Philosophy Discussion Forums

Fanman wrote:If quantum mechanics was able to find a "solid" or viable theory for the formation of the universe which was at odds with the current theories such as the big bang, which would take precedent for you and why?

I would have no problems letting go of the big bang. Out of absolute nothingness, not even time or space, comes an unfathomable rush of raw energy? That takes some 'splaining. The idea suggests to me a gigantic leak, like a punctured high pressure fluid container - but a puncture in what? Aside from inflation, one of the more elegant narratives going around is m-theory - where the BB is postulated to be the collision of 'branes existing in different dimensions, which then fill with the energy of the collision.

There's a beautiful theory about the creation of the universe based on holographic time. Below is an excerpt from the Through the Wormhole episode, "Will eternity end?" (recommended):

Is our universe destined to die in a cosmic cataclysm? Perhaps not, because time may not be what we think it is, and all of eternity might already exist.

Physicists tell us that time is the fourth dimension but it's not like the other three that we move around in. In space, I could walk from here to here and then turn around and go back again. Time's dimension seems different.
We only move through it in one direction.

But there may be a way to grasp all of eternity if we stop thinking about time as a dimension and start thinking about time as a projection from the future to the past.

For Harvard physicist Andy Strominger, the difference between the future and the past is a deep puzzle because, according to the known laws of physics, they should be exactly the same. There's a very basic principle of physics which begin with Newton. The past determines the future, and the laws of physics can be run forward or backwards. So, if I take this motion of this pendulum hanging from the pencil and you run the movie forward or backwards, it looks exactly the same.

But there's a huge white elephant in the room of physics, and that's the Big Bang. So, the cartoon picture of the Big Bang is that there was nothing. Somebody flipped a switch, and, all of a sudden, all the something that we know of was present. So, the past of our Universe and the future of our Universe look fundamentally different.

To resolve this paradox, Andy began to imagine the dimension of time a radical new way -- as a hologram. Holograms are two-dimensional plates from which a third dimension of space appears to emerge. Andy wondered if he could apply this idea not to space but to time. Perhaps a dimension of time is just a holographic projection. Time is a kind of illusion and the whole universe is written at a hologram that is sitting there at the end of time and projected backwards through our present era back to the Big Bang.

The hologram that contains everything the universe ever was and ever will be is like this intricate ice crystal [shows large crystal sculpture a couple of feet high). According to Andy, it sits in the far future and projects information back into the past.

So, this sculpture represents the holographic plate, which contains all the information about the entire lifetime of the Universe. As I look at this very closely, I can see more and more detail. From far away, or more accurately, from further back in time, there would be less and less detail, less and less information present in the universe itself. The further you get from a holographic plate, the less information you can read on it.

So, as we travel back in time from our present day, in a highly complex universe of planets, stars, and galaxies, we move to a simpler past, to a universe the way it was billions of years ago, filled with nothing more than clouds of gas. Eventually, if you go far enough back in time, before the Big Bang, there is simply nothing there at all.

Holographic time is the only theory that logically explains how our Universe began from nothing. Once you get too far back in time from the holographic plate, it cannot project back any more information. Before the Big Bang, there is no information in the universe.

In a holographically-emergent universe, we don't have a Big Bang. There isn't a special moment when, all at once, everything in the universe came into being. Rather, we have an ongoing continual bang, which started from nothing and kept banging and banging onto the future. In the past, there was nothing. In the future, there is everything.

The mathematics behind Andy's theory are highly complex. Holographic time is not laid out like any normal dimension. As you go further and further into the future, the same increment of time moves you less and less far forward. So it would take an infinite amount of time to actually arrive at the holographic plate.

In this picture, our Universe goes on forever into the future and gets bigger and bigger and keeps growing and creating new elements. So we don't know that it describes our universe. We're very far from that but we do know that it is something which can be discussed with some mathematical precision and consistency, and that's a starting point.

That would make the first moment of the big bang simply the most distant perspective of the "everything" at the end of time which we would never reach, slowing down as we approached just as matter can only approach but never quite achieve the speed of light.

