Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?

[Ben Dhyan]

Of course, there can be no absence of space-time. That doesn't imply that space-time can't have a beginning, but only that one cannot sensibly talk about there being something "before" that beginning.

I think it was Aristotle who first pointed out that this has to have been the case, else we would be in a bottomless well and never have been able to reach the present.

But you confuse me...you say there can be no absence of space-time.....and then say that space-time may have had a beginning? How could space-time have a beginning if there can not be an absence of space-time?

 

[Frank Merton]

If something is not there, and then it is there, then it had a beginning. I was only pointing out that this is just one possibility. Maybe space-time existed all along and suddenly some quantum event created our universe. This one seems to be easier for some people to see.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If something is not there, and then it is there, then it had a beginning. I was only pointing out that this is just one possibility. Maybe space-time existed all along and suddenly some quantum event created our universe. This one seems to be easier for some people to see.

In the big picture of the universal oneness that is without beginning or end....I do not deal in ifs or maybes, but with reality itself... What constitutes the prerequisite space time environment you imagine may exist in which suddenly some quantum event can create the sum total of the mass and energy plus whatever else that constitutes the universe?

ps..Always keep in mind the possibility that the universe may be eternal...and I would welcome any critical perspective on why it is not credible.. I don't mean just regurgitating dogmatic big bang theoretical creation....or God theological dogmatic creation ...but some reasoned rational logical opinion as to why it is not credible? I mean it..please try and propose a weakness in my understanding...

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I don't know this Kotlar, so I can't really comment much of what he think. But judging by what you say about him, he is also reaching, making assumption or coming to conclusion based on his opinion, with no way to verify what he say to be true.
Can he objectively and conclusively demonstrate that this Intelligent Designer is actually involved with the immune system?
And there lies the issue of your problem, each time you mention one name or another. Each person has made presupposition, based on what he believe that "could be" possible, but unless you have verifiable evidences that this Designer really exist, he (or she) cannot collaborate what he (or she) might think it is possible.
Each of these claims, are no more than guesses.
Science rely more than logic. Without evidences, there is really no way to tell if the logic is true. Evidences are what make it objective. The more evidences
Of course, the evidences could go against a scientist (or anyone who is make a claim). And the lack or absence of evidences don't make anything to be true; all claims are FALSE "by default".
Your latest so-called expert, is simply rationalizing what he has seen or experience. Any Tom, Dick and Harry off the street can rationalize what they have seen, doesn't necessarily mean what they have seen are true.
Science is about what is false and what is true, and the only way that can be achieve is through empirical and verifiable evidences.
Tell me, URAVIP2ME. Do you know of any of Kotlar's peers (fellow-biotechnologists) who verify that is indeed some great, invisible and powerful Designer have designed the immune system?

To Kotlar's study of the immune system: the process is mind-bobbling. How are the workings of the immune system ' opinion ' ?
The immune system workings are Not guesses but logical reasoning on how the immune system works in showing design evidence.

 

[gnostic]

To Kotlar's study of the immune system: the process is mind-bobbling. How are the workings of the immune system ' opinion ' ?
The immune system workings are Not guesses but logical reasoning on how the immune system works in showing design evidence.

i didn't say that Kotlar's work (or study) on the immune system to be an opinion. I have said that Kotlar associating the immune system to a design from Intelligent Designer to be an opinion.

There are no evidences for the existence of the Designer, and that's what Kotlar's baseless opinion. Until Kotlar can provide evidences that the Designer was the cause of the immune system, then he is simply just bringing up ID pseudoscience into scientific field, just like disgraced Michael Behe.

And it is an opinion if no other peers of Koltar - biotechnologists or immunologists shared his view about the Designer. My question to you was, is there any peer from the biotechnology or immunology science agree with his personal view?

 

[Frank Merton]

In the big picture of the universal oneness that is without beginning or end....I do not deal in ifs or maybes, but with reality itself... What constitutes the prerequisite space time environment you imagine may exist in which suddenly some quantum event can create the sum total of the mass and energy plus whatever else that constitutes the universe?

ps..Always keep in mind the possibility that the universe may be eternal...and I would welcome any critical perspective on why it is not credible.. I don't mean just regurgitating dogmatic big bang theoretical creation....or God theological dogmatic creation ...but some reasoned rational logical opinion as to why it is not credible? I mean it..please try and propose a weakness in my understanding...

Well, yes, this seems to be the popular view, or maybe number two (the most popular now in professional circles seems to be an infinitely and never ending inflation where bubbles of our sort of stuff appear randomly but, because of the tremendous inflation rate, are born so far apart as to not even exist for all practical purposes.

As I see it this has the problem of any infinitely existing anything -- it implies an infinitely deep well from which we reached the present. How does one climb out of a well that has no bottom?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, yes, this seems to be the popular view, or maybe number two (the most popular now in professional circles seems to be an infinitely and never ending inflation where bubbles of our sort of stuff appear randomly but, because of the tremendous inflation rate, are born so far apart as to not even exist for all practical purposes.

