Before Creation: Nothing or Something

[Etritonakin]

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.

Did not mean to post the first part of the following this morning, so deleted that post.

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

That which would have existed before the physical universe would be a previous state of some or all of that which now exists -and the term "outside" the universe would equate to the portion of everything which could not be considered the universe.

Then again, the portion which could be considered the universe would be somehow connected to that which was not -which was "outside" -so it would be a logical separation/a defined border.

As "everything" could be expressed as "1", all it contains would be by subdivision and logical/mathematical arrangement of that which would allow for subdivision and logical arrangement.

(If the "1" thing is divided into .5 and .5, for example -so on and so forth -math ensues)

The term "UNIverse" at least suggests the idea that it is everything -the one thing -but we can't simply assume it is.

Perhaps, just as scientists knew to look for dark matter because mathematics indicated much was missing, so mathematics might eventually also indicate what portion of "everything" is represented by the universe (which I imagine would require a rather complete understanding of the universe).

 

[sealchan]

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

I feel like I understand all this. I have wrapped my head around what it is like to exist in a space-time, and so I want to get away from any before-after language in spite of the title of my thread.

One angle on this is to look at the configuration of the universe in terms of the values of certain constants. There have been discussions about the sensitivity of these constants to the outcome of our existence. This suggests that there is a lack of an explanation (currently) for why these values are what they are.

Some would argue that they indicate an intelligent creator. Others would dismiss the significance of this as a problem in self-reference where if the constants were different then some other being would ask the same question...or not.

My thought is that such arbitrary values point at a historical development of the Universe that suggests a background against which other possibilities may have occurred. The influence that these historically-developed, "subjective" laws had on what came after create an objective background.

So such things as the amount of matter vs anti-matter, the local differences in the microwave background radiation, etc point not to asymmetrical and even historical events in the development of the Universe which are an artifact of something other than what is described in the laws that give rise to the Universe.

Why do the various particles have the mass that they do? Why are the fundamental forces as they are? We push the intuitive limits of mathematics to create abstract entities which we build ever more subtle machines which help us pick out a signal from noise that proves that mathematical prescription is based on an observable reality. Maybe someday we will even tie super strings into artificial knots!

At some point, if science progresses, I expect that we will begin to see the bars of our cage and have a view through that which is within the relatively closed system of the Universe out into elements of reality underlying or beyond that "home" system.

 

[sealchan]

I think my brain is about at its limits on this topic. It has helped me to discuss with you all some of the vaguer notions I was trying to explore. I found that time was a stone I tripped on early although I knew of that in a way. I think that my experience here will help me to come at this whole question of the Universe as a closed or open system again with better language and in another context that might help further this discussion along the lines that I was hoping to develop it.

Thanks!

 

[cladking]

For what it's worth, perhaps reality is an emergent property of time. ie-time equals mass time the square of the speed of light.

At least this gets it down to a single axiom.

 

[shmogie]

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?

Our reality is limited to the universe, reality began with the universe. There is reality outside the universe, which has entered itself into our reality in the manner of God.

 

[shmogie]

I think my brain is about at its limits on this topic. It has helped me to discuss with you all some of the vaguer notions I was trying to explore. I found that time was a stone I tripped on early although I knew of that in a way. I think that my experience here will help me to come at this whole question of the Universe as a closed or open system again with better language and in another context that might help further this discussion along the lines that I was hoping to develop it.

Thanks!

The universe is open. There is not enough mass to stop itś expansion and regress to the singularity state, even counting dark matter. In addition, dark energy is accelerating by ever increasing speed the expansion of the universe, it will continue to expand till it dies. Therefore the BB is a one off event, the first, and the last.

Theologically, I believe in the final analysis that the universe will be stabilized, and all things wrong on earth will be corrected, to never happen again.

 

[Polymath257]

The universe is open. There is not enough mass to stop itś expansion and regress to the singularity state, even counting dark matter. In addition, dark energy is accelerating by ever increasing speed the expansion of the universe, it will continue to expand till it dies. Therefore the BB is a one off event, the first, and the last.

Not necessarily. Once the expansion gets to a certain point, quantum fluctuations start to dominate and it is *possible* for one to 'run away' and create a new universe. Some propose that is how ours got started. At this point, we just don't know.

