[QUOTE]The world is engaged in a never ending process of creative advance.
The many are increased by one and become one.
The source (for me read god) takes in the experience of the world and patiently persistently and persuasively pushes creation forward to new levels of novelty, creativity and value, struggling and suffering against chaos and disorder.
An eternal, immutable, changeless, impersonal, source seems of no value to a spiritual enchanted responsive universe.[/QUOTE]

I believe in deity, but I'm trying to leave God/dess out of my metaphysical discussion. I think the universe is quite spiritual, enchanted, and responsive in and of itself. I have no need for God to describe the universe. My religious views are separate from and deeper than my philosophical interests. If I can only talk philosophy by reference to God, I'll mosey over to the religion section and do my posting.
Samm

1 Reply

@SammDickens,

Has anyone considered the environment that might have given rise to this event ? We can speculate on how matter can be confined by its own energy and sit in constant state of balance. The massive mass will stop any effect of time or allow space to exist outside of this confinement. As an observer it would or could be observed as nothing, as the mass it contains has the same effect. Now we must consider if it describes nothing, is it nothing? what is the real difference and what turns it from an apparent nothing into everything? what is the trigger and why at that point in no time. Now the time of its conception is the START of TIME and it cant be judged against any time scale that lies outside of its begining. So the only question we should be asking is who or what instigated , triggered, this event from nothing? NOTHING. This is where we have problems with the conception of time, events and eternity. No time, time to exist, as there is no eternity then we only have time, so the universe started and there was nothing before, no eternity waiting for it to happen.

In my opinion there was nothing , remember try imagining nothing, then we had everything. There is no one who can describe this before as there was no before to describe. Try describing this yourself,this before, and it fails miserable every time. Its extremely hard to conceive of, but in my opinion its the only answer.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris, I think I see how you and I disagree about the beginning of things. Our concepts of what "nothing" is are vastly diverse, as if one of us called it day and the other called it night. I'm not sure we should even try to find agreement on what "nothing" is, what it means, what is possible and what is not when nothing exists. Can you see how differently I understand "nothing" from you? Do you think it worth our efforts to find at least some agreement? Should we just agree to disagree, and each accept the correctness of our own view? What do you think?

Samm

1 Reply

@SammDickens,

Samm;95183 wrote:

xris, I think I see how you and I disagree about the beginning of things. Our concepts of what "nothing" is are vastly diverse, as if one of us called it day and the other called it night. I'm not sure we should even try to find agreement on what "nothing" is, what it means, what is possible and what is not when nothing exists. Can you see how differently I understand "nothing" from you? Do you think it worth our efforts to find at least some agreement? Should we just agree to disagree, and each accept the correctness of our own view? What do you think?

Samm

Something almost impossible to describe because if you try to explain it, you are admitting it is something. Nothing, is not ever something to be described, thats the problem. scientifically i suppose it has no space for us to be active. Its not a void, that assumes it has boundaries. It has no length breadth or depth, time does not exist.I'm sure you could be more descriptive.

1 Reply

@Shostakovich phil,

manored wrote:

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?

I actually meant that I don't really understand what "creation" is, in the context being used here. I mean, I can conceptualize it, I suppose: Something comes out of nothing. But this is as vague in my mind as it is on paper. I've never experienced anything like that, and I don't even know what it really is, or what it entails.

It's not like we're saying, "Bill created a great Mediterranean dish", or something of the like. We're using "create" here in a manner that doesn't simply imply a changing of particles or materials, or a conjuring of a notion (such as, creating a name for your restaurant). We're using the verb here to mean that someone/something willed particles to come from nothing. Isn't that a little unclear to you? I mean, we're talking about magic here, are we not?

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;95197 wrote:

I actually meant that I don't really understand what "creation" is, in the context being used here. I mean, I can conceptualize it, I suppose: Something comes out of nothing. But this is as vague in my mind as it is on paper. I've never experienced anything like that, and I don't even know what it really is, or what it entails.

It's not like we're saying, "Bill created a great Mediterranean dish", or something of the like. We're using "create" here in a manner that doesn't simply imply a changing of particles or materials, or a conjuring of a notion (such as, creating a name for your restaurant). We're using the verb here to mean that someone/something willed particles to come from nothing. Isn't that a little unclear to you? I mean, we're talking about magic here, are we not?

