What Came Before The Big Bang? Interpreting Asymmetry In Early Universe

[warpspeedpetey]

Given that some of the theories start feom before the Big Bang, their starting conditions are different - they posit different pre-BB states.

Given a set of points there are an infinite number of curves that pass through all of the points. There is no contradiction; all of the theories result in the current universe.

a mathematical idea that doesnt prevent them from being exclusionary, only one can be true

the fact that they postulate conditions meant to reach the current state, means they are nothing more than guesses.

Yet my grandparents no longer exist. They no longer function as a cause. Is Napoleon still alive because we still have some of his hair? Does Ramesses II still live because we have his mummy?

Yes, if the cause changes to a non-cause then causation ceases.

and since damping effects occur after the creation, they cant effect the first cause.

All we can know is that it is the cause of the Big Bang. Beyond that is speculation.

true, but back to the duck theory, awful suspicious that the qualities we have claimed for our G-d the last 5,000 years are the same qualities we find when we regress back from current conditions. cant say for sure that it is G-d, but its awful suspicious

One universe is a change from no universes to one universe. If a cause can do that then why not also the change from one universe to two universes etc.? I agree that anything eternal cannot change.

i doubt the sincerity of your agreement, just a couple days ago you were of the opposite opinion.

the cause doesnt change, something like a catalyst maybe?

I do not follow your logic here. How does a cause that is only capable of making one universe prevent that single universe being eternal?

we already determined that the universe cant be eternal, im not sure what i was thinking but it will come back to me

yet your arguments seem to be that there are other possibilities, and that is it.

there are always other possibilities, we could all be an elephants dream, but that doesn’t satisfy what we actually know from a regression, and none of the other QM theories do either. while a basic regression comes to the qualities we claim for G-d.

too much in favor of a creation, too little against it.

 

[crowonsnow]

Yet my grandparents no longer exist.

That’s an interesting statement. What is your methodology for determining existence/non existence?

 

[rossum]

That’s an interesting statement. What is your methodology for determining existence/non existence?

My grandparents were four examples of Homo sapiens. None of them are currently Homo sapiens because they lack certain essential parts: hearts, lungs, brains etc.

rossum

 

[rossum]

the fact that they postulate conditions meant to reach the current state, means they are nothing more than guesses.

They are hypotheses, constrained by current conditions. That is how science works - every scientific hypothesis is constrained by current conditions.

and since damping effects occur after the creation, they cant effect the first cause.

I used the example of my mother. She certainly changed from pregnant to not pregnant. A change to the cause is one possibility for a cause to stop causing.

true, but back to the duck theory, awful suspicious that the qualities we have claimed for our G-d the last 5,000 years are the same qualities we find when we regress back from current conditions. cant say for sure that it is G-d, but its awful suspicious

Here we disagree. There are many properties claimed for God that are not required by the cause of the Big Bang. God is omnipotent, the BB cause is only required to have enough causative power to create one Big Bang. God is omniscient, that is not relevant to the cause of the BB. God is omnipresent, that is not a requirement for the cause of the BB. God is eternal, that is not a requirement for the cause of the BB. There are many differences.

i doubt the sincerity of your agreement, just a couple days ago you were of the opposite opinion.

It is one of the truisms of philosophy that anything eternal cannot change. That is true both with my definition of eternal and with your definition of eternal.

yet your arguments seem to be that there are other possibilities, and that is it.

The existence of other possibilities shows that this particular argument for the existence of God is built on sand.

while a basic regression comes to the qualities we claim for G-d.

All possible scientific theories/hypotheses are a “basic regression” from the current state of the universe. I have already talked about the differences between the qualities claimed for God and the qualities required by the cause of the Big Bang.

I hope you had a good Christmas.

rossum

 

[MindOverMatter]

The existence of other possibilities shows that this particular argument for the existence of God is built on sand.

Are you sure that they are possible? In any case nobody believes in God just because of Bigbang science. There is plenty of other circumstantial evidences and logical reasons to believe. The Bigbang Theory is the sugar on top.

In any case, You have presented no logical reason to hold to the idea of infinite time or bouncing universes that have bounced on forever. In fact, if something is infinite, it cannot be measured empirically and so can never be proven to be true, and so could never be scientific. The Brute fact of the universe doesn’t make much sense either. The Bigbang on the other hand points to the strong possibility that physical reality is not ultimate; which is backed up by other metaphysical truths. The bigbang marks the beginning of physical reality; and there is yet to be any reason to suppose otherwise. Not all Catholics point to the Bigbang as “proof”, but rather that the universe is wholly “suggestive” of a inteligent Creator or Supernature that willed everything into being to serve a certain end.

If you want to spend your life believing otherwise, and that the science of physics is more important then the search for objective purpose and meaning, thats up to you. I think there just as important as eachother.
Given our existential situation, i think its more reasonable to have faith then not.

At least we are building on something, rather then nothing.

 

[crowonsnow]

My grandparents were four examples of Homo sapiens. None of them are currently Homo sapiens because they lack certain essential parts: hearts, lungs, brains etc.

I guess I just never thought about it that way. I am sorry to hear about your grandparents. Mine have met a similar end.