All these hypotheses could be wildly wrong for all we know. Then again, reality may be perspective-based, in which case in the theories with viable math would all be at least partially correct, like the blind men and the elephant.

Greta, It is not my intent to give you a difficult time but it is important to know where you came up with Teaser.

Saying that nothing is something can not be said to be a tease.

-- Updated January 17th, 2016, 6:05 pm to add the following --

Keiran #404 wrote; I think anyone asking "When did the universe begin" has a serious logic problem or a very naïve conception of time. Maybe is it due to having a presentist vision of the universe.

A serious problem with logic, Yes!

Logic requires Physical, material evidence.

The substance from which the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything was made manifest from, had no mass; there is no logical reason, empirical cause, for the Physical Universe to have a beginning, to have been born of nothing, to even exist.

Existing as nothingness, there is no logical reason, empirical cause for the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything to come into existence.

In Fact, it is not even possible, given the nature of Nothingness, for something to even appear out of the clear blue sky as if by magic.

Wayne92587 wrote:Greta, It is not my intent to give you a difficult time but it is important to know where you came up with Teaser.

Saying that nothing is something can not be said to be a tease.

Wayne, Lawrence Krauss said himself that his use of "nothing" in the title of his book was a tease. "A Universe from Nothing" is provocative and also works for him in his "new atheist" role.

He was making the point that empty space (which he refers to as "nothing" in the title) is not empty, that it's full of energy. He makes no claims about absolute nothingness in an ontological sense.

Greta:

Thanks. You've posted some very interesting subject matter. As science progressess, and is able to "look at" / investigate how the universe began in more and more detail, I think that theories will gain more viability or solidarity. The current theories are very interesting at the moment, and if the maths is correct even better, as they're onto something tangible. But I think you may agree, that you wouldn't bet your house on any of the current theories being correct. There's still so much enquiry to do. It will be interesting to see if quantum or Newtonian (I think that's right) science ultimately gets the nod in this subject of enquiry.

I think there's no doubt that the current science is correct but I am sure there are other valid perspectives. It's hard to imagine an intelligent race on another planet devising exactly the same models as ours.

Fanman; Quantum mech is not applicable to solids.

Greta, thanks for your response as to the word Teaser.

To say that everything is born of nothing is not a tease, it is however a play on words.

I myself believe and have said many times on this forum that something, that Everything is born of Nothingness.

Something is an unspecified or not definitely known thing.

However Nothingness is not technically something, something having a material, physical existence, while Nothingness does not exist as a material, physical Reality, Nothingness existing as “pure unadulterated” Energy; energy being a substance that carries no weight, has no mass.

Science is not currently correct (well maybe half correct) the current scientific theories, without intent, are deceptive, are a half-truth, one big 'Lie".

You can use math (God being the creator of integers) to glean an understanding of the Universe, to include the creation, the beginning, of the Universe.

By using math based upon a Transcendental Singularity having a dual quality, 0\1; prime numbers beginning with 2-Two having relative, numerical value as a grouping of a Singularity having a dual, 0\1.

Mathematics base upon the dual quality of a Transcendental Singularity 0\1, being the gateway to the manifold secrets of the Universe.

There was, is, will always be a Singularity which as it issues forth attains a second quality, is given a second, two names, becomes a “transcendental” Singularity having the dual quality of 0\1.

These two, 0\1 are of a single source which as a Singularity of Zero-0 is naturally transfigured as it issues forth, is displaced, attaining angular momentum, velocity of speed and direction.

It is the change in the nature of the motion of a Singularity that causes the Singularity of Zero-0 to become Transcendental, the first singularity to have relative value.

Motion having angular momentum converting the Singularity of Zero-0 into the First Singularity to have relative, a Numerical Value of One-1.

The primordial nature of the motion a Singularity of One-1, being that of a Singularity of Zero-0, being meaningless, existing without displacement, angular momentum, velocity of speed and direction.

