What came before the Big Bang?

[godnotgod]

Yeah. A void doesn't make sense at all. A void is when a space is empty. But if space didn't exist, there wasn't any void to be had.

I still want to know what the context of the speck is. The moment one says 'singularity', it is automatically being placed in some kind of unspoken context, or background, or field of being or existence. That sounds like it would be space, but according to theory, space did not yet exist at that moment.

Would'nt the void be the absolute absence of everything, even of space?

In addition, if space were completely empty, as you say, then there would be no space at all, simply because, (here it comes), 'space' can only be conceptualized when there is something solid by which it can be determined to 'exist'. Space is therefore defined by solids, just as solids are defined by space. Therefore, they are not only two (relative) aspects of the same reality, but space and time are only concepts.

 

[Ouroboros]

Would'nt the void be the absolute absence of everything, even of space?

Maybe, maybe not. The way I see how the word works when you use it in any context is when something is missing and you have an empty spot. But to have an empty spot, there has to be a spot to be empty. The singularity is the spot, within nothing... I think we just don't have the capacity as humans to fully comprehend what it is.

In addition, if space were completely empty, as you say, then there would be no space at all, simply because, (here it comes), 'space' can only be conceptualized when there is something solid by which it can be determined to 'exist'. Space is therefore defined by solids, just as solids are defined by space. Therefore, they are not only two (relative) aspects of the same reality, but space and time are only concepts.

Don't know.

 

[godnotgod]

Originally Posted by godnotgod
Would'nt the void be the absolute absence of everything, even of space?

Maybe, maybe not. The way I see how the word works when you use it in any context is when something is missing and you have an empty spot. But to have an empty spot, there has to be a spot to be empty. The singularity is the spot, within nothing... I think we just don't have the capacity as humans to fully comprehend what it is.

But don't you see: at the very moment you say: 'something is missing', you are conceiving that 'something' against a background by which something must either exist or not-exist. The 'empty spot' you refer to cannot be seen against emptiness itself. It would necessarily need to be ascertained against the not-empty in order for it to be known as an 'empty spot', which is the reverse of what we are talking about. The 'spot' you refer to is location, and location implies time and space, which, at the point of the singularity, do not yet exist, according to theory.

No. This talk about an 'empty spot' is all mental acrobatics, and has no meaning whatsoever. It's just an arbitrary designation created by science to try to explain phenomena, when it itself is phenomena.

Or is it?

Actually, in looking at the question of 'void' a bit more, I would restate my response as:

The void is neither the absence of everything, nor the not-absence of everything.

BTW, nothing can be 'missing', according to Einstein and the Conservation Laws; it can only be transformed.

It's not that we lack the capacity to fully comprehend, it's that we cannot comprehend via the rational mind, though the rational mind continues to tell us that we can. The only thing we can use Reason for in this regard is to tell us what Reality is not, until we arrive at Nothing. That is when the intuitive mind, or 'Big Mind', as Zen calls it, comes into play.

 

[godnotgod]

Quote:
In addition, if space were completely empty, as you say, then there would be no space at all, simply because, (here it comes), 'space' can only be conceptualized when there is something solid by which it can be determined to 'exist'. Space is therefore defined by solids, just as solids are defined by space. Therefore, they are not only two (relative) aspects of the same reality, but space and time are only concepts.

Don't know.

Well, do you agree that space and time only come into play when there is a universe in place?

 

[Slapstick]

That sounds like it would be space, but according to theory, space did not yet exist at that moment.

I think you have brought up a good point. It seems like a paradox.

The Universe is everything that exists as in the “observable universe”. Space has to exist for an object to take up space or for an object to exist within it. I wouldn’t refer to space before the universe (big bang) as being nothingness - if it exist which I think it had to otherwise the universe wouldn't have anything to expand into. Space could very well be infinite and existed before the known universe. Which makes me think about people who say nothing can travel faster than light… well apparently space can. :yes:

 

[godnotgod]

I think you have brought up a good point. It seems like a paradox.

The Universe is everything that exists as in the “observable universe”. Space has to exist for an object to take up space or for an object to exist within it. I wouldn’t refer to space before the universe (big bang) as being nothingness - if it exist which I think it had to otherwise the universe wouldn't have anything to expand into. Space could very well be infinite and existed before the known universe. Which makes me think about people who say nothing can travel faster than light… well apparently space can. :yes:

All of which is dependent upon the notion that 'matter' is real. If what we call 'matter' is an illusion of a higher order, then there is no paradox. Paradox only exists when the rational mind cannot explain, via the concepts it conjures up, what the nature of Reality actually is. When rational concept fails to match Reality, paradox is the outcome.

