Before Creation: Nothing or Something

[BilliardsBall]

One of the anchors of a spiritual world view is to tie in the spiritual reality to the practical, physical one via that which existed prior to creation. The understanding is that the ultimate mystery of the origin of anything and everything is a logical opening through which the spiritual can be equated with the mundane and actual.

In my study of science I have long been fascinated by the idea of a self-created Universe whose laws explain its origin. I assumed some such explanation was possible and elegant. But now I wonder at whether such a belief is elegant at all. Starting with nothing how do we reason regarding the plain facts of the actuality?

If we look at the origin of anything we will find a complex, creative background (whether conscious or not) out of which that thing has arisen. Then wouldn't the most elegant assumption be that the Universe as a whole did the same?

The irony here is that the Universe is usually defined as that which includes all we know, so if there was a something before the Universe then we would not know about it by the definition of the term and the question I have asked would become unanswerable except as, perhaps, a useful exercise of the subjective imagination creating meaning.

So can we know whether there was nothing or something prior to the existence of the Universe?

I have a middle ground idea which I will introduce, if appropriate during the course of conversation.

The something universe has to disobey all known laws of entropy to be eternal, and disobey conservation of matter/energy to avoid being created ex nihilo!

 

[sealchan]

I can see that my thread title is losing my way...I have sparked an interesting discussion regarding the details of the early BB model. But more so I wanted to talk about the Nothing vs the Something.

If this post fails to steer us clear then I will start a new thread.

To get us past the understanding of time as part of the Universe, let's change the focus from what was before creation to what was outside of creation.

The Universe can be defined as the set of all things and as such we can come to the simple understanding that nothing lies outside the scope of what is the Universe. However in our understanding of the origins of the universe we debate about whether there is a something (like God) or there was nothing (self-contained laws of physics).

My thinking has been leading me to prefer the notion that the Universe is not a self contained entity but like everything else it arises out of a creative background. Furthermore that fact may be detectable not only from our scientific efforts but also by virtue of the necessity of how our minds make meaning through story.

I will make individual replies to comments in an effort to steer this thread in this direction.

 

[sealchan]

Precisely.

At least, that is how it is in the Big Bang version based on General Relativity. Once quantum effects come into play, it *might* be possible to extend time infinitely far back. That depends on which version of quantum gravity you think it correct.

I want to get past this discussion of time and talk about what, if anything, exists outside the known Universe and whether we can say anything at all about that.

Let me ask you an open ended question...what, in science, constitutes and understanding of the boundary that Mark's the origin or "edge" of the Universe. I understand the notion of a four dimensional universe with a topology such that there are no literal edges. I also understand that time is included in that.

Can we discuss, then, what the Universe looks like when we reach its metaphorical edge?

 

[sealchan]

The "what ifs" are endless because the mystery is total. That's the point. Our speculations don't tell us anything about the nature of existence so much as it tells us about us.

In science mysteries have a way of being reshaped and the discussion of the origin of the Universe is a famous one between the religious and the scientific communities.

I think I want to argue against both the idea that the universe arose out of nothing and that the universe has existed forever. I also dont think it is necessary to think of a God having created the universe although in my faith I find this useful. All of these ideas seem to protect the mystery as is by giving a sense of finality to the origin story of the Universe.

I want to explore what I think is more likely, that the Universe evolved out of a creative background, a something, and that this is or will be detectable in our scientific efforts (extra dimensions, multiple worlds, virtual particles, etc) and is implied in our stories of God as projection of our inner psychological experience.

 

[sealchan]

@sealchan


In the most specified and detailed ancient cultural Myths of Creation tellings, there are NO beginning and NO end at all.

When we in the Western cultures thinks otherwise, this derives from the biblical interpretation which is disconnected from the astronomical and cosmological locations, which is described in the more precise other cultural tellings.

Take for instants the Egytian story of creation (The Ogdoad) which specifically is connected to the Milky Way formation via the Egyptian goddess Hathor. In this story everything is said to be eternal but with eternal changes between formation, dissolution and re-formation.

