What came before the Big Bang?

[gnostic]

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?

That's the thing, godnotgod...the Big Bang cosmologists...the ones that I know of, at least...are not and were not saying that the singularity is a void or nothingness.

They just don't know what this singularity is. They can only speculate and hypothese what this singularity could possibly be, so far, because at this time, they cannot observe the Planck period of the Big Bang, which is the from zero to 10^-43 seconds.

The singularity, they hypothese or speculate to be super-hot and super-dense that even the quantum sub-particles (like quarks for instance) cannot form.

Perhaps, we currently don't have the technology to observe what the singularity is. Perhaps we never will. But that we think that the singularity has infinite heat and infinite density at all, and that gravitational force is as strong as all other fundamental forces, tell me that the singularity is not a void or nothingness.

Nothingness would not and could not have heat, let alone have density. Nothingness cannot have density.

Just because we don't know what that something is, doesn't mean that were nothing at all.

Void or nothingness just add additional complication to the Big Bang theory that we don't need.

 

[Ouroboros]

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

Do I take the Bible stories as analogies? Yes. Very much so. Even the Gospel is a story about spiritual journey, not history.

 

[godnotgod]

That's the thing, godnotgod...the Big Bang cosmologists...the ones that I know of, at least...are not and were not saying that the singularity is a void or nothingness.

They just don't know what this singularity is. They can only speculate and hypothese what this singularity could possibly be, so far, because at this time, they cannot observe the Planck period of the Big Bang, which is the from zero to 10^-43 seconds.

The singularity, they hypothese or speculate to be super-hot and super-dense that even the quantum sub-particles (like quarks for instance) cannot form.

Perhaps, we currently don't have the technology to observe what the singularity is. Perhaps we never will. But that we think that the singularity has infinite heat and infinite density at all, and that gravitational force is as strong as all other fundamental forces, tell me that the singularity is not a void or nothingness.

Nothingness would not and could not have heat, let alone have density. Nothingness cannot have density.

Just because we don't know what that something is, doesn't mean that were nothing at all.

Void or nothingness just add additional complication to the Big Bang theory that we don't need.

Nothingness, or the void, cannot have density or heat, but it can contain them. If you cannot see this, then tell me: what field or background does the singularity exist against? If you cannot provide an answer, then all talk about a 'singularity' is nonsense. To say that it is a hot, dense point that expanded is meaningless, because we need to have place from which the 'point' expands from. Because there was no Time or Space prior to expansion, the only background that the singularity could have existed against is consciousness itself, which is Nothingness. Nothingness is the true nature of Reality. Everything comes out of it. If you try to argue that everything had to come from something, you are back at square one in trying to explain the original 'something'. Religion calls it divine magic; science can't explain it in rational terms. Cutting edge theoretical physics is now playing with the notion of 'a universe from nothing'. See Krauss on YouTube: 'A Universe from Nothing'.

The only thing that 'explains' the BB for me is that it is illusion born of consciousness. IOW, this world is nothing more than lila and maya. (divine play and illusion). Absolute Reality is what it comes out of, and that is No-thing-ness, or Consciousness.

 

[lfa11]

kind of believe in big bang

i wrote about more than one universe and i say there is two the black one we in now and then through the blackhole the white universe which is called the white hole there, in the middle its grey
going by black n white, night n day, life and death concept
also think if we go there then the dinosaurs may be there in waiting as we not the only beings that have been and are on this planet if w edo going anywhere at all

 

[godnotgod]

kind of believe in big bang

i wrote about more than one universe and i say there is two the black one we in now and then through the blackhole the white universe which is called the white hole there, in the middle its grey
going by black n white, night n day, life and death concept
also think if we go there then the dinosaurs may be there in waiting as we not the only beings that have been and are on this planet if w edo going anywhere at all

We all live in a single Yellow Submarine, dinosaurs down the hall to the left.

Everything that we say 'happened' is still going on.

 

[metis]

Nothingness, or the void, cannot have density or heat, but it can contain them.

If it can contain it, then there is density and/or heat within singularity.

If you cannot see this, then tell me: what field or background does the singularity exist against?

Unknown at this point, but there are various hypotheses (M-Theory, Brane Theory, String Theory, etc.).

If you cannot provide an answer, then all talk about a 'singularity' is nonsense.

A hypothesis is not "nonsense" as cosmologists and physicists just don't pull these theories out of their butts.

To say that it is a hot, dense point that expanded is meaningless, because we need to have place from which the 'point' expands from. Because there was no Time or Space prior to expansion, the only background that the singularity could have existed against is consciousness itself, which is Nothingness.

And what is the evidence for this "consciousness"?

