Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?

[Shad]

Yes...that is how I understand most experts understand gig bang theory....but Hawking does on to say...."The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang'

So Hawking seems to imply there was a "prior to the big bang"....haha

Read my quotes. Read his work instead of cherry picking. My previous quote show that either you didn't read his work or do not understand it. Your "hah" is hilarious since it is pride based on your own incompetence or unwillingness to read what has been provided to you repeatedly. He proposes it since he includes time outside of the BB theory as your presented it....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes but you are missing the key separation of terms. Imaginary time is not our time. He says it clear as day.

He differentiates between real time and imaginary time thus before the BB is imaginary time not real time.

Ok...so time began when imaginary time ended....yes?

And big bang existence came from non-existence....yes?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Read his work since you have not bothered to do so. I shouldn't have to hand feed you quotes when you have the source open in front of you. He believes in an alternative as per his own modes which happen to use parts of but not the whole of the theory. It is a modification of the BB thus he not longer accepts the BB as you have presented it.

Hey, I am not a believer in any big bang theory....but I am interested in understanding what the theory is though....particularly that from which the big bang emerged....But let's not confine our discussion exclusively to Hawking's views...let's explore the big bang theory generally as understood by other experts...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Read my quotes. Read his work instead of cherry picking. My previous quote show that either you didn't read his work or do not understand it. Your "hah" is hilarious since it is pride based on your own incompetence or unwillingness to read what has been provided to you repeatedly. He proposes it since he includes time outside of the BB theory as your presented it....

He does not preclude time...I accept that Hawking and you believe in imaginary time before the big bang...and believe in non-imaginary time after....yes?

Btw, when you say that Hawking includes time outside of the BB theory as I presented it...I presume you mean imaginary time....yes?

 

[idav]

I hear the universe is zero sum. That makes existence nothing becoming something.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I hear the universe is zero sum. That makes existence nothing becoming something.

I thought the something was existence and nothing non-existence...and when did the nothing begin the zero sum game?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Semantics

Language. Validity is structural, soundness conceptual.

all words are concepts to represent an actual truth

No words ARE concepts. Words refer to concepts, or better yet we use words to express concepts. However, there is a consistency to this process that makes some grammatically or syntactically ok utterances meaningless or inherently contradictory or otherwise problematic. The verb/predicate "exists" in this context (or any construction of the for "X exists") automatically (or internally) conveys/construes that the argument taken has certain properties. Thus even if we merely state "X exists" and let X be a variable we can still say simply by this construction that we mean there are certain things about X we know to be true if the construction "X exists" is true. The word "nothing" lacks the requisite properties. It inherently refers to non-existence.

....the concept 'something' is meant to represent the real....and the concept 'nothing' is meant to represent the not real

No, as Santa Clause and unicorns are not "nothing", they just lack physical referents (so far as I know, anyway, and I feel pretty safe asserting that neither Santa Clause nor unicorns are real). The sense of the word "nothing" here and most of the time refers to a lack or absence. For example, if asked "what's up?" you might respond "nothing" to convey not something about ontology but simply the lack of anything going on in your life worth using as an answer to this greeting. If you have nothing in the bank it isn't that there isn't something "real" in your account but that there is a lack of content (in this case money). To say there was "nothing" before the big bang is to say that there was a lack of any something. Something can refer to an entity or object or idea or whatever, but importantly I can use it to refer to a specific, physical entity rather than only a property or state of affairs the way that the meaning of "nothing" is restricted to.

... The truth represented by these concepts is what is important to see with the minds eye....

Concepts don't have truth-values, and are only accessed through the "mind's eye".

 

[idav]

I thought the something was existence and nothing non-existence...and when did the nothing begin the zero sum game?

Energy of the universe is said to be a sum of zero positive and negative energy. That makes the sum of energy literally nothing. I am not sure there was ever non-existence. However it appears the universe can be in a state of nothing while actually being something at the same time.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Language. Validity is structural, soundness conceptual.

No words ARE concepts. Words refer to concepts, or better yet we use words to express concepts. However, there is a consistency to this process that makes some grammatically or syntactically ok utterances meaningless or inherently contradictory or otherwise problematic. The verb/predicate "exists" in this context (or any construction of the for "X exists") automatically (or internally) conveys/construes that the argument taken has certain properties. Thus even if we merely state "X exists" and let X be a variable we can still say simply by this construction that we mean there are certain things about X we know to be true if the construction "X exists" is true. The word "nothing" lacks the requisite properties. It inherently refers to non-existence.