As I see it this has the problem of any infinitely existing anything -- it implies an infinitely deep well from which we reached the present. How does one climb out of a well that has no bottom?

Do you mean by an infinite deep well....infinite existence? If so, there is really nothing to climb out of....we and all else in existence are mere expressions of it.. Which is why in the mystical traditions, meditation practice to still the mind is so essential. When we use our mind in the normal mode essential for mortal survival....our mind perceives our environment is being outside and separate from our selves...this is because of self identification with the body. However when our mind is still and free from thought and thus free from self identification with the body....the usual apparent duality of 'me' and that which is 'not me' is transcended to reveal an expanded state of awareness that is non-dual in its nature....a direct awareness of being beyond description as it is not conceptual awareness....

 

[Frank Merton]

In the big picture of the universal oneness that is without beginning or end....I do not deal in ifs or maybes, but with reality itself... What constitutes the prerequisite space time environment you imagine may exist in which suddenly some quantum event can create the sum total of the mass and energy plus whatever else that constitutes the universe?

ps..Always keep in mind the possibility that the universe may be eternal...and I would welcome any critical perspective on why it is not credible.. I don't mean just regurgitating dogmatic big bang theoretical creation....or God theological dogmatic creation ...but some reasoned rational logical opinion as to why it is not credible? I mean it..please try and propose a weakness in my understanding...

Stuff like "universal oneness" bores me and is just meaningless jargon. If you have something specific in mind, give it some rigor and provide some evidence.

 

[Frank Merton]

Do you mean by an infinite deep well....infinite existence? If so, there is really nothing to climb out of....we and all else in existence are mere expressions of it.. Which is why in the mystical traditions, meditation practice to still the mind is so essential. When we use our mind in the normal mode essential for mortal survival....our mind perceives our environment is being outside and separate from our selves...this is because of self identification with the body. However when our mind is still and free from thought and thus free from self identification with the body....the usual apparent duality of 'me' and that which is 'not me' is transcended to reveal an expanded state of awareness that is non-dual in its nature....a direct awareness of being beyond description as it is not conceptual awareness....

Oh but there is. If time has always existed, then it is endless. "Infinity" is not a number. It means endless. Infinite time means endless time, and you cannot get here from endlessly far away. The frog can never get to the top of the well if the well has no bottom. The only conclusion I can reach, since we are here, is that time had to have some sort of beginning. We can talk about after that beginning, but not about before it, as there would be no before it.

 

[Frank Merton]

Do you mean by an infinite deep well....infinite existence? If so, there is really nothing to climb out of....we and all else in existence are mere expressions of it.. Which is why in the mystical traditions, meditation practice to still the mind is so essential. When we use our mind in the normal mode essential for mortal survival....our mind perceives our environment is being outside and separate from our selves...this is because of self identification with the body. However when our mind is still and free from thought and thus free from self identification with the body....the usual apparent duality of 'me' and that which is 'not me' is transcended to reveal an expanded state of awareness that is non-dual in its nature....a direct awareness of being beyond description as it is not conceptual awareness....

Well I do meditate, but that has little to do with trying to think logically and reason things out. (I will admit though that sometimes resolutions to such problems are seen after meditation (or after sleep) that seemed insoluble earlier. I attribute that to my subconscious working on problems while my conscious is in a meditative state.)

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Stuff like "universal oneness" bores me and is just meaningless jargon. If you have something specific in mind, give it some rigor and provide some evidence.

Well let us not get ahead of ourselves....please explain what it is about your understanding of what is meant by the concept of 'universal oneness' in the context I used it, that you find meaningless jargon? I try and convey what I understand...I do not mind that some may disagree....but first I try to eliminate misunderstanding if it exists before I can be sure there is an insurmountable problem... .

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Oh but there is. If time has always existed, then it is endless. "Infinity" is not a number. It means endless. Infinite time means endless time, and you cannot get here from endlessly far away. The frog can never get to the top of the well if the well has no bottom. The only conclusion I can reach, since we are here, is that time had to have some sort of beginning. We can talk about after that beginning, but not about before it, as there would be no before it.

There is no time in reality...there is only the eternal presence of existence..... Time as a concept of the human mind is an finite abstraction from eternity that is a measure of relative movement of things of the universe....it has no reality outside of mind as say compared to something real as a planet or rock... Again there is more to your comment but until we can reach common ground as to what time and eternity means...it will have to wait,,if it is still relevant. So I await your reply...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well I do meditate, but that has little to do with trying to think logically and reason things out. (I will admit though that sometimes resolutions to such problems are seen after meditation (or after sleep) that seemed insoluble earlier. I attribute that to my subconscious working on problems while my conscious is in a meditative state.)

It is sometimes called intuition...and yes, it is a faculty of the mind that is developed through meditation... But understanding the other things we are discussing is a prerequisite to getting to what I meant by still mind meditation...we may get back to it later.. or maybe not?

 

[leibowde84]

Fine....so you are now in agreement with me as I said at the get go that there is no scientist alive who disagrees that the energy and mass of the universe is something and not nothing?