It is the Nature of the Motion of the first Singularity to have relative, a numerical value of One-1 as it issued forth having two, a second quality is given two names due to the vast differentiation in the nature of the two.

Prior to it issuing forth a Singularity had no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0.

A Singularity of Zero-0 upon issuing forth, being displaced, acquiring angular momentum, velocity of speed and direction became relative as the Reality of First Cause, the First Singularity to have relative, a numerical value of One-1; Singularity becoming a Transcendent Singularity having a dual quality, 0\1.

Due to the fact that as a Singularity of Zero-0 issued forth, the Transcendental Singularity having been displaced, a Random Singularity Zero-0 was no doubt the first Singularity to become relative, to attain a numerical value of One-1 becoming the first in a series, the beginning of a process such as the Evolutionary Process, by becoming the beginning of a continuum such as the Space-Time.

Having transcended the chasm between nothing and something, the Transcendent Singularity, 0\1, became the direct cause (as in the Butter Fly Effect) became the direct cause of a “System of Chaos”.

The angular momentum of a Singularity of One-1 not only being the cause of the System of Chaos, the Transcendental Singularity, 0\1, also began the bringing of “Order” to the Chaos.

Order within the Chaos, being responsible for the creation of the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything.

In order to understand the end of Time, Space and motion, Space-Time you must understand that for the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything to exist you must make a change the way in which you think about the order in the way things happen.

Instead of beginning with something and ending with nothing, in order for the Heaven and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything to exist you must start with nothing and end with something, that is if Reality, if existence itself, is to be everlasting, Eternal.

The Transcendental Singularity in the beginning existing as a Singularity having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0 was without merit, existing as a substance having no mass, the motion of a Singularity of Zero-0 being meaningless, existing without displacement, without angular momentum, without velocity of speed and direction, existing as the negligible innate inner motion of any and all of the untold omnipresent Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularities existing within the Omnificence of the Fully Random Transcendental Quantum State of Singularity.

The relativity, the numerical value of a Singularity of One-1 being based upon the fact that the Reality of First Cause became the first in a series, the beginning of a process, such as the Evolutionally Process, the beginning of a Continuum such as Space-Time.

Greta wrote:Wayne, Lawrence Krauss said himself that his use of "nothing" in the title of his book was a tease.

It was simply a marketing ploy.

Greta wrote:"A Universe from Nothing" is provocative and also works for him in his "new atheist" role. He was making the point that empty space (which he refers to as "nothing" in the title) is not empty, that it's full of energy. He makes no claims about absolute nothingness in an ontological sense.

The title is elliptical for "A universe from (something I call) nothing (but which isn't really nothing)".

Consul wrote:The title is elliptical for "A universe from (something I call) nothing (but which isn't really nothing)".

Exactly. He seemed to enjoy the poetic irony too, and the fact that it is a quasi naturalistic air about it of the kind that annoys creationists.

So far a random/chaotic instance of cosmic inflation in an environment where the biggest thing aside from the inflating universe is of subatomic scale would seem the leading candidate, at least for this universe. However, as Fanman and I discussed earlier, these hypotheses only provide a hypothesised dynamic without much understanding of the mechanism, trigger or larger perspective.

Greta; The Title in any book is meant to peak the interest of the reader, the use of the word tease by the author does not mean that the use of "nothingness is unfounded.

To Tease, in general, is to be deceptive.

I am not saying that the belief in something that has been identified as being God is unfounded.

I believe in the same thing as the person that believes in God, I simply to not speak of it, give it the name God.

I am just saying it is Blasphemous to speak of sacred, secret, hidden things, which means to give a name to, that which some choose to name, to define as being, God.

God is just a word, to use the word God as a name, the word God being a metaphor, distorts, perverts, the true nature, reality, of that which they choose to call God, is Blasphemy.

You are not to look upon the Face of God.

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.