No, as Santa Clause and unicorns are not "nothing", they just lack physical referents (so far as I know, anyway, and I feel pretty safe asserting that neither Santa Clause nor unicorns are real). The sense of the word "nothing" here and most of the time refers to a lack or absence. For example, if asked "what's up?" you might respond "nothing" to convey not something about ontology but simply the lack of anything going on in your life worth using as an answer to this greeting. If you have nothing in the bank it isn't that there isn't something "real" in your account but that there is a lack of content (in this case money). To say there was "nothing" before the big bang is to say that there was a lack of any something. Something can refer to an entity or object or idea or whatever, but importantly I can use it to refer to a specific, physical entity rather than only a property or state of affairs the way that the meaning of "nothing" is restricted to.


Concepts don't have truth-values, and are only accessed through the "mind's eye".

You are in error...words, symbols, numbers, are all conceptions of the mind.....thoughts themselves are conceptualizations.....thinking is conceptualizing....none of this is real except in the sense of conceptualization......to go beyond the conceptualization of this existence and realize That on the other side what the wise man does...

That's not to belittle the importance of developing the conceptual mind...but when you think that when you play dualistic semantics..that it has any meaning in the context of the real, except as a mental representation...you are deluded...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Energy of the universe is said to be a sum of zero positive and negative energy. That makes the sum of energy literally nothing. I am not sure there was ever non-existence. However it appears the universe can be in a state of nothing while actually being something at the same time.

It may have been said...but has the positive and negative energy been accounted for and proven to be equal? Where is the theoretical evidence to show this is so?

 

[idav]

It may have been said...but has the positive and negative energy been accounted for and proven to be equal? Where is the theoretical evidence to show this is so?

See law of conservation of energy. This system doesn't allow for creation or destruction of energy, energy merely changes forms and states.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

See law of conservation of energy. This system doesn't allow for creation or destruction of energy, energy merely changes forms and states.

No, I mean the the balance of positive and negative...are you talking about positive and electrical electrical charge or what?

 

[idav]

No, I mean the the balance of positive and negative...are you talking about positive and electrical electrical charge or what?

The law shows that energy always balance within systems. A universe is the system I refer to. It's how physics works at the atomic level with various levels of positive and negative energies. The maths are used to determine the shape and ultimate destiny of the universe which point to zero sum with a very small margin for error.

Shape of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The law shows that energy always balance within systems. A universe is the system I refer to. It's how physics works at the atomic level with various levels of positive and negative energies. The maths are used to determine the shape and ultimate destiny of the universe which point to zero sum with a very small margin for error.

Shape of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I understand that...but who has done the accounting for the zero sum....is there a paper that has the figures?

 

[idav]

I understand that...but who has done the accounting for the zero sum....is there a paper that has the figures?

They do that by measuring the density of the universe. Several sources confirm the same idea of a flat universe. Don't know exact figures of density and rates of expansion.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You are in error...words, symbols, numbers, are all conceptions of the mind

All conceptions are in the mind. Also, even were the above true, it contradicts nothing I said, in that words as conceptions are necessarily in the mind. However, if they were only conceptions in the mind, then people couldn't communicate. When you write words that I read, I am able to read them because language is an intersubjective phenomenon.

.....thoughts themselves are conceptualizations.....thinking is conceptualizing....none of this is real except in the sense of conceptualization......to go beyond the conceptualization of this existence and realize That on the other side what the wise man does...

I'm not that interested in fortune-cookie philosophy that ignores substantive philosophical discourse and any relevant sciences (such as, in this case, the cognitive sciences).

That's not to belittle the importance of developing the conceptual mind

As opposed to the non-conceptual mind?

but when you think that when you play dualistic semantics

I don't. I tend to adhere to cognitive semantics, or lexical semantics consistent with cognitive linguistics, but this is really irrelevant to the inherent logical inconsistency of asserting existence of nothing when nothing is a property of non-existence.

that it has any meaning in the context of the real, except as a mental representation...you are deluded...