Nothingness is the true nature of Reality. Everything comes out of it. If you try to argue that everything had to come from something, you are back at square one in trying to explain the original 'something'. Religion calls it divine magic; science can't explain it in rational terms. Cutting edge theoretical physics is now playing with the notion of 'a universe from nothing'. See Krauss on YouTube: 'A Universe from Nothing'.

The only thing that 'explains' the BB for me is that it is illusion born of consciousness. IOW, this world is nothing more than lila and maya. (divine play and illusion). Absolute Reality is what it comes out of, and that is No-thing-ness, or Consciousness.

That's jumping to a conclusion whereas there's simply no evidence whatsoever to support it. Also, the issue of "nothing" in the cosmological framework needs to be put into context as it's a reflection of quantum physics whereas sub-atomic particles can suddenly emerge without known causation. But beware the term "known".

 

[godnotgod]

And what is the evidence for this "consciousness"?

It is self-evident.

Do you know you are conscious?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

It is self-evident.

Do you know you are conscious?

Consciousness can't be nothingness just by definition of nothingness right?

Consciousness is a thing...nothingness is quite literally No Thing.

 

[godnotgod]

Consciousness can't be nothingness just by definition of nothingness right?

Consciousness is a thing...nothingness is quite literally No Thing.

Consciousness is not a thing. It is No-Thing. You cannot pinpoint consciousness. Don't confuse consciousness with mind, which is a self-created principle, making it an illusion. Because mind is illusory, consciousness is non-local, besides being outside of Time, Space, and Causation, which makes it's nature no-thing-ness.

 

[metis]

It is self-evident.

Do you know you are conscious?

Because I have a brain that functions at least part of the time. Just because we have a consciousness now does not necessarily mean there always was this consciousness as it is a by-product of what many organisms have that could have a non-organic/non-conscious source.

No matter what one might hypothesize about consciousness, there simply isn't one shred of evidence to suggest that consciousness was always around in our universe.

 

[YmirGF]

Consciousness is not a thing.

As much as I enjoyed your comment about the Yellow Submarine and dinosaurs I simply cannot let this comment stand.

Consciousness IS a thingy as it is something that has been given definition. This "thingy" does not have to be physical to be considered a thing as the mere isolation of the idea makes it what it is. That said, I understand where you are coming from but caution expressing your internal, non-dual meanings, in conventional dualistic terms without making your intent clear.

I'm still entranced by the idea of multiple Big Bangs happening all around us, each in their own separate "workspace", if you will.

 

[metis]

I'm still entranced by the idea of multiple Big Bangs happening all around us, each in their own separate "workspace", if you will.

That's because you like orgies? :run:

 

[YmirGF]

That's because you like orgies? :run:

"Why you little...."

*Runs after metis with a rolled up newspaper...*

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

*Runs after metis with a rolled up newspaper...*

If that's what you're into. A bit BDSM meets animal fetish for me, but hey- it takes all sorts.

 

[godnotgod]

Because I have a brain that functions at least part of the time. Just because we have a consciousness now does not necessarily mean there always was this consciousness as it is a by-product of what many organisms have that could have a non-organic/non-conscious source.

No matter what one might hypothesize about consciousness, there simply isn't one shred of evidence to suggest that consciousness was always around in our universe.

At least not the altered kind of consciousness that is human consciousness. What happens when you break out of that kind of conditioning?

 

[metis]

At least not the altered kind of consciousness that is human consciousness. What happens when you break out of that kind of conditioning?

I'm really not sure what you're asking.

 

[godnotgod]

As much as I enjoyed your comment about the Yellow Submarine and dinosaurs I simply cannot let this comment stand.

Consciousness IS a thingy as it is something that has been given definition. This "thingy" does not have to be physical to be considered a thing as the mere isolation of the idea makes it what it is. That said, I understand where you are coming from but caution expressing your internal, non-dual meanings, in conventional dualistic terms without making your intent clear.

Can you tell me what it is you are employing that gives definition and isolation to consciousness? You called it an 'idea'; so is consciousness an idea, or a real thing, and what is it an idea of? I think you are trying to see the eye with itself, which is impossible.

 

[godnotgod]

I'm really not sure what you're asking.

We are socially indoctrinated beings from birth. Along with that, we have our biological directives affecting our thinking. Our consciousness is altered in ways that we are not aware, just as the prisoners in Plato's Cave firmly believe that the shadows cast on the cave walls represent reality. Is there a consciousness that is unaltered, unborn, ungrown; an original consciousness, if you will, that is free of both social and biological design..

 

[Sunstone]

Mom always told me that before the Big Bang, there was just Dad and her.

 

[crossfire]

Can you tell me what it is you are employing that gives definition and isolation to consciousness? You called it an 'idea'; so is consciousness an idea, or a real thing, and what is it an idea of? I think you are trying to see the eye with itself, which is impossible.

Being awake and aware of your surroundings, and being able to discern objects or ideas.