Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?

[Mickdrew]

You'll forgive me for copying a reply I had in a discussion with someone on this topic.

There's a saying in science:
"The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."

The answer is probably beyond our ability to comprehend. Keep in mind that in the end we are using primate brains, which means our reasoning faculties have evolved to survive in the wilderness, not understand the universe.
For example, We need to illustrate gravitational wells just to make some sense of how gravity works.

My point is that your question about how things came from nothing or something cannot be answered by us trying to reason it out because our reasoning is insufficient. This is akin to the ancient days when people tried using fictional philosophical rules to determine how the sun was powered (comparing it to fire, wondering how it could be suspended in mid-air, etc.)

If there is an attainable answer, it will be done through further research and examination - and even then we will likely only have a superficial understanding of how it works.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Hi Ben. I was under the impression that the Ultimate Reality as some call it was pure nothingness. That pure nothingness as I understand it is the background upon which all "somethingness" is percieved ie: matter, energy, interaction, forms...in other words Maya. According to Advaita Vedanta isn't that energy all just illusion anyway and therefore not actually existing as part of reality?

I've never understood Ultimate Reality to be pure nothing Runewolf....absolute reality is the underlying unity of the apparent multiplicity of aspects that constitute the universe. There is always the irony involved in trying to convey Advaita, in that one has to use dualistic language as an expedient to explain that the dualistic perspective on reality obscures the underlying non-dual nature of the absolute oneness...God if you like. No...the energy is not an illusion, the illusion.....or maya if you like, arises when the mind perceives it as separate in absolute terms from the forms made from it.. Non-duality is not subject to the intellectual process, for the conceptual mind operates in time space whereas oneness transcends time space. Only when the mind is still and free from thought will the transcendent nature of the underlying unity of the universe be present directly.....happy meditation...

 

[Runewolf1973]

I've never understood Ultimate Reality to be pure nothing Runewolf....absolute reality is the underlying unity of the apparent multiplicity of aspects that constitute the universe. There is always the irony involved in trying to convey Advaita, in that one has to use dualistic language as an expedient to explain that the dualistic perspective on reality obscures the underlying non-dual nature of the absolute oneness...God if you like. No...the energy is not an illusion, the illusion.....or maya if you like, arises when the mind perceives it as separate in absolute terms from the forms made from it.. Non-duality is not subject to the intellectual process, for the conceptual mind operates in time space whereas oneness transcends time space. Only when the mind is still and free from thought will the transcendent nature of the underlying unity of the universe be present directly.....happy meditation...

Thank you. I like your perspective on this. I believe there is some sort of ever-present, interactive field (Unified Field) from which everything originates.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Thank you. I like your perspective on this. I believe there is some sort of ever-present, interactive field (Unified Field) from which everything originates.

Correct...in the stillness of mind such as that when one is suddenly struck by the extraordinary beauty of say...a starry night, a sunrise, etc., ....the mind is in awe because the observer and observed are united.....no separation.....make an mental effort to savor the moment though......and the observer and observed are now separated again.and it is all just a memory.....

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Which assumes knowledge both of the impossible and the improbable. As you have aptly demonstrated by ridiculing the very physics you at times call "laws", at other times ignore utterly in place of substitutions for the big bang theory, and never demonstrate any requisite knowledge of, what is probable, impossible, possible, etc., according to Conan Doyle's character even less than is relevant to our modern understanding of reality, depends upon a sufficient understanding of the processes and properties that govern that which is (rather than your dismissive approach to that you do not understand in place of the acceptance of that which you cannot explain).

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Which assumes knowledge both of the impossible and the improbable. As you have aptly demonstrated by ridiculing the very physics you at times call "laws", at other times ignore utterly in place of substitutions for the big bang theory, and never demonstrate any requisite knowledge of, what is probable, impossible, possible, etc., according to Conan Doyle's character even less than is relevant to our modern understanding of reality, depends upon a sufficient understanding of the processes and properties that govern that which is (rather than your dismissive approach to that you do not understand in place of the acceptance of that which you cannot explain).

