What came before the Big Bang?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I have read Susskind (two books)

Oh, a guessing game. Let's see, other than the one mentioned I have his popular
The black hole war: my battle with Stephen Hawking to make the world safe for quantum mechanics. Is that one of the two? I know that there are book versions of his The Theoretical Minimum lectures at Stanford but I haven't read them.

and Gasperini ("The Universe Before the Big Bang")

Not bad, IMO. Not technical but more technical than some. How did you find it to be?

plus a few others that are not on your list

Let's see- books by Brian Greene, Stephen Hawking, Lee Smolin, Michael Woolfson, Lawrence Krauss, and/or Brian Cox, perhaps? Were any of them on my "recommend" or "don't recommend" lists?

Secondly, I said that it had some of the characteristics of a black hole

Maybe you meant this but you didn't say this:

IOW, the mass of the minute black hole that was our universe was so high and condensed that time barely "moved" by today's standards.

since it wouldn't be a black hole entirely

It wasn't a black hole any more than it was a star or planet.

The basic concept of a black hole is

...a stellar body that used to be a star. That's the basic concept.
"The collapse of a star to a black hole was first discussed in the General Theory of Relativity by Oppenheimer and Snyder. There are currently two classes of black holes of intense observational activity, objects of a few solar masses, the compact accreting partners of low-mass, X-ray binaries (LMXB) and extremely massive objects of 107 to 1010Mev in active galactic nuclei (AGN) (AGN stands for Active Galactic Nuclei, which are now understood to be galaxies, such as ours, at the center of which is a giant black hole that is ingesting stars from an accretion ring; as the stars are torn apart intense radiation is emitted.) The latter are probably ingesting stars of the surrounding galaxy by first reducing them to an accretion disk. In both cases, the radiation detected is thought to be produced by the accreting matter as it is heated by compression and friction while it spirals toward the hole. In the case of active galactic nuclei, radiation has been detected from X rays down to the infrared and probably includes gravitational radiation, though such has never been detected. The lighter black holes in binary systems are doing the same on a smaller scale."
p. 176 of
Glendenning, N. K. (2007). Special and general relativity: with applications to white dwarfs, neutron stars and black holes. Springer.

But let me get back to the point that if there was any movement whatsoever of anything, including just vibrations, that intrinsically involves time, and this is not of my invention, to be clear.

It doesn't intrinsically involve time or movement. Things like movement in physics have very precise definitions. Not every activity is movement, and things like quantum fluctuations, non-relativistic matter, tunneling, "matter-waves", etc., all involve activity without motion and sometimes without or independent of time.

such as M-Theory to use just one example, again movement, thus time, is involved.

Movement is necessarily a part of any GUT. It doesn't mean that such a theory posits movement at the origins of the universe.

Take care.

You too.

 

[s2a]

Originally Posted by Thief
With such a stance at hand....
You must then assume substance first...spirit as consequence.
Which leads to death and no continuance.

Not very optimistic.

And it renders all of life as a mystery with no resolve or purpose.
Purpose in existence is a burden any sentient species (and or individual) must assume for themselves as individuals, and is not for any "person" to merely accept or wear like an albatross around the neck...

I find little mystery in that ideal... unless you truly seek some other source/spirit/power/entity to somehow/otherwise bestow that "course/purpose" upon you...

Not everyone assumes futility in existence absent divine purpsoe you know

Will your great-great-grandmother know what your favorite color or pajamas might have been? I sorta doubt it... so if she has no semblance or understanding or recall to even those simple and basic things, what instills your belief that anything you do today will be of any impactful import to her?

What was you great-great-grandmother's favorite color? What was her "reason" for living? What were her hobbies or favorite reads? What examples of her life story do you account as a part of your own current existence and motivations for tomorrow?

Hmmm?

 

[s2a]

With such a stance at hand....
You must then assume substance first...spirit as consequence.
Which leads to death and no continuance.

Not very optimistic.

And it renders all of life as a mystery with no resolve or purpose.