Don't you just mean that you don't think that creation out of nothing can occur, and not that you don't understand what it means? I think everyone understands what it means, as you, yourself allowed when you said that you could conceptualize it. I know what it means for water to flow uphill, but I don't think it can occur.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris;95190 wrote:

Something almost impossible to describe because if you try to explain it, you are admitting it is something. Nothing, is not ever something to be described, thats the problem. scientifically i suppose it has no space for us to be active. Its not a void, that assumes it has boundaries. It has no length breadth or depth, time does not exist.I'm sure you could be more descriptive.

Well, we're off to a bad start here, xris. I agree with everything you say here. Would you also agree that nothing and no-one exists who can create a universe? I mean, if a creator existed, you wouldn't really have nothing, would you?

By the way, thanks for talking this through with me.

Samm

---------- Post added 10-05-2009 at 04:44 PM ----------

Magical creation? Yep. That's pretty much it, Zeth. And when someone tells me creation is the willing of something to appear out of nothing, I remind them that something did not come from nothing. Before it could be willed into existence, it had to imagined, conceived if you wish. Then the will caused its transfer from imagination to reality. So something came not from nothing but from the creator, from its imagination, through its will, into existence. Poof! Pure magic.

And now for something completely different...

Samm

0 Replies

@Shostakovich phil,

Samm: You ask how B can exist before all else.

The premise can be worded differently. We can take the 'our' out of the definition and postulate the following:

A) The Absolute as an unconditional, constant, immutable, state (we can call this spirit if we want ... or simply: a whole or indivisible form) and:

B) A necessary internal and dynamic mind, in its simplest possible state of being, that is compelled to A by virtue of A being a constant.

However, if we do put the 'our' into the equation I think it still works, as the argument qualifies this latter. But better to avoid the trap and the justifiable criticism. I've actually thought about this a lot.

But given B as the effect of A, then B must by virtue of A being constant, inevitably obtain to A. The 'Causal Argument' I have worked out explains how B obtains to A and in the process spacetime, mass, and mind, are brought to a state beyond which they can increase in intensity no further. The concepts that allow for the explanation are the universal concepts of space, time (or spacetime), mass, and mind. The explanation is not possible if we drop any one of these universals. The change brought about by B obtaining to A is the Mass of the universe. I haven't bothered here to explain how this works, but the Mass of the universe reaches a critical point at a certain stage in the series, resulting in the singularity at the beginning of the BB. The causal process that predates the BB explains how the infinite density was arrived at. I still intend to post the whole argument when I have more time on my hands.

1 Reply

@Shostakovich phil,

Shostakovich;95303 wrote:

Samm: You ask how Mind can exist before all else.

The premise can be worded differently. We can take the 'our' out of the definition {of pre-cosmic nothing} and postulate the following {component elements of that nothing}:

A) The Absolute as an unconditional, constant, immutable, state (we can call this spirit if we want ... or simply: a whole or indivisible form) and:

B) A necessary internal and dynamic Mind, in its simplest possible state of being, that is compelled to the Absolute by virtue of the Absolute being a constant.

However, if we do put the 'our' into the equation I think it still works, as the argument qualifies this latter. But better to avoid the trap and the justifiable criticism. I've actually thought about this a lot.

But given Mind as the effect of the Absolute, then Mind must by virtue of the Absolute being constant, inevitably obtain to the Absolute. The 'Causal Argument' I have worked out explains how Mind obtains to the Absolute and in the process spacetime, mass, and Mind, are brought to a state beyond which they can increase in intensity no further. The concepts that allow for the explanation are the universal concepts of space, time (or spacetime), mass, and Mind. The explanation is not possible if we drop any one of these universals. The change brought about by Mind obtaining to the Absolute is the Mass of the universe. I haven't bothered here to explain how this works, but the Mass of the universe reaches a critical point at a certain stage in the series, resulting in the singularity at the beginning of the Big Bang. The causal process that predates the Big Bang explains how the infinite density was arrived at. I still intend to post the whole argument when I have more time on my hands.