Well unless you beleive that science big bang theory claims that the universe came from a preexisting something or from nothing....we have already established the impossible...yes?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well unless you claim that science big bang theory says that the universe came from a preexisting something or from nothing....we have already established the impossible...yes?

1) Your conclusion does not logically follow from your implied question
2) I quoted, quite specifically, what the universe came from
3) "If not X or Y, therefore Z" is not a logical inference.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

1) Your conclusion does not logically follow from your implied question
2) I quoted, quite specifically, what the universe came from
3) "If not X or Y, therefore Z" is not a logical inference.

Ahem.....let me rephrase it so that I better understand your position.... X = the universe come from something ... Y = the universe came from nothing ... Z = the universe is eternal and beyond time space physics. Which is it?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Ahem.....let me rephrase it so that I better understand your position.... X = the universe come from something ... Y = the universe came from nothing ... Z = the universe is eternal and beyond time space physics. Which is it?

Thank you for once again demonstrating an incapacity and inability to even recognize formally valid (let alone sound) inferences. There is no singular inference "Z" that follows given neither X nor Y. This is because the terms "something" and "nothing" are, by definition, mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive (not to mention the fact that they are not the only options), but then by definition there can be no Z (and ONLY by definition), which makes any Z an invalid inference and the particular choice of one not only invalid but a fundamental demonstration of an inability and incapacity to reason logically.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Thank you for once again demonstrating an incapacity and inability to even recognize formally valid (let alone sound) inferences. There is no singular inference "Z" that follows given neither X nor Y. This is because the terms "something" and "nothing" are, by definition, mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, but then by definition there can be no Z (and ONLY by definition), which makes any Z an invalid inference and the particular choice of one not only invalid but a fundamental demonstration of an inability and incapacity to reason logically.

Total nonsense...both X and Y are mutually exclusive in the context of a creation in time...while Z on the other hand implies non-duality....ie. no creation ....and thus transcends the dualistic mortal mind's expectation of a beginning of creation in time......

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Total nonsense...both X and Y are mutually exclusive in the context of a creation in time

Which is an assumption that doesn't accord with our current best observations, can't accord with any observation (as there is no known, coherent, and valid approach to "time"), and finally doesn't license your conclusion Z.

...while Z on the other hand implies non-duality

If X and Y are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, then there can be no Z. This is basic.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Which is an assumption that doesn't accord with our current best observations, can't accord with any observation (as there is no known, coherent, and valid approach to "time"), and finally doesn't license your conclusion Z.


If X and Y are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, then there can be no Z. This is basic.

Are you being obtuse on purpose?

X = There is creation of something from something in time..... Y = There is creation of something from nothing in time...

X and Y are a complementary opposite pair in the context of creation..., and thus form another altogether different complementary opposite pair of X/Y. creation possibility on the one hand, with Z representing no creation on the other...understood?

 

[Thief]

Yes...the manifested universe of God is eternal..without a beginning...but the created forms have beginnings and endings...

So, Spirit first.
as I have posted all the many years I've been here.

God might well be eternal...
and the universe had a beginning....

we have then been arguing a mutual belief?

 

[gnostic]

Well unless you beleive that science big bang theory claims that the universe came from a preexisting something or from nothing....we have already established the impossible...yes?

The Big Bang ONLY cover the "observable universe", Ben.

In fact, the first second after the Big Bang is hypothetical, eg from the Planck Epoch, down to the Leptons Epoch. A lot of series of events had occurred during that first second, but it is still hypothetical.

The Big Bang theory don't cover what happen before this Big Bang, but there are a number of highly theoretical theory of what occurred before the Big Bang, like the variety of multiverse theories, the Big Bounce (which involve generations of singularity/universe/collapse, known as oscillating or cyclic universe, which involved an older universe(s) exist before the current universe). But these theories about "before the Big Bang" are speculative and highly theoretical, and therefore untestable or unobservable.

The only thing we are certain about that the expanding universe (Big Bang), and that space is still currently expanding, and that its expansion is still accelerating.