Well, in order as presented...

Kinda pretty much, um, no.

We disagree.

Mysterious in that nothing physical can be deemed absolutely certain....perhaps.

But...it would be folly to presume that humans are incapable of discovering or stumbling upon their own "reason/purpose" to then "be" absent some other/all source or "spirit" either telling or bestowing (like some grand gift) a specified "purpose" upon you.

I've always reserved a bit of pity and hope for all religious adherents that can not seem to grasp that simple principle...

"Death" is very real, and appears to be the very natural order of everything existent. Non-existence prevails, and remains far more prevalent that immediate existence in the here and now. How does it ever become unfathomable or unacceptable to presume that "YOU", and especially you, are "special" in the regard of some invisible space being or "god(s)" instead? What would evidence would lead you to conclude that YOU might or should outlast any accountings of eternity itself?

I look upon the night sky as often as time affords me (being an avid amateur astronomer), and always find wonder looking back hundreds, thousands, even millions of years past at objects that may have already winked out of existence, or shall shine/burn brightly on for millions of years after humanity makes it's brief footnote upon earthly timekeeping...

But I don't wish upon those stars, nor hope that some "spirit in the sky" is going to tell me what to do, whom to love, or what purpose should righteously fulfill my brief moments of existence.

If that is what you believe to be true, fine.

I just can not/will not presume that the cosmos won't continue on without my consciousness lending important sway...

 

[Thief]

Well, in order as presented...

Kinda pretty much, um, no.

We disagree.

Mysterious in that nothing physical can be deemed absolutely certain....perhaps.

But...it would be folly to presume that humans are incapable of discovering or stumbling upon their own "reason/purpose" to then "be" absent some other/all source or "spirit" either telling or bestowing (like some grand gift) a specified "purpose" upon you.

I've always reserved a bit of pity and hope for all religious adherents that can not seem to grasp that simple principle...

"Death" is very real, and appears to be the very natural order of everything existent. Non-existence prevails, and remains far more prevalent that immediate existence in the here and now. How does it ever become unfathomable or unacceptable to presume that "YOU", and especially you, are "special" in the regard of some invisible space being or "god(s)" instead? What would evidence would lead you to conclude that YOU might or should outlast any accountings of eternity itself?

I look upon the night sky as often as time affords me (being an avid amateur astronomer), and always find wonder looking back hundreds, thousands, even millions of years past at objects that may have already winked out of existence, or shall shine/burn brightly on for millions of years after humanity makes it's brief footnote upon earthly timekeeping...

But I don't wish upon those stars, nor hope that some "spirit in the sky" is going to tell me what to do, whom to love, or what purpose should righteously fulfill my brief moments of existence.

If that is what you believe to be true, fine.

I just can not/will not presume that the cosmos won't continue on without my consciousness lending important sway...

So 7billion copies of a device....that can only produce spirit (unique not special)
means nothing to you as evidence?

All of this life ends in dust and not chance that someone might survive the last breath and 'move on' ?

It's a large cosmos.
And Spirit cannot exist?

I suspect a more positive approach is better.....yeah

 

[ruffen]

So 7billion copies of a device....that can only produce spirit (unique not special)
means nothing to you as evidence?

All of this life ends in dust and not chance that someone might survive the last breath and 'move on' ?

It's a large cosmos.
And Spirit cannot exist?

I suspect a more positive approach is better.....yeah

A more positive approach? I don't want to put words in your mouth but that sounds awfully like "I wish it is that way, so yeah, it must be that way"?

 

[Thief]

A more positive approach? I don't want to put words in your mouth but that sounds awfully like "I wish it is that way, so yeah, it must be that way"?

So...in the beginning was ...what?
Spirit First?...or substance?

 

[gnostic]

So...in the beginning was ...what?
Spirit First?...or substance?

Why do you persist on this "spirit first? ...or substance?" as if they are the only choice?

Why only substance? Why not energy as well?

