Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Before Big Bang God or Singularity
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 361 of 405 (454937)
02-09-2008 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by Modulous
02-09-2008 12:05 PM


Re: Big Bang.
observation:
T=0 inevitable.
what is the point after? the first cause of the universe.
from whence came this first cause?
lets observe.
at T=0 all the energy that the universe came from existed with no time. nothing before, and it just was.
how can i say that? we are, the universe is.
so what is at T=0? what is at the north pole? all science and math becomes irrelevant is the argument, so science say's: no one can say.
but observe science: before anything can be said about anything, a question, the "right" questions, must be asked.
so what is the right question in how to pursue T=0?
was something there?
yes.
definitely?
yes.
why?
all is.
ok. so T=0= something.
energy?
yes.
how, why?
dunno how, but it must be, because outside of energy nothing is real.
so at T=0 : timeless energy.
ok next question, what kind of energy?
dunno..complex for sure, all that is came form it, and it existed timeless, and just was, with nothing before.
is it ordered or chaotic?
dunno, could be either.
intelligent, or not?
if chaotic, intelligent by necessity, because it would need direction to become what is.
if ordered, and singluar and timeless, it is intelligent definitely, because how could it maintain order without it, in a timeless state?
are these observations absolute?
yes.
why? how? on what basis?
by all observation of what is now, there can be no other conclusion.
can anything else be said definitely?
yes.
what?
if a singluar intelligent timeless energy begot all that is from itself, existing and just "was" with nothing before, the action of the first cause is only possible by faith.
debate?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 12:05 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 12:58 PM tesla has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 362 of 405 (454939)
02-09-2008 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by Modulous
02-09-2008 12:05 PM


Re: Big Bang.
Hi Mod,
Modulous writes:
According to the model we are describing when we talk about T=0, there was no 'prior' to it. Prior doesn't exist at T=0, by definition. If there were a time prior to T=0, it would not be T=0, it would be T>0. T=0 is defined as a point in time for which there is no time period prior to it.
OK, the Big Bang model has no prior to T=O.
Does that mean it did not exist?
In Message 113You state:
modulous writes:
Spacetime is a four dimensional entity. At some coordinates in that entity there exists postitive curvature of spacetime. One such coordinate is at T=0.
In Message 123You state:
Modulous writes:
The question makes no sense. There is no 'when' it came into existence - there is no time outside of the universe by which to judge 'when' it happened. It exists and we exist within it at a certain coordinate within that which is billions of years from time=0.
In Message 157You state:
Modulous writes:
No, the universe simply exists. The whole thing - all four dimensions in their entirety. The whole of time, the whole of space, is described as a single entity. This 'spacetime' has some areas which contain a singularity.
You are just stating that these thing "just exist", as there can be no before.
Does the universe need time to exist?
Does the singularity need time to exist.
Does this entity you are talking about need time to exist?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 12:05 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 1:45 PM ICANT has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 363 of 405 (454941)
02-09-2008 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by tesla
02-09-2008 12:44 PM


Re: Big Bang.
T=0 inevitable.
OK...
what is the point after? the first cause of the universe.
Or the first effect. Or cause and effect are a little less intuitive and straightforward at this point. This latter position is a simplification of some current cosmological thinking.
from whence came this first cause?
If you haven't understood the answer yet, you probably won't with more explanation. In simple philosophy, there has to be a 'cause' that is uncaused. It gets complicated when we examine reality and discover cause/effect not being so straightforward.
so what is at T=0? what is at the north pole? all science and math becomes irrelevant is the argument, so science say's: no one can say.
There are some ideas, and there is no way to eliminate those ideas and we aren't even able to be sure that the correct answer is amongst some of the proposed ideas.
what kind of energy?
dunno..complex for sure
I can probably agree tentatively with what came before, but energy isn't complex. If anything, it was extraordinarily simple.
is it ordered or chaotic?
dunno, could be either.
It is lumpy, due to quantum jitters.
intelligent, or not?
Not.
if chaotic, intelligent by necessity, because it would need direction to become what is.
No, it wouldn't and there is no reason to suppose it has to be. We know that complexity can arise from simple mindless algorithms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by tesla, posted 02-09-2008 12:44 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by tesla, posted 02-09-2008 1:32 PM Modulous has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 364 of 405 (454949)
02-09-2008 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by Modulous
02-09-2008 12:58 PM


Re: Big Bang.
No, it wouldn't and there is no reason to suppose it has to be. We know that complexity can arise from simple mindless algorithms.
as long as there is something else for the simple mindless algorithm to interact with.
if nothing else to interact with, it could not become more complex.
I can probably agree tentatively with what came before, but energy isn't complex. If anything, it was extraordinarily simple.
due to the complexity of the scale and size of the universe and its diversity biologically, a single timeless energy to beget everything from itself with no other interactions, is far from "simple".