And because the universe or space is still expanding at accelerated rate, scientists predicted that the Big Freeze is the most likely "end of the universe", instead of the scenarios of Big Crunch, Big Rip or Big Bounce.

Maybe, one day, scientists might have something more substantial about what happened before the Big Bang, but right now they are all purely speculative. To simply sum it all up, the current scientists really don't know what happened before the Big Bang.

Could the universe be "eternal"? Maybe, possibly...but they don't know.

Was there something or nothing before the Big Bang? Either ones are maybe, possibly...but they don't know.

I don't know, but I think that there was no "nothing" before the Big Bang. There is "something" before the Big Bang, but we currently don't know what this "something" is. We may call this "something" - SINGULARITY - but we really don't know this singularity is.

Though, I think anyone saying it is God or spirit, is nothing more than a lazy cop-out and delusional wishful thinking.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So, Spirit first.
as I have posted all the many years I've been here.

God might well be eternal...
and the universe had a beginning....

we have then been arguing a mutual belief?

Well it depends on your understanding of universe...the universe as I understand it means the one existence....the one existence never had a beginning, it is eternal....but the manifested forms such as galaxies, stars, people, etc., are all subject to beginnings and endings....and this eternal process as a whole had no beginning...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The Big Bang ONLY cover the "observable universe", Ben.

In fact, the first second after the Big Bang is hypothetical, eg from the Planck Epoch, down to the Leptons Epoch. A lot of series of events had occurred during that first second, but it is still hypothetical.

The Big Bang theory don't cover what happen before this Big Bang, but there are a number of highly theoretical theory of what occurred before the Big Bang, like the variety of multiverse theories, the Big Bounce (which involve generations of singularity/universe/collapse, known as oscillating or cyclic universe, which involved an older universe(s) exist before the current universe). But these theories about "before the Big Bang" are speculative and highly theoretical, and therefore untestable or unobservable.

The only thing we are certain about that the expanding universe (Big Bang), and that space is still currently expanding, and that its expansion is still accelerating.

And because the universe or space is still expanding at accelerated rate, scientists predicted that the Big Freeze is the most likely "end of the universe", instead of the scenarios of Big Crunch, Big Rip or Big Bounce.

Maybe, one day, scientists might have something more substantial about what happened before the Big Bang, but right now they are all purely speculative. To simply sum it all up, the current scientists really don't know what happened before the Big Bang.

Could the universe be "eternal"? Maybe, possibly...but they don't know.

Was there something or nothing before the Big Bang? Either ones are maybe, possibly...but they don't know.

I don't know, but I think that there was no "nothing" before the Big Bang. There is "something" before the Big Bang, but we currently don't know what this "something" is. We may call this "something" - SINGULARITY - but we really don't know this singularity is.

Though, I think anyone saying it is God or spirit, is nothing more than a lazy cop-out and delusional wishful thinking.

You say that science is not sure if the universe is eternal or not, that they do not know....and that science is not sure if there was something before the big bang, or nothing, they do not know. In this case, I accept your position that the science is not settled.

 

[gnostic]

You say that science is not sure if the universe is eternal or not, that they do not know....and that science is not sure if there was something before the big bang, or nothing, they do not know. In this case, I accept your position that the science is not settled.

Science is about acquiring knowledge, and being able to objectively test the theory if it is possible or not.

Acquiring knowledge takes time and reaching to the point of certainty and thereby acceptance take time too.

It is called "progress". We may in the future uncovers something entirely different to the current theories in theoretical physics that testable, depending on our technology.

Take Pluto for instance. Over 200 years we didn't know exist. As our telescope improved over the years, our knowledge improve. But even with the telescope, Pluto have always being a blurry object. So there are only so much we can learn from distant blurry object. Recently, we have close up view of Pluto, a lot clear images of this dwarf planet were sent back to Earth by the space probe - New Horizon, that we are learning so much about Pluto that we didn't 6 months ago. But our knowledge about Pluto is still farfrom settled.

Just as recent, is that we discovered water did exist on Mars, even today. There's not much of it, but we have uncovered what scientists have predicted.

