Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Wayne92587]

No Flux, no quantum foam!

Vijaydevani #279 The concept of existence beginning does not make much sense because it would have to pop out of nothing,

Wayne Wrote; Absolutely Correct, First problem solved. Second problem what is meant by Nothingness.

Spirial Out;#271 Probably, but what is it unless realized (made real)? It's nothing. It's void. "It" may be there, but it's literally nothing, meaning it has no conceptual descriptive value; no characteristics.

The conceptualization of a "teeming flux made up Planck scale particles/waves/strings or even smaller objects" is loaded with subjective qualities.

Wayne wrote;

No Teeming Flux, no waves or strings, not even smaller objects but recognized to be Individual, Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularities having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0, nada, Zip, Zilch, Nothing.

Spiral Out #282

I'm not saying the Void is chaos, because chaos is something. I'm saying the Void is absolute nothingness. I'll be explaining this further in my topic.

wayne wrote; Absolutely True, Chaos being born of the Void, Nothingness, the Transcendental (metaphysical) Fully Random Quantum State of Quantum Singularity.

Misty #277 wrote; Genesis 1, God created the heavens and the earth, Genesis 2, the earth was without form and void - which agrees with you that there being something but unrecognized until it is organized

"However, I would expect that relative "blank slate" scenario would only apply to the first universe to appear (or the earliest of them). Are we the first, the earliest or the only?

Wayne Wrote; Absolutely True!! we are the second.

Greta 275 My understanding is that if you have a massive percolating sea of particles - be they quantum particles or something more fundamental, then at some stage areas of greater concentration must form, just as there must be less concentrated areas. That's just probability. From there, think about the accretion of planets in the dust orbiting a star. Once an accumulation of rubble reaches a certain threshhold it attracts more material and it effectively snowballs until it reached a relatively stable mass as a planet (or moon).

Wayne wrote; Absolutely True!



Let’s call the First State or Condition, consisting of an untold quantity, number, of a Fully Random Quantum State of Singularities having no relative numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0, to include, Time Space and Motion, to be the Transcendental (Metaphysical) Fully Random Quantum State of Singularity.

The Differentiation of Time Space and Motion, the Event Horizon, the beginning of Space-Time, the Universe, beginning at the Zero-0 Hour.

-- Updated May 26th, 2015, 1:16 pm to add the following --

Harbal it is a complete waste of my Time to even respond to any of you posts.

[Harbal]

Harbal it is a complete waste of my Time to even respond to any of you posts.

I agree. You've already got more than enough stuff to waste your time on.

[Jklint]

...when it was still dark outside.

[Sy Borg]

The concept of existence beginning does not make much sense because it would have to pop out of nothing, which, for the present, seems unacceptable to us. That does not exclude the minute possibility that existence also might have had a beginning. But our present understanding of logic suggests that it is highly unlikely. So it is safe to assume for now that existence has always existed.

What happened "before" 13.7 billion years ago, is not philosophy anymore but just conjecture. Anyone can come up with any answer and no one can either prove or disprove it. So why really bother?

Why bother? Interest. Curiosity. To put the answers on the table and see what comes up. I like to check out all the hypotheses and think of how they might combine. At present, I'm most keen on the quantum (or smaller) foam, string theory and holographic time, so my current guesses are based on those hypotheses, plus my own conjecture that there are scales of reality smaller than quantum particles.

Many a physics and maths problem has been solved by imagining what exists in the gaps of knowledge. Also, bear in mind that we are looking for explanatory models, not practical ones (which tend not to be explanatory).

[PoeticUniverse]

The concept of existence beginning does not make much sense because it would have to pop out of nothing, which, for the present, seems unacceptable to us. That does not exclude the minute possibility that existence also might have had a beginning. But our present understanding of logic suggests that it is highly unlikely. So it is safe to assume for now that existence has always existed.

What happened "before" 13.7 billion years ago, is not philosophy anymore but just conjecture. Anyone can come up with any answer and no one can either prove or disprove it. So why really bother?

Why bother? Interest. Curiosity. To put the answers on the table and see what comes up. I like to check out all the hypotheses and think of how they might combine. At present, I'm most keen on the quantum (or smaller) foam, string theory and holographic time, so my current guesses are based on those hypotheses, plus my own conjecture that there are scales of reality smaller than quantum particles.

Many a physics and maths problem has been solved by imagining what exists in the gaps of knowledge. Also, bear in mind that we are looking for explanatory models, not practical ones (which tend not to be explanatory).

We can find a truth before its proof, in which case we can defer the search for the proof.

