What came before the Big Bang?

[Ouroboros]

Yes, and even that some sub-atomic particles seemingly just may appear from nowhere is problematic in that maybe it merely changed from one form into another. For example, a photon can either be a particle, a wave, or even both at the same time, so is it possible that a particle or wave could seemingly "disappear" but then show up elsewhere?

Look into quantum tunneling and Hawkins radiation.

CNN, and Intel's challenge making smaller CPUs because of Q. tunneling:
Are computer chips on the verge of a quantum leap? - CNN.com

"We have just about hit the limits now," Bentley says. "Already we are so small that quantum tunneling -- where electrons magically zip through solid objects because of quantum effects -- can cause real problems in chip design. Go smaller and quantum effects will stop the transistors working at all."

 

[metis]

Look into quantum tunneling and Hawkins radiation.

CNN, and Intel's challenge making smaller CPUs because of Q. tunneling:
Are computer chips on the verge of a quantum leap? - CNN.com

Yes, and there was a Scientific American article dealing with that back last year, although I don't remember which month's.

BTW, something I learned a couple of years ago that got my attention is that an m.r.i. actually defies the "laws of physics" as we at least thought we know them, but don't ask me how it does this. I read this in one of Leonard Susskind's books.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes, and there was a Scientific American article dealing with that back last year, although I don't remember which month's.

A scientist explained it to me that particle exists more as probabilities in space. I think I understood him right.

 

[metis]

A scientist explained it to me that particle exists more as probabilities in space. I think I understood him right.

Yes, that's what I have read as well since particles can sometimes change characteristics, plus we normally can only tell where a particle traveled versus trying to predict the path it would take. Crazy world underneath, eh?

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes, that's what I have read as well since particles can sometimes change characteristics, plus we normally can only tell where a particle traveled versus trying to predict the path it would take. Crazy world underneath, eh?

Totally crazy, and I love it that way.

I'm a believer of time-and-space being an "illusion" that emerges from the deeper framework of reality. All the talk about "before Big Bang", "time began" and such, limits our understanding. I think the deep structure is infinite and eternal... anyway... I'm not going to go all Chopra here. LOL!

 

[metis]

Totally crazy, and I love it that way.

I'm a believer of time-and-space being an "illusion" that emerges from the deeper framework of reality. All the talk about "before Big Bang", "time began" and such, limits our understanding. I think the deep structure is infinite and eternal... anyway... I'm not going to go all Chopra here. LOL!

I do like him.

BTW, I also tend to feel that it's likely that sub-atomic particles and/or their components (strings?) likely go back into infinity, which is slightly older than I am.

 

[godnotgod]

Originally Posted by Ouroboros

I'm a believer of time-and-space being an "illusion" that emerges from the deeper framework of reality. All the talk about "before Big Bang", "time began" and such, limits our understanding. I think the deep structure is infinite and eternal...

..I also tend to feel that it's likely that sub-atomic particles and/or their components (strings?) likely go back into infinity, which is slightly older than I am.

Since the BB theory is such that space-time did not yet exist, there cannot have pre-existed any 'particle' out of which the BB occurred, since that would (ordinarily) require space-time. But consciousness is beyond space-time, and I propose that what we are really talking about here is consciousness. The BB occurred, and is now occurring, in pure consciousness that is manifesting what we firmly believe to be the 'physical' world. Since consciousness is the passive background against and within which this active physical world appears, our attention is drawn to the foreground of existence. But as science now tells us, this 'physical' world is not very physical at all, being composed of over 99.9% empty space, and which the Hindus have all along told us is maya, that the deeper reality is beyond these mere appearances of reality.

An unconfirmed quote from Einstein tells us:

“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.”
Einstein (?)
*****

Q: What do you see the hedge against?
A. The hills
Q: What do you see the hills against?
A: The sky.
Q: And what do you see the sky against?
A: (no answer)
Q: You see it against consciousness!

 

[Aupmanyav]

Since the BB theory is such that space-time did not yet exist, there cannot have pre-existed any 'particle' out of which the BB occurred, since that would (ordinarily) require space-time.

At the moment, science does not know beyond inflation. So, saying anything about BB is not correct.