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

I think you misinterpret what the Big bang was supposed to entail: It is not a theory that explains the singularity, it is a model of expansion and inflation that occurred immediately after the singularity "released" (for lack of a better term). The Big Bang is actually a misnomer, for it does not describe an explosion - it models inflation of spacetime. Precisely because thermodynamic entropy doesn't make sense to be described before the Big bang - and given that thermodynamic entropy is one way to define the passage of time - it wouldn't make sense to describe the Big Bang as having occurred at any "time". Rather, the Big Bang was the beginning of time ( and space :] ).

ThamiorTheThinker wrote: I think you misinterpret what the Big bang was supposed to entail: It is not a theory that explains the singularity, it is a model of expansion and inflation that occurred immediately after the singularity "released" (for lack of a better term). The Big Bang is actually a misnomer, for it does not describe an explosion - it models inflation of spacetime. Precisely because thermodynamic entropy doesn't make sense to be described before the Big bang - and given that thermodynamic entropy is one way to define the passage of time - it wouldn't make sense to describe the Big Bang as having occurred at any "time". Rather, the Big Bang was the beginning of time ( and space :] ).

Interesting how this coincides with Genesis 1: 1-2.

Misty wrote:

Interesting how this coincides with Genesis 1: 1-2.[/quote]

Coincides, though not necessarily by design. When I was once a Christian (I am now agnostic), I would argue that the Big Bang explained all that came after the Christian God - Yahweh - spoke the universe into existence, the singularity being the embodied design of the universe in the mind of Yahweh (God).

Of course, I no longer believe this, but I am not a sound judge of truth, for I am human. I think the evidence stacks against the Bible - for it was influenced by other ancient writings around it during its conception - but again, I am no judge of truth. I am only a judge of reason.

ThamiorTheThinker wrote;

the Interesting how this coincides with Genesis 1: 1-2.

Coincides, though not necessarily by design. When I was once a Christian (I am now agnostic), I would argue that the Big Bang explained all that came after the Christian God - Yahweh - spoke the universe into existence, the singularity being the embodied design of the universe in the mind of Yahweh (God).

Of course, I no longer believe this, but I am not a sound judge of truth, for I am human. I think the evidence stacks against the Bible - for it was influenced by other ancient writings around it during its conception - but again, I am no judge of truth. I am only a judge of reason.
[/quote]



ThamiorTheThinker; You were more correct in your thinking, as a believer than you are now as an agnostic.

The Big Bang does not explain everything, it does not explain, other than in theory, the Nature of the Singularity that went Bang.
What existed before the Big Bang??

Some Big Bang theorist have back peddled, now saying that there never was an explosive type Bang; however the definition of a Big Bang, an Explosion, is a rapid expansion of heat and gases.

There is good reason why many believe that the Reality of everything, that existence itself, to include the existence of Time and Space, was born of the mind of God.

The reason being that a creation is not born of ordinary means, cause and effect, the laws of nature; a creation being an original product of a particular state or condition of the mind; a Flash of insight; Freedom of Mind not being clouded by the need to satisfy desires of the Flesh.

In order to get a patent, your product must be of your own creation, must be an original idea, a original product of your mind, be the result of a Flash of insight, that your Idea makes such an improvement that it becomes an original product of your mind, a new and completely different product.

In order for the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything that exists in the material, physical, sense of the word, to be a Creation, the only thing to exist prior to the moment of Creation, would have to be Nothing.

Nothing is descriptive of nothing; meaning that nothing, that nonexistence was the Reality before the beginning moment of creation; the word nothing exchanged for the word Nothingness.

Nothingness being a noun, the name of a person, place or thing, transforms nothing into something, in to some form of existence, design, intent, purpose in mind.

The mind of God, is a particular State of Condition, the reality of existence being a state of condition of Singularity; a state of Singularity in which not only nothing, but even the possibility of existence does not even exist; the laws of nature, there not even being any possibility of existence itself, not even Time and Space.

The Relativity of Time Space and Motion having displacement, measurable as to location and momentum in Space-Time being necessary in order for Reality to exist in the material, physical sense of the word.

