Pre-Big Bang

[muhammad_isa]

Because we have no experience of such a thing. In our lives there is always a temporal "before" and a spacial "behind". We can only try to train our imagination with questions like "When you're at the south pole, where is south?".

There is no need if you are a believer.
Almighty God is not a physical concept, as this physical universe was created by Him .. He is neither male or female, and has no progeny or parents .. He is Eternal.

..now you might ask why He exists as opposed to nothing, or the universe being eternal. The answer is that we have no recollection of our past .. it is hidden from us, but this reality is only a means to an end .. we will return from whence we came.

Some believe, and some don't. It is about psychology, and not so much about proof.
An Eternal cosmos needs no proof .. you either accept it, or you don't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think he refers to multiverse and what not.
You know, the theories of how the universe came into being.

The multi-verse is not a theory.
And it most certainly isn't asserted as a fact, like gods are.

I'm not aware of any scientific theories that assert how the universe came into existence.
And most certainly not any theories that are asserted as being "true".

Instead, whenever it comes up, I only hear scientists say that we don't know.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Mmm .. but our intuition says that this is not so.

Our "intuition" also said that time is a constant everywhere at all times for everybody. Relativity tells us this is not so.

Our "intuition" is like our "common sense". It can only keep into account those things that lie within our field of day-to-day experience. ie, medium sized objects of medium sized mass traveling at medium sized speeds affected by medium gravity.

The quantum world does not lie within that field of experience. So just about everything we learn(ed) in that field, flew right in the face of our "intuition".

So much so even that Einstein actually was pretty much convinced that he had to be in error somewhere, because his "intuition" informed him that all the "spooky" stuff that was predicted by his theories, like black holes and quantum physics, sounded like nonsense.

The lesson here is that whenever it comes to the frontiers of scientific knowledge, our "intuition" and "common sense" is utterly worthless to arrive at accurate answers.

So, in context of our "intuition", the actual explanation of the origins of the universe (no space, no time, no physics) is bound to be mega bizarre to us.


In essence, once again here you seem to be guilty of an argument from incredulity.
The fact of the matter is that everything we currently know about physics, like relativity, informs us that Time is an inherent part of the universe. Meaning that it doesn't exist if the universe doesn't exist.
Meaning in turn that the concept of "before" the universe, likely doesn't make any sense.

It makes little sense to say that it is impossible for something to exist outside of the universe.

Perhaps, perhaps not.
We don't know.

But once again: you don't know what does and doesn't make sense in advance.
Black holes didn't make sense to Einstein. That's why he assumed he had to be in error. But he wasn't.

You don't know what is and isn't sensible in advance.

We cannot therefore make such an assumption that time, itself, is merely a property of this universe.

It's not an assumption. Relativity is not an assumption. It's a well tested, well established, scientific theory.

Are you saying that the theory is incorrect?

 

[muhammad_isa]

So, in context of our "intuition", the actual explanation of the origins of the universe (no space, no time, no physics) is bound to be mega bizarre to us..

..except that it is not an explanation .. it is merely a possibility, when looking at the issue in the context that this physical universe is all that is.

The fact of the matter is that everything we currently know about physics, like relativity, informs us that Time is an inherent part of the universe. Meaning that it doesn't exist if the universe doesn't exist..

That is the same as saying that nothing can exist outside this universe.
One cannot make such a conclusion, from merely observing this universe.

It's not an assumption. Relativity is not an assumption. It's a well tested, well established, scientific theory.

Are you saying that the theory is incorrect?

Of course not.
We can observe how time behaves relative to space, but we cannot deduce from that, that nothing can exist outside of the universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

None of them are testable.

Incorrect. You don't know how to test them. That does not mean that they cannot be tested.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

..except that it is not an explanation ..

???

I didn't say it was. I merely said that whatever the explanation turns out to be, it is going to be something that is counter-intuitive / bizar. Much like quantum mechanics, relativity, black holes, etc.

it is merely a possibility, when looking at the issue in the context that this physical universe is all that is.

I don't think I ever asserted that this universe is "all that is".
I don't know if it is. I tend to stay clear of making claims about things that are unknown.

That is the same as saying that nothing can exist outside this universe.

No, it isn't. That's what you make of it.

One cannot make such a conclusion, from merely observing this universe.

If X is an inherent part of Y, it stands to reason that X doesn't exist if Y doesn't exist.

For example: my fingers are an inherent part of me. Before I existed, my fingers didn't exist either.

Of course not.

Well, it is what you seem to be saying when you say that time is NOT in inherent part of the universe.
Through relativity we have established that the universe = space-time.
So no universe = no space, and no time.

Saying that time still exists without a universe, is like saying that space still exists without a universe.
So if you wish to argue with that, you are essentially arguing against relativity as understood today in physics.

Can't have it both ways.

We can observe how time behaves relative to space, but we cannot deduce from that, that nothing can exist outside of the universe.