 

[metis]

Since the BB theory is such that space-time did not yet exist, there cannot have pre-existed any 'particle' out of which the BB occurred, since that would (ordinarily) require space-time.

Space-time as we know it did not exist, but most cosmologists that I have read do believe that our universe prior to the BB was smaller than a present-day atom, was extremely hot, but which would involve some very limited movement.

Matter of fact, Susskind hypothesizes that maybe some of this highly-confined polarized energy may have gotten in close proximity to another charge, repelled, thus leading to the breaking of the bonds that led to the BB. Hawking believes that it's possible that gravity, which is a type of energy, may alone have caused the BB. Some believe that brane theory might be the answer to what caused our universe to be formed.

Anyhow, the point is that it's quite possible, even probable, that there indeed was something there before the BB.

But consciousness is beyond space-time, and I propose that what we are really talking about here is consciousness. The BB occurred, and is now occurring, in pure consciousness that is manifesting what we firmly believe to be the 'physical' world.

There's no evidence of such, although I guess there's always room for a possibility like that.

 

[godnotgod]

Space-time as we know it did not exist, but most cosmologists that I have read do believe that our universe prior to the BB was smaller than a present-day atom, was extremely hot, but which would involve some very limited movement.

Matter of fact, Susskind hypothesizes that maybe some of this highly-confined polarized energy may have gotten in close proximity to another charge, repelled, thus leading to the breaking of the bonds that led to the BB. Hawking believes that it's possible that gravity, which is a type of energy, may alone have caused the BB. Some believe that brane theory might be the answer to what caused our universe to be formed.

Anyhow, the point is that it's quite possible, even probable, that there indeed was something there before the BB.

In the same breath, you state that space-time did not exist, and yet refer to a condition 'prior to' and 'before' the BB, which requires time. You can't have cake and eat it too.

In addition, whether matter or energy pre-existing the BB, don't both require space and time in which to exist as such?

The only condition I can think of which satisfies the scenario is that of consciousness, and that which emanates from consciousness as the physical world being illusory. This also accounts for the origin of 'matter', which both theists and scientists have yet to adequately explain.

There's no evidence of such, although I guess there's always room for a possibility like that.

The only thing you know for certain is that you are conscious, though you may be living in a dream you only think to be real, from which you have yet to awaken. It is that awakening which will show you the nature of the dream you have been experiencing.

 

[godnotgod]

At the moment, science does not know beyond inflation. So, saying anything about BB is not correct.

Technically, that is correct, but since BB is presented as theory, we can indeed have a discussion based on that, as long as we understand the premise.

 

[metis]

In the same breath, you state that space-time did not exist, and yet refer to a condition 'prior to' and 'before' the BB, which requires time. You can't have cake and eat it too.

I said that space-time didn't exist as we know it. With the strong possibility that our universe was originally smaller than a present-day atom, time and space would be distorted beyond our recognition but exist nevertheless. When you see most of the cosmologists that I have run across write or say "time began at the BB", most really don't mean that to be taken literally but, instead, figuratively.

BTW, no cosmologist I have ever read suggests that there's any evidence whatsoever, including logical evidence, that consciousness caused our universe to come into existence. The reality is that it is a religious concept, not a scientific one. However, this is not to say that it is hypothetically impossible.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I said that space-time didn't exist as we know it. With the strong possibility that our universe was originally smaller than a present-day atom, time and space would be distorted beyond our recognition but exist nevertheless. When you see most of the cosmologists that I have run across write or say "time began at the BB", most really don't mean that to be taken literally but, instead, figuratively.

BTW, no cosmologist I have ever read suggests that there's any evidence whatsoever, including logical evidence, that consciousness caused our universe to come into existence. The reality is that it is a religious concept, not a scientific one. However, this is not to say that it is hypothetically impossible.

If I remember correctly the BB only deals in context to this universe. Beyond the cosmic background there maybe another Universe but it's space time would probably not be anything like our own.

 

[metis]

If I remember correctly the BB only deals in context to this universe. Beyond the cosmic background there maybe another Universe but it's space time would probably not be anything like our own.

