What came before the Big Bang?

[idav]

I think Einstein meant exactly what he said: that matter is simply energy at a very low vibratory level, creating the appearance of 'solidity' on a macro .....

Regardless if einstein said it, i understand that an atom or a particle gives the appearance of solidity but what is that is vibrating. "Something" is vibrating at different frequencies and it becomes matter or energy depending on that frequency. What is that something, not a substance, why not?

 

[godnotgod]

Regardless if einstein said it, i understand that an atom or a particle gives the appearance of solidity but what is that is vibrating. "Something" is vibrating at different frequencies and it becomes matter or energy depending on that frequency. What is that something, not a substance, why not?

Could it be that the 'substance' and the vibration are one and the same?

 

[idav]

Could it be that the 'substance' and the vibration are one and the same?

Maybe but I would think something is vibrating, something is the source of the vibration. Could empty space vibrating produce something like matter and energy? It is something rather than nothing.

 

[Thief]

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.

So God is not allowed what we allow for ourselves?...
I think....therefore I am.

Or perhaps you need 'proof'?....such as....
'Let there be light!'

 

[metis]

Sub-atomic particles are still matter, so it wouldn't make sense to say "matter is made up of sub-atomic particles." Macroscopic matter is though, so that's okay.

Sub-atomic particles are not matter in the conventional sense, and quantum physicists tend to drift in the direction that they are made up of "strings", which are believed to be minute waves of "energy" that vibrate.

However, energy is not composed of anything, because energy isn't anything. Energy is a property of matter, that's all.

No it is not since both are composed of sub-atomic particles (see above). Matter can evolve into energy, such as what happens during a nuclear explosion, but also energy can condense into matter, which is what happened as our universe began to cool after the BB.

Solidity of surfaces isn't due to polarization, it's more about the structure of atoms themselves (polarization would be more about the arrangement of molecules and the shape of their bonds). Polarization explains things like why water comes out of faucets funny.

No again. Atoms are mostly space with the charged particles comprising only a very small fraction of the composition of an atom. If it weren't for the polarization of the charges, all this open space would allow one atom to mostly coincide with another.

Let me recommend you Google "quantum physics" to get further information and/or verification of the above.

 

[metis]

You. You are the universe consciously looking at itself through your/it's own eyes.

If you still think you are a separate observer of an object you call the universe, then show me where you leave off and the universe begins, or vice-versa.

Consciousness is a product of a brain (although on could focus on a variation of this with even a life form that has no brain, such as a fly), and there simply is no evidence, for example, that someone's pet rock has "consciousness". Nor is there any evidence that there's some sort of "consciousness" floating around in our universe.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy | Of Particular Significance

I'll just leave this here.

 

[metis]

Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy | Of Particular Significance

I'll just leave this here.

Thank you!

 

[Thief]

Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy | Of Particular Significance

I'll just leave this here.

In all fairness...I didn't read the whole thing.
It started out trying to disassociate matter and energy.

Really?

But if you prefer....energy and matter as separate items....
Then God (as energy) could exist before the creation (substance).

 

[Thief]

Consciousness is a product of a brain (although on could focus on a variation of this with even a life form that has no brain, such as a fly), and there simply is no evidence, for example, that someone's pet rock has "consciousness". Nor is there any evidence that there's some sort of "consciousness" floating around in our universe.

so the universe is as dead (dust) as you will soon be?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

In all fairness...I didn't read the whole thing.
It started out trying to disassociate matter and energy.

Really?

But if you prefer....energy and matter as separate items....
Then God (as energy) could exist before the creation (substance).

Matter is stuff.

Energy is what stuff has.

That is what the article points out. I think you would do well to read it, and I'm sure it'll be a good discussion for Legion and Meow Mix to throw their hats into as well.

 

[metis]

The universe is active, thus producing new arrangements of one type or another all the time.

 

[Thief]

Matter is stuff.

Energy is what stuff has.

That is what the article points out. I think you would do well to read it, and I'm sure it'll be a good discussion for Legion and Meow Mix to throw their hats into as well.

So instead of separation you prefer to associate energy and matter....?
one to the other altogether.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

So instead of separation you prefer to associate energy and matter....?
one to the other altogether.

Like I said

Matter is stuff

Energy is what stuff has, and on the basic its "potential energy" and "Kinetic Energy"

Potential energy based on the relational position of stuff to other stuff.

