What came before the Big Bang?

[godnotgod]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. No, I wasn't talking about being born again. I was talking about "What came before the Big Bang?" and the "First Cause" argument (in the form WLC talks about it).



William Lane Craig says in his first premise:
p1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

I disagree with his premise because we have nothing in the world that comes into existence because of "a" cause but rather because of many causes.

Essentially, the conclusion to "what came before the Big Bang" must be "many things" or "many causes", not just "one cause" or "a first cause."

I'm not asserting that cause can only be singular. I'm asserting the absolute opposite. There are never a single cause. If there's anything causing anything then there must be many causes.

Not only are many other factors involved in a single arising of phenomena, but in reality, the entire universe is involved, as everything is interconnected to everything else. So instead of cause, we have conditions. It is this reality of the involvement of Everything that elicits the statement from Alan Watts:

'You are a total action of the universe'

 

[Ouroboros]

Not only are many other factors involved in a single arising of phenomena, but in reality, the entire universe is involved, as everything is interconnected to everything else. So instead of cause, we have conditions. It is this reality of the involvement of Everything that elicits the statement from Alan Watts:

'You are a total action of the universe'

Exactly.

Or Pratītyasamutpāda, interdependent co-arising.

And I'm starting to think that it's not only within space-matter-energy, but also non-temporal interdependence, like a magnetic field, a force, applying over time, from beginning to end, pushing and pulling all things to become.

In other words, Big Bang is constantly happening. It's happening right here, right now, and it never stopped.

 

[suncowiam]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. No, I wasn't talking about being born again. I was talking about "What came before the Big Bang?" and the "First Cause" argument (in the form WLC talks about it).



William Lane Craig says in his first premise:
p1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

I disagree with his premise because we have nothing in the world that comes into existence because of "a" cause but rather because of many causes.

Essentially, the conclusion to "what came before the Big Bang" must be "many things" or "many causes", not just "one cause" or "a first cause."

I'm not asserting that cause can only be singular. I'm asserting the absolute opposite. There are never a single cause. If there's anything causing anything then there must be many causes.

Ok, I see. If he said "Everything that begins to exist has a SINGLE cause." I think that would fix a lot of confusion here.

I actually don't read that to be a single cause but one cause out of many. So I think we're in agreement.

So when I was commenting about what's before the big bang and before God, I wasn't trying to say that there is only one cause. I'm open to the possibility of many causes but one of the many has to occur.

Did I understand you correctly now? =)

 

[Ouroboros]

Ok, I see. If he said "Everything that begins to exist has a SINGLE cause." I think that would fix a lot of confusion here.

I actually don't read that to be a single cause but one cause out of many. So I think we're in agreement.

So when I was commenting about what's before the big bang and before God, I wasn't trying to say that there is only one cause. I'm open to the possibility of many causes but one of the many has to occur.

Did I understand you correctly now? =)

Yup. We're in an agreement.

 

[godnotgod]

Exactly.

Or Pratītyasamutpāda, interdependent co-arising.

And I'm starting to think that it's not only within space-matter-energy, but also non-temporal interdependence, like a magnetic field, a force, applying over time, from beginning to end, pushing and pulling all things to become.

In other words, Big Bang is constantly happening. It's happening right here, right now, and it never stopped.

Science tells us it occurred the moment just prior to the creation of space-time, but that seems an oxymoron at the outset, as there could not have been any 'prior'. The only explanation in rational terms I can think of is that this notion of space-time having been 'created' is nothing more than concept; an arbitrary grid pattern overlayed onto the event, which occurred in no-spacetime, and in reality, is still occurring in no-spacetime. We have only conditioned our thinking to see the event as having occurred in some past, dictated as real, by the concept of spacetime. So the question is, then: What is this condition of no-space-time about, and what does it mean in terms of what the nature of the BB is?

 

[Ouroboros]

Science tells us it occurred the moment just prior to the creation of space-time,

My understanding is that there's no science currently telling us what happened prior to the creation of space-time. There are several hypotheses, but nothing really established or agreed on. One idea is that the big bang happened as a result of a 4-dimensional star collapsed into a 4-dimensional black hole (or something like that). The math seems to fit, but no one really knows. So, there's no established science yet for the prior to Planck time.

but that seems an oxymoron at the outset, as there could not have been any 'prior'.

Many scientists agree with you. It's considered to be a limit-point, like 0 is to logarithms. Log(0) is invalid, so is any log of any negative number.

The only explanation in rational terms I can think of is that this notion of space-time having been 'created' is nothing more than concept; an arbitrary grid pattern overlayed onto the event, which occurred in no-spacetime, and in reality, is still occurring in no-spacetime. We have only conditioned our thinking to see the event as having occurred in some past, dictated as real, by the concept of spacetime. So the question is, then: What is this condition of no-space-time about, and what does it mean in terms of what the nature of the BB is?

The way I see it today is that "now" and "time" and all of this is constantly "created". We live in every moment of the Big Bang. We just experience different facets of it.

 

[outhouse]

Science tells us it occurred the moment just prior to the creation of space-time,]

provide sources. you may be very incorrect here.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

...which is only to say that every point is A center, but not THE center, as in:

"...whose center is everywhere."

A huge stretch to the point it breaks down any potency it may have been intended. There is no "center" to our universe in that regard. For example in what country is the "center" of the earth? Its non-nonsensical because it would be deep down in another direction that you couldn't get to with the surface view of earth. However it would be like the same thing with our universe except instead of going towards the center of the earth it would be going back in time. The big bang is the closest thing we have to a "center".