And this has been gaining more support amongst cosmologists as a possibility based on what we now know about quantum mechanics. Not only might space-time be different, but that many other of the laws of physics may be different as well, and some think that even in our own universe there may be areas whereas the laws of physics may significantly differ from where we're at.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

BTW, no cosmologist I have ever read suggests that there's any evidence whatsoever, including logical evidence, that consciousness caused our universe to come into existence. The reality is that it is a religious concept, not a scientific one. However, this is not to say that it is hypothetically impossible.

:clap:clap:clap

 

[Aupmanyav]

BTW, no cosmologist I have ever read suggests that there's any evidence whatsoever, including logical evidence, that consciousness caused our universe to come into existence. The reality is that it is a religious concept, not a scientific one. However, this is not to say that it is hypothetically impossible.

Sorry to differ. It is not possible even hypothetically. Consciousness is a property of brain. No brain, no consciousness.

 

[godnotgod]

I said that space-time didn't exist as we know it. With the strong possibility that our universe was originally smaller than a present-day atom, time and space would be distorted beyond our recognition but exist nevertheless. When you see most of the cosmologists that I have run across write or say "time began at the BB", most really don't mean that to be taken literally but, instead, figuratively.

'As we know it' is what we call 'conceptual'. We have come to think of the concepts of space and time as being something real. The reality is that the BB did not occur some billions of years ago in linear time in some specific space. It occurred now, and is still occurring now, and there is no mappable loci where it is occurring.

When I say 'now', I do not mean the ephemeral elusive sweep of the second hand of the clock; I mean this still eternal moment outside of time and space that is now.

BTW, no cosmologist I have ever read suggests that there's any evidence whatsoever, including logical evidence, that consciousness caused our universe to come into existence. The reality is that it is a religious concept, not a scientific one. However, this is not to say that it is hypothetically impossible.

I did not say that consciousness caused anything, nor is it a religious concept. What I am saying to you is that the universe itself is consciousness. They are not two separate things.

 

[godnotgod]

Sorry to differ. It is not possible even hypothetically. Consciousness is a property of brain. No brain, no consciousness.

That idea is what is called 'emergent theory', but it is not even that; it is only a hypothesis amongst some scientists. For centuries, the East has experienced consciousness in various parts of the body, as chakras, for example. There is the kundalini experience which begins in the base of the spine; there is the hara, which is the center of consciousness in the East. It is not in the brain. Some even say that the brain is something consciousness uses to relegate certain automatic functions to and for memory storage and recall, while it focuses on more immediate events. And we now have documented proof that long-term meditators actually grow cerebral cortexes thicker than non-meditators.

 

[idav]

That idea is what is called 'emergent theory', but it is not even that; it is only a hypothesis amongst some scientists. For centuries, the East has experienced consciousness in various parts of the body, as chakras, for example. There is the kundalini experience which begins in the base of the spine; there is the hara, which is the center of consciousness in the East. It is not in the brain. Some even say that the brain is something consciousness uses to relegate certain automatic functions to and for memory storage and recall, while it focuses on more immediate events. And we now have documented proof that long-term meditators actually grow cerebral cortexes thicker than non-meditators.

There just isnt any proof that the brain acts like a tv or radio receiver and if there were it would be detectable like radio waves coming from a great distance.

Also growing thicker cerebral doesnt prove anything except that the brain is being used during meditation but we already know that. What is it about a thicker cerebral that says consciousness is outside the brain?

 

[godnotgod]

There just isnt any proof that the brain acts like a tv or radio receiver and if there were it would be detectable like radio waves coming from a great distance.

In non-locality, there is no distance. 'Here' is 'there'.

Also growing thicker cerebral doesnt prove anything except that the brain is being used during meditation but we already know that. What is it about a thicker cerebral that says consciousness is outside the brain?

Meditation is not brain activity as in thinking. It is not thinking. It is the opposite; it is not-thinking. The ordinary chatter of the brain is actually quieted down. A thicker cerebral cortex is not an indication of non-locality, but that it is a direct result of meditation, which is focused conscious awareness. Note that thinking does not increase brain size; mindfullness meditation does. When you're talking about thinking, you're talking about mind; when you're talking about meditation, you're talking about consciousness.