When ascribing this Egyptian story to the Milky Way, our Egyptian ancestors just desribes the "beginning" pre-conditions and factual formation of the Milky Way and everything in it, which was the ancient world picture. So this story don´t deal with any beginning or end of the entire Universe at all.

And if you study Comparative Mythology and Religion you´ll discover why these are very similar, just using some different local symbolics for the very same story, the creation of the Milky Way in where we all live.

That is: The ancient world picture really confirms your:

In my study of science I have long been fascinated by the idea of a self-created Universe whose laws explain its origin.

I've been watching Bill Moyer's interview of Joseph Campbell The Power of Myth...it is well-substantiated, what you are saying, that the various origin stories are different ways of telling a very similar story. I find that the similarities hinge one two sources: one is the apparent facts of the nature of the Universe and two is the unconscious molding of the human psyche that determines certain motifs and themes to be preferred. Out of these two more or less universal influences we get the great variety of creation stories.

However, I am beginning to come to the conclusion that the laws of the Universe do not explain its origin. This is due not just to the apparent problem of self-reference which would prevent us from comfortably accepting that any laws which guide causal events could both guide and self-arise simultaneously. This is also due to the nature of our experience whether it be in story or scientific observation...everything comes out of a creative background of something. Even if that something are physics defined particle fields of mutual force.

So my effort here is to try and raise this new idea about how the Universe exists not as a closed system but as a potentially observable layer of emergent activity out of a currently very difficult and extra-Universal layer of reality that we can see in part just as we imagine of God.

 

[sealchan]

I believe simple logic is actually sufficient to draw certain conclusions about what happened "in the beginning" -not that such a thing actually exists as such.

It is absolutely impossible for something to come from absolute nothing -yet we know that something exists.

Therefore, there could never have been absolute nothing. It can only exist as an inaccurate concept within an imagination.

Something "always" was (not that time would would have applied in the complex way we know) -and the only possible explanation is that it simply just was.

We may know some basic attributes of the something because it was generally capable of becoming that which now exists as it does -and specifically capable of the next arrangement as each previous arrangement allowed for it.

Yes, but I think that the nature of parts and systems in the Universe itself gives us clues to how we might actually see beyond the edge of the Universe in those extreme circumstances of the physics of the very large and the very small.

In fact, this is my new paradigm which is a systemic paradigm and I think gives us a more elegant explanation of the origin of the Universe than a self-created out of nothing model can or will provide.

 

[sealchan]

Of course from my perspective of theology, there was an ultimate first cause.

What about an ultimate source reality? And one that in our current understanding appears to be a simple original event (if not moment in time)? Is it not possible that God existed within a reality of His/Her/It's own?

 

[sealchan]

Eistein was right. The Newtonian idea that there is an external time, during which the events of the Universe take place, is a stubborn illusion.

We know today that this idea is obsolete. There is no objective flow of time, nor present, nor future nor past. Time, or better, spacetime, is not an abstract concept, but a real physical thing which can bend, have a geometry, etc.

Now, it is left as an exercise to you to define what it means for spacetime to have a past, a future, to have begun, or to change in any way or form. You will realize immediately that using tensed verbs, for instance, is meaningless. Spacetime is, for all practical purposes, eternal and unchanging.

If you want to learn more, I suggest to read what scientists like C.Rovelli, S. Carroll or B. Greene have to say about the subject. I believe they have some cool youtubes. Check out for “Block Universe”.

Ciao

- viole

Is it possible to describe or understand in some way how science has lead us to the "edge" of the known Universe even if that is not to say of finding an edge to a curved four-dimensional topology with no literal edges?

 

[Polymath257]

The something universe has to disobey all known laws of entropy to be eternal, and disobey conservation of matter/energy to avoid being created ex nihilo!

Wrong on both accounts. To be eternal just means the rate of entropy growth decreases into the past in such a way that entropy is always positive. This is easily done.