 

[godnotgod]

A huge stretch to the point it breaks down any potency it may have been intended. There is no "center" to our universe in that regard. For example in what country is the "center" of the earth? Its non-nonsensical because it would be deep down in another direction that you couldn't get to with the surface view of earth. However it would be like the same thing with our universe except instead of going towards the center of the earth it would be going back in time. The big bang is the closest thing we have to a "center".

Right, and since there is no 'The Center' to the universe, every point then becomes A center. Hence....

'.......whose center is everywhere.'

 

[godnotgod]

provide sources. you may be very incorrect here.

I thought this theory was fairly common knowledge, although not all scientists hold it as true:

"Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space. According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy." The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing."

Big Bang Theory

 

[godnotgod]

My understanding is that there's no science currently telling us what happened prior to the creation of space-time. There are several hypotheses, but nothing really established or agreed on. One idea is that the big bang happened as a result of a 4-dimensional star collapsed into a 4-dimensional black hole (or something like that). The math seems to fit, but no one really knows. So, there's no established science yet for the prior to Planck time.


Many scientists agree with you. It's considered to be a limit-point, like 0 is to logarithms. Log(0) is invalid, so is any log of any negative number.



The way I see it today is that "now" and "time" and all of this is constantly "created". We live in every moment of the Big Bang. We just experience different facets of it.

Question: Would you agree that change takes place only in time and space? Now, if that is the case, then prior to the existence of space-time, change cannot have occurred. The BB cannot have occurred, since that signified change. Either that, or space-time DID exist prior to the BB.

 

[Ouroboros]

Question: Would you agree that change takes place only in time and space? Now, if that is the case, then prior to the existence of space-time, change cannot have occurred. The BB cannot have occurred, since that signified change. Either that, or space-time DID exist prior to the BB.

Oh, I agree with you. I think you and I are in agreement most of the time, it's more a matter of us using different language to convey the same ideas.

 

[suncowiam]

Question: Would you agree that change takes place only in time and space? Now, if that is the case, then prior to the existence of space-time, change cannot have occurred. The BB cannot have occurred, since that signified change. Either that, or space-time DID exist prior to the BB.

What about quantum entanglement? I'm not sure if you could consider the paired particle to change in between space and time.

 

[Apple Sugar]

What came before the Big Bang?

The big cramp. And then the big bang. Commonly called today, the huge poof. Augmented for the sake of mixed company to that of "bang".
Arrived at because it happened and then projectile poofed all sorts of crap all over the place. All of which was labeled and identified later as planets, stars, galaxies, various other gases, interstellar light and sources often called among other things, suns. And of course, people. Who looked around once they could walk upright and asked: What did that?
As thunder rolled and they bowed down again and gave that a name. Thor. Probably because they were so after all that standing and bending.

:run:
​

 

[godnotgod]

What about quantum entanglement? I'm not sure if you could consider the paired particle to change in between space and time.

Not sure I understand your question or suggestion here, but my understanding is that space-time are not factors in quantum entanglement. Alain's classic experiment with entangled photons, for example, exhibited instantaneous response, which I believe demonstrates signal-less communication faster than light speed. My inkling is that the explanation for this phenomenon is that the universe may be holographic.

BTW, in a very recent experimentm a photon has now been successfully quantum-teleported across space-time (25km) from one crystal to another:

Physicists Achieve Quantum Teleportation of Photon Over 25 Kilometers | IFLScience

 

[suncowiam]

I believe you are asserting that change can only occur in space and time so nothing could have happened before the big bang.

So we are observing changes that are possibly not proprogating through space and time.

Einstein theorized quantum entanglement but called it spooky magic because it did not fit in his theory of relativity or specifically events happening faster than the universal constant of the speed of light. Well, we can observe this now.

I don't know what a hologram is defined as so not sure what to make that. Thank you for the second point. I wasn't aware of that.

 

[Thief]

Just saw a rerun of a science discussion by the same title.

Like the first time I saw it....the people leading the way seem to be reaching for answers they will never be able to prove.

It's one thing to come up with probabilities and likelihood when searching for a cause....
It's quite something different to have an experiment to conclusively and definitively solve the riddle.

They even powered up a laser using enough current to light up a large city...
and dropped all that power unto a target not much more that a pin head.

And we are no closer to the beginning.
Even with a large and very expensive petri dish.....the beginning is far far away.

The elaborate equations are speculation at best.

And the narrator ended the show with a only a mention of 'something else'....
in the beginning.

 

[suncowiam]

Just saw a rerun of a science discussion by the same title.

Like the first time I saw it....the people leading the way seem to be reaching for answers they will never be able to prove.

It's one thing to come up with probabilities and likelihood when searching for a cause....
It's quite something different to have an experiment to conclusively and definitively solve the riddle.

They even powered up a laser using enough current to light up a large city...
and dropped all that power unto a target not much more that a pin head.

And we are no closer to the beginning.
Even with a large and very expensive petri dish.....the beginning is far far away.

The elaborate equations are speculation at best.

And the narrator ended the show with a only a mention of 'something else'....
in the beginning.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

 

[Shad]

Question: Would you agree that change takes place only in time and space? Now, if that is the case, then prior to the existence of space-time, change cannot have occurred. The BB cannot have occurred, since that signified change. Either that, or space-time DID exist prior to the BB.

One idea is that there was space and no time. Time was the catalyst.

 

[suncowiam]

Actually the boundaries of space or the universe can travel faster than the speed of light. Only "objects" within space or the universe are bound by the speed of light. There is an idea called the cosmic inflation which suggests that universe expanded rapidly immediately after the big bang for a miniscule percentage of a second. The rate of the expansion was much faster than the speed of light. There is evidence to support this but its still being under review and need further findings.

Edited: so in reference to shad, space should not have existed outside the singularity of the big bang.