Theologically, I believe in the final analysis that the universe will be stabilized, and all things wrong on earth will be corrected, to never happen again.

OK. I don't see any scientific backing to this belief, but that may not be relevant for you.

 

[shmogie]

There are at least 28 hypothesis of what caused the BB, not a single theory as you state.

If you day so, there may be a Nobel prize in it for you.

Did it?

One thing is sure about the BB... Nothing is known about it. All knowledge on the BB is projected from what happened after. Which is why cosmologists are not as sure if what happened as you seem to be

Cosmologists are sure to within one Planck time in retrograde to the BB. Since the laws of physics break down at that point, there is no way of knowing what existed before that point. Singularity is cosmology speak for ¨we don´t know, this is our best guess ¨. So any hypothesis as to the cause is really an opinion, with absolutely no evidence to support it.

I would be interested in you listing these 28 hypotheses of the cause of the BB, since none that I have read know why it occurred, let alone how.

The point of infinite density for the singularity is based upon everything in the universe being compacted with all the gravity in the universe, into one ball or anomaly.

This is logical since the universe is expanding at an ever faster rate in all directions. Reverse the expansion, and everything clumps together, infinite density.

Why the singularity banged in the first place is totally unknown and will remain so.

 

[shmogie]

Not necessarily. Once the expansion gets to a certain point, quantum fluctuations start to dominate and it is *possible* for one to 'run away' and create a new universe. Some propose that is how ours got started. At this point, we just don't know.



OK. I don't see any scientific backing to this belief, but that may not be relevant for you.

*f this occurs, which is far fetched, our original universe will still remain open, it won´t reverse itś course and become a singularity again.

 

[Polymath257]

*f this occurs, which is far fetched, our original universe will still remain open, it won´t reverse itś course and become a singularity again.

No, but that quantum fluctuation would be the new singularity for the new universe. Again, this is potentially how our universe got started: by a quantum fluctuation in a previous one. And it is also possible there is a string of such 'budding universes' going back eternally into the past.

Again, this is a possibility. We simply don't know.

 

[shmogie]

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

Hmmmm. If time wasn´t linear, then I, a child of the sixties who was going to stay young and party on, wouldn´t be hobbled with arthritis,and bald and grey. Each time my cells reproduced, they became a little less efficient than the cell before, leading to damage and loss of function.

It was time, and time alone that caused these particular cell failures.

If I were still twenty, it would have never happened.

Einstein proposed that increased speed would slow time, this has been proven by using nuclear clocks one at speed.

So time is somewhat malleable, but is still linear,

Spacetime, and time are not the same thing.

Spacetime has been likened to a fabric, which can be warped, folded back on itself, etc., etc.

Nevertheless, it is inherent to the universe, as is matter and energy. No universe, no spacetime, not anything.

 

[Polymath257]

Hmmmm. If time wasn´t linear, then I, a child of the sixties who was going to stay young and party on, wouldn´t be hobbled with arthritis,and bald and grey. Each time my cells reproduced, they became a little less efficient than the cell before, leading to damage and loss of function.

It was time, and time alone that caused these particular cell failures.

If I were still twenty, it would have never happened.

Well, not *just* time alone. It is also entropy having its effect, an accumulation of errors in transcription, etc.

All of this could happen in cyclic time if the period was sufficiently long.

Einstein proposed that increased speed would slow time, this has been proven by using nuclear clocks one at speed.

Also, high gravitational fields do this.

So time is somewhat malleable, but is still linear,

Not necessarily, *linear*, but at least locally *directed*.

Spacetime, and time are not the same thing.

Correct. Time is more like 'arc length' while spacetime is the background geometry.

Spacetime has been likened to a fabric, which can be warped, folded back on itself, etc., etc.

Nevertheless, it is inherent to the universe, as is matter and energy. No universe, no spacetime, not anything.

At least as far as we know.

 

[ChristineM]

Cosmologists are sure to within one Planck time in retrograde to the BB. Since the laws of physics break down at that point, there is no way of knowing what existed before that point. Singularity is cosmology speak for ¨we don´t know, this is our best guess ¨. So any hypothesis as to the cause is really an opinion, with absolutely no evidence to support it.

I would be interested in you listing these 28 hypotheses of the cause of the BB, since none that I have read know why it occurred, let alone how.

