What came before the Big Bang?

[metis]

God hid His Truth from Unbelievers but promised to reveal it "to the time of the end".

How is this in any way logical? I would suggest that if God really wants us to know Truth that he would reveal it to all in some way.

 

[viole]

You assume there must be a logical, rational explanation. That is the limit of Reason and Science. Quantum Physics does not conform to classical logic. One has to think in a new way, and yet, we still do not actually understand what we are seeing. Holography cannot be explained by logic, and I think it is tightly associated with non-locality and instantaneous, signal-less communication. Fractals cannot be explained by logic. on and on. Science always assumes there will be a logical explanation forthcoming. In the case of Jacobo Grinberg, we can use deductive logic to arrive at a reasonable conclusion, and that is simply that nothing in science can explain what we see. So, if our logic is consistent, we would conclude that there must be some other form of knowledge that leads us to understanding. A good number of physicists reach a point in their investigation in which their intuitive minds come into play, and they adopt a mystical approach to their understanding, which, for them, fleshes out their science. Einstein was one of these men, along with Plank, Goswami, Capra, and others.

The reason non-locality is a paradox to logic is because logic is a system that is attempting to 'explain' nature in the terms of logic. Thai is backwards, and for that reason, mystics access nature directly first, and then can see how logic fits into reality, not how reality fits the methodology of logic.

The outcome of Jacobo Grinberg cannot go any further via scientific investigation, even though a scientific experiment got us to that point, much as the first double slit experiment revealed QM. Logic cannot address the brain to brain connection in JG where there is no actual physical connection in the ordinary sense. Mystics already know that non-local consciousness is the key to understanding this, because they experience it first-hand.

You might find this of interest: Fritjof Capra: Metaphysics Philosophy of Fritjof Capra Tao of Physics, Quotes

Well, I agree that this particular experiment defies the laws of logic, lol.

But see what you are doing here.

When it comes to prove a point, you use as justification "my" science: quantum entanglement, Faraday cages, statistical correlations, EEGs, etc.

But when challenged to actually perform a simple additional experiment that would easily prove non locality, you rebut that "my" science cannot be used; even though you know that measuring the precise time interval between two events is more than possible today.

In other words: science is good as long as it does not contradict my pre-conceived notions. This seems a constant mantra in creationist and pseudo-scientific/mystic circles, and a sufficient condition to rationally dismiss all that stuff out of hand.

Confirmation bias in all its glory, I am afraid.

Ciao

- viole

 

[`mud]

A lot of conversation here seems to be other than anything to do with the era before the Big Bang.
How many fractals or other particulate entities were in the "void" of the container that the singularity was emmersed in ?
How far did this "void" expand to, it did go all the way to infinity ?
How could this be possible, with nothing at the end to make a barrier, what a cliff that would be.
~
silliness, silliness and more of the same.
~
'mud

 

[Aman777]

How is this in any way logical? I would suggest that if God really wants us to know Truth that he would reveal it to all in some way.

Dear metis, I will inform God of your suggestion when i see Him. Read this verse:

Pro 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

God doesn't reveal His Truth to those who have NOT been born again Spiritually since they remain dead to Him. When they read Scripture, it's "foolishness" to them.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Therefore, IF you wish to understand Spiritual things, you MUST be born again Spiritually in Christ. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[metis]

Dear metis, I will inform God of your suggestion when i see Him. Read this verse:

Pro 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

God doesn't reveal His Truth to those who have NOT been born again Spiritually since they remain dead to Him. When they read Scripture, it's "foolishness" to them.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Therefore, IF you wish to understand Spiritual things, you MUST be born again Spiritually in Christ. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

And I find that totally illogical. Why would God want us to believe in Him if He only made an appearance to only one small group of people in one very small area of the world during one short time period?

 

[godnotgod]

Well, I agree that this particular experiment defies the laws of logic, lol.

But see what you are doing here.

When it comes to prove a point, you use as justification "my" science: quantum entanglement, Faraday cages, statistical correlations, EEGs, etc.

But when challenged to actually perform a simple additional experiment that would easily prove non locality, you rebut that "my" science cannot be used; even though you know that measuring the precise time interval between two events is more than possible today.

In other words: science is good as long as it does not contradict my pre-conceived notions. This seems a constant mantra in creationist and pseudo-scientific/mystic circles, and a sufficient condition to rationally dismiss all that stuff out of hand.

Confirmation bias in all its glory, I am afraid.

Ciao

- viole

You misunderstand: When I said that science cannot go any further, I meant that it can only further give us more data, but not an understanding of what the data actually means in terms of the nature of reality. I am all for your suggestion, that additional, more accurate techniques be applied. But I think we know enough already that nothing new will show us that the brains in question are somehow connected in time and space.

Besides that, you are interpreting non-locality to indicate a condition greater than light-speed, while I am referring to it as the direct interaction of two objects that are separated in space with no perceivable intermediate agency or mechanism. (Wikipedia).

