Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?

[viole]

No, I'm not a bang proponent in the first place. If you still like the big bang theory, though, I would say revise it to an isolate bang or bangs. I do not particularly like any of the bang ideas, but it is what it is, topically

Do you measure truth claims according to what you like?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

basic rules of motion.

It might help to say.....the singularity was not an item of substance.
not until the substance would gel.....many years later.

I envision energy.....set into a swirl.
the formation of substance would follow suit.....a swirling motion

Singularity is a moniker for what we do not understand. Yet.

So, you are basically saying that what we have no clue about was not an item of substance. Which is self contradicting.

Ciao

- viole

 

[paarsurrey]

Singularity is a moniker for what we do not understand. Yet.
So, you are basically saying that what we have no clue about was not an item of substance. Which is self contradicting.
Ciao
- viole

Is it a mystery of the Atheists, like the Christians have a mystery they call it Trinity?
Regards

 

[Ben Dhyan]

1) The fact that there isn't any is one of the reasons for asking that
2) Certain causal models allow for things to be caused that other causal models would hold to be uncaused.


Because it is existence.


Sometimes it helps to have some basic familiarity with a field, theory, subject, topic, etc., before determining what confidence you have in claims about it.

What understanding of the theory is necessary when the bottom line is that the theory theorizes that there was no cause of the universe exploding into existence...no reason at all...it just did.. Don't ask how the sum total of all mass and energy came from....it just did so drink the kool aid and line up with all the other true believers and accept it in faith.. That is not the scientific method....it violates the laws of physics...oh...I forgot the dogma.....it can;t violate the laws of physics because they don;t apply to big bang theory until after the explosion....

The sum total of mass and energy in the universe in all there is, was, and ever will be....it did not just come into existence for where would it come from? ....it can never ever be made to disappear for where would you put it?....it does not require a cause because there was never a beginning nor will there be an end...

 

[paarsurrey]

What understanding of the theory is necessary when the bottom line is that the theory theorizes that there was no cause of the universe exploding into existence...no reason at all...it just did.. Don't ask how the sum total of all mass and energy came from....it just did so drink the kool aid and line up with all the other true believers and accept it in faith.. That is not the scientific method....it violates the laws of physics...oh...I forgot the dogma.....it can;t violate the laws of physics because they don;t apply to big bang theory until after the explosion....

The sum total of mass and energy in the universe in all there is, was, and ever will be....it did not just come into existence for where would it come from? ....it can never ever be made to disappear for where would you put it?....it does not require a cause because there was never a beginning nor will there be an end...

Is it another aspect when science goes gibberish?
Regards

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Is it another aspect when science goes gibberish?
Regards

Indeed.....when people hear the term 'big bang', many do not understand that according to the theory, there was no cause or reason involved in the miraculous explosion that created existence from non-existence...they think that science understands, or will eventually understand how it happened....

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What understanding of the theory is necessary when the bottom line is that the theory theorizes that there was no cause of the universe exploding into existence...no reason at all

Good point. If your objection relates to causality, then some literature on that would be helpful. We've come along way since Aristotle's First Mover.

Don't ask how the sum total of all mass and energy came from

It came from processes that occurred after the big bang.

That is not the scientific method

There is no "The Scientific Method." That's a science education myth perpetuated for over a century despite major attempts at reform by organizations like the AAAS and NAS as well as concerned scientist all the way back to the activities and writings of James B. Conant in the 40s and 50s.

it can;t violate the laws of physics because they don;t apply to big bang theory until after the explosion

They don't apply immediately after the big bang either.

....

It always amazes me how people have no problem accepting that an omnipotent creator is necessary who must be capable of violating all laws of physics or that there are infinitely many universes that can't be explained by any physics and present more serious problems than those you object to or some similar total violation of all known physics but find the idea of an ex nihilo emergence of the universe laughable (particularly when they refer to multiverses in ways physicists don't because they can't be bother to understand the proposals they find more palatable or that they believe to be true).