And define "spirit". How do you know that spirit exist?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So...in the beginning was ...what?
Spirit First?...or substance?

Been meaning to ask you.
1) What is "spirit"? How do you define it?
2) What is the evidnece that it exists?
3) If it exists as a faith based ideology only then what reason do we have to be compelled to give any weight to the argument at all?

 

[godnotgod]

I would be linking the ability to say 'I AM!' to the very essence of existence.

'I AM' is not a proclamation of existence, because that implies non-existence, and therefore, duality. The divine essence which this statement is about is non-dual, and absolute. "I Am" does not imply "I Am not"; The statement in context:

"Before Abraham was, I Am"

is comparing ordinary existence in the dual world, where there is birth and death, where Abraham is a creature of history, to the spiritual world, where there is no history, and where spiritual being is forever present in this eternal Present Moment. It is a statement which places Yeshu outside of Time and Space, in the REAL world, rather than in the concocted and contrived world of ordinary men:

"My kingdom is not of this world"

does not mean there is a separate world in the sky you go to after death; it simply means that THIS is the Real world, right in front of you, right now, but it is engulfed by delusion, pain, and suffering, which causes spiritual blindness so that we cannot see it or experience it. That is why Yeshu said:

"The kingdom of God is at hand"

Because we operate under the delusion that we are a separate ego acting upon the world, and we fear for the unknown fate of this ego/soul, we suffer Metaphysical Distress, and so we create the idea of a place in a future time and place where our suffering might end. In so doing, we fail to live our lives now when it should be lived, and postpone what we think is real happiness until after death. This mindset is what Shunryu Suzuki called a 'substantive delusive idea'. All it really does is to extend our suffering into some unknown future, when what we really need to do is to square with it now, instead of contaminating the present with the past.

Yeshu was simply bringing our attention to the truth as it exists here and now, that there is no 'other world'; that 'THIS is it'.

Re-read the parable of the Lilies in the Field.

 

[Thief]

It would seem....several participants know not the difference between....
Substance as an item having no thought and feeling (energy fields included)....
and an Item Having thought and feeling.

Don't know when the dust is alive?
Any field of energy would be a 'spirit' to....'you'?

 

[idav]

It would seem....several participants know not the difference between....
Substance as an item having no thought and feeling (energy fields included)....
and an Item Having thought and feeling.

Don't know when the dust is alive?
Any field of energy would be a 'spirit' to....'you'?

That's your dualism take. All substance would have the attributes necessary for making life and awareness possible. Spirit having a basic awareness doesn't mean that spirit has self-awareness.

 

[Thief]

That's your dualism take. All substance would have the attributes necessary for making life and awareness possible. Spirit having a basic awareness doesn't mean that spirit has self-awareness.

Nay.
If any chemistry was applicable, all planets would have life.

And it is quite common for people to recite that instance when Moses was asking for a name....
'Tell the people...'I Am!'...and they that understand will know whose law this is.'

 

[idav]

Nay.
If any chemistry was applicable, all planets would have life.

Negative, it doesn't mean planets default to having life.

If the universe substance does not have the attributes to necessary for life and spirit, then I'm with you, then chemistry wouldn't amount to much except cause and effect. That isn't what we see though. We see a universe that has the ability to evolve sentience.

 

[Thief]

Negative, it doesn't mean planets default to having life.

If the universe substance does not have the attributes to necessary for life and spirit, then I'm with you, then chemistry wouldn't amount to much except cause and effect. That isn't what we see though. We see a universe that has the ability to evolve sentience.

I see a universe that has rules.
Each item of substance will remain true to it's form.
Water has that particular form which we believe essential for the chemistry to live.
Even so, the rest of the elemental table must also be there in proper proportions.
Even so again, life does need to evolve that spirit can form.
Hence my longstanding take on Genesis.

 

[gnostic]

It would seem....several participants know not the difference between....
Substance as an item having no thought and feeling (energy fields included)....
and an Item Having thought and feeling.

