Philosophy Discussion Forums

Vijaydevani wrote: 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.

Well, you can define "the Universe" that way, but really you are defining "the Universe as we know it and conceive it, which is not as inclusive and broad of a definition as "the Universe" taken as a principle - meaning that it includes Everything, both the known as well as the unknown, and even including the unknowable. When we define the Universe as All, meaning Everything period, in the most absolute meaning of the term, we do not find any "beginning" 13.7 billion years ago. All we find is an apparent "beginning", and a dubious one at that.

Vijaydevani wrote: 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.

Obviously something cannot come from nothing, in the absolute meaning of those terms. This is a logical absurdity. But something conceivable can certainly come from something inconceivable, and such a phenomenon could easily be interpreted or explained as "something coming from nothing". After all, we have every reason to expect that we would call something existing, but which lies outside the boundaries of anything we could imagine or think about, "nothing". If we don't see it, and if we cannot even imagine what it is, then certainly we are bound to say that "nothing" is there....

PoeticUniverse wrote:

Greta wrote: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.

I guess I'd better go on record as never at any stage claiming that the universe came from nothing, just in case it's interpreted that I've argued for that. I've long leaned towards the idea that the big bang/inflation was reality undergoing a state change, not emergence from nothing. I never bought the "there is no before" or "the question doesn't make sense" replies to questions about what happened before the big bang.

The Zero Hour

Nothing happened before the beginning of the Universe.

The latest theory as to the so called big bang is that there was no Single Point that went Bang; that the Universe began with an exposition of Time and Space, Explosion meaning the differentiation of the Singularity of Time and Space and Motion; differentiated Time and Space and motion being created at the moment of a multitude of explosions of the Singularities of Time and Space and Motion through out what was to become the Universe.

In the Beginning when the only thing that existed was existence itself, Everything existed as a Single Substance having no mass, to include Time, Space and Motion, each existing as an individuality, an Infinitely Finite, Indivisible Singularity having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of zero-0; the Universe beginning its existence, itself being unconditional, the Universe coming into existence as a State with Conditions, as both a Macrocosm and a Microcosm; existing as an omnipresent indivisible Singularity with in the Omnificence of a greater Whole, a Macrocosm that existed without differentiation.

Existence prior the beginning Moment of the Process of Creation being an unconditional State of existence, Existence after the beginning moment of the creation of the Universe being a State of existence with conditions.

Wayne92587 wrote:The Zero Hour

Nothing happened before the beginning of the Universe.

The latest theory as to the so called big bang is that there was no Single Point that went Bang; that the Universe began with an exposition of Time and Space, Explosion meaning the differentiation of the Singularity of Time and Space and Motion; differentiated Time and Space and motion being created at the moment of a multitude of explosions of the Singularities of Time and Space and Motion through out what was to become the Universe.

In the Beginning when the only thing that existed was existence itself, Everything existed as a Single Substance having no mass, to include Time, Space and Motion, each existing as an individuality, an Infinitely Finite, Indivisible Singularity having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of zero-0; the Universe beginning its existence, itself being unconditional, the Universe coming into existence as a State with Conditions, as both a Macrocosm and a Microcosm; existing as an omnipresent indivisible Singularity with in the Omnificence of a greater Whole, a Macrocosm that existed without differentiation.

Existence prior the beginning Moment of the Process of Creation being an unconditional State of existence, Existence after the beginning moment of the creation of the Universe being a State of existence with conditions.

Twaddle..

I have not found anything of in any of your posts, so this the type of response that I have learned to expect from you.

Your friend Leroy.

Wayne92587 wrote:I have not found anything of in any of your posts, so this the type of response that I have learned to expect from you.

You see, Wayne, you can write in plain English, when you try.

Do you think so, Alec?

I don't understand Wayne's last sentence.

Wayne wrote:I have not found anything of in any of your posts, so this [-] the type of response that I have learned to expect from you.

I get the last bit. He doesn't like your responses. But he gives no indication of why he finds them objectionable.

Wayne needs to learn how to construct a grammatical sentence in English.

How he manages to read the bible is anyone's guess.

Lagayscienza wrote:Do you think so, Alec?

I don't understand Wayne's last sentence.

Wayne wrote:I have not found anything of in any of your posts, so this [-] the type of response that I have learned to expect from you.

I get the last bit. He doesn't like your responses. But he gives no indication of why he finds them objectionable.

Wayne needs to learn how to construct a grammatical sentence in English.

How he manages to read the bible is anyone's guess.