Vijay has it right that Existence couldn't have popped out of Nothing, for 1) If there was a state of a lack of anything, that is, Nothing, then this lack would still be so, and 2) Nothing has no properties, which also proves that (1) could not be.

So, we have that Existence has no opposite, that it was ever—no choice, no options, and of no specific direction, there being no point at which to impart any certain impetus or design; so, the default necessity is Existence, which presumably has everything possible open to it, which it may even go through time and time again, maybe even in multiple wheres, too.

Thus, Existence has no beginning, no creation, and no end.

If one universe could begin, in no special place or time, then so could others.

It appears that matter is very easy to come by, there being so much of it even in our universe.

The Big Bang had to be a transformation of what Existence there already was.

[Atreyu]

Vijay has it right that Existence couldn't have popped out of Nothing, for 1) If there was a state of a lack of anything, that is, Nothing, then this lack would still be so, and 2) Nothing has no properties, which also proves that (1) could not be.

So, we have that Existence has no opposite, that it was ever—no choice, no options, and of no specific direction, there being no point at which to impart any certain impetus or design; so, the default necessity is Existence, which presumably has everything possible open to it, which it may even go through time and time again, maybe even in multiple wheres, too.

Thus, Existence has no beginning, no creation, and no end.

If one universe could begin, in no special place or time, then so could others.

It appears that matter is very easy to come by, there being so much of it even in our universe.

The Big Bang had to be a transformation of what Existence there already was.

I agree with your conclusion but not with the logic behind it. Your two maxims are highly questionable.

I share your conclusion based on the subjectivity of our cognition of time. My view is that even pondering any "beginning" is already a basic error because one is assuming one. The only reasonable position concerning any "beginning" is to consider a beginning of the Universe as we know it, and BB theory is one of many ideas concerning this issue....

[Wayne92587]

Poetic Universe wrote; #290

The Big Bang had to be a transformation of what Existence there already was.

Without a doubt Absolutely True!!!

[PoeticUniverse]

Poetic Universe wrote; #290

The Big Bang had to be a transformation of what Existence there already was.

Without a doubt Absolutely True!!!

So, what are the implications of a 'forever system'?

???
0) It is its own precursor; all of its inputs are of itself.

1) Everything already happened an infinite number of times? This doesn't seem likely, given that the infinite cannot be completed.

2) Anything needed is already there? Need matter to make light and light to make matter.

3) The basic existent is matter/energy/fields? Doesn't seem likely, since then what would have determined this finite amount (the infinite cannot be capped).

4) How come the amount of matter even in just our universe is so extravagantly large?

5) Does the basis of Existence have to be coterminous with substance but not necessarily cosubstantial? One would think that what IS must be everywhere.

6) Is the basic Existence one of presentism (only the present) or of eternalism (past, present, future)?

[Wayne92587]

There was no big bang; possibly a little whimper.

Existence came to be as a result of the Existence, Creation, of the Transcendental Cause, the creation of the Uncaused Cause, the First Singularity having relative, a numerical value of One-1 being the Single cause of the System of Chaos that has made manifest (as in the Butterfly Effect) the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything that exists.

Existence being everlasting, was born of a State or Condition that was Eternal, known to be the Transcendental (Metaphysical) Fully Random Quantum State of Singularity, the Reality of Everything being born of a single substance that had no mass, had no relative, numerical value, that has a numerical value of Zero-0, Nada, Zip, Zilch, Nothing.

The Transcendental (Metaphysical) Fully Random Quantum State of Singularity, consisting of an untold quantity of Individualities, Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularities having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0; Time, Space and Motion being meaningless, being undifferentiated, existing without displacement, without angular momentum, without velocity of Speed and Direction, Time, Space and Motion being infinite, immeasurable, Eternal.

The Transfiguration, conversion, the Transformation, in the Alchemical Sense of the Word, of something of little or no value being converted into something of greater value.

A Singularity of Zero-0, the motion of which being meaningless being converted into a Singularity having relative, a numerical value of One-1.

In order for a Singularity to have a numerical value of One-1 said singularity must exist as the First in a series, as the beginning of a process such as the Evolutionary Process, as the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, which requires a transformation in the Nature of Motion; a Singularity of Zero-0 having no displacement, not angular momentum, not velocity of speed and direction.

The natural motion of a Singularity Zero-0 being such that the motion of a Singularity of Zero-0 exists as an insignificant inner innate motion, vibration, as the osculation of Pure Unadulterated Heat Energy, with a Singularity of Zero-0 making a Humming Sound.