Don't know when the dust is alive?
Any field of energy would be a 'spirit' to....'you'?

I have asked you for definition of SPIRIT. Again, how do you define SPIRIT?

You definitely didn't give us any.

If you give us a definition of what spirit is, or what you think spirit is, then we can go from there, and sort your mess of religious belief.

But if you think spirit is energy, or field of energy, then I have to say you're wrong.

And what type of energy? There are many types of energies. So define energy. And what type of energy is associated with spirit?

Energy doesn't equal spirit.

MATTERS - I preferred to use the word "matter" instead of "substance" - MATTERS can have any number of different energies...whether they are organic or inorganic.

Talking of field of energy and self-awareness, and then linking them to spirit, clearly demonstrate your ignorance in physics, chemistry and biology. You are doing this pseudoscience crap, by playing word-game without being able to separate reality and your wishful fantasy.

 

[idav]

I see a universe that has rules.
Each item of substance will remain true to it's form.
Water has that particular form which we believe essential for the chemistry to live.
Even so, the rest of the elemental table must also be there in proper proportions.
Even so again, life does need to evolve that spirit can form.
Hence my longstanding take on Genesis.

Water is just more chemistry.

The average 70 kg adult human body contains approximately 3 x 1027 atoms and contains at least detectable traces of 60 chemical elements. About 25 of these elements are thought to play an active positive role in life and health in humans.[1]
Composition of the human body - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Could be other chemical combinations out there in the universe that are suitable for life. Why not?

 

[Thief]

Water is just more chemistry.


Could be other chemical combinations out there in the universe that are suitable for life. Why not?

I won't assume that all of life throughout the universe must have chemistry as we do.
It's just that most scientists lean to the chemistry they know and they seem certain that certain reactions happen only with certain structures with very exacting conditions in play.

Do I think other forms are possible?.....sure do.
Would that form be greatly different?.....for sure.

But the formation of God.....would precede the big bang.
Unlike all else.....He would be thought and feeling.....before form.

 

[idav]

I won't assume that all of life throughout the universe must have chemistry as we do.
It's just that most scientists lean to the chemistry they know and they seem certain that certain reactions happen only with certain structures with very exacting conditions in play.

Do I think other forms are possible?.....sure do.
Would that form be greatly different?.....for sure.

But the formation of God.....would precede the big bang.
Unlike all else.....He would be thought and feeling.....before form.

I like how you skip awareness and go straight to granting the default to be self-awareness. Even if matter defaults awareness it still needs to evolve into self-awareness and God is no exception. Being/existing is the default, self-awareness is not.

 

[Meow Mix]

I just wanted to chime in and point out that gnostic is spot on here.

Energy isn't a thing that exists anywhere just floating around all willy-nilly. Energy is a property, and we call things which possess energy as a property matter.

You'll never find energy anywhere except as a property being exemplified by matter -- this includes in fields.

 

[gnostic]

I see a universe that has rules.
Each item of substance will remain true to it's form.
Water has that particular form which we believe essential for the chemistry to live.
Even so, the rest of the elemental table must also be there in proper proportions.
Even so again, life does need to evolve that spirit can form.
Hence my longstanding take on Genesis.

Yes, water, but you're forgetting one other element that is found in every tissue or flesh, every organ and every bone, and even in our blood - carbon.

Carbon is just as essential compound that make every body parts that make us a living matter, along with all other creature and even plant life.

And Genesis is not the only one that all life come from water. The Sumerian and Akkadian-Babylonian religions have been writing of the first humans being made out of earth and water, centuries before the Genesis was ever conceived and composed. Likewise, humans were said to be created from the tears of the sun god Ra.

So, the Genesis didn't provide anything unique. The ancient Hebrews were doing the same things, writing of things, like creation, but without understanding the biology, chemistry or physics of life. The Hebrews had most likely borrowed myths from older cultures, in which Abraham was said to come out of Babylonia and Moses out of Egypt, if we are to believe in the stories of Genesis and Exodus.