What came before the Big Bang?

[godnotgod]

You might like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5n4mJkVivs

I've always found the question very difficult to reason around, and still do, but this gave me some idea of how to start.

It is not that Something exists in lieu of Nothing; it is that Everything exists because of Nothing.

Everything comes out of Nothing.

The guys in the video are asking the wrong question. It only looks at the foreground and does not take the background into account as the field against which Everything is seen.

 

[Alt Thinker]

You might like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5n4mJkVivs

I've always found the question very difficult to reason around, and still do, but this gave me some idea of how to start.

Smith's argument does not address my questions: Why is there anything? Why this particular anything? Like many proponents on both sides, he confuses temporal sequencing with logical dependency. Temporal sequencing is an example of logical dependency. But the existence and rules of the sequence depend on something else. Saying that the universe is what it is because it is what it is amounts to no more than a tautology, explaining nothing. Specificity remains unexplained.

My proposed explanation - that existence is no more than logical possibility, that there is an existential imperative whereby what can be is - accounts for both the existence of this universe (it is possible) and its idiosyncrasy (it is one of many). Some kind of existential imperative would be needed to account for the existence of a creator entity. But the idiosyncratic attributes assigned to such an entity would still remain unexplained.

Occam's shaving kit says to eliminate the middle man. Everything that can be is, because it can be.

 

[`mud]

Does causality cause velocity, or is it the result of same.
Question is: "What is momentum" ?
~
To go on: What was in the so called "singularity" ?
~
What caused the resulting inflation ?
~
How old is God
~
nuff stuff,
'mud

 

[Thief]

Does causality cause velocity, or is it the result of same.
Question is: "What is momentum" ?
~
To go on: What was in the so called "singularity" ?
~
What caused the resulting inflation ?
~
How old is God
~
nuff stuff,
'mud

In descending order.....

The urge to carry on....
Just one thing only....
Gas....
Old enough to know better.....

 

[`mud]

where's the smiley ?
because that was funny !
~
'mud

 

[Thief]

where's the smiley ?
because that was funny !
~
'mud

I can't smile....the icon option doesn't work for me.
(maybe I should post to a mod and find out why)

Oh!...there it is!.....how did it get up there?

 

[godnotgod]

I can't smile....the icon option doesn't work for me.
(maybe I should post to a mod and find out why)

Oh!...there it is!.....how did it get up there?

Yes! There it is! Right up there next to "I"!

I suggest you grab this "I" by the nose and give it a good yank so it won't get away.

 

[godnotgod]

Smith's argument does not address my questions: Why is there anything? Why this particular anything? Like many proponents on both sides, he confuses temporal sequencing with logical dependency. Temporal sequencing is an example of logical dependency. But the existence and rules of the sequence depend on something else. Saying that the universe is what it is because it is what it is amounts to no more than a tautology, explaining nothing. Specificity remains unexplained.

My proposed explanation - that existence is no more than logical possibility, that there is an existential imperative whereby what can be is - accounts for both the existence of this universe (it is possible) and its idiosyncrasy (it is one of many). Some kind of existential imperative would be needed to account for the existence of a creator entity. But the idiosyncratic attributes assigned to such an entity would still remain unexplained.

Occam's shaving kit says to eliminate the middle man. Everything that can be is, because it can be.

I propose that the missing element in all of this probing is play. When we see a child poking a stick into an oily rain puddle, and becoming absorbed in the many patterns that result, do we ask 'why the patterns?' as the path toward an explanation for the reason those particular patterns show up? The delight comes as a result of experiencing the spontaneous and unexpected. If we already knew the how and why, we would be bored to death. In Hindu cosmology, the worlds are repeated endlessly, though each time they are never the same, just as snowflakes are unique one from the other. So in this line of thought, the universe has no other purpose than sheer delight in the dance of its own multi-colored patterns and forms. The simplicity of this explanation is a paradox to the rational mind, as there is nothing here to figure out intellectually.

Just a thought....