The point of infinite density for the singularity is based upon everything in the universe being compacted with all the gravity in the universe, into one ball or anomaly.

This is logical since the universe is expanding at an ever faster rate in all directions. Reverse the expansion, and everything clumps together, infinite density.

Why the singularity banged in the first place is totally unknown and will remain so.

One planck time is not before or during the bb but after

That is not actually true. Any hypothesis on the bb must meet certain criteria, either/or mathematically feasible and/or observation of effects in our universe. If a hypothesis does not stand up to those criteria it is scrapped.

That is why they are hypothesis and not theories.

Polymath has tried to explain to you the cosmology view of singularity several occasions, he is far more qualified than me, i suggest you take note of his explanation.

It is logical but may not actually be factual, to do not seem to consider that the laws of logic as applied to this universe did not exist at the time of the bb.

Do you see the problem with what you say? First you highlight "So any hypothesis as to the cause is really an opinion, with absolutely no evidence to support it."

Then you insist that "everything clumps together, infinite density."

How do you know "everything clumps together, infinite density" while saying "So any hypothesis as to the cause is really an opinion, with absolutely no evidence to support it."

Although it is possible, as you say, we just do not know wnd without a fundimental breakthrough in physics we are unlikely to find out.

Ok, as an aside. The mathematics of Param Singh overcome the problems with the laws of physics breaking down.

 

[shmogie]

One planck time is not before or during the bb but after

That is not actually true. Any hypothesis on the bb must meet certain criteria, either/or mathematically feasible and/or observation of effects in our universe. If a hypothesis does not stand up to those criteria it is scrapped.

That is why they are hypothesis and not theories.

Polymath has tried to explain to you the cosmology view of singularity several occasions, he is far more qualified than me, i suggest you take note of his explanation.

It is logical but may not actually be factual, to do not seem to consider that the laws of logic as applied to this universe did not exist at the time of the bb.

Do you see the problem with what you say? First you highlight "So any hypothesis as to the cause is really an opinion, with absolutely no evidence to support it."

Then you insist that "everything clumps together, infinite density."

How do you know "everything clumps together, infinite density" while saying "So any hypothesis as to the cause is really an opinion, with absolutely no evidence to support it."

Although it is possible, as you say, we just do not know wnd without a fundimental breakthrough in physics we are unlikely to find out.

Ok, as an aside. The mathematics of Param Singh overcome the problems with the laws of physics breaking down.

As I said, in retrograde, meaning after the BB, going backwards with mathematics to explain the expansion breaks down before the singularity is reached.

According to the concept of the closed universe, the universe collapses back on itself and is drawn back to the singularity. That is the concept, and as I explained, it is not valid. It is an opinion, they are all opinions.

I know/ the cosmology of the BB well, and polymath was discussing things not in harmony with the the concept.

I do understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, I learned it in Jr. High school

 

[ChristineM]

As I said, in retrograde, meaning after the BB, going backwards with mathematics to explain the expansion breaks down before the singularity is reached.

According to the concept of the closed universe, the universe collapses back on itself and is drawn back to the singularity. That is the concept, and as I explained, it is not valid. It is an opinion, they are all opinions.

I know/ the cosmology of the BB well, and polymath was discussing things not in harmony with the the concept.

I do understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, I learned it in Jr. High school

And as i said, it is unknown, you admit yourself that it is unknown, yet you make statements of knowledge.

The rebounding universe was seen as old stuff 30 or 40 years ago because there was no maths and no evidence to back it up. Modern hypothesis do have maths and observations to back them up.

Wrong. Polymath was discussing modern understanding, not history

Well done

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

When such questions arise, I almost instantly feel uncomfortable with all the "human" assumptions embedded therein. Assumptions which, imo, are really not valid or warranted.

For starters, in this specific context, what does "prior" mean?
As we currently understand physics and the universe, asking if there was something "before" the universe, is like asking about what is "north" of the north pole.

As far as we are aware, temporal conditions are a property of the universe. While our human minds that evolved as a macroscopic objects that only have to deal with sub-sound speeds and medium gravity, would logically assume that temporal conditions apply everywhere, we know for a fact that this is wrong.