The sum total of mass and energy in the universe in all there is, was, and ever will be

No. There is no "sum total of mass and energy in the universe" that existed since the big bang or will continue to exist. The sum changed radically after the big bang, energy isn't a unified "thing", and new particles are constantly popping and out of existence. Most can't even last more than a few moments.

....it did not just come into existence for where would it come from?

You will always have problems if you continue to try to apply your experience of a 3D, dynamic world to a atemporal, alternate dimensional state of affairs, whether we are talking about spacetime or the space in which quantum systems dwell which extends infinitely along infinitely many directions or the state of affairs without the big bang. Current physics holds that your experience of "now" is hundreds of years in the future from some set of reference frames and hundreds of years in the past from others. There is no "now" except as each individual experiences, so we live in a universe without time globally but an infinity of local times.

it does not require a cause because there was never a beginning nor will there be an end...

Not everything seems to require a cause, even now.

 

[paarsurrey]

Science is a process, a person have an idea, conduct an experiment in a logical way, get a result then publish so other people can repeat the experiment and scrutinise him.
The scienctific claims which can be prove by its experiment's result, is to be consider that its claims is correct.
Is it 100% correct? Technically it is, unless someone can use other logical scientific experiment's result to prove him wrong.
And my questions?

So, science follows an idea. Is an idea a thing physical?
If yes; then please quote from a text book of science.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

ben d said: ↑
That is not the scientific method

LegionOnomaMoi
There is no "The Scientific Method." That's a science education myth perpetuated for over a century despite major attempts at reform by organizations like the AAAS and NAS as well as concerned scientist all the way back to the activities and writings of James B. Conant in the 40s and 50s.

So, "scientific method" dissolves like flurries of snow.

Regards

 

[Thief]

Singularity is a moniker for what we do not understand. Yet.

So, you are basically saying that what we have no clue about was not an item of substance. Which is self contradicting.

Ciao

- viole

I have always said....Spirit first....
that would be an item not of substance.

so if you have no clue about God....

what we do have is science pointing to a 'location'......a point...
at that 'point' all the rules of science become 'void'...

what's so hard about that?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It always amazes me how people have no problem accepting that an omnipotent creator is necessary who must be capable of violating all laws of physics or that there are infinitely many universes that can't be explained by any physics and present more serious problems than those you object to or some similar total violation of all known physics but find the idea of an ex nihilo emergence of the universe laughable (particularly when they refer to multiverses in ways physicists don't because they can't be bother to understand the proposals they find more palatable or that they believe to be true).

You are imagining a God that is alien to me....to me the valid laws of physics are the laws of God,,,there is no duality of a creator creating creation...all is one.

No. There is no "sum total of mass and energy in the universe" that existed since the big bang or will continue to exist. The sum changed radically after the big bang, energy isn't a unified "thing", and new particles are constantly popping and out of existence. Most can't even last more than a few moments.

Arr...I disagree and say the sum total of mass and energy is constant....of course particles are popping in and out of existence...but that only means the qv is giving up and taking back energy accordingly and the sum total of mass and energy remains the same. When a fish is born in the ocean, nothing of the ocean is lost or gained in the process.... Where is your proof that the sum total of mass and energy changes over time?

You will always have problems if you continue to try to apply your experience of a 3D, dynamic world to a atemporal, alternate dimensional state of affairs, whether we are talking about spacetime or the space in which quantum systems dwell which extends infinitely along infinitely many directions or the state of affairs without the big bang. Current physics holds that your experience of "now" is hundreds of years in the future from some set of reference frames and hundreds of years in the past from others. There is no "now" except as each individual experiences, so we live in a universe without time globally but an infinity of local times.

My understanding of now is not altogether inconsistent with your concept. Time is a conceptual abstraction from timelessness. But science historically deals in physical reality......so if science is to deal with the esoteric understanding of reality....reeducation camps need to be set up...

