Before Creation: Nothing or Something

[Polymath257]

The Big Bang is merely an asymmetry in the shape of our four-dimensional Universe in that if one looks in a certain space-time direction this is what is seen. That is my educated guess as to how to understand the Big Bang from an "eternal" perspective. It is like a North Pole of the Universe but really it has no special qualities except that perhaps of being a subjective outcome of human-style cognition.

Well, it does appear to have the property of large curvature. So, unlike the North pole of a sphere (where the curvature is the same as everywhere else), there is something different happening as we approach the Big Bang.

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah. The first cause could be beginning-less?

More like the first event(s) was causeless. There is no reason to think there had to be a single 'first cause'.

 

[atanu]

What about it? A great deal of the universal expansion is adiabatic, meaning the entropy doens't change.

For those models with time going infinitely into the past, the Big Bang is a type of phase transition, but it isn't the beginning of the universe (depending on how you define 'universe').

Again, what about it? Either time begins at the Big Bang, in which case, there is no violation of the conservation laws (which relate the total energy at two *times*). Or time goes infinitely into the past and energy has always existed, in which case there is no violation of the conservation laws.

The main point is that whenever there has been time, energy and matter have also existed and vice versa.

Okay. I think physics is now like religion. Whatever gurus say, we, the poor disciples (lambs), have to accept.

I will note that there are many varieties of eternal universe theory and imo there is no consensus and testability. But let that be.

I am intrigued by your last para “whenever there is time .....”. So, are there times (periods) when there is no time?

 

[atanu]

More like the first event(s) was causeless. There is no reason to think there had to be a single 'first cause'.

To me, a first cause is uncomplicated and more plausible.

 

[Polymath257]

Okay. I think physics is now like religion. Whatever gurus say, we, the poor disciples (lambs), have to accept.

No, you don't have to 'just accept'. You can learn the math and the physics. You can get a telescope and see other galaxies. You can visit the places where the experiments are done and if you learn enough you can participate in the discussion of the results.

I will note that there are many varieties of eternal universe theory and imo there is no consensus and testability. But let that be.

Some *are* testable, which is, I agree, a bit amazing. Unfortunately, the tests are beyond what we can do currently.

I am intrigued by your last para “whenever there is time .....”. So, are there times (periods) when there is no time?

Well, it is possible (and, in fact the case under GR) that time does not extend infinitely into the past. It could well have a 'start'. If so, there are no 'previous times'. In such a case, it would literally make no sense to talk about 'a trillion years ago' because such a time simply didn't exist.

All conservation laws compare the conserved quantity at one *time* to that same quantity at another *time*. If time began, there would still be no *time* when the universe did not exist.

 

[Polymath257]

To me, a first cause is uncomplicated and more plausible.

Well, one issue is that we *know* there are many 'uncaused causes'. We also jknow that events tend to have more than one cause, which means that instead of a causal link going back in time, there is a causal mesh. And *that* suggests (and the current science supports) *many* singular events rather than a single one.

 

[atanu]

No, you don't have to 'just accept'. You can learn the math and the physics. You can get a telescope and see other galaxies. You can visit the places where the experiments are done and if you learn enough you can participate in the discussion of the results.

Same applies in much easier fashion to introversion of attention and see for oneself that all physical and mental objects are empty and subsist on ground of partition-less awareness that one is.

Well, one issue is that we *know* there are many 'uncaused causes'. We also jknow that events tend to have more than one cause, which means that instead of a causal link going back in time, there is a causal mesh. And *that* suggests (and the current science supports) *many* singular events rather than a single one.

The time and absence of time is experienced by everyone everyday. We, those who introvert, also are able to see how desireless-timeless deep sleep becomes desire-full space-time filled with subject-object.

 

[gnostic]

To me, a first cause is uncomplicated and more plausible.

If that “first cause” is some “transcendent being” or “transcendent consciousness”, then I am afraid (my guess is) that you are anthropomorphising your creation.

Such anthropomorphising is nothing more than superstitious myth-making, not a falsifiable hypothesis.

If that is the case, then you are merely letting your preconceptions to dictate your analysis and conclusion.

What is plausible to one person, maybe implausible to another. Plausibility isn’t enough to warrant objective analysis.

 

[atanu]

If that “first cause” is some “transcendent being” or “transcendent consciousness”, then I am afraid (my guess is) that you are anthropomorphising your creation.

Such anthropomorphising is nothing more than superstitious myth-making, not a falsifiable hypothesis.

If that is the case, then you are merely letting your preconceptions to dictate your analysis and conclusion.

What is plausible to one person, maybe implausible to another. Plausibility isn’t enough to warrant objective analysis.

What you mean by ‘transcendent being’ and transcendent consciousness’?

 

[gnostic]

What you mean by ‘transcendent being’ and transcendent consciousness’?

The consciousness that Hindu Dharma called Brahman.

Don’t Hindus referred to Brahman as the ultimate (or “absolute”) reality, the ultimate consciousness, the creative principle, the Hindu version of the first cause, etc?