It was the Transformation of Meaningless motion of a Singularity of Zero-0 having no displacement, no angular momentum, no velocity of speed and direction into the motion of a Singularity of One-1, having relative, a numerical value of One-1, displacement, angularity momentum, velocity of speed and direction that allowed a Singularity of One-1 to become the Transcendental Cause of the Reality of Everything, the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe.

-- Updated June 3rd, 2015, 9:27 am to add the following --

PoeticUniverse wrote;

It appears that matter is very easy to come by, there being so much of it even in our universe.

Nothingness is nothingness because it is not a materiality, has no Matter, existing as a State or Condition in which an Untold quantity, number, of Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularities existed having no relative, numerical, material worth, having a numerical value of Zero-0, existing as pure unadulterated Energy.

It is an accumulation of, this substance having no mass, of these Particles, which in Mass make up the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything.

This state or condition of pure unadulterated Energy being the source of all that Matters, when it comes to existence.

[HZY]

The popular Big Bang theory which explains much, doesn't explain things like what set off the posited singularity let alone how it could expand to the dimensions of our space and we lack direct evidence for the theoretical dark matter and dark energy.

Decided to check the internet for updates and I've found a link giving three theories (I don't know if I'd buy Barbour's timelessly universe, the first two theories have more meat to them).

So the question is which of the three theories appeal to you? Which do you see have the strongest arguments going for it?

The link: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/25 ... vHsYZFOlzQ

Intuitively, based on what I know about quantum energy fluctuation within "nothingness of space and time", the universe must have begun before time begins. I am pretty sure of it but don't ask me to explained. This is just a feeling of mine.

[Atreyu]

So, what are the implications of a 'forever system'?

???
0) It is its own precursor; all of its inputs are of itself.

This would be true of the Universe regardless. All of the inputs of the Universe are contained within it, whether it eternally existed or not. By definition, the Universe can have no external "inputs".

1) Everything already happened an infinite number of times? This doesn't seem likely, given that the infinite cannot be completed.

I need to see your reasoning behind this one. No beginning does not imply that "everything happened an infinite number of times", as far as I can tell. But I would not assume that "the infinite cannot be completed". It cannot be completed in our minds, but in the Universe it not only can be completed, it is one of its fundamental attributes. Infinity is one of the laws of the Universe.

2) Anything needed is already there? Need matter to make light and light to make matter.

At some point, all that is needed is conscious intention. A primordial Consciousness could have made anything it wanted to, because there was no external force then to oppose it. You've heard of the phrase "your wish is my command"? Well, in this primordial state of the Universe, this Entity's wish was definitely a command, and a command of the highest order, since there were no other "commands" period. A solitary Being, with no peers to oppose it, can create anything imaginable, "inputs" notwithstanding.

3) The basic existent is matter/energy/fields? Doesn't seem likely, since then what would have determined this finite amount (the infinite cannot be capped).

I'm not following this one. Please elaborate. A Universe with no beginning need not be finite or infinite. No beginning implies neither. But my view is that the Universe can be viewed as either - it's infinite if taken without relation to time, but finite if taken only in the present moment. Another paradox - it's infinite and finite at the same time (in fact, it's Everything and Nothing at the same time).

4) How come the amount of matter even in just our universe is so extravagantly large?

Because we're so extravagantly small. "Large" and "small" are relative terms. But how does the amount of matter relate to this question?

5) Does the basis of Existence have to be coterminous with substance but not necessarily cosubstantial? One would think that what IS must be everywhere.

I agree, but I am not sure what you are driving at here.

6) Is the basic Existence one of presentism (only the present) or of eternalism (past, present, future)?

It's both. Only the present exists, objectively speaking. The "past" and the "future" are the parts of the Present which lie outside the boundaries of our direct and immediate perception and experience. But all moments of time eternally and simultaneously exist. Understanding this makes this last question moot. We can say that only the Present exists, as long as we understand that we are not referring to our present, but rather the "Present of the Universe", which incorporates the entire past and future as we know it.

[Wayne92587]

Atreyu# 296

All of the inputs of the Universe are contained within it, whether it eternally existed or not. By definition, the Universe can have no external "inputs".

Wayne wrote;

True, but then you ignore the possibility of Transfiguration, hocus pocus and abracadabra, metamorphoses, Alchemy. Magic, Transcendence, a Singularity having a Dual Quality, 0/1.

Magic explains it all; the beginning of the Universe, having no single direct material cause was Affect born of a System of Chaos which began, as in the Butterfly effect, of Singularity having a dual quality, by the First Singularity of Zero-0 to have relative numerical Value, One-1, by a the Singularity of 0/1, which appeared out of the clear Blue Sky, as if from nowhere, out of the Nothingness.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

The popular Big Bang theory which explains much, doesn't explain things like what set off the posited singularity let alone how it could expand to the dimensions of our space and we lack direct evidence for the theoretical dark matter and dark energy.