In the quote of your last post to me, I have added some words, in curly brackets {}, and I have replaced the letters "A" and "B" with the primary noun with which they are associated, "A" = "the Absolute and "B" = "Mind". This helped me understand what you are trying to say a bit better by eliminating the need for me to look up what "A" and "B" meant each time they were referenced. What do you think?

Explain WHY Mind "is compelled to the Absolute by virtue of the Absolute being a constant." I don't understand why this is so. What is so compelling about the constancy of the Absolute? And what is the Absolute? What entity or substance is it that has this state of being unconditional, constant, and immutable? If the Absolute is a state, it must be a state of some thing, some existence, and by the way, doesn't that mean that it cannot be a component of the pre-cosmic nothing(ness), since something cannot be a component of nothing?

Forgive my silly questions as I struggle past these last few misunderstandings. Thank you.

Samm

1 Reply

@SammDickens,

Samm;95344 wrote:

In the quote of your last post to me, I have added some words, in curly brackets {}, and I have replaced the letters "A" and "B" with the primary noun with which they are associated, "A" = "the Absolute and "B" = "Mind". This helped me understand what you are trying to say a bit better by eliminating the need for me to look up what "A" and "B" meant each time they were referenced. What do you think?

Explain WHY Mind "is compelled to the Absolute by virtue of the Absolute being a constant." I don't understand why this is so. What is so compelling about the constancy of the Absolute? And what is the Absolute? What entity or substance is it that has this state of being unconditional, constant, and immutable? If the Absolute is a state, it must be a state of some thing, some existence, and by the way, doesn't that mean that it cannot be a component of the pre-cosmic nothing(ness), since something cannot be a component of nothing?

Forgive my silly questions as I struggle past these last few misunderstandings. Thank you.

Samm

I will get around to posting the overall argument, but to answer why Mind is compelled to the Absolute there are two other aspects of A and B. A is external to B. B is internal to A. B is finite. A is infinite, and it is the finite that is motivated towards the Absolute. B is also conditional, for it depends for its existence on A ... to which it is moved. B must be thought of as a dynamically expanding sphere, motivated to move outside of its limited, finite sphere, towards that which is external to it, and the only thing it can be moved towards is the Absolute. There are no other options or possibilities here. It is not the Absolute that is motivated towards B, but the other way around ... because A is unconditional, and unmoved, and eternal. To speak of what A is ... a state ... a something ... as opposed to nothing ... there is only one thing I can say without delving into speculations that go off the track, and that is that A is infinite, for it cannot be conceived of as a state with limitations ... it is unbounded, and if it has a quality aside from 'nothingness' that quality is pure, or whole, and indivisible. If we call this quality, spirit, I wouldn't be against this, but even with this I think I'd be stretching for speculation that is not necessary. The goal can still be reached and the goal is an explanation for the ultimate origin of the universe. The A and B representations only provide for the start of a possible explanation. If then A and B are all that we can imagine or think of existing at the ultimate beginning (for I cannot think of anything else more simple and uncomplicated or that does not give rise to the intuitive question: "From where did that 'thing or that condition' with which you begin originate?") of all things then A being infinite, inevitably and necessarily must gives Cause to B, and B must be thought of as an effect motivated to move outside of itself, towards the infinite state of A. This implies that B undergoes a certain qualitative change through its movement or its expansion towards A. The question is: How are we to understand this change, qualitatively? I have a principle I've termed the Principle of Divergence. I won't explain the principle here in its fullness, but basically the qualitative change of B in its movement towards A is a qualitative change away from the pure first state from which it began its movement towards A, and in which first state there was a relation between A and B. B can be thought of as a finite internal force of Mind moving towards the Absolute, and in this it presents a force in opposition to the pure and indivisible and constant state of A. A itself undergoes no qualitative change as it is unconditional and constant. The one quality that it inarguably has is the quality of being infinite ... it is impossible for us to set conditions or boundaries to that which simply exists as an infinite. It is only the finite effect of B moving towards the infinite, A, that brings about a force of opposition to A, through its movement. The Principle of Divergence is a little more complicated than this. It can be explained however, and all that follows from the premise of the A and B representations follows necessarily, and a priori. All I'll say here is that the causal process that more clearly defines the movemnt of B towards A can be summarized as an intensifying series of expanding states, each of which expands to a finite point, only to collapse to its beginning (which can be called a state of continued relation between Cause and effect). The series begins with the simplest of all possible states (as defined by the A and B representations) and moves through a succession of intensifying stages, to its most intense possible state ... at which stage B obtains to A. The explanation accounts for why our universe began from a singularity with infinite density. Through B's obtaining to A, inevitably and necessarily, due to the constancy of A, the mass from which our universe was formed was generated. It can be called the derivative of B in its movement towards A. As a pure dynamic force of Mind, B can also be thought of as the Mind that has fashioned our universe into what we observe. This is explained by the Principle of Progressive Design. The other principle I won't summarize here, but it's called the Principle of Equal Relation, and it too follows necessarily from the premise. There is an equal relationship between the force of Mind that has brought our universe into being, and the Mass from which the universe has been formed. I could go on, but I'll stop here. Too much here to chew on, I think. Excuse me for using the outmoding concepts of cause and effect to explain this much. But it's unavoidable, and I do not agree with the idea that these concepts are in fact no longer of any use to us.