Without checking, I am willing to bet that such a follow up experiment as you suggest may already have been made. But the results would be beside the point, in terms of how I am using the phrase 'non-local'.

The Jacobo-Grinberg experiment was originally set up to see if non-locality could be proven. All science begins with a hypothesis. If it was set up with a bias toward non-locaiity, show me where the experiment is lacking or contrived in order to confirm such a bias.

What you should be suggesting, I think, is to find at what point Subject B is receiving signal that may not be obvious. The fact that the researchers went to the lengths they did in order to prevent such reception is a credit to their approach.

Please don't throw me into the same arena as the creationists. Thank you.

 

[godnotgod]

A lot of conversation here seems to be other than anything to do with the era before the Big Bang.
How many fractals or other particulate entities were in the "void" of the container that the singularity was emmersed in ?
How far did this "void" expand to, it did go all the way to infinity ?
How could this be possible, with nothing at the end to make a barrier, what a cliff that would be.
~
silliness, silliness and more of the same.
~
'mud

Think of your consciousness as that end point, which has no end, because it is not in time or space, and therefore has no beginning.

There is neither stillness, nor not-stillness. That is still in the realm of duality.

 

[idav]

Think of your consciousness as that end point, which has no end, because it is not in time or space, and therefore has no beginning.

There is neither stillness, nor not-stillness. That is still in the realm of duality.

Is that like saying something while saying nothing?

 

[godnotgod]

Originally Posted by Aman777
Dear godnotgod, False accusation. IF Scripture is the Truth, and it is....




Dear godnotgod, The method by which scientists are measuring Scripture is according to the Ancient Goatherder Theological position, which is NOT True according to Scripture, Science NOR History. NO anicent man, who lived thousands of years before Science, could possibly know the scientific facts which are revealed in Genesis. Such as:

We live in a Multiverse. Gen 1:6-8 and Gen 2:4
The Big Bang of our Cosmos was on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4
The FIRST Stars of our Cosmos did NOT put forth light until the 4th Day. Gen 1:16 This is a recent discovery in the last 50 years. How did ancient men know that 3k years ago? I have many more including the Fact that "every living creature that moveth" was created and brought forth from the Water on the 5th Day, Gen 1:21 which was some 3.7 Billion years ago, in man's time.

God hid His Truth from Unbelievers but promised to reveal it "to the time of the end".

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Congratulations for you have made it to the time of the end. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

Genesis opens with:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

A universe is everything, which would include heaven, earth and everything else, including space. You are using the word 'heavens' as synonymous with 'multiverse', but a multiverse or universe would contain heaven. So the Bible cannot have meant 'multiverse' as you claim. Besides, it is a stretch, as are the rest of your points.

Gen 2:4 states:

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

which would mean that God would have created the Big Bang when the universe already was existing, which is impossible.

 

[raw_thought]

Nothing came before the big bang because time is part of creation (
Spacetime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )
Therefore, time began at the moment of singularity, and this has likely occurred only once, Hawking said.
FROM
http://www.space.com/20710-stephen-hawking-god-big-bang.html
Asking what happened before the big bang is like asking ,what was the width, depth and height of the universe before it existed.

 

[godnotgod]

Is that like saying something while saying nothing?

I am saying that the BB was an event in consciousness; that it did not occur in time or space. The only condition I know of that is not in time or space is consciousness. The phenomenal world, along with the illusions of Time, Space, and Causation, emanates from consciousness.

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

 

[idav]

The only condition I know of that is not in time or space is consciousness.

And even if I agreed how can anyone KNOW this? Also wouldn't this state be a state of being or it is non-being, being and not being?

 

[`mud]

hey GNG,
This consciousness stuff that you're hung up on is not an idication of anything to do with the period of nothingness that existed before the imaginary Big Bang supposedly occurred. There wasn't anything, supposedly, to have a consciousness to even imagine something like the occurrance of the...oh crap I forgot the point....
OH....there isn't any....I think you've read too many tales from Indian folklore.
~
I think that there wasn't any Big Bang, whatever that nutty preist thought, or any singularity. I'm not sure that what caused the expansion to occur, or that any expansion is occurring now, but the void couldn't be there, and wasn't then.
~
I trust that in the future of cosmology, if we survive, we'll find out the truth.
But I'm a little tired of all this consciousness stuff, it make no sense.
Maybe it's my worn out mind, but you have to explore your thinking a little further.
~
I still kinda like your stuff, if it were a little tighter.Excuse my (sic)s
~
'mud

 

[Aman777]

And I find that totally illogical. Why would God want us to believe in Him if He only made an appearance to only one small group of people in one very small area of the world during one short time period?

Dear metis, Because when you discover that Jesus IS the Light of the first Day, the only Image of the invisible God, that when you've seen Jesus, you've seen the invisible Father which NO man has ever seen....you will realize that Jesus Christ IS God incarnate, physically, bodily, the ONLY God you will EVER see.