And to have creation ex nihilo *would* be a violation of the conservation of mass/energy. What is required to avoid violation of that conservation law is either that things be universal or that time does not go infinitely into the past. Both are possibilities.

Also, the law of entropy is a stistical law, not a fundamental one. It can be and has been seen to be violated. In an eternal universe, it would be violated infinitely often.

 

[sealchan]

Wrong on both accounts. To be eternal just means the rate of entropy growth decreases into the past in such a way that entropy is always positive. This is easily done.

And to have creation ex nihilo *would* be a violation of the conservation of mass/energy. What is required to avoid violation of that conservation law is either that things be universal or that time does not go infinitely into the past. Both are possibilities.

Also, the law of entropy is a statistical law, not a fundamental one. It can be and has been seen to be violated. In an eternal universe, it would be violated infinitely often.

If the laws of conservation apply to symmetrical pairs of opposites then you can have nothing or an infinite array of somethings so long as there is a net zero total, correct?

And if the Universe exhibits the appearance of a net gain in order then this would imply that there is a greater loss of order in a context that we have not yet seen or measured, correct? Something within the boundaries of the Universe or outside of it.

My understanding of entropy is that it greatly depends on how you define the system you are examining. With the Universe there may be an extensive system outside of what we can see or measure such that if the Universe shows a net gain in entropy then that indicates that there is something outside of the Universe.

If it doesn't then this would argue that the Universe is a closed energic system at least at the level that entropy applies to.

 

[Polymath257]

I want to get past this discussion of time and talk about what, if anything, exists outside the known Universe and whether we can say anything at all about that.

Let me ask you an open ended question...what, in science, constitutes and understanding of the boundary that Mark's the origin or "edge" of the Universe. I understand the notion of a four dimensional universe with a topology such that there are no literal edges. I also understand that time is included in that.

Can we discuss, then, what the Universe looks like when we reach its metaphorical edge?

Well, there a couple big issues here:

1. How do you define the 'universe'?

If it is defined to be everything that exists, then by definition there is nothing outside of it. This is a common definition. If you define it differently, then there are more issues.

For example, if something, A, interacts with something in the universe, do we want to consider A to be part of the universe? Usually, the answer is yes. But see below.

So, for example, if scientists discover a new particle, the fact that it interacts with something in the universe usually means we consider it to be part of the universe. But this suggests we should consider the universe to be 'causally closed': anything that interacts with something in the universe should it self be part of the universe.

2. Does it make sense to talk about something existing that doesn't interact with the universe? This is a metaphysical question and has to be answered according to your own system of beliefs. For me, it is nonsensical. Something that doens't interact at all simply can't be said to really exist.

So that means that if the universe *isn't* everything, then there is something outside of the universe that somehow interacts with the universe. This means the universe is not causally closed. Again, this is rather against common usage.

OK, so we have the possibility of saying the universe is *mostly* causally closed, except for perhaps a couple of interactions.

This, then, gets into the realm of multiverses: the possibility of multiple universes that interact very weakly with each other.

Now, there are many speculations made concerning multiverses and there are multiple ways of portraying a multiverse. But all of them essentially have a larger structure within which the individual universes exist.

Now, in modern quantum theory, multiverses do arise 'naturally' from the mathematical models. In such systems, there is nothing outside of the multiverse, but there are other universes. Often these different universes only interact via gravity (the weakest of the fundamental forces).

At this point, though, we simply don't have the means to test between the different speculations concerning quantum gravity.

By the way, in most (not all) multiverse models, there *is* a time coordinate and some version of causality in the multiverse. Universes can be formed by 'splitting off' or collisions, or any number of proposed ways, depending on the specific model. The time inside any universe is a type of 'projection' of the time in the multiverse, sort of like we can see latitude on a sphere as a projection of 'height' with the south pole at the 'bottom'.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, but I think that the nature of parts and systems in the Universe itself gives us clues to how we might actually see beyond the edge of the Universe in those extreme circumstances of the physics of the very large and the very small.