You have consistently claimed in this exchange that the energy and mass of the universe is nothing....you are now changing your position as you find your position untenable....

So you work in neuroscience....and imagine you understand the universe...haha...where in the world did you ever get the idea that universal energy and mass was not something but rather nothing...

The energy of the universe being relatively zero in no way means that "nothing" is involved.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The energy of the universe being relatively zero in no way means that "nothing" is involved.

So please explain how you get to believe the sum total of all the energy of the universe is relatively zero...I mean can you elaborate so I can form some idea where you are coming from?

 

[Frank Merton]

Well let us not get ahead of ourselves....please explain what it is about your understanding of what is meant by the concept of 'universal oneness' in the context I used it, that you find meaningless jargon? I try and convey what I understand...I do not mind that some may disagree....but first I try to eliminate misunderstanding if it exists before I can be sure there is an insurmountable problem... .

I have no idea what the phrase might mean. I might surmise some notion that everything is connected, the way the astrologers talk, but everything is not connected, at least to the extent we might conceivably measure.

 

[Frank Merton]

There is no time in reality...there is only the eternal presence of existence..... Time as a concept of the human mind is an finite abstraction from eternity that is a measure of relative movement of things of the universe....it has no reality outside of mind as say compared to something real as a planet or rock... Again there is more to your comment but until we can reach common ground as to what time and eternity means...it will have to wait,,if it is still relevant. So I await your reply...

This is a notion of time, and a somewhat intuitive one at that, but I think you need to study some relativity theory before concluding our intuitive notions are necessarily truth.

 

[Frank Merton]

So please explain how you get to believe the sum total of all the energy of the universe is relatively zero...I mean can you elaborate so I can form some idea where you are coming from?

Basically it seems that all the "conserved" properties of the universe net out to zero. There are a number of them, the best known being mass/energy, electric charge, momentum and angular momentum.

It is fairly easy to see that electric charge nets to zero, because it does so short range. That there is no prevailing motion or rotatation to the universe is observed as accurately as we are able, so they seem to net to zero as well. Mass/energy is offset by the negative energy of the expansion.

So, as has been said, the universe appears to be a free lunch.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Basically it seems that all the "conserved" properties of the universe net out to zero.

Conservation laws are misleading. The popular conception of such laws is an outdated notion from 18th and (to a lesser extent) 19th century physics. In modern physics, conservation laws are generally imposed a priori. That is, physical theories are tweaked, fiddled with, and altered until various properties are conserved. This becomes especially clear with energy when one realizes that no one really knows what it is that is conserved because for over a century it has been realized that energy in physics isn't consistently or even well defined:
"no general, quantitative definition of energy which covers all its aspects is currently known. The lack of such a general definition was explicitly acknowledged as far back as 1902...
It may or may not be impossible to find a general definition of energy but, as we do not currently have one, we shall draw on the well-known and accepted concept of energy that uses particular examples in order to illustrate itself...
In regard to the conservation of energy, this is either postulated as a law or derived as a theorem from a set of axioms depending on the area of physics involved."
(emphasis added)
Riggs, P. J. (2009). Quantum Causality: Conceptual Issues in the Causal Theory of Quantum Mechanics (Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Vol. 21). Springer.
In other words, even if we could identify what "energy" is in physics generally, to the extent it is conserved it is because we force physical theories to conserve it either directly (i.e., "postulated as a law"), or indirectly by deriving it from other postulations taken axiomatically. This is not unlike the role of symmetry in physics.

There are a number of them, the best known...

Whatever the best known is, the most important is almost certainly information. It is the only "thing" that can be equally well-defined in any field of physics.

being mass/energy, electric charge, momentum and angular momentum

I can't address these all in a single post, but as for momentum:
Mansuripur, M. (2012). Trouble with the Lorentz law of force: Incompatibility with special relativity and momentum conservation. Physical review letters, 108(19), 193901.

It is fairly easy to see that electric charge nets to zero, because it does so short range.

Novikov, V. A. (2016). CPT breaking and electric charge non-conservation. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 675, No. 1, p. 012007). IOP Publishing.
Dolgov, A. D., & Novikov, V. A. (2012). CPT, Lorentz invariance, mass differences, and charge non-conservation. JETP letters, 95(11), 594-597.
(I couldn't find a free copy of the paper other than an arxiv preprint, so I've attached the real paper; it's rather technical, so if you want a one-sentence headline see the conclusion: "Moreover, in such theories charge and energy conservation seem to be broken as well.")
And as an illustration as to how conservation laws are often forced by theory to be true, we can see how we make conservation laws hold, here is the derivation of a "modified" electric charge conservation in a relativistic quantum theory in which the charge itself can vary?
Calcagni, G., Magueijo, J., & Fernández, D. R. (2014). Varying electric charge in multiscale spacetimes. Physical Review D, 89(2), 024021.
(once again, I've attached the paper)

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This is a notion of time, and a somewhat intuitive one at that, but I think you need to study some relativity theory before concluding our intuitive notions are necessarily truth.

Ok...I'm not into the deeper stuff but it seems to me to be consistent with relativity...can you see any contradictions?