0 Replies

@Shostakovich phil,

What does it mean to exist outside of time and space?
Why is there something rather than nothing?
What lies beyond infinity?
Was there time before the big bang?
What are the attributes of "nothing"?
There is a SOURCE which exists outside time and space and creates the universe?

I am generally not a fan of linguistic analysis but none of these questions are really comprehensible, sensible, or even meaningful. There can be no scientific and really no rational response.

One can appeal to mystery, to magic, to "creation", to mysticism (via negativa) or to religion for answers but not to science, not to facts, not to experience and barely to reason.

I am a theist but I am not a supernatural theist.
I support speculative philosophy but only as a rational endeavor which fully accounts for the findings of science and the facts of experience.
This really is a supernatural religious discussion pretending to be a rational philosophical discussion?

1 Reply

@prothero,

Your really full of it, prothero. It's easy to make such statements, calling the questions you listed "supernatural religious discussion" but I note that you were the one taking it all to religious speculation here and on the "being" thread. Either discuss the thread issues or don't, but don't play head games. I don't need the crap and neither does anyone else.

Here are some possible answers to your questions.

What does it mean to exist outside of time and space?
Existence is not an element of space-time, rather space-time is an element of existence. Therefore, it is conceivable that existence can occur outside the parameters imposed on being within space-time. Such existence cannot have any of those qualities of existence within space-time, so we may identify what that existence is by identifying what it is not. As you know, I have done this elsewhere, and if you have found the answer too mystical in nature for your liking, then tell me where my approach is faulty, where my reasoning seems inaccurate. Don't play it off as supernatural pretense.

Why is there something rather than nothing?
There is something rather than nothing, and I believe that something cannot come from nothing. If I'm wrong there, show me how I'm wrong. If not, then it follows that something must always have existed, for if at any time in the past nothing were to have existed, there would be no possibility of something coming from it. Either there is an infinite regression of existence in time, or existence at some point in the past must continue outside of temporal parameters (as in my answer above). Whatever exists outside of time cannot have a beginning or an end because these are events and processes, such as may only occur within time. Therefore, existence outside of time either is or is not. If it were not, then nothing in this universe would ever be. I would not be writing this and you would not be reading it. Thus, we exist because existence transcends time, and that existence beyond time gives cause and explanation for all existence within time.

What lies beyond infinity?
I can find nothing in this world that I would identify as infinite. Only conceptual realities like the number system, perhaps the series of positive whole integers by which we count, for example, are conceivably infinite. But I would answer this question by saying that nothing exists beyond infinity. We can go from there if you want to discuss it further.

Was there time before the big bang? I think that time preceded space during the creation/birth of the universe that we call the big bang, so I would answer yes. As you know, I believe that consciousness is a fundamental criterion for existence in the universe, and that everything in the universe is a conscious being. When the universe began, it too required both that-which-is-experienced AND that-which-experiences in order for experiences to occur, including all the events and processes described in the big bang cosmology. Therefore, the newborn universe was a conscious being (as the universe, taken on whole, still is a conscious being). When I say that time came before the big bang birth of space, I only mean that the consciousness of the universe awoke before space exploded into being. I haven't the time for detail now but we can discuss it further if you care to. I will only summarize by saying that space could not occur until the one consciousness of the universe became a multiplicity of countless conscious beings with finite conscious experience that gave them location and interactive context.