For one to ascertain the presence of space, do we not require solids as a reference, without which what we call 'space' is non-existent, 'space' being only a concept derived from the presence of that which is 'solid', and vice-versa?

You see the hedge against the background of the hills.
You see the hills against the background of the sky.
And you see the sky against the background of consciousness.

It is consciousness against which the notion of 'the singularity' is seen and understood, and it is consciousness that is not defined by Time, Space, or Causation.

"The universe is the Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivikenanda

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

otherwise the universe wouldn't have anything to expand into.

From Woolfson's Time, Space, Stars, and Man: The Story of the Big Bang (Imperial College Press, 2009): "You might try again with the question, "Into what did the Universe expand?", to which the answer is, "There was no space for the Universe to expand into since the only space that existed was what it created as it expanded" [emphasis added]. p.66

 

[Slapstick]

[/size]
From Woolfson's Time, Space, Stars, and Man: The Story of the Big Bang (Imperial College Press, 2009): "You might try again with the question, "Into what did the Universe expand?", to which the answer is, "There was no space for the Universe to expand into since the only space that existed was what it created as it expanded" [emphasis added]. p.66

I was thinking about that actually, but it makes the whole idea of thinking outside the box irrational. So I’m going to bask in my euphoric moment while it still exists. I might read that book too sometime. It looks like a good read. :beach:

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I was thinking about that actually, but it makes the whole idea of thinking outside the box irrational.

I just work here, man.

I might read that book too sometime. It looks like a good read. :beach:

I haven't read it in ages but I'm sure it's ok. It's fairly non-technical if memory serves (one of the reasons I haven't returned to it). A while ago it was all I was really capable of reading without knowing more about astrophysics and the irritating mathematical notations unique to physics rather than mathematics (Dirac notation is so ******* annoying I hate the guy despite his innumerable contributions to physics).

For other sources: The best sources to understand cosmology and physics

 

[Slapstick]

I just work here, man.

Ha... Nah it was a joke, can’t think outside of something if there is an imaginary box with nothing to think outside about. But to think about space as being dimensional and having no fixed dimensions is kind of cool. Either way, nothing can exceed the limitations or boundaries of space. If it could then that would be amazing. But to think about space like that is amazing in its own right.

I haven't read it in ages but I'm sure it's ok. It's fairly non-technical if memory serves (one of the reasons I haven't returned to it). A while ago it was all I was really capable of reading without knowing more about astrophysics and the irritating mathematical notations unique to physics rather than mathematics (Dirac notation is so ******* annoying I hate the guy despite his innumerable contributions to physics).

I'm not an astrophysicist but I find some math to be annoying too. Especially when it has to do with learning something very technical for the first time. It is usually better to study it and then take some time away from and go back to it later. I find hat works for me anyways. Which is why I couldn't possibly spend all of my time studying the universe because it would probably drive me nuts. I would question everything about anything.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Ha... Nah it was a joke, can’t think outside of something if there is there is an imaginary box with nothing to think outside about.

You are not alone, my friend.

But to think about space as being dimensional and having no fixed dimensions is kind of cool.

I do have one advantage over most physicists. I honestly [not really] think this is why they screw with the mathematical notation: to make it more difficult for those who come to physics from mathematics. Physicists get used to dealing with vectors and other elements from mathematical spaces that resemble our own. Everything is 3D and/or relevant to the 3D world we are familiar with. In mathematics, this couldn't be less true. We treat images as existing in 10,000 dimensional space, experimental observations as existing in 500th dimensional space, etc. We treat distance as sometimes an extension of 3D to NthD dimensional space and sometimes as distance that can't easily (or at all) be defined by our experience in 3D space. So we get used to dimensions that have little or nothing to do with the 3-dimensional space we are familiar with. Naturally, physicists hate this and screw around with the notation to stop those with a background in mathematics from enjoying reading physics literature.

Either way, nothing can exceed the limitations or boundaries of space. If it could then that would be amazing. But to think about space like that is amazing in its own right.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, /Than are dreamt of in your philosophy" [better yet, "our philosophies"]

Which is why I couldn't possibly spend all of my time studying the universe because it would probably drive me nuts.

