|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Before Big Bang God or Singularity | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Thanks to all who participated.
A special thanks to cavediver and Son Goku. Message 1In this topic I would like to discuss which is the best explanation for the origin of the universe. God or the Singularity including the Big Bang. Message 56 ICANT writes: The only way put forth for the singularity to exist says it can not exist. cavediver writes: Nonsense, the singularity is at T=0. Message 59 ICANT writes: Then what process produced this singularity at T=O? cavediver writes: As Hawking said, the positive curvature of the space-time. Message 62 ICANT writes: So are you saying there was space-time before the Big Bang? cavediver writes: No, of course not... It is impossible according to what you say in the above quotes for us to be having this conversation.
Message 66cavediver writes: What? Based on your phenomenal understanding of physics? Well, I guess I must concede the point Message 67ICANT writes: I think what we have discussed does prove what many even Hawking was putting forth in his unbounded theory is that we need something better than the Big Bang Theory as now accepted and taught to explain the orgin of the universe. Message 74Son Goku writes: Keeping the interpretation given above, this means that in these places General Relativity breaks down and "space time curvature" or "spacetime" breaks down as a sensible concept and/or new physics emerges.We need a new theory, almost certainly a quantum one, to account for this. It is provisionally named Quantum Gravity. Message 82Son Goku writes: It's a question about the physics of a region of the universe we currently know nothing about and need a new theory to describe. My original question:
Message 1In this topic I would like to discuss which is the best explanation for the origin of the universe. God or the Singularity including the Big Bang. Premise 1: Singularity including the Big Bang is the best explanation for the orgin of the universe. Falasified Premise 2: God is the best explanation for the orgin of the universe. Maybe, Maybe not but not falsified. cavediver says we need a new theory.Son Goku says we need a new theory. With both agreeing we need a theory I hope molbiogirl is correct when she says: quote: I rest my case. Now have fun it is only a debate. Edited by ICANT, : No reason given. "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Now I've tried to imagine what lieth outside this universe, bearing in mind nothing within this universe can be counted as a possibility: based on the universe being 'finite' - and thereby all its contents also being finite. I would say even the aspect of 'nothingness' can be excluded, because this [no 'things'] infers a post-universe concept. A spirual realm would also be part of this universe, because like the material realm, it would have to have been created - or come about within this universe's paradigm, al beit without the corporeal material aspect; in any case it is a moot point because no one can even evidence a spiritual realm.
I have hardly ever seen this premise being debated, in the perspective of a finite universe, whereby all universal products are also thereby finite. Most people escape it via escapist bogus counter scenarios, and thus do not address the issue at all. There is here a premise that other universes or realms can still prevail outside this finite universe, by virtue of those universes not containing anything of this universe, but different products - which is not within human imaginations, yet it is a sound premise theoretically: why not!? The latter was suggested by a participant in another thread, and is a good insight to this issue. This indicates that the human mind can percieve outside its shakles of space and time. Since a scientific, imperical theory is not available [space, particles, energy, etc are not applicable in this criteria], there seems no place to look other than genesis, because at least it does give a response, but one which again does not give anything which can be grasped outside of the meta-physical. This answer is in the opening four words of Genesis, namely: "IN THE BEGINNING GOD". This says that pre-universe, there was only the terrifically lone Creator. Yet when this is thought of deeply, it is not so unreasonable, and there is no alternative to it: whatever else we pick, cannot be the end source if we can imagine it, and only what we cannot imagine can qualify. Because it must point to a transcendency of anything the mind can imagine - else that is less transcendent. And actually, Genesis does make a logical point when deliberated with in the bounds of its criteria. If it can be imagined, theorised or imperically defined - we know it cannot qualify - else we would all be able to produce universes in our backyards or buy universe making kits from WalMart. Most reject this scenario of the Creator response, because it leaves us unsatisfied - humans want to taste the forbidden fruit, and cannot abide a command not to eat thereof too long - the reason we climb mountain peaks with the firm knowledge there is nothing up there. Thus i welcome any offerings to the question. Edited by IamJoseph, : spell
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Perhaps a better word than 'breaks-down', can be 'inapplicable', by virtue of post-universe products cannot apply pre-universe. At least, not if one is inclined to a finite universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I think the uncertainty principle is more applicable than quantum; the former is a precedent factor, while the latter is a secondary resultant phenomenon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Let's try this another way...