Jesus is YHWH of the Old Testament, the Almighty God, and He is the ALPHA and the OMEGA, the beginning and the end. IF you don't know Jesus, be prepared to stand before Him, for He is the Judge at the Judgment, and when you stand before a Being BRIGHTER than the Sun, your knees, like every mans will bow, before God. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[godnotgod]

And even if I agreed how can anyone KNOW this? Also wouldn't this state be a state of being or it is non-being, being and not being?

Are you now experiencing consciousness?

Consciousness is beyond duality. I think you mean existence and non-existence. Being is absolute and has no opposite.

 

[godnotgod]

hey GNG,
This consciousness stuff that you're hung up on is not an idication of anything to do with the period of nothingness that existed before the imaginary Big Bang supposedly occurred. There wasn't anything, supposedly, to have a consciousness to even imagine something like the occurrance of the...oh crap I forgot the point....
OH....there isn't any....I think you've read too many tales from Indian folklore.
~
I think that there wasn't any Big Bang, whatever that nutty preist thought, or any singularity. I'm not sure that what caused the expansion to occur, or that any expansion is occurring now, but the void couldn't be there, and wasn't then.
~
I trust that in the future of cosmology, if we survive, we'll find out the truth.
But I'm a little tired of all this consciousness stuff, it make no sense.
Maybe it's my worn out mind, but you have to explore your thinking a little further.
~
I still kinda like your stuff, if it were a little tighter.Excuse my (sic)s
~
'mud

There is nothing tighter than consciousness. It is so tight, you cannot make it an object of itself. Consciousness is who you really are. It is beyond Time and Space, and qualifies perfectly for the condition present when the BB occurred.

Put your worn out mind aside for just a bit. Give it a rest. Take a deep breath and see via consciousness. You will be refreshed. Seeing via consciousness is a Rolls Royce; thinking via the mind is a model T.

Now look:

you see the hedge against the hills, right?
and you see the hills against the sky, correct?
but you see the sky against....yup....PURE, VIRGIN CONSCIOUSNESS! YAY!

 

[godnotgod]

DIF you don't know Jesus, be prepared to stand before Him, for He is the Judge at the Judgment,

Could be, but Satan is the District Attorney; the Accuser! :angel2:

 

[paarsurrey]

What came before the Big Bang?

Big Bang came after when the One-True-God commanded it to happen; and it started happening as per His design.

Regards

 

[Thief]

A lot of conversation here seems to be other than anything to do with the era before the Big Bang.
How many fractals or other particulate entities were in the "void" of the container that the singularity was emmersed in ?
How far did this "void" expand to, it did go all the way to infinity ?
How could this be possible, with nothing at the end to make a barrier, what a cliff that would be.
~
silliness, silliness and more of the same.
~
'mud

I see you have vision.

But I have to disagree with another post you made.
The was a 'starting point'.

 

[godnotgod]

Well, I agree that this particular experiment defies the laws of logic, lol.

I have located a full copy of the original jacobo-Grinberg experiment, as originally published in Physics Essays, in case you're interested in looking at it. It contains expanded information and EEG charts for comparison. Here is the link:

http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Grinberg1994.pdf

an excerpt from the publication:


The data indicate that the human brain is capable of establish-
ing close relationships with other brains (when it interacts with
them appropriately) and may sustain such an interaction even at
a distance. Our results cannot be explained as due to sensory
communication between subjects (since the subjects were
separated during the experiment and located in two semi-silent,
electromagnetically isolated chambers distant more than 14 m
from one another) or as due to low frequency EEG chance
correspondence.
This means that neither sensory stimuli nor electromagnetic
signals may be the means of communication. This point is
further borne out by the fact that we have not seen any distance
attenuation of the transference effect compared to our previous
measurement which involved a shorter distance between the
subjects. (Note that the present experiment thus serves as a
replication of the previous experiment.) As is well known, local
signals are always attenuated, and the absence of attenuation is
a sure signature of nonlocality.
Encouraged by Bell's theorem a~) and the results of the Aspect
et al. experiments ez) on elementary particles, we interpret the
transferred potential as a manifestation of nonlocal interactions
among "members" of a correlated quantum system whose parts,
separated individual brains before interaction, become one
system after interaction. Via the interaction, the quantum brains
of the subjects become correlated; stimulation and collapse of
one subject's wave function simultaneously collapses the wave
function of the other in an identical state as indicated by the
similarity of the DEP in the stimulated subject to the transferred
potential in his/her nonstimulated partner. The similarity of the
evoked and transferred potentials reflected in the EEG must be
due to the close correspondence of the neuronal fields of the two
correlated brains after collapse.
In other words, the phenomenon we are dealing with is the
action of nonlocal collapse of the wave function of a unified
system and not the result of a transmission using local signals
from one brain to the other.