Being nuts is a prerequisite to understanding modern physics.

 

[idav]

Being nuts is a prerequisite to understanding modern physics.

Come over here north of the north pole.

 

[Thief]

This doesn't jive with the cosmologists that I have read if I understand you correctly. They have posited that our entire universe was probably about the size of a present-day atom, unbelievably hot, with an immense mass that highly restricted movement and even time itself.

One of the cosmological hypotheses I've run across, and I think it's from either Susskind or Kaku, is that even within this singularity, some charges may have gotten too close, repelled, thus creating actually two quick expansions a micro-second apart. IOW, the bonds that kept this dense "ball" together began to break apart, and viola! M-Theory has it that it may have been a couple of huge "membranes" may have rubbed across each other, spinning of the little speck that became our universe.

Of the research cosmologists I've read, none of them posited that this tiny speck was a void. But who knows?

This would be substance first....
And two points would not be a singularity.

the void would be that item mentioned in Genesis.
That existence of Spirit.....before substance.

 

[Prabhapati das]

It is an error to believe the big bang theory opposes the spiritual view.

It is not a creation by 'material scientists' to further so-called atheism and oppose the forces of spirituality. As if such a thing could truly exist.

The term was first coined by the priest George Lamaitre to 'answer to his religious beliefs'.

Like some meme, a whole system of paralysis that divides science and spirit vs unite 'it'.

The question: when was the beginning - is as inadequate as the theory.

There are no black 'holes' In the theory. They are continually being added to match the observations.
Nor dark matter as these are chalkboard formulates which the plasma simply refuses to obey. ( Hannes Alfven, Alton Harp...)

 

[Prabhapati das]

Big bang was created by a priest to answer to his religious beliefs. The complete system of analysis is fouled without this starting point. When was the beginning is an inadequate question as is the chalkboard theory which seeks to describe a universe with only one mass.

 

[Prabhapati das]

Therefore even term universe is suspect. The Holoverse is found to be a Plasma domain and Sankhya by Sage Kapila provides the math which
defines the energy in the substratum of space.

 

[metis]

This would be substance first....
And two points would not be a singularity.

the void would be that item mentioned in Genesis.
That existence of Spirit.....before substance.

The two expansions I mentioned dealt with the mathematical models that have it that singularity starting expanding through two steps, not "points", a faction of a second apart.

Genesis is not a science book, so we can't use that as evidence in science unless it can be substantiated through objectively-derived data.

 

[Ouroboros]

Metis. I hear ya'.

How does spirits "speak"? If God spoke "let there be light", is it in figurative sense or was he really speaking in some form of medium that resonated into sound waves?

If it's just an expression and not literal, then why not interpret the rest of Genesis the same way? It's an allegory. Not a scientific journal.

 

[metis]

Metis. I hear ya'.

How does spirits "speak"? If God spoke "let there be light", is it in figurative sense or was he really speaking in some form of medium that resonated into sound waves?

If it's just an expression and not literal, then why not interpret the rest of Genesis the same way? It's an allegory. Not a scientific journal.

Yep, and that is exactly what I do with all scripture. Out of curiosity, do you do the same?

 

[Slapstick]

I do have one advantage over most physicists. I honestly [not really] think this is why they screw with the mathematical notation: to make it more difficult for those who come to physics from mathematics. Physicists get used to dealing with vectors and other elements from mathematical spaces that resemble our own. Everything is 3D and/or relevant to the 3D world we are familiar with. In mathematics, this couldn't be less true. We treat images as existing in 10,000 dimensional space, experimental observations as existing in 500th dimensional space, etc. We treat distance as sometimes an extension of 3D to NthD dimensional space and sometimes as distance that can't easily (or at all) be defined by our experience in 3D space. So we get used to dimensions that have little or nothing to do with the 3-dimensional space we are familiar with. Naturally, physicists hate this and screw around with the notation to stop those with a background in mathematics from enjoying reading physics literature.

I would create the dimensionless all encompassing constant called space. Wait a minute, space can't be declared as a constant! Of course it can! Space involves everything that exists. No it isn't!@#. That is what the Universe is for.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, /Than are dreamt of in your philosophy" [better yet, "our philosophies"]

I agree. There is more to the heavens than we will ever know. But I will put a foot in shake spears buttox and say he only knew what he didn't know today.

Being nuts is a prerequisite to understanding modern physics.

Where do I sign up?