Not everything seems to require a cause, even now.

There is one thing that is without cause...universal existence...but it is also birthless....all transformation of mass and energy involves cause and effect... Explosions involving mass and energy involve cause and effect...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You are imagining a God that is alien to me....to me the valid laws of physics are the laws of God,,,there is no duality of a creator creating creation...all is one.

Which laws of physics would these be? And I am not imagining anything about your familiarity with god, but about your ability to explain. You scoff at my answers but in their place you have thus far proposed a "multiverse" incompatible with any multiverse theory which isn't explained in terms of compatibility with any laws of physics or causality and god who isn't explained with these either. Nor have you given any explanation of what the laws of physics that you refer to are.

Arr...I disagree and say the sum total of mass and energy is constant

Do you know what the total mass of all particles is predicted to be in the standard model of particle physics? 0. Currently, the only way we can explain why a theory so incredibly successful is so stupendously wrong it says that there is no mass is by the introduction of a mathematical trick that we hope (and there is good reason for us to hope, particularly within recent years) will be confirmed experimentally.

Do you know what energy is in quantum mechanics? It's a mathematical function. Why is it the conservation of probability so important?

Is the energy of virtual photons conserved? What about the mass of a photon propagating through a suitably constructed superconductor? What about CP violations observed and theorized?

....of course particles are popping in and out of existence...

What's the cause?

but that only means the qv is giving up and taking back energy accordingly

Do you know what symmetry breaking is?

and the sum total of mass and energy remains the same.

"From the perspective of quantum physics, the ultimate source of matter and energy is the quantum vacuum. Far from the image of nothingness evoked by vernacular use of the term, the vacuum is a pervasive roiling background from which virtual particles continually emerge and back to which they subsequently decay. The ‘big-bang’ origin of the universe could be thought of as one of those improbable, yet not impossible, occurrences when a quantum fluctuation of the vacuum occurred on a sustainable scale and continued expanding. However, if the total energy of the universe, which is initially zero, is to remain a conserved quantity, then there must be a corresponding source of negative energy to compensate for the positive mass–energy created by the big bang. Negative energy is provided by the universal gravitational attraction of all forms of matter and radiation.
The creation of matter from the vacuum, even with conservation of energy, violates other conservation laws that are believed to hold rigorously under less extreme circumstances." (emphasis added)
Silverman, M. P. (2008). Quantum Superposition: Counterintuitive Consequences of Coherence, Entanglement, and Interference (The Frontiers Collection). Springer.

Mass and energy aren't always conserved even now.

When a fish is born in the ocean, nothing of the ocean is lost or gained in the process

Clearly analogous to lepton numbers and color charges in quantum chromodynamics.

.... Where is your proof that the sum total of mass and energy changes over time?

Physics. I tend to prefer physics experiments to understand how physics works, not fish in the ocean.

But science historically deals in physical reality

The nature of which has radically changed in the sciences over the past few hundred years.

reeducation camps need to be set up...

They have these. They're called universities. You can go to them and study physics. However, if you don't feel like spending the requisite time in undergraduate and graduate physics, luckily there are things called "books" (which, actually, the students in graduate school use too!) that can use to understand (at least with more accuracy) the physics you scoff at before you dismiss it.

There is one thing that is without cause

What is the cause between the nonlocal interactions? Or the particles that "of course...popping in and out of existence."

all transformation of mass and energy involves cause and effect

Circular causality occurs at the macroscale, not just in particle physics and QFT.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So, "scientific method" dissolves like flurries of snow.

Hard to dissolve what was never there. Scientist most certainly have methods, they just don't use the textbook myth of The Scientific Method which runs approximately as follows:
1) Formulate hypothesis
2) Design an experiment to test hypothesis
3) If repeated experiments confirm the hypothesis, it turns into theory (in a transformation that conserves total mass and energy)

It is this singular, linear, sequence of steps presented as The Scientific Method that is and always has been a myth. Scientific methods are unbelievably successful, as evidenced by the fact that you can post here.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Which laws of physics would these be? And I am not imagining anything about your familiarity with god, but about your ability to explain. You scoff at my answers but in their place you have thus far proposed a "multiverse" incompatible with any multiverse theory which isn't explained in terms of compatibility with any laws of physics or causality and god who isn't explained with these either. Nor have you given any explanation of what the laws of physics that you refer to are.