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 12:58 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 1:48 PM tesla has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 365 of 405 (454950)
02-09-2008 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by ICANT
02-09-2008 12:47 PM


Re: Big Bang.
OK, the Big Bang model has no prior to T=O.
Does that mean it did not exist?
No, it doesn't mean that. It means that there is no such thing as prior to T=0
You are just stating that these thing "just exist", as there can be no before.
Pretty much.
Does the universe need time to exist?
Not as far as I am aware. A universe could hypothetically exist with no time dimensions I suppose.
Does the singularity need time to exist.
A singularity doesn't need time - the north pole for instance is a singularity that requires no time dimension. The singularity at T=0 obviously does have time involved, since it is defined by its time coordinate.
Does this entity you are talking about need time to exist?
A four dimensional spacetime entity obviously needs time to be a spacetime entity. If there was no time it would be just be a space entity. It does not need to exist within a larger time dimension though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2008 12:47 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2008 2:15 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 366 of 405 (454951)
02-09-2008 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by tesla
02-09-2008 1:32 PM


Re: Big Bang.
as long as there is something else for the simple mindless algorithm to interact with.
if nothing else to interact with, it could not become more complex.
I'd say that all the energy in the universe is a lot of something else for the mindless algorithm to interact with.
due to the complexity of the scale and size of the universe and its diversity biologically, a single timeless energy to beget everything from itself with no other interactions, is far from "simple".
Why? We know simple things can beget complex things. Cosmology today shows us that the universe was a lot more simple in the past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by tesla, posted 02-09-2008 1:32 PM tesla has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by Buzsaw, posted 02-09-2008 2:15 PM Modulous has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 367 of 405 (454953)
02-09-2008 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 366 by Modulous
02-09-2008 1:48 PM


Re: Big Bang.
Modulous writes:
Why? We know simple things can beget complex things. Cosmology today shows us that the universe was a lot more simple in the past.
Do we have any confirmed imperical observable testable model all the way from inception to conclusion of this (simple to complex) today or ever in recorded history; ?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 1:48 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 2:17 PM Buzsaw has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 368 of 405 (454954)
02-09-2008 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by Modulous
02-09-2008 1:45 PM


Re: Big Bang.
Hi Mod,
Modulous writes:
No, it doesn't mean that. It means that there is no such thing as prior to T=0
Are you saying there is no possibility of anything existing before T=O?
Modulous writes:
A four dimensional spacetime entity obviously needs time to be a spacetime entity. If there was no time it would be just be a space entity. It does not need to exist within a larger time dimension though.
Then where would this time exist?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 1:45 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 2:35 PM ICANT has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 369 of 405 (454955)
02-09-2008 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by Buzsaw
02-09-2008 2:15 PM


Re: Big Bang.
Do we have any confirmed imperical observable testable model all the way from inception to conclusion of this (simple to complex) today or ever in recorded history; ?
Yes, evolutionary algorithms are simple and can produce complexity from simple beginnings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Buzsaw, posted 02-09-2008 2:15 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by Buzsaw, posted 02-09-2008 4:44 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 370 of 405 (454960)
02-09-2008 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by ICANT
02-09-2008 2:15 PM


Re: Big Bang.
Are you saying there is no possibility of anything existing before T=O?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that in the standard model there is nothing prior to T=0. There are models that have the universe existing within a greater dimensional reality, but if you can't get the basics of the standard model - there's no hope of getting to grips with the less standard models.
Then where would this time exist?
Time is a dimension. It doesn't have a 'location', it is used to define 'locations'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2008 2:15 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by tesla, posted 02-09-2008 2:48 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 374 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2008 3:49 PM Modulous has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 371 of 405 (454962)
02-09-2008 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by Modulous
02-09-2008 2:35 PM