It is impossible according to what you say in the above quotes for us to be having this conversation. No, it is not impossible. Why do you claim this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
ICANT writes:
If he exists, being omnipotent he can do whatever he wants. I don't see the relevance of this though. It has nothing to do with describing the Planck scale physics near the Big Bang.
Why? Are you saying God is not capable of creating the universe? ICANT writes:
The Big Bang is certainly not falsified and the "singularity" isn't supposed to be an origin for the universe.
Singularity including the Big Bang is the best explanation for the orgin of the universe. Falsified ICANT writes:
This is such an unusual sentence; I'm not sure how to respond. We don't know what went on during that era. That's it. We don't take anything on faith. Thus anything from T=A and before has to be taken by Faith.For instance nobody is certain how the Sumerian version of Gilgamesh makes a transition from one verse to another because the tablets are missing. That doesn't mean people start inventing stuff between the verses and taking them on faith. They simply don't know. I fail to understand how not knowing something means you are taking something else on faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
IamJoseph writes:
Not all breakdowns in a physical theory are due to inapplicability of a concept. Which is why I avoided the word.
Perhaps a better word than 'breaks-down', can be 'inapplicable', by virtue of post-universe products cannot apply pre-universe. At least, not if one is inclined to a finite universe. IamJoseph writes:
No, the uncertainty priniple is a result of quantum theory. Quantum Gravity would be far more correct than "Uncertainty principle gravity"(Whatever that would mean?).
I think the uncertainty principle is more applicable than quantum; the former is a precedent factor, while the latter is a secondary resultant phenomenon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
By inapplicable, I mean that the laws of science relate to processes and elements already at work and existent, to measure and define them, so if these processes are not come of age - what will science define?
Re quantum, what makes you say it causes the UP, as opposed the other way around? I see quantum inclined with wavering density measurements, which reflects UP within its inner core structure, as opposed an outer or belated result of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Son,
Son Goku writes: "singularity" isn't supposed to be an origin for the universe. Son, did the Big Bang spawn out of a singularity? Have fun, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
This question also asks, what was within that singularity - was it the entire current universe in contracted form, and is there an alternative - considering that nothing else existed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
The Big Bang/Singularity is not the origin of the Universe, it is merely one end of it. The multiverse theory is the only attractive alternative to answering the question of the First Cause without invoking the supernatural because the beginning of this universe could have spawned out of the death throes of a Big Crunch in an alternate universe. But it does still delay the inevitable question of causation. And there is no way, thus far, to answer that with veracity.
The Universe is not 'made of energy' in the way that oceans are not 'made of waves'. The singularity is the breakdown in the physics of classical General Relativity at T=0 in the Big Bang cosmology. Strictly, the singularity does not exist as it is simply the artifact of inapplicable mathematics (as quantum General Relativity is required at this point.) Colloquially, the singularity refers to the ultra-dense, ultra-hot state around T=0 (up to say T=10^-43 secs), and all evidence points to this very much existing. Whether or not T=0 represents the lowest bound on T is very much work in progress. God is not a singularity, unless you want to redefine 'singularity' to mean 'that which is God', and then it no longer has any meaning in mathematics/physics. If we understand singularity to be the nanoseconds prior to Planck's Time, where energy was infinitesimal, then we still are dealing with why and how something -- anything -- can come from absolute nothingness. Some people tend to dismiss the question, possibly because of their philosophical implications, and choosing rather to minimize it. They end up saying things like, science is only interested in what we can know. But that us patently false, or at least misleading. The how and why is the only thing science is concerned with. For instance, we already knew that what comes up must come down. What we wanted to know, was how and why. This is precisely why questions of origin are so appealing to so many people. Its a fascinating subject. The only problem is that even in our advanced technological state, we are still as clueless to answering that questions now than when we first started asking it.