Kinetic energy based on the movement of the stuff.

 

[Thief]

Like I said

Matter is stuff

Energy is what stuff has, and on the basic its "potential energy" and "Kinetic Energy"

Potential energy based on the relational position of stuff to other stuff.

Kinetic energy based on the movement of the stuff.

Spirit first?.....or stuff?

 

[Meow Mix]

Excuse me, but isn't one of the Conservation Laws such that matter = energy, as in E=mc2, and vice-versa? If that is the case, then energy is not a property of matter, such as mass or weight, which are only apparent as long as matter is in the state of being matter. Energy, on the other hand, can exist independent of matter, such as light energy.

No. The "m" in E = mc^2 stands for mass, not matter.

Mass and energy have an equivalence because they are both properties of matter.

 

[Meow Mix]

Except that 'matter' on the sub-atomic level is not solid or matter at all, but mostly empty space; over 99.xx% empty space. So it is more accurate to say that 'matter' is mostly nothing.

Energy is not 'composed' of anything? What about light energy and photons?

What about wavicles? Matter or energy...or both?

Particles are still matter, though -- to be "matter" is to have spatiotemporal extension and to possess mass/energy, which particles do.

Particles aren't mostly empty space, either -- you're thinking of atoms or molecules, which are mostly empty space.

Photons are matter, and there's no such thing as "light energy." Photons do carry energy, of course.

"Wavicles" is just a portmanteau to describe the varying wave-like and particle-like nature of what we'd otherwise call particles. They're still matter.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Spirit first?.....or stuff?

That really makes no sense. What is spirit if not stuff?

 

[Meow Mix]

I think Einstein meant exactly what he said: that matter is simply energy at a very low vibratory level, creating the appearance of 'solidity' on a macro level.

I'm not convinced that quote is even from Einstein, or was translated correctly. Einstein would have known the difference between mass and matter. I've poked around on the internet and I've seen the quote attributed to him, but never reputably and never with a source. I'm pretty sure it's a bunk quote. Einstein wouldn't make such an elementary mistake.

But overall, it is not only still there, the balance between the two is always maintained, so that nothing is ever really created or destroyed.

Matter is created and destroyed alllll the time. It's the energy that's conserved, and even then it's slightly fuzzy with short-term violations.

It's only 'nonsensical' to your conditioned paradigm-mindset. What do you mean by 'physical' thing?

No, I mean it's literally nonsensical for a property to be a thing. A physical thing is something with spatiotemporal extension. Energy does not have spatiotemporal extension, it's a property.

Not going anywhere except right to the heart of the matter. 'Mystical' just means to realize that that nothing is separate from anything else. There is no such thing as 'observer' and 'observed'. Those are merely conceptualizations.

Our interpretation of reality, based on classical logic and physics, IS illusory, as QM has shown. Yes, Reality must be exactly what it is, but you can only know that when your vision is perfect. To correct one's vision, all ideas, opinions, concepts, beliefs, etc. must be set aside so that Reality can then be apprehended exactly as it is. That is about seeing things as they are, rather than thinking about how they are, which leads to logical absurdities.

I agree that we have imperfect "vision" as you put it; but one thing that can't be set aside ontologically is logic. Whatever reality is, it's logical in order to "be" at all. Otherwise indeed, we can be open to anything that's logical.

 

[Meow Mix]

I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.
As quoted in The Observer (25 January 1931)

Here is another way to look at it:

You see a hedge against the background of hills.
You see the hills against the background of sky.
But you see the sky against the background of consciousness.
So essentially, you're seeing everything against the background of consciousness.

It's just that consciousness is kind of a passive background, while what you are observing is in the foreground, and it is the foreground which you focus on, just as a fish does not know it is in the sea, and is focused on finding food. You don't notice consciousness as being the field within which everything is experienced. When one's attention is shifted from the foreground to the background, it becomes clear that the background is the default state, and that what is in the foreground, ie, 'the universe', comes out of it.

When you say that matter is a physical thing, you are just regurgitating concept. Reality is not the description of reality. In reality, you don't really know what it is.

This I do not disagree with. It's true that we experience reality THROUGH a consciousness, through a perception.

However, consciousness otherwise has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.

And energy is a property of matter.