I'm not sure you have the capacity to understand what I said, but if you do, you didn't avail yourself of it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

All conceptions are in the mind. Also, even were the above true, it contradicts nothing I said, in that words as conceptions are necessarily in the mind. However, if they were only conceptions in the mind, then people couldn't communicate. When you write words that I read, I am able to read them because language is an intersubjective phenomenon.

I'm not that interested in fortune-cookie philosophy that ignores substantive philosophical discourse and any relevant sciences (such as, in this case, the cognitive sciences).

As opposed to the non-conceptual mind?

I don't. I tend to adhere to cognitive semantics, or lexical semantics consistent with cognitive linguistics, but this is really irrelevant to the inherent logical inconsistency of asserting existence of nothing when nothing is a property of non-existence.


I'm not sure you have the capacity to understand what I said, but if you do, you didn't avail yourself of it.

Of course we can and do communicate through conceptual interpretation...have you not heard of a dictionary? If I use the concept of existence and non-existence...and you can't see what nonexistence is meant to represent...it's in the dictionary btw...I see a man who is not trying to understand what is being said to him. Nothing exists outside the big bang inflationary bubble...got a problem with the concept of 'nothing exists'....or do you want to continue with the semantics game?

Now if you do, I will be happy to talk about the limitations of conceptual interpretation of reality. further...but this thread would be derailed so contact me if you want to become aware of these limitations..

 

[paarsurrey]

Energy of the universe is said to be a sum of zero positive and negative energy. That makes the sum of energy literally nothing. I am not sure there was ever non-existence. However it appears the universe can be in a state of nothing while actually being something at the same time.

Does it not make science gibberish?
Regards

 

[Shad]

Ok...so time began when imaginary time ended....yes?

No, real time and imaginary time exist both exist on different vectors. Imaginary time in quantum time while real time is classical time.

And big bang existence came from non-existence....yes?

No, Hawking proposes an expansion-collapse model which repeats over and over due to quantum time. Hence why he uses a circle as an example as it does not have a boundary. The North Pole is the expansion/inflation phase, this slows down to what we would have now after moving from the pole. As the circle comes to the South Pole the expansion phases ceases giving way to a collapse phase which increases in speed as the circle approach the North Pole again. Once it hits the North Pole the cycle repeats. Quantum time is always present as another vector and is infinite hence it is called the No-Boundary hypothesis

Hey, I am not a believer in any big bang theory....but I am interested in understanding what the theory is though....particularly that from which the big bang emerged....But let's not confine our discussion exclusively to Hawking's views...let's explore the big bang theory generally as understood by other experts...

All the observations we have are of the inflation phase. The singularity is inferred, not observed, based on regression of inflation observation. The singularity and anything "before" it are speculation. This is as far as observations can take us. Everything else is speculation, inferences and hypothesis based on math like Hawking's model.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, real time and imaginary time exist both exist on different vectors. Imaginary time in quantum time while real time is classical time.

No, Hawking proposes an expansion-collapse model which repeats over and over due to quantum time. Hence why he uses a circle as an example as it does not have a boundary. The North Pole is the expansion/inflation phase, this slows down to what we would have now after moving from the pole. As the circle comes to the South Pole the expansion phases ceases giving way to a collapse phase which increases in speed as the circle approach the North Pole again. Once it hits the North Pole the cycle repeats. Quantum time is always present as another vector and is infinite hence it is called the No-Boundary hypothesis

All the observations we have are of the inflation phase. The singularity is inferred, not observed, based on regression of inflation observation. The singularity and anything "before" it are speculation. This is as far as observations can take us. Everything else is speculation, inferences and hypothesis based on math like Hawking's model.

The concept of time is more of about a perception, observation, and subsequent measurement of change, than a representation of something real...in truth there is no time... The cosmic manifestation exists in a state of constant change.....awareness of this movement by the mind results in a subjective sense of flow of time... Time then is an abstraction from the eternal enduring now... a division of the atemporal to create the concept of temporal... This is an important first step to understand if one is to apprehend the real behind the concept of time... I understand the concept of quantum time the way you explained Hawking's idea of a sort of eternal 'pendulum' model of cosmos.. This concept of quantum time then, is the 'imaginary time' mentioned before... The concepts I used above to represent this 'quantum time' is 'atemporal' and ' 'eternal enduring now'...