Do you know what the total mass of all particles is predicted to be in the standard model of particle physics? 0. Currently, the only way we can explain why a theory so incredibly successful is so stupendously wrong it says that there is no mass is by the introduction of a mathematical trick that we hope (and there is good reason for us to hope, particularly within recent years) will be confirmed experimentally.

Do you know what energy is in quantum mechanics? It's a mathematical function. Why is it the conservation of probability so important?

Is the energy of virtual photons conserved? What about the mass of a photon propagating through a suitably constructed superconductor? What about CP violations observed and theorized?



What's the cause?


Do you know what symmetry breaking is?


"From the perspective of quantum physics, the ultimate source of matter and energy is the quantum vacuum. Far from the image of nothingness evoked by vernacular use of the term, the vacuum is a pervasive roiling background from which virtual particles continually emerge and back to which they subsequently decay. The ‘big-bang’ origin of the universe could be thought of as one of those improbable, yet not impossible, occurrences when a quantum fluctuation of the vacuum occurred on a sustainable scale and continued expanding. However, if the total energy of the universe, which is initially zero, is to remain a conserved quantity, then there must be a corresponding source of negative energy to compensate for the positive mass–energy created by the big bang. Negative energy is provided by the universal gravitational attraction of all forms of matter and radiation.
The creation of matter from the vacuum, even with conservation of energy, violates other conservation laws that are believed to hold rigorously under less extreme circumstances." (emphasis added)
Silverman, M. P. (2008). Quantum Superposition: Counterintuitive Consequences of Coherence, Entanglement, and Interference (The Frontiers Collection). Springer.

Mass and energy aren't always conserved even now.


Clearly analogous to lepton numbers and color charges in quantum chromodynamics.



Physics. I tend to prefer physics experiments to understand how physics works, not fish in the ocean.



The nature of which has radically changed in the sciences over the past few hundred years.


They have these. They're called universities. You can go to them and study physics. However, if you don't feel like spending the requisite time in undergraduate and graduate physics, luckily there are things called "books" (which, actually, the students in graduate school use too!) that can use to understand (at least with more accuracy) the physics you scoff at before you dismiss it.


What is the cause between the nonlocal interactions? Or the particles that "of course...popping in and out of existence."


Circular causality occurs at the macroscale, not just in particle physics and QFT.

Valid laws of physics I understand to be those scientific observations that truly reflect the natural order of what mankind calls the universe, seen and unseen, that which is known and that which yet remains unknown........and what some religions call the manifestation of God...

I do not scoff at real science....but I do not hand over my mind to academia wrt all the theories floating about the universe....especially the concept of the big bang explosion in the context of non-existence providing the requisite 'ground' of said explosion....Btw, how would you in your own words describe the no space, no time, no existence state that served as the ground zero of the big bang? Is there a single word to represent this state, if not I suggest we work on it...any suggestions? Not that I believe such a state ever existed ..but it would help avoid a lot of misunderstanding wrt that which was not in existence at the time of the explosion...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Valid laws of physics I understand

Really!? The "laws of physics" are contingent upon your understanding? That's your basis for your scoffing and dismissiveness?

to be those scientific observations

Which scientific observations? You clearly aren't familiar with even classic results from empirical observations relevant here. You continue to scoff at whilst hiding behind your vague and indefensible "laws of physics" that so perfectly seem to adhere to whatever ridiculous speculations you assert yet somehow render obviously wrong those that you don't agree with (for reasons that you cannot couch in explanatory accounts you seek to assert are somehow more plausible than those you ridicule without understanding).

that truly reflect the natural order of what mankind calls the universe

Humans have existed for tens of thousands of years without even so elementary an understanding of the universe we find in the woefully inaccurate classical literature.