On earth we are still learning new things about biology, particularly with diseases and medicine. Do you think our knowledge in health, in diseases and in medicine "settled"?

Viruses tends to mutate, making the latest vaccines ineffective, showed that we are still learning. The whole virus versus cure will be ongoing battle between the two.

Just because science is not settled, doesn't mean we can't learn from it. The worse thing you can do, is think science is static or settled; that sort of thinking or belief will make progress in science to stagnate.

This is what happened to Muslim scientists. For centuries, Muslims were ahead of the Europeans in science (9th to 15th century), making new discoveries or rediscovering old science from the Greeks and Persians. But suddenly, their discoveries and advances have stopped during the Renaissance. What you would called Islamic science have stagnated, and to this day, they have not lead any new discoveries.

Science will only stagnate if you think it is "settled", Ben, because that when you cease to learn anything new.

Scriptures are worthless in matter of science. Their own real-world "worth" come from teaching morality and ethics, but if they (scriptures and teachings) were centuries or millennia ago, they can become archaic or outdated.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Science is about acquiring knowledge, and being able to objectively test the theory if it is possible or not.

Acquiring knowledge takes time and reaching to the point of certainty and thereby acceptance take time too.

It is called "progress". We may in the future uncovers something entirely different to the current theories in theoretical physics that testable, depending on our technology.

Take Pluto for instance. Over 200 years we didn't know exist. As our telescope improved over the years, our knowledge improve. But even with the telescope, Pluto have always being a blurry object. So there are only so much we can learn from distant blurry object. Recently, we have close up view of Pluto, a lot clear images of this dwarf planet were sent back to Earth by the space probe - New Horizon, that we are learning so much about Pluto that we didn't 6 months ago. But our knowledge about Pluto is still farfrom settled.

Just as recent, is that we discovered water did exist on Mars, even today. There's not much of it, but we have uncovered what scientists have predicted.

On earth we are still learning new things about biology, particularly with diseases and medicine. Do you think our knowledge in health, in diseases and in medicine "settled"?

Viruses tends to mutate, making the latest vaccines ineffective, showed that we are still learning. The whole virus versus cure will be ongoing battle between the two.

Just because science is not settled, doesn't mean we can't learn from it. The worse thing you can do, is think science is static or settled; that sort of thinking or belief will make progress in science to stagnate.

This is what happened to Muslim scientists. For centuries, Muslims were ahead of the Europeans in science (9th to 15th century), making new discoveries or rediscovering old science from the Greeks and Persians. But suddenly, their discoveries and advances have stopped during the Renaissance. What you would called Islamic science have stagnated, and to this day, they have not lead any new discoveries.

Science will only stagnate if you think it is "settled", Ben, because that when you cease to learn anything new.

Yes, I understand how science works.....and like you, it is great to see its progress and the benefits it has provided to humanity. Fwiw though. I do not depend solely on science for my understanding, for scence only deals with the observable universe, and there is much more to existence than the physical.

 

[Thief]

Well it depends on your understanding of universe...the universe as I understand it means the one existence....the one existence never had a beginning, it is eternal....but the manifested forms such as galaxies, stars, people, etc., are all subject to beginnings and endings....and this eternal process as a whole had no beginning...

I see only a subtle difference.
The one existence ....God....never had a beginning.
a mystery.
We can ask Him about that when we get there.

the universe(one word) is a creation......all of it.
the universe had a beginning....Let there be light.

 

[gnostic]

I see only a subtle difference.
The one existence ....God....never had a beginning.

Of course it had beginning.

God only exist only because of the imagination, ignorance and superstition of men. There are no evidences to say otherwise.

They associate natural things to god, but there are nothing to prove his existence, other than superstitious belief and blind faith of some superstitious books. And they were written by superstitious and ignorant men, who had very little understanding of the natural world.

This whole business of yours, using "Spirit first" or "God has no beginning" or you can't god on the petri-dish or under microscope, and whole other variations of them, are nothing than rhetoric and your personal opinion/belief.