In the presence of great gravity or approaching lightspeeds, temporal conditions take extremely counter intuitive turns. Time is literally part of the very fabric of the universe. While for the life of my I couldn't comprehend what it means to NOT have such temporal conditions in place, everything we know seems to point to exactly that: if you remove the universe, you also remove time just like you remove space.

Next: is "nothing" what is left when we remove the universe? I have no clue. What does "nothing" even mean in that context? Same problem. Everything that we would call "something" at this point is either existent IN the universe, or are integral parts of the universe. So all "something"s will be gone if we remove the universe.

Now, he universe came about somehow. I guess. What is the "universe incubator"? Is there such a thing? Is that "something"? What is "nothing"? Does it even make sense to ask the question?

These things make my head spin. For good reason.

In the words of Krauss: Our brains evolved to avoid being eaten by dangerous predators... not to understand quantum mechanics. Same principle applies here. Whatever kickstarted the universe, it's bound to be something that we won't be able to wrap our minds around. More then that, if we have valid ideas, chances are rather enormous that we won't have appropriate spoken language to communicate it. Likely we'll only be able to express it mathematically. And the math would be sound while at the same time the end model won't make (common) sense to anybody.


For that reason alone, I feel like every "deductive argument" we find in apologetics etc, like kalaam and what not, is doomed to failure even before it starts. Because it attempts to use mere spoken words to draw conclusions about things that no amount of words could accurately describe.

Even just saying "the universe was created" makes no logical sense in physics. Because "created" and "was" both are temporal in nature. Our very language falls short of addressing this problem.
So if we are ever going to solve this riddle - it most definatly won't be through semantic shenanigans.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Events in history have a before, and after.

Only because they happen within the space-time continuum.

The big bang is a historical event, so there was an after, and logically, a before. There was a first cause, and it was before.

There can not be a logical "before" the first event of the universe itself.
Since time is a property of said universe.

Remove the universe = remove time.
In that sense, btw, the universe has "always" existed, since "always" = "for all of time".

Now, you are free to claim that out space-time bubble itself exists inside a larger and distinct time-bubble and that your "before" is referencing that time-bubble. But then you're going to have to support that with some kind of evidence. And declaring things sensible or nonsesical a priori, based on your human "intuition" that evolved to only deal with sub-light speeds and medium gravity, will not do...

Physicists may not use these words, but cosmologists do.

I recently just watched a debate between a cosmologist and a philosopher / apologetic who tried to argue about the origins of the universe and what happened "before that".

After which the apologist had to listen to a 10 minute monologue of the cosmologist explaining in detail how "before" and "causality" in that context doesn't make any sense given what we currently know about space-time

 

[metis]

Based on what we now know about quantum mechanics, which is quite limited needless to say, I'd bet my house on there being a multiverse that our universe is part of, plus I'd bet that there were things going on before creation.

 

[shmogie]

Only because they happen within the space-time continuum.




There can not be a logical "before" the first event of the universe itself.
Since time is a property of said universe.

Remove the universe = remove time.
In that sense, btw, the universe has "always" existed, since "always" = "for all of time".

Now, you are free to claim that out space-time bubble itself exists inside a larger and distinct time-bubble and that your "before" is referencing that time-bubble. But then you're going to have to support that with some kind of evidence. And declaring things sensible or nonsesical a priori, based on your human "intuition" that evolved to only deal with sub-light speeds and medium gravity, will not do...



I recently just watched a debate between a cosmologist and a philosopher / apologetic who tried to argue about the origins of the universe and what happened "before that".
From the human standpoint, not the cosmological, references to ¨ before¨ aid in understanding the hypothesis of the BB.

The hypothesis states that the singularity existed before ( oops !) anything, time, space, matter, energy, anything. All were created with the rapid expansion of the singularity.

The truth of the matter is that the expansion and the creation of everything is mathematically fairly well understood.

The alleged singularity, not at all. it was outside the universe, within which the laws of physics and all naturally created physical laws were created.

It existed ¨before¨"the expansion. The average person can grasp this. If you throw in the Joker, to them, that there was no before because there was no time, it gets confusing for them.

Not everybody is as interested in cosmology as you and I might be.
After which the apologist had to listen to a 10 minute monologue of the cosmologist explaining in detail how "before" and "causality" in that context doesn't make any sense given what we currently know about space-time

 

[shmogie]

I did it again ! Got my response in the quote. Sorry