What are the attributes of "nothing"? "Nothing", true metaphysical nothing, has no attributes, no traits, no qualities, no causal efficacy, no ability to explain anything. It is the antithesis of existence. We seldom refer to such nothingness in our common speech. "What's wrong, Bill?" "Aw, nothing really. Just a little tired is all."

There is a SOURCE which exists outside time and space and creates the universe? There is existence outside space-time. (See my answers to the first two questions above.) The ultimate explanation for the existence of anything and everything must derive from this existence that has no beginning or end and requires no explanation for its own being. (It simply is, always.) Thus, existence outside of time may be called "the source" of all other states of being, or of all the universes that may arise. It has also been called the Absolute, spirit, the Pattern-Imposing Force, primal being, and so on. "The source" is a fairly accurate description of what it is and does. It's not a mystical being, nothing supernatural, quite the opposite really. It's only that we are not familiar with the concept of existence beyond all dimension, in a time before times and a place beyond places.

Samm

3 Replies

@SammDickens,

Ide like to ask everyone one question what do they think the circumstances were before the BB. Was the BB a constant concentrated mass of energy or was it formed from another source?

1 Reply

@xris,

Well, xris, let me tell you. Before the big bang, things were slow 'round these parts. Tweren't no morning paper to tell you the news of the day. The movie house only showed slide shows from Fred and Gerta's honeymoon in Shebangston. Crime was down consid'ably, but then tweren't much to steal. Yessir, it 'as a slow place back in them days afore the big bang.

(I send a humorous response because I think my sincere response to your question is given in post #74 above and elsewhere. Just thought I'd lighten up for a bit. :-)

Samm

1 Reply

@SammDickens,

Samm;95505 wrote:

Well, xris, let me tell you. Before the big bang, things were slow 'round these parts. Tweren't no morning paper to tell you the news of the day. The movie house only showed slide shows from Fred and Gerta's honeymoon in Shebangston. Crime was down consid'ably, but then tweren't much to steal. Yessir, it 'as a slow place back in them days afore the big bang.

(I send a humorous response because I think my sincere response to your question is given in post #74 above and elsewhere. Just thought I'd lighten up for a bit. :-)

Samm

Sound like my teenage years, but the girls oh those girls...

0 Replies

@SammDickens,

Now I did not attack anyone personally, I attacked the thread as asking questions that were logically incomprehensible and providing answers of the same nature.
I also suggested that this was really a religious discussion not a scientific or speculative philosophy discussion. The "Source" has all the attributes of Aquinas's "God" or Plato's demiurge. The claim that this is not mystical, not supernatural and not fundamentally religious speculation is what I questioned.
Incomprehensible questions invariably yield incomprehensible answers.
My apologies for any offense, and I will leave you to your fun.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;95053 wrote:

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..

Evidence is not necessary to affirm that there was always something, or, putting it another way, there was never nothing. Aka: The universe has always existed, Be it in time or whatever things analogous to time it existed through.

Samm;95107 wrote:

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

Sorry, I was hoping you would understand I meant source in a different way here =)

With source I meant the source from wich our know universe spawns from, not the source from wich the whole universe spawns from.

Im finding it infinitely hard to express this with greater clarity, but: Infinite recurrence is necessary because if the source (the bigger one) is immutable, then that means it produces everthing it has produced continually, and, as it is not bound by time, we could say that also at an "infinite speed". So any point in the universe is eternally surrounded by the universe.

I hope that makes it clear =)

xris;95136 wrote:

So the only question we should be asking is who or what instigated , triggered, this event from nothing? NOTHING. This is where we have problems with the conception of time, events and eternity. No time, time to exist, as there is no eternity then we only have time, so the universe started and there was nothing before, no eternity waiting for it to happen.

Someone or something, and not from nothing, from some randow thing.

xris;95190 wrote:

Something almost impossible to describe because if you try to explain it, you are admitting it is something. Nothing, is not ever something to be described, thats the problem. scientifically i suppose it has no space for us to be active. Its not a void, that assumes it has boundaries. It has no length breadth or depth, time does not exist.I'm sure you could be more descriptive.