Therefore there is no North Pole. The Hawking solution, which seems to be just pretend that such a question about the singularity is immaterial, is begging the question. If one cannot go beyond the North Pole, it doesn't negate what North means in relation to the laws of physics. Likewise, just because the singularity seems to be the advent of physical law itself, wondering what its cause is does not detract from its greater context, IMO. “There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
The multiverse theory is the only attractive alternative to answering the question of the First Cause without invoking the supernatural No, not at all. There are several ideas...
If we understand singularity to be the nanoseconds prior to Planck's Time, where energy was infinitesimal, then we still are dealing with why and how something -- anything -- can come from absolute nothingness. No, we're not. Something does not 'come' from nothing. But you are assuming that the thing it comes from has to be 'before'. Why is that?
This is precisely why questions of origin are so appealing to so many people. Its a fascinating subject. The only problem is that even in our advanced technological state, we are still as clueless to answering that questions now than when we first started asking it. Those outside the field are clueless - just like everyone is clueless about the frontiers of any discipline other than those working at that frontier.
The Hawking solution, which seems to be just pretend that such a question about the singularity is immaterial, is begging the question. No disrespect, Nem, but the No-Boundary proposal is physics so advanced that whatever it 'seems' is immaterial. Let me assure you that there is no pretending, and there certainly is no begging the question.
If one cannot go beyond the North Pole, it doesn't negate what North means in relation to the laws of physics. Yes, it definietly does. That is the point of the analogy. At T=0 in classical big bang, or in no-boundary, there is no concept of before. But as I asked earlier, if you are looking for a cause, why does it have to be in the past?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: No, not at all. There are several ideas I'm sure there are many theories, I guess I was just relaying the only theories that seemed plausible to me.
Something does not 'come' from nothing. But you are assuming that the thing it comes from has to be 'before'. Why is that? Because anything that begins to exist has to have some force prior to explain its cause. Nothing material has begun to exist without a cause. And that cause is always outside of itself. That seems rather axiomatic to me.
Those outside the field are clueless It seems everyone is clueless in that arena, even brilliant cosmologists, whose real power seems to lie in jargon. And that's not saying anything negative about those in that field. Its just that no one has any definitive answers, but we are all seeking one, from the layman to the cosmologist.
quote: No disrespect, Nem, but the No-Boundary proposal is physics so advanced that whatever it 'seems' is immaterial. Let me assure you that there is no pretending, and there certainly is no begging the question. I assume you are speaking about quantum physics, and how what seems ordinary and plain as day may actually be an obscurantist. That also may be a straw man where someone will say that its so complicated that no explanation is either necessary, nor will it suffice.
quote: Yes, it definietly does. That is the point of the analogy. At T=0 in classical big bang, or in no-boundary, there is no concept of before. But as I asked earlier, if you are looking for a cause, why does it have to be in the past? Because time and space are intimately connected, and material has to exist within it. I mean, isn't that the very definition of the singularity -- the point at which time-space, matter, and energy came in to existence? I assume you are thinking of some profound thing that I am overlooking, but currently I'm not sure what you arriving to. Can you expound for me? “There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Nem, glad to see you are still alive.
If one cannot go beyond the North Pole, it doesn't negate what North means You know I been thinking about this North Pole thing quite a bit because it keeps coming up. The thought occured to me when I saw a sub stick it's nose through the ice. What if we had a sub over the North Pole and He launched a rocket straignt up what direction would it be heading. Would it be in the general direction of the North Star. Just a thought. Have fun, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
I'm going to sleep, so will reply in the morning...
But I'll just leave you with this:
I was just relaying the only theories that seemed plausible to me. That seems rather axiomatic to me. It seems everyone is clueless in that arena, even brilliant cosmologists, whose real power seems to lie in jargon. That also may be a straw man where someone will say that its so complicated that no explanation is either necessary, nor will it suffice. I mean, isn't that the very definition of the singularity -- the point at which time-space, matter, and energy came in to existence? Doesn't actually sound like I need to reply; you seem to have it all figured out. In how many other ultra-technical frontier sciences are you an expert, or have you just specialised in this one? goodnight
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024