Re: Big Bang.
Time is a dimension. It doesn't have a 'location', it is used to define 'locations'.
i see. so what your saying is, your current T=0, may not be "true" T=0. so your still trying to decide the first cause from T=0.
but T=0 is still inevitable. and you cannot say the "universe is a lot to interact with" for whatever is at T=0.
because there is no "universe" as we know it at those coords.
universe: uni (one)
at the core of "universe", in its initial timeless state, there is only a singularity. and whatever reaction or action from the "single" was not an interaction with anything else. (when there is "literally, nothing else but that one thing)
Edited by tesla, : added a point.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 2:35 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 3:40 PM tesla has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 372 of 405 (454973)
02-09-2008 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by tesla
02-09-2008 2:48 PM


i see. so what your saying is, your current T=0, may not be "true" T=0.
Not in the quote you provided. However, yes that is possible.
but T=0 is still inevitable.
I'm not denying its existence.
and you cannot say the "universe is a lot to interact with" for whatever is at T=0.
Why not?
because there is no "universe" as we know it at those coords.
There is a universe but we don't know what it is. There maybe a universe as we know it at those coords.
at the core of "universe", in its initial timeless state, there is only a singularity.
The singularity only exists in the mathematical model. There is no reason that it has to be a real part of the universe. In some models, there is no singularity.
and whatever reaction or action from the "single" was not an interaction with anything else. (when there is "literally, nothing else but that one thing)
You are assuming there is only a single thing and that single things cannot interact with themselves. I see no reason to accept your assumptions - even if there was only a single thing, that thing could be a wave - in which case it could interact with itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by tesla, posted 02-09-2008 2:48 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by tesla, posted 02-09-2008 3:49 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 375 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2008 4:02 PM Modulous has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 373 of 405 (454975)
02-09-2008 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 372 by Modulous
02-09-2008 3:40 PM


There is a universe but we don't know what it is. There maybe a universe as we know it at those coords
all the laws of science become useless at this point. your guess is to far stretched. if there is a universe "like we have never seen before" at true T=0, time is still irrelevant. which means an unchanged form that always was.
The singularity only exists in the mathematical model. There is no reason that it has to be a real part of the universe. In some models, there is no singularity.
your math is only deciding location, not what is at the location. we here, are trying to scrutinize the "what" at the "where". if a model doesn't show a singularity, it is blindness by choice. something must be there, for anything to be here. and if you throw all that is into reverse, that is what you'll find in the end.
You are assuming there is only a single thing
of course. with no time, there are no two things for time to be measured from. so timeless = single.
in which case it could interact with itself.
and had to, for anything to come from it. which would mean direction. which would mean intelligence.
Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 3:40 PM Modulous has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 374 of 405 (454976)
02-09-2008 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by Modulous
02-09-2008 2:35 PM


Re: Big Bang.
Hi Mod,
Modulous writes:
No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that in the standard model there is nothing prior to T=0.
I just wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying.
You say there is the possibility that there was something prior to T=O.
But the standard model says there was nothing prior to T=O.
Is this correct?
Modulous writes:
there's no hope of getting to grips with the less standard models.
Why would I have a problem getting to grips with something that has the universe existing within a greater dimensional reality? When that is what I believe.
Modulous writes:
Time is a dimension. It doesn't have a 'location', it is used to define 'locations'.
Time as a location is hard to grasp.
To me time is a measurement of duration.
But when you are referring to this dimension which is time.
Are you referring to Hawking's imaginary time?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 2:35 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 4:52 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 375 of 405 (454979)
02-09-2008 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 372 by Modulous
02-09-2008 3:40 PM


Re-Universe at T=O
Hi Mod,
Modulous writes:
There maybe a universe as we know it at those coords.
I doubt that if Son is correct with his temperature at the earliest point we can measure the universe.
Message 295
Son Goku writes:
At the earliest point we can measure the universe is already at 1,160,400,000,000,000 degrees. (roughly) (1 quintillion degrees)
That is some kind of hot.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 3:40 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2008 4:12 PM ICANT has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024