In fact, this is my new paradigm which is a systemic paradigm and I think gives us a more elegant explanation of the origin of the Universe than a self-created out of nothing model can or will provide.

Well, it is problematic, as you even pointed out, to talk about an 'edge' to the universe. There is no 'boundary'. So what do you even mean by 'edge'?

What about an ultimate source reality? And one that in our current understanding appears to be a simple original event (if not moment in time)? Is it not possible that God existed within a reality of His/Her/It's own?

Again, saying it is 'original' already suggests time is involved. I think it is best, if we are starting from a 4 dimensional perspective to consider the universe (or multiverse) to 'just exist'. Causality makes sense only *within* it and there *is* no outside.

If the laws of conservation apply to symmetrical pairs of opposites then you can have nothing or an infinite array of somethings so long as there is a net zero total, correct?

Well, one suggestion is that energy conservation isn't violated in 'universe formation' because the (negative) energy due to gravity balances the (positive) energy due to mass. That is the underlying position of most of the 'universe from nothing' scenarios.

And if the Universe exhibits the appearance of a net gain in order then this would imply that there is a greater loss of order in a context that we have not yet seen or measured, correct? Something within the boundaries of the Universe or outside of it.

No, the balance would have to be *within* the universe to not violate conservation laws. Some care is required here: all conservation laws say, in essence, that some quantity is that same at any two time slices. Since time itself is part of 'spacetime', there is no conservation law outside of time.

 

[viole]

It seems difficult for people to accept spacetime as a unit (which is typical of cosmology) that simply exists. That time is *part* of the universe. Part of it is that most people have trouble imagining four dimensions, let alone four *curved* dimensions.

Yes, if it is difficult to professional scientists, I can imagine how difficult it must be for the layman. It is not uncommon to hear professional scientists saying things that make no sense in a relativity context.

As Einstein said: a stubborn, very stubburn illusion.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Is it possible to describe or understand in some way how science has lead us to the "edge" of the known Universe even if that is not to say of finding an edge to a curved four-dimensional topology with no literal edges?

I am afraid you must reformulate. I am not sure I understood what you ask.

Ciao

- viole

 

[sealchan]

Well, there a couple big issues here:

1. How do you define the 'universe'?

If it is defined to be everything that exists, then by definition there is nothing outside of it. This is a common definition. If you define it differently, then there are more issues.

For example, if something, A, interacts with something in the universe, do we want to consider A to be part of the universe? Usually, the answer is yes. But see below.

So, for example, if scientists discover a new particle, the fact that it interacts with something in the universe usually means we consider it to be part of the universe. But this suggests we should consider the universe to be 'causally closed': anything that interacts with something in the universe should it self be part of the universe.

2. Does it make sense to talk about something existing that doesn't interact with the universe? This is a metaphysical question and has to be answered according to your own system of beliefs. For me, it is nonsensical. Something that doens't interact at all simply can't be said to really exist.

So that means that if the universe *isn't* everything, then there is something outside of the universe that somehow interacts with the universe. This means the universe is not causally closed. Again, this is rather against common usage.

OK, so we have the possibility of saying the universe is *mostly* causally closed, except for perhaps a couple of interactions.

This, then, gets into the realm of multiverses: the possibility of multiple universes that interact very weakly with each other.

Now, there are many speculations made concerning multiverses and there are multiple ways of portraying a multiverse. But all of them essentially have a larger structure within which the individual universes exist.

Now, in modern quantum theory, multiverses do arise 'naturally' from the mathematical models. In such systems, there is nothing outside of the multiverse, but there are other universes. Often these different universes only interact via gravity (the weakest of the fundamental forces).

At this point, though, we simply don't have the means to test between the different speculations concerning quantum gravity.

By the way, in most (not all) multiverse models, there *is* a time coordinate and some version of causality in the multiverse. Universes can be formed by 'splitting off' or collisions, or any number of proposed ways, depending on the specific model. The time inside any universe is a type of 'projection' of the time in the multiverse, sort of like we can see latitude on a sphere as a projection of 'height' with the south pole at the 'bottom'.