Yes, I see what you mean. But, in a way, it does illustrate my point: In his usual posts you wouldn't be able to tell if he'd left any words out because they wouldn't make any sense either way.

Wayne92587 wrote: Should read, I have not found anything of any value in any of your posts

I have never put anything of any value in any of my posts, which explains why you've never found it.

Hello Alec.

You are so right on when you say you have not added anything of value on this post. But then, no one else has either. Whenever this topic comes up it leads to all kinds of strange speculation, religious beliefs and really bizarre ideas. The very best we can say is that we have no idea even whether there was a beginning or perhaps it has always existed.

Perhaps in due time science can gain some more information but for now I'm happy there are some mysteries left.

Regards, John.

This thread has fallen into social media style commentary so may I recommend a lead story about the deposition of Australia's PM, Tony Abbott. Gone is the man who said that virginity is ''the greatest gift you can give someone", that he felt "a bit threatened" by gays and that "climate change is crap".

With the social media segment out of the way, we can now address the most recent post to try to engage the actual topic:

Wayne92587 wrote:The Zero Hour

Nothing happened before the beginning of the Universe.

The latest theory as to the so called big bang is that there was no Single Point that went Bang; that the Universe began with an exposition of Time and Space, Explosion meaning the differentiation of the Singularity of Time and Space and Motion; differentiated Time and Space and motion being created at the moment of a multitude of explosions of the Singularities of Time and Space and Motion through out what was to become the Universe ....

Existence prior the beginning Moment of the Process of Creation being an unconditional State of existence, Existence after the beginning moment of the creation of the Universe being a State of existence with conditions.

I have a problem with the "singularity" model, in that it makes no sense - an infinitely dense zone of zero volume with zero entropy and total stability as it sits in a void explodes. Not really much better than "God dunnit". The singularity would not, and could not, have been a stable condition but is clearly a transitional state between other states (in m-theory, the singularity would be the first point of contact between colliding branes).

We know something about the ensuing states several Planck intervals after the BB but we don't yet know how to probe what came before t=0. Wayne, by "unconditional state of existence" you are essentially saying that the current laws of physics did not apply, which is the usual assumption. What we must have is non-physical reality with zero energy but must necessarily contain information - but in the absence of energy, what does the information describe? The multiverse, field theory and quantum emergence models all posit a seething field of entities at either Planck or quantum scale that constantly bubbles up particles that grow until they extinguish - be it in a nanosecond or a quintillion years - and that creates a universe. The multiverse and quantum emergence hypotheses are very similar in nature, if not detail. The nature of that field is up fro grabs - some say it's strings, some that it's quantum particles, some say it's pure being.

There's the quantum loop gravity model that posits a bang/crunch model, so that before the big bang was the end of the previous universe. It's popular with rationalists due to its Occam economy.

Some, like Roger Penrose, wonder if mathematics underpins physical reality, because mathematics can not only describe all of physical reality, but it can also provide cohesive models that are not part of reality (as far as we know so far).

The New Agers have a sacred geometry model where undefined "spirit" expands via Platonic shapes, starting with circles that expand from a single point that eventually manifest into the "flower of life", which is a complex shape that appeared independently in various cultures through history and is considered to be a fractal of many shapes found in nature, such as those described by the Fibonacci sequence. Basically, it's a theist position that tries to explain the physical process of how a deity might creates. It's not miles from the Penrose position of fundamental mathematics, except that the New Agers extrapolate the concept with spiritual assumptions.

A listing of hypotheses here: http://www.bigbangcentral.com/before_bb_page.html

Greta wrote; I have a problem with the "singularity" model, in that it makes no sense - an infinitely dense zone of zero volume with zero entropy and total stability as it sits in a void explodes.

Wayne wrote;

I did not say that Singularity existed as an infinitely dense zone of zero volume with zero entropy and total stability as it sits in a void, explodes.

The problem in understandings Singularity is the fact that Singularity has a dual quality; 0/1, the two qualities of each being stable.

The difference between a Singularity of Zero-0 and a Singularity of One-1 being that a Singularity of Zero-0 has no relative, numerical value, while the Singularity of One-1, as a Singularity, in order to exist, must have relative, Numerical value; a Singularity One-1 existing in part as part of a Greater Whole, being the first in a series such as cause and effect, as the beginning of a process such as the Evolutionary Process, as the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, such as the Universe, Existence having conditions.

A Singularity of One-1 if it did not exist in part as part of a greater whole, would simply exist as a Singularity having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0; a Singularity of One-1 simply being a Transfiguration, a rebirth, a conversion of a Singularity of Zero-0 into a Singularity of One-1.