Hum, I disagree. If we try to explain it, we admit its a concept. Is a concept something? Yes, but not something material that exists in the universe. Nothing is simply "The absence of anything". What is being pointed at an explained here is the concept.

Zetherin;95197 wrote:

I actually meant that I don't really understand what "creation" is, in the context being used here. I mean, I can conceptualize it, I suppose: Something comes out of nothing. But this is as vague in my mind as it is on paper. I've never experienced anything like that, and I don't even know what it really is, or what it entails.

It's not like we're saying, "Bill created a great Mediterranean dish", or something of the like. We're using "create" here in a manner that doesn't simply imply a changing of particles or materials, or a conjuring of a notion (such as, creating a name for your restaurant). We're using the verb here to mean that someone/something willed particles to come from nothing. Isn't that a little unclear to you? I mean, we're talking about magic here, are we not?

You mean you dont quite understand what qualifies as creation and what does not? As in: If I reunite vapor and condense it into liquid water, is that more "creative" than materializing water from seemingly nothing?

prothero;95372 wrote:

What does it mean to exist outside of time and space?
1. Why is there something rather than nothing?
2. What lies beyond infinity?
3. Was there time before the big bang?
4. What are the attributes of "nothing"?
5. There is a SOURCE which exists outside time and space and creates the universe?

I am generally not a fan of linguistic analysis but none of these questions are really comprehensible, sensible, or even meaningful. There can be no scientific and really no rational response.

One can appeal to mystery, to magic, to "creation", to mysticism (via negativa) or to religion for answers but not to science, not to facts, not to experience and barely to reason.

I am a theist but I am not a supernatural theist.
I support speculative philosophy but only as a rational endeavor which fully accounts for the findings of science and the facts of experience.
This really is a supernatural religious discussion pretending to be a rational philosophical discussion?

1. Unknow
2. Nothing
3. Maybe, There was at least something analogous to it
4. It has none
5. Yes

As the questions lie answered for the second time, I fail to see how there is no logic or reason to then.

xris;95384 wrote:

Ide like to ask everyone one question what do they think the circumstances were before the BB. Was the BB a constant concentrated mass of energy or was it formed from another source?

It could be anything. Maybe cosmic fireworks, and our universe is some sub-sub-sub atomic thing happening in this very very very small certain period of time during wich the firework is exploding.

prothero;95548 wrote:

Now I did not attack anyone personally, I attacked the thread as asking questions that were logically incomprehensible and providing answers of the same nature.
I also suggested that this was really a religious discussion not a scientific or speculative philosophy discussion. The "Source" has all the attributes of Aquinas's "God" or Plato's demiurge. The claim that this is not mystical, not supernatural and not fundamentally religious speculation is what I questioned.
Incomprehensible questions invariably yield incomprehensible answers.
My apologies for any offense, and I will leave you to your fun.

Your post did sound disrespectfull though. Especially this bit:

prothero;95372 wrote:

This really is a supernatural religious discussion pretending to be a rational philosophical discussion?

0 Replies

@Shostakovich phil,

kennethamy wrote:

Don't you just mean that you don't think that creation out of nothing can occur, and not that you don't understand what it means? I think everyone understands what it means, as you, yourself allowed when you said that you could conceptualize it. I know what it means for water to flow uphill, but I don't think it can occur.

It's not that I just don't think something can come from nothing. I have no clue how I would even observe that. I would presumably have to be seeing (literally) space, but space is something. I don't know what something coming from nothing actually means. I can only conceptualize things that I've seen in movies - as in, a fireball appearing magically out of thin air, for instance. But this isn't what these people are insinuating, I don't think.

manored wrote:

You mean you dont quite understand what qualifies as creation and what does not? As in: If I reunite vapor and condense it into liquid water, is that more "creative" than materializing water from seemingly nothing?

What we call creation deals with change. In your example, the changing of water particles. That's not what these people are talking about. Creationists are speaking about something coming from nothing. I don't know what that entails, what it would look like, or how I would visualize it. Sure, I understand the concept, just as I can understand the concept of "God", but I'm forced into ignostic stance until I receive further clarification. And even then, I usually don't understand.

1 Reply

Big bang cosmology

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know