Multi-verses and extra-dimensions for strings...these things indicate that physics is beginning to feel out some potential contours for what is and what is not of this Universe. So the boundaries of the Universe as something beyond what we physical beings can perceive is beginning to be sussed. And certain physical laws seem to extent outside of our dimensional reality or quantum possibility into these external "space-times".

One way to define anything is to consider that which is defining it and its limitations. Just as we cannot see as far without a telescope, we also cannot see into other dimensions without the instrumental means to do so. Currently our mathematics is suggesting such farther horizons.

in the long run has science actually brought us closer to the boundaries of the Universe or has it merely continuously pushed them outward until we actually can, with some practical grounding, begin to talk about a reality outside of our Universe?

 

[Polymath257]

Multi-verses and extra-dimensions for strings...these things indicate that physics is beginning to feel out some potential contours for what is and what is not of this Universe. So the boundaries of the Universe as something beyond what we physical beings can perceive is beginning to be sussed. And certain physical laws seem to extent outside of our dimensional reality or quantum possibility into these external "space-times".

One way to define anything is to consider that which is defining it and its limitations. Just as we cannot see as far without a telescope, we also cannot see into other dimensions without the instrumental means to do so. Currently our mathematics is suggesting such farther horizons.

in the long run has science actually brought us closer to the boundaries of the Universe or has it merely continuously pushed them outward until we actually can, with some practical grounding, begin to talk about a reality outside of our Universe?

I'm more inclined to say it has merely replaced the old notion of the universe by the new notion of a multiverse. The same questions about the origin of the multiverse can be asked. In most scenarios, it is eternal.

 

[sealchan]

I am afraid you must reformulate. I am not sure I understood what you ask.

Ciao

- viole

If you will read through any of my later comments to others. I'm trying to find a language to get past the before/after issue which fails to encapsulate time into the features of our Universe.

I see in such ideas as the Uncertainty Principle, the Big Bang, multiverses, extra-dimensional string theory models, the speed of light even, as potentially aspects of the Universe that show its "limits" or "edges". Such edges might be practical while others are theoretical and define the limits of possibility within our Universe.

The idea I am trying to explore is whether the Universe appears to us to be a closed system, self-created or shows signs that it is from another source even if that other source is practically inaccessible. The mathematical models of our physical reality often extend beyond the scope of our practical experience.

 

[viole]

By spiritual reality I was reaching for a term that would be accepted by both believers and non-believers. If I recall correctly, the great scholar of the world's religions, Huston Smith, once wrote that the one thing in common with all religions was the notion of another reality in which one must invest one's self. This could include the Kingdom of Heaven, God's Will, any sense of a realm of gods or spiritual powers beyond the mundane.

There is evidence that information is physical. Information, intended as that “substance” that allows us to distinguish two different things or states for instance, appears to be a physical entity. It can be measured in bits, or, equivalently in units of energy divided by temperature. If that is true, and if the spiritual is not the physical, then the only spiritual reality is the one with no information, ergo with nothing inside.

Of course, since minds are information crunchers, they are physical too. As it should be apparent by observing what happens to minds when they cannot consume energy at a certain temperature.

Now this does not have to be considered as a literal reality. We could add any sort of "literary universe" as another example if it were seen as part of a world view whether religious or not. There are many fictional shared universes that multiple stories can be seen to participate in which create another reality in which one might find it easier to contemplate certain questions of meaning or value.

Ok, but if it is true that the only way we have to discriminate things require hard physical objects, then the spiritual, if it is not material, either does not exist or it is totally useless.

One could argue for or against their being a literal "spiritual reality" even in terms of the space in which human consciousness can create or invent and otherwise alter the nature of their own physical reality. Virtual reality is an obvious example of this and the more immersive that reality becomes the more that reality will seem to rise in value in our estimation.