 

[Alt Thinker]

I propose that the missing element in all of this probing is play. When we see a child poking a stick into an oily rain puddle, and becoming absorbed in the many patterns that result, do we ask 'why the patterns?' as the path toward an explanation for the reason those particular patterns show up? The delight comes as a result of experiencing the spontaneous and unexpected. If we already knew the how and why, we would be bored to death. In Hindu cosmology, the worlds are repeated endlessly, though each time they are never the same, just as snowflakes are unique one from the other. So in this line of thought, the universe has no other purpose than sheer delight in the dance of its own multi-colored patterns and forms. The simplicity of this explanation is a paradox to the rational mind, as there is nothing here to figure out intellectually.

Just a thought....

The Dance of the Potential Becoming Real

 

[godnotgod]

The Dance of the Potential Becoming Real

....but not even that. No becoming, but only seeming to have become. That is how good and compelling the illusion is.

BTW, doesn't Quantum Physics say that what we think of as hard reality is actually a 'field of possibilites'?

 

[Alt Thinker]

....but not even that. No becoming, but only seeming to become. That is how good and compelling the illusion is.

BTW, doesn't Quantum Physics say that what we think of as hard reality is actually a 'field of possibilites'?

Ah the power of Maya!

A field of possible measurement results. But unmeasured reality is a set of definite wave functions. It is the measured result that is illusion. It does not stay measured.

 

[godnotgod]

Ah the power of Maya!

A field of possible measurement results. But unmeasured reality is a set of definite wave functions. It is the measured result that is illusion. It does not stay measured.

Now that explanation gets the scientific and mystical views to touch upon each other very well! :cigar:

 

[Thief]

Such as the forming of a singularity?

 

[godnotgod]

Such as the forming of a singularity?

No. Such as that the 'spiritual' and the' physical' are not different, as in:

'The universe IS The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation'

 

[`mud]

The measurement only depends on the length of the ruler used.
And also the number of rulers.
AHHHH....quantum....
~
'mud

 

[Thief]

No. Such as that the 'spiritual' and the' physical' are not different, as in:

'The universe IS The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation'

Time does not exist.
Space is real enough.
Cause as in Creator?....sure.

 

[godnotgod]

Time does not exist.
Space is real enough.
Cause as in Creator?....sure.

'creation' and 'cause' cannot exist without time, so if time does not exist, then there is no cause nor creation either. Remove the filters of Time, Space, and Causation, and you then see the universe as it actually is: The Changeless, Timeless, Causeless Absolute that does not exist in Space.

Change can take place only in time, and change is causation and creation.

 

[Ouroboros]

'creation' and 'cause' cannot exist without time, so if time does not exist, then there is no cause nor creation either. Remove the filters of Time, Space, and Causation, and you then see the universe as it actually is: The Changeless, Timeless, Causeless Absolute that does not exist in Space.

Change can take place only in time, and change is causation and creation.

Exactly.

That's why "First Cause" fails in my opinion. It's logic is circular. Having a first cause to cause the framework for causality into existence means that a first cause is impossible. The "first cause" must come just a short moment after the first existence of time-space. So time-space must be first, before the "first cause".

 

[Thief]

Exactly.

That's why "First Cause" fails in my opinion. It's logic is circular. Having a first cause to cause the framework for causality into existence means that a first cause is impossible. The "first cause" must come just a short moment after the first existence of time-space. So time-space must be first, before the "first cause".

Time does not exist.

Someone had to be First in mind and heart.

Choose....Spirit first?...or substance.

 

[godnotgod]

Exactly.

That's why "First Cause" fails in my opinion. It's logic is circular. Having a first cause to cause the framework for causality into existence means that a first cause is impossible. The "first cause" must come just a short moment after the first existence of time-space. So time-space must be first, before the "first cause".

Uh huh.. Someday the notion of causation will be a philosophical Model T relegated to The Museum of Philosophical Oddities. Descarte's cogito ergo sum is well on its way already, while down the hall we have ex nihilo fit.