I do not scoff at real science...

Your use of language and emoticons suggest otherwise, as does you appeal to "science" that is actually incredibly misguided, inaccurate, and flawed.

but I do not hand over my mind to academia

Nor do you bother acquainting yourself with academic sources, as evidenced by your consistently inaccurate portrayals.

Btw, how would you in your own words describe the no space, no time, no existence state that served as the ground zero of the big bang?

Again you portray a fundamental inability to grasp even enough of the relevant issues here as to so much as phrase a question that is sensical. "Ground zero" in an acausal, non-temporal state of affairs? Your dogmatic, ideological, simplistic, and uninformed appeals to a state of affairs consistent with the 3D Euclidean dynamical reality you experience would be understandable were it not for your utterly baseless and groundless appeals to a non-dimensional, causal, or temporal entity or state of affairs you freely accept without explanation or even a decent attempt at description.

Is there a single word to represent this state, if not I suggest we work on it...any suggestions?

Google construction grammar, prefabs, typology, and cognitive linguistics and once you have liberated yourself form elementary school understanding of language as the basis for argumentation, let me know.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Really!? The "laws of physics" are contingent upon your understanding? That's your basis for your scoffing and dismissiveness?


Which scientific observations? You clearly aren't familiar with even classic results from empirical observations relevant here. You continue to scoff at whilst hiding behind your vague and indefensible "laws of physics" that so perfectly seem to adhere to whatever ridiculous speculations you assert yet somehow render obviously wrong those that you don't agree with (for reasons that you cannot couch in explanatory accounts you seek to assert are somehow more plausible than those you ridicule without understanding).


Humans have existed for tens of thousands of years without even so elementary an understanding of the universe we find in the woefully inaccurate classical literature.


Your use of language and emoticons suggest otherwise, as does you appeal to "science" that is actually incredibly misguided, inaccurate, and flawed.


Nor do you bother acquainting yourself with academic sources, as evidenced by your consistently inaccurate portrayals.


Again you portray a fundamental inability to grasp even enough of the relevant issues here as to so much as phrase a question that is sensical. "Ground zero" in an acausal, non-temporal state of affairs? Your dogmatic, ideological, simplistic, and uninformed appeals to a state of affairs consistent with the 3D Euclidean dynamical reality you experience would be understandable were it not for your utterly baseless and groundless appeals to a non-dimensional, causal, or temporal entity or state of affairs you freely accept without explanation or even a decent attempt at description.


Google construction grammar, prefabs, typology, and cognitive linguistics and once you have liberated yourself form elementary school understanding of language as the basis for argumentation, let me know.

Apparently you do not understand what is being said to you.....or perhaps you do but because my comments reflect poorly on your belief system, you do your best to misrepresent it... In any event..,here's a question for you...which came first...big bang existence or big bang pre-existence?

 

[Demonslayer]

...which came first...big bang existence or big bang pre-existence?

Doesn't the prefix "pre" sort of answer this question for you?
.

 

[viole]

I have always said....Spirit first....
that would be an item not of substance.

so if you have no clue about God....

what we do have is science pointing to a 'location'......a point...
at that 'point' all the rules of science become 'void'...

what's so hard about that?

All the rules of CURRENT science become "void" or break. Are you making the assumption that physics is finished?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thief]

All the rules of CURRENT science become "void" or break. Are you making the assumption that physics is finished?

Ciao

- viole

no....I would be willing to assume.....
physics had a beginning

 

[Thief]

...which came first...big bang existence or big bang pre-existence?

Doesn't the prefix "pre" sort of answer this question for you?
.

I will be asking God, how He did it.

a pronouncement.....I AM!....in a situation such as the 'beginning'...
a snap of the fingers....so to speak....