Yes, but all these things are physical. In a sense we live already in a sort of virtual reality or, better, approximate reality, since our senses are low pass filters that just detects raw approximations of what we know exists.

Sometimes I also feel sort of “spiritual”. When for instance I see a beautiful sunset. But that is my first person view. When I move to the third person view, I see a girl whose brain creates a sense of beauty that she interprets as spiritual. But that is only what brain process. Cool, but no evidence of anything trascending the material. And even if I am a naturalist, that does not mean that I do not appreciate the things of nature. Like Feynman said, the beauty of a flower is not only its color, but what it tells us about nature. For instance, that insects see in colors.

I understand that time is included in the equations of how the early Universe developed and that my question is limited in the sense that it is based on an assumption of an immutable time against which all else takes place. But can you offer an alternative was of asking the question I am asking?

If we take relativity at face value, then the Universe, as a whole, did not begin to exist. Despite BB cosmology being true. It actually does not change at all, since time flow is just an illusion of the machines we have in the skull. A very stubborn illusion.

Another way to approach this thread might be to ask whether our experience of the origins of things "within the Universe" is the best starting point for our assumptions regarding the origin of the Universe itself or not.

Again, I doubt that the word “origin” is applicable to the Universe as a whole. Unless we demote ourselves to an obsolete Newtonian view of what time is.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

If you will read through any of my later comments to others. I'm trying to find a language to get past the before/after issue which fails to encapsulate time into the features of our Universe.

I see in such ideas as the Uncertainty Principle, the Big Bang, multiverses, extra-dimensional string theory models, the speed of light even, as potentially aspects of the Universe that show its "limits" or "edges". Such edges might be practical while others are theoretical and define the limits of possibility within our Universe.

The idea I am trying to explore is whether the Universe appears to us to be a closed system, self-created or shows signs that it is from another source even if that other source is practically inaccessible. The mathematical models of our physical reality often extend beyond the scope of our practical experience.

It is difficult to convey what the new ontology of time we get from relativity entails. For instance, when I say the universe is eternal and immutable, the layman thinks I am crazy. How can it be immutable if things seem to change all the time?

However, once we realize that spacetime is not an abstract context anymore, but a real physical manifold, then things should become easier.

Let me see if I find an analogy. It is like travelling in a train and you can see only through a window to the outside. What you see ouside can be interpreted in two ways.

1) something that changes all the time. What you lose from view does not exist anymore and what you will see does not exist yet

2) nothing changes. Your consciousness acquires the current snapshot of an immutable outside reality

I believe the 2nd is true for the Universe too. Our past still is, and our future already is. It is our consciousness that plays games making us believing that the past is gone and the future is open.

Ciao

- viole

 

[sealchan]

I'm more inclined to say it has merely replaced the old notion of the universe by the new notion of a multiverse. The same questions about the origin of the multiverse can be asked. In most scenarios, it is eternal.

Yes and so it leads back to the same mystery.

But if we look at the pattern of how science has progressed on this matter since the days of a flat earth cosmology, I suppose we have two choices...one is that what we think is the Universe is an ever-expanding reality with an ever growing array of aspects or we see the Universe as a nested set of containers which once we grow comfortable with those containers become all included in the one Universe.

So that the Earth was once the Universe but there was a God and Heaven reality "above". Now there is no room for a physical Heaven at the outer layer of the celestial spheres as there is no outer layer. Mathematics has put us in a self-containing, hard to image, four dimensional topology. Really, even the idea of inside/outside the Universe may make no sense from that point of view. But we theorize about black holes and multiverses now which seems to me to provisionally point at some new "background reality" that believers could "hide their gods in".

I'm not as interested, however, in finding room for a literal god as I am in pointing out that even in cosmology it is hard to remain within a self-created, closed system when understanding the Universe even though that too has been greatly established by sciences advances.

My money is more on that this ever changing sense of the extent or boundaries of our reality will find us eventually in a cage with a wider view.