Once again: I didn't say that "nothing can exist outside of the universe". I don't know if it can or can't.
I don't make claims about it. So stop trying to put those words in my mouth.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Saying that time still exists without a universe, is like saying that space still exists without a universe..

No it isn't .. the fact that we can observe a relationship between space and time, says nothing about their underlying natures.

So no universe = no space, and no time..

What does that actually mean "no time"?
Can something exist in "no time"?
..because that is the implication, isn't it?
People use that argument to suggest that nothing can exist "before" the big-bang, as that is when time began.

In the same way, one could argue that nothing could exist outside the universe, because there would be "no time" there either.

Once again: I didn't say that "nothing can exist outside of the universe". I don't know if it can or can't.
I don't make claims about it. So stop trying to put those words in my mouth.

..so you don't know if anything could exist before the "big-bang" either,
by that reasoning.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No it isn't ..

Off course it is. Why is it do you think that the universe is also called the space-time continuum?

What does that actually mean "no time"?

I don't know.

Can something exist in "no time"?

I don't know.

..because that is the implication, isn't it?

I don't know. Is it?
I can't wrap my brain, which is trained to exist on a classical physics level, around such an environment.

Or as Krauss once put it: "Our brains evolved to avoid being eating by lions in Africa... not to understand quantum mechanics"

People use that argument to suggest that nothing can exist "before" the big-bang, as that is when time began.

Actually, what is said is merely that the concept of "before" the universe, might not make any sense, since the universe started at T = 0. You'ld have to go into "negative time" in order to talk about a "before".

An analogy that frequently pops up is like talking about "north of north". Once you read "north", you can't go further "north". If you move beyond that point, you're actually just going south.

As for what the implication is of such... I have no idea. Far to bizaroid for me.
But not understanding such an environment, is no reason to just ignore it.

Fact remains that using the concept of "before" in that setting, doesn't seem to be making any sense.

..so you don't know if anything could exist before the "big-bang" either,
by that reasoning.

I don't know.
Again: I tend not to make claims about things that are unknown.
All I can say is that current understanding informs us that the term "before" seems to be an invalid concept in that setting. Like dividing by 0 or something.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't know.
Again: I tend not to make claims about things that are unknown.
All I can say is that current understanding informs us that the term "before" seems to be an invalid concept in that setting. Like dividing by 0 or something.

..but that is based on circular reasoning..

Time is defined as relative to space, and that is why through calculation you will get "t=0".
Obviously, if we define time as if it is part of the universe, you will get a result that time is part of the universe.
..circular reasoning.

We have to define time somehow .. we could not make our observations about relativity and speed of light etc, otherwise.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Incorrect. You don't know how to test them. That does not mean that they cannot be tested.

None of them are testable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

None of them are testable.

How are you going to prove this? You took on a burden of proof with this statement.

 

[Wildswanderer]

How are you going to prove this? You took on a burden of proof with this statement.

How are you going to prove this? You took on a burden of proof with this statement.

How are you going to test them? That's the question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How are you going to test them? That's the question.

No, you made your claim first. I demanded support first. Your burden of proof.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No, you made your claim first. I demanded support first. Your burden of proof.

Lol you don't have to prove a negative. You have to prove something can be possible, otherwise it can't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol you don't have to prove a negative. You have to prove something can be possible, otherwise it can't.

Wrong. You made what is called a "positive claim" . For example if I said "There is not God" I would have a burden of proof.

You really should try to think things through.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

God can not be described by any words.
God can not be measured by any numbers.
God can not be limited by any time.
God can not be circumscribed into any whole.

God is that which is expressed by all that is, the relative miniscule amount of material creation available to human perception is all that science can study, and that can never prove or disprove God.

But humans can theorize, hypothesize, and speculate all they want, nothing wrong in that, but the serious student of God merely aspires to be one with God, no beliefs, calculations, imaginations are needed, we are already an expression of God so all that is essential is to realize that truth..

 

[Subduction Zone]

God can not be described by any words.
God can not be measured by any numbers.
God can not be limited by any time.
God can not be circumscribed into any whole.

God is that which is expressed by all that is, the relative miniscule amount of material creation available to human perception is all that science can study, and that can never prove or disprove God.

But humans can theorize, hypothesize, and speculate all they want, nothing wrong in that, but the serious student of God merely aspires to be one with God, no beliefs, calculations, imaginations are needed, we are already an expression of God so all that is essential is to realize that truth..

Why even assume that such a god exists in the first place?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why even assume that such a god exists in the first place?

There is no assumption to begin with, that is just your speculation at work as an atheist..

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no assumption to begin with, that is just your speculation at work as an atheist..

Really? No speculation? Then you can prove that a god exists. How are you going to do that?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Really? No speculation? Then you can prove that a god exists. How are you going to do that?

The proof is that I exist, you exist, everything I perceive exists, God is all that is.