The Singularity of Zero-0 not being the Singularity that went "Bang", that exploded; explosion meaning to became differentiated.

The Singularity of One-1, being that it existed in part as part of a greater whole, the Greater Whole, existing as a Macrocosm, as the Transcendental (metaphysical) Fully Random Quantum State of Singularity; the Whole of Reality existing as a Macrocosm filled with an untold quantity of ever present quantity of Omnificent, of Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularities having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0.

At the Event-Horizon, the Zero-Hour, the First Singularity to have relative, a numerical value of One-1, as a Singularity of Zero-0 was transfigured, was reborn, converted, morphed into the First Singularity to have relative, a Numerical value of One-1, to exist in part as part of a greater whole, 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, the differentiated State of Time, Space and Motion, the Universe.

The Universe existing as a Conditional State of Existence while the previous State of Existence, The Unconditional State of Nothingness, simply Existence its self, Existence being a State without conditions, an Unconditional State of Existence.

Wayne's world.

Wayne, if you don't mind me asking, where do you get your information? Or is it intuition?

What you've written sounds like a rebadged version of cosmic inflation - some particles inflate and some don't. It would seem that in your model a singularity is a Planck scale object (string?). In that case, if I'm reading you right, then you're suggesting that there wasn't just one singularity but many, which can either remain in the "0-state" or move into a "1-state" that results in cosmic inflation - the creation of a new universe within a multiverse.

Very close

-- Updated September 16th, 2015, 11:26 am to add the following --

Greta wrote;

Wayne, if you don't mind me asking, where do you get your information? Or is it intuition?

What you've written sounds like a rebadged version of cosmic inflation - some particles inflate and some don't. It would seem that in your model a singularity is a Planck scale object (string?). In that case, if I'm reading you right, then you're suggesting that there wasn't just one singularity but many, which can either remain in the "0-state" or move into a "1-state" that results in cosmic inflation - the creation of a new universe within a multiverse.

Wayne wrote; I did not say that the unconditional state of existence was absent of energy.

Your terminology is you own and only confuses what I am saying.


Greta you can not understand what I am saying by using old technical Terminology that only resembles what I am trying to say.

-- Updated September 16th, 2015, 11:48 am to add the following --

Vijaydevani wrote:

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.

Wayne wrote;

True, Existence itself, to include the existence of Time, Space, and Motion prior to existence changing its state, as you said did not have the ability to intuit, had no consequential bearing on this state of existence, which is our universe.

Existence in this state being boundless, unconditional, Time, Space and Motion being everlasting, Eternal, each, everything, existing as an Undifferentiated Singularity, existed in an Unconditional state of existence; after existence changed its state, existence became conditional, the Universal State of Existence having conditions, Existence within the Universe being conditional.

In the Beginning the existence of Time, Space, and Motion were Unconditional; the Singularity of Time having no conditions was undifferentiated, was everlasting, Eternal; Space as an undifferentiated Singularity was Empty, existed as a Great Void; Undifferentiated Motion being boundless, being unrestricted, being uncaused, Motion existing as an oscillation, a vibration, a negligible innate inner motion of an Omnipresent Singularity of Zero-0; a Singularity of Zero-0 existing without displacement, without angular Motion, without velocity of speed and direction, nothing going anywhere, everything doing nothing, existing without cause, said negligible inner innate motion, emotion, being the seed, the Spirit, the Nature, of all living things; the heat energy, Passion generated by the negligible Inner innate motion of an Omnificent Singularity alone in the Emptiness of Time and Space, existing as though it were the Immortal Spirit of God.

The state of existence prior the Existence of the Universe, the conditional state of existence, the unconditional state of existence had no consequential bearing on this state of existence, which is our universe.

The First Singularity to have relative, a numerical value of One-1, being uncaused was an affect that became the single direct material cause (as in the Butterfly Effect) of a system of Chaos that then made manifest Reality of The Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything that is and is not.

-- Updated September 16th, 2015, 12:14 pm to add the following --

Greta Wrote;

Wayne, if you don't mind me asking, where do you get your information? Or is it intuition? [/quote]

Wayne wrote;

I do not like to use the word intuition go explain where I get my information from, although I am sure that is where some of my thoughts come from.

I know what I am looking for before I find it, just not in detail.

I jumble a whole bunch of thoughts, on say for instance Singularity, and mix them all up until I come up with a Single thought on the whole, that makes sense to me.