Whenever anyone referred to the “first cause” to the creation, world or universe associating to the transcendent consciousness or ultimate consciousness, then by any of those claims, they are anthropomorphising the creation or the universe.

 

[viole]

What do you mean by ‘our consciousness‘?

Do I have to define what consciousness means?

Ciao

- viole

 

[atanu]

Do I have to define what consciousness means?

Ciao

- viole

Why not? I want to learn and understand how our consciousness fits in Block universe model.

 

[atanu]

The consciousness that Hindu Dharma called Brahman.

Don’t Hindus referred to Brahman as the ultimate (or “absolute”) reality, the ultimate consciousness, the creative principle, the Hindu version of the first cause, etc?

Whenever anyone referred to the “first cause” to the creation, world or universe associating to the transcendent consciousness or ultimate consciousness, then by any of those claims, they are anthropomorphising the creation or the universe.

But Brahman is not anthropomorphic. It is transcendental to intellect, in the sense that it is seer of intellect.

 

[viole]

Why not? I want to learn and understand how our consciousness fits in Block universe model.

We don’t know how it fits. For we know a lot about relativity and black universes, while we know nothing about our consciousness.

But of course knowing X, and not not knowing Y, the fact that Y does not immediately maps into X, is usually more of a problem for Y than for X. Don’t you think so?

Ciao

- viole

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My interest in this OP, which I intended but got lost (I blame only myself), was to explore whether the Universe is an open or closed system. This is different than discussing, as in recent posts, whether the Universe has an open topological expansion trajectory or not.

What I mean is whether the Universe is self-contained or whether it is an emergent layer of activity out of another layer just like atoms and their activity are emergent from sub-atomic particles.

I assume that particles, waves and their force fields are all components that in interaction form the space-time-matter-energy that we call the universe. Our Universe. It seems to me likely, if not easy to prove, that certain of our laws of quantum mechanics participate in a reality independent of our Universe. Otherwise we have difficulties with bootstrapping into self-created existence each and every law of physics when we go back in time to the BB.

So my belief is that it is more elegant to assume that outside of the Universe there is something and that something may be seen in certain aspects of our own Universe although we do not have the perspective from which to "prove" this. However, we do have the repeated experience of the complex, adaptive systems-layers in our own Universe to suggest that it is in a deep way like an ever-opening flower with petals of emergent phenomenon ever emerging out from a "lower" layer. Our own human consciousness and the transformations of the physical world that this consciousness is effecting is one example.

And perhaps most importantly each layer of emergent phenomenon not only arises from the lower layer but feeds back into it. So the two layers are not closed from each other but open and in dynamic interaction. Why not, then, the foundations of our Universe?

Interesting thoughts.

I like Tyson's reasoning about this as well:
Whenever we thought of something that it was unique... not only did it not turn out to be unique, it actually turned out to be just one of many billions, if not trillions. Like the earth - just another rocky planet. Or the sun- just another yellow star. The milky way - just another galaxy.

So when we say that there is only one universe.... The track record of such declarations seems very poor. Why not many more universes as well?

Personally, I think it's very unlikely that objective reality just consists of this universe and "nothing" else.
Then again, that could just as well be the result of my very human brain which is incapable of comprehending what it means to have no space and no temporal conditions whatsoever as what would have to be the case at T = 0.

This frontier of scientific inquiry, is a place where we absolutely need to ignore our inuition / common sense because it most certainly doesn't apply there. It will necessarily consist of things that we can't possibly wrap our human minds around.

As Krauss always says: our brain evolved to avoid being eaten by hungry lions... not to understand quantum mechanics.

 

[atanu]

We don’t know how it fits. For we know a lot about relativity and black universes, while we know nothing about our consciousness.

Okay.

But of course knowing X, and not not knowing Y, the fact that Y does not immediately maps into X, is usually more of a problem for Y than for X. Don’t you think so?

Ciao

- viole

I don’t think so.

 

[viole]

Okay.



I don’t think so.

Why not? It is logical. You do not defeat argument X because of argument Y, when you know a lot of X and nothing of Y.

Ciao

- viole

 

[gnostic]

But Brahman is not anthropomorphic. It is transcendental to intellect, in the sense that it is seer of intellect.

But “consciousness” and “intellect” are only thought of by humans.

And since I see all religions and all philosophies are of human-construct, whether it be theistic or not, dharmic or non-dharmic.

Hence Brahman is anthropomorphic of the human conditions.

 

[The Hammer]

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.

In my opinion, the Norse account of the world state before creation is enough to sate my curiosity. The word used is Ginnungagap, which put simply, is both silence and chaos.

To me it perfectly incapsulates the emptiness (void) that existed before us, and it's inherent lack of order, which to me suggests there was some sort of pre-substance, before ordered matter. What that was, or is, is of no concern to me.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There is no evidence of ANYTHING before the Big Bang. Indeed science has no way of even testing anything of that nature. The idea of multi-verses is a metaphysical belief of some scientists.