Wayne Wrote;

Reality as a Whole; the relativity of Time, Space and Motion, the Universe, beginning at the Zero-Hour, at the Event Horizon.

[Wilson]

I'm with Vijay that it doesn't make sense that the universe could have come out of nothing. It could theoretically have come into being as a quantum fluctuation - but that would require a framework of physical laws, which means that something was there before. Therefore, it is impossible that we are here. Yet we are.

As to the idea that the universe has always been here, the question is, how did that happen? We just have to accept on faith that it was always here, didn't have a beginning? I'm not sure that does us much good. Not satisfying.

If by "the universe" you mean the one we're currently in, the one that began with the big bang, then I actually like the multiverse idea - that there are mother and daughter universes, and that ours began from another universe, perhaps from a black hole. Remember, time is a function of the speed of light, and in a black hole, light barely moves, so our version of time, and our spatial dimensions, might be completely inaccessible from the mother universe that spawned us. Could it be that another universe is created whenever a black hole is formed, even here on Earth, each universe inaccessible from all the others? Probably not, but fun to think upon.

[Atreyu]

I'm with Vijay that it doesn't make sense that the universe could have come out of nothing. It could theoretically have come into being as a quantum fluctuation - but that would require a framework of physical laws, which means that something was there before. Therefore, it is impossible that we are here. Yet we are.

I agree with you that something cannot come from nothing. Very simple and sound proposition. Which is precisely what leads us to a Universe that always was....

As to the idea that the universe has always been here, the question is, how did that happen? We just have to accept on faith that it was always here, didn't have a beginning? I'm not sure that does us much good. Not satisfying.

You don't have to consider how a universe that always was "happened". In this context, "happened" is merely a substitute for "began". So saying that the Universe "always was" is the same thing as saying that "how it happened" is a moot issue. A Universe that always was might be happening (note the "ing"), but "happen" doesn't apply. The creation/beginning of the Universe never "happened" because it always was/is.

You don't have to accept this on faith. That would be absurd and counter to the basic principles of philosophy. The space-time model shows us that even considering beginnings and endings is a basic error, since every moment of the Universe exists concurrently and simultaneously. The very idea of "before, now, and after" is completely subjective, therefore there can be no "beginning" as it exists concurrently with the "end". The Universe simply is - it is we who subjectively divide it into "what was", "what is", and "what will be"....

If by "the universe" you mean the one we're currently in, the one that began with the big bang, then I actually like the multiverse idea - that there are mother and daughter universes, and that ours began from another universe, perhaps from a black hole. Remember, time is a function of the speed of light, and in a black hole, light barely moves, so our version of time, and our spatial dimensions, might be completely inaccessible from the mother universe that spawned us. Could it be that another universe is created whenever a black hole is formed, even here on Earth, each universe inaccessible from all the others? Probably not, but fun to think upon.

I worked on this idea long ago back when I was in college, and I agree that there might be something useful in this line of thinking. If we imagine matter being compressed in a black hole ad infinitum, eventually we can imagine it all being compressed to a literal point, and even beyond. This means that we can imagine the matter/energy somehow being sort of "turned inside out", as it is compressed "beyond a point", thereby "expanding" into a sort of "other Universe". A very interesting idea, which also, as you suggested, corroborates with the "multiverse" model and gives us a way of imagining how all those "other universes" could have came to be....

[Vijaydevani]

I'm with Vijay that it doesn't make sense that the universe could have come out of nothing. It could theoretically have come into being as a quantum fluctuation - but that would require a framework of physical laws, which means that something was there before. Therefore, it is impossible that we are here. Yet we are.

I agree with you that something cannot come from nothing. Very simple and sound proposition. Which is precisely what leads us to a Universe that always was....

I think the term, universe is misleading here. This form of existence which we call the universe has existed for 13.7 billion years or so and that seems to be more or less established. What I think that means is that, existence changed its state 13.7 billion years ago. As far as we are concerned, there is no "before" because time did not exist. Whatever existed, existed in a state which we would not have the ability to intuit, and that state would probably have no consequential bearing on this state of existence, which is our universe.

I also need to clarify that I learned this from Obvious Leo because I actually used to think that this universe came out of nothing and that did confuse me a lot. But Leo explained this (or at least this is what I thought he meant) in some of his previous posts and it made perfect sense to me.