Therefore there is good reason to believe that the Reality of Everything is born of a particular State or Condition.

The Reality of this State or Condition being defined as being the Mind or God; that if the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, that the Reality of Everything is a Creation, then the Reality of Everything is an original Product of the mind of God.
Accidents do not just happen. Accidents are Created.

The beginning of the moment of creation not be born of ordinary means, the laws of nature, cause and effect, being an affect born of a partiuclar State or Condition.

Wayne92587 wrote: ThamiorTheThinker; You were more correct in your thinking, as a believer than you are now as an agnostic.

The Big Bang does not explain everything, it does not explain, other than in theory, the Nature of the Singularity that went Bang.
What existed before the Big Bang??

Some Big Bang theorist have back peddled, now saying that there never was an explosive type Bang; however the definition of a Big Bang, an Explosion, is a rapid expansion of heat and gases.

There is good reason why many believe that the Reality of everything, that existence itself, to include the existence of Time and Space, was born of the mind of God.

The reason being that a creation is not born of ordinary means, cause and effect, the laws of nature; a creation being an original product of a particular state or condition of the mind; a Flash of insight; Freedom of Mind not being clouded by the need to satisfy desires of the Flesh.

In order to get a patent, your product must be of your own creation, must be an original idea, a original product of your mind, be the result of a Flash of insight, that your Idea makes such an improvement that it becomes an original product of your mind, a new and completely different product.

In order for the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything that exists in the material, physical, sense of the word, to be a Creation, the only thing to exist prior to the moment of Creation, would have to be Nothing.

Nothing is descriptive of nothing; meaning that nothing, that nonexistence was the Reality before the beginning moment of creation; the word nothing exchanged for the word Nothingness.

Nothingness being a noun, the name of a person, place or thing, transforms nothing into something, in to some form of existence, design, intent, purpose in mind.

The mind of God, is a particular State of Condition, the reality of existence being a state of condition of Singularity; a state of Singularity in which not only nothing, but even the possibility of existence does not even exist; the laws of nature, there not even being any possibility of existence itself, not even Time and Space.

The Relativity of Time Space and Motion having displacement, measurable as to location and momentum in Space-Time being necessary in order for Reality to exist in the material, physical sense of the word.

Therefore there is good reason to believe that the Reality of Everything is born of a particular State or Condition.

The Reality of this State or Condition being defined as being the Mind or God; that if the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, that the Reality of Everything is a Creation, then the Reality of Everything is an original Product of the mind of God.
Accidents do not just happen. Accidents are Created.

The beginning of the moment of creation not be born of ordinary means, the laws of nature, cause and effect, being an affect born of a partiuclar State or Condition.

Actually, the Big Bang Theory never stated that there was an "explosion". From the moment of its conception, the Big Bang Theory was about inflation and expansion. Some critics of the theory coined the term "Big Bang" a an insult - because they thought that physicists were suggesting that the universe began with an explosion. Truthfully, though, that was a misconception of what the theory asserts.

I'm not quite certain I understand what you wrote, Wayne. Your words are very poetic - but in being poetic, they are very convoluted. Would you mind stating what you wrote a bit more simply, without the poetic language?

You should ask me to explain a specific part of my post that you do not understand.

What do you think that I meant by saying that the Bang Bang, an explosion, is to be defined as being a Rapid expansion of heat and gases?.

Who has heard from the horse's mouth, the creator of the Theory of the Big Bang, that it was never meant to be taken as an being an Explosion??

We Speak in metaphors, attempt to give the best explanation of what we mean.

If the term Big Bang was never meant infer that an explosion took place they should have use a different metaphor to explain how the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, that the existence of Everything came into existence, was Created.

Yes, I said created; what is confusing about that.

My use of the Phrase, "The Heavens and the Earth" does not confuse you does it????

That phrase being somewhat poetic??


I believe that the Theorist knew exactly what they meant by coining the Theory as being, "The Theory of the Big Bang."