I am heartened by the fact, however, that that continuously changing arrangement of cosmic materiel that was my grandparents continues to exist. Everything that was and is my grandparents continues to exist. My grandparents have taken a different form. They are however, as present as they ever were.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

They are hypotheses, constrained by current conditions. That is how science works - every scientific hypothesis is constrained by current conditions.

but still mutually exclusive guesses, nothing more. like highlander, there can be only one.

I used the example of my mother. She certainly changed from pregnant to not pregnant. A change to the cause is one possibility for a cause to stop causing.

any change occurred in the universe, after the cause had acted, the cause being on the other side of the big bang is immune to changes in the separate system of the universe.

Here we disagree. There are many properties claimed for God that are not required by the cause of the Big Bang. God is omnipotent, the BB cause is only required to have enough causative power to create one Big Bang. God is omniscient, that is not relevant to the cause of the BB. God is omnipresent, that is not a requirement for the cause of the BB. God is eternal, that is not a requirement for the cause of the BB. There are many differences.

sure, i dont mean to say that all Divine properties are reflected in that infinity, only the ones that would be appropriate to the mathematics. you cant reach omnipotence, omniscience from the math. but i think you can infer the eternal nature of G-d from the infinities, as that is a quality, or synonym of eternal.

The existence of other possibilities shows that this particular argument for the existence of God is built on sand.

there are unlimited possibilities, but very few are supported by what we know from current conditions, this argument being the most firmly grounded, QM interpretations all being mutually exclusive. only one of those can be right, so it will really boil down to 2 choices.

1. a created universe
2. the winner of the QM wars.

as we dont expect a winner of the QM wars anytime soon, barring a massive breakthrough, the most solid argument we currently have is a created universe.

I hope you had a good Christmas.

i did, i hope you did too.

 

[rossum]

In fact, if something is infinite, it cannot be measured empirically and so can never be proven to be true, and so could never be scientific.

Correct. When infinities appear in scientific equations, it is usually a sign that the equations are not a correct model of the world.

The Bigbang on the other hand points to the strong possibility that physical reality is not ultimate; which is backed up by other metaphysical truths. The bigbang marks the beginning of physical reality; and there is yet to be any reason to suppose otherwise.

Look at the title of this thread: “What Came Before The Big Bang? Interpreting Asymmetry In Early Universe”. Asymmetry in the early universe provides just such a reason to “suppose otherwise”.

Given our existential situation, i think its more reasonable to have faith then not.

I do have faith, I am Buddhist. Buddhism is far less concerned with the origins of the universe than the Abrahamic religions. The Buddha said that the question of the origin of the universe, whether or not it is eternal, is not relevant to the religious path:[The Buddha said:] ‘The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the dogma that the universe is eternal, nor does it depend on the dogma that the universe is not eternal etc. [many dogmas omitted here] Whatever dogma obtains there is still birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair, of which I declare the extinction in the present life.’

Cula-Malunkyovada sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 63

rossum

 

[rossum]

any change occurred in the universe, after the cause had acted, the cause being on the other side of the big bang is immune to changes in the separate system of the universe.

Why? A cause is not automatically immune to its effects.

sure, i dont mean to say that all Divine properties are reflected in that infinity, only the ones that would be appropriate to the mathematics. you cant reach omnipotence, omniscience from the math. but i think you can infer the eternal nature of G-d from the infinities, as that is a quality, or synonym of eternal.

Infinities in science are usually an indication that the equations being used are incorrect, as with my example of black body radiation.

there are unlimited possibilities, but very few are supported by what we know from current conditions, this argument being the most firmly grounded, QM interpretations all being mutually exclusive. only one of those can be right,

Since scientific measurements are only good to a certain degree of accuracy we can allow more than one theory, provided the predictions of those theories lie within the limits of accuracy of the measurements. It is also worth noting that given any set of points there is always more than one curve that passes through all of the points. Occam’s razor will point scientists at the simplest of the many curves but that is again not a secure basis for metaphysical speculation.

so it will really boil down to 2 choices.

1. a created universe

Make that a caused universe. The word “creation” implies properties that you have agreed are not implicit in the nature of causation.

1. the winner of the QM wars.

1. Some other theory, not yet devised.

as we dont expect a winner of the QM wars anytime soon, barring a massive breakthrough, the most solid argument we currently have is a created universe.

Caused, not created. String theory has a caused universe, resulting from the collision of two branes. The collision of two branes lacks many of the properties usually assigned to a “creator”.

i did, i hope you did too.

I did, thank you.

rossum

 

[MindOverMatter]

Correct. When infinities appear in scientific equations, it is usually a sign that the equations are not a correct model of the world.

Timewise, yes. “Spatially”; no, since infinity in this sense means zero; Nothing, and so is a term that is used inorder to mark the beginning of physical reality.

Look at the title of this thread: “What Came Before The Big Bang? Interpreting Asymmetry In Early Universe”.

Since you just agreed with my arguement about infinites and said that they are probably not correct models of the world, you cannot now say that there are infinite universes, or eternally bouncing bubbles of space time. In otherwords the models that are more likley to be correct are the ones that are “finite” in nature; which is according to your method of reasoning.

Asymmetry in the early universe provides just such a reason to “suppose otherwise”.

Well…If i stick with what you said, that just an’t possible.

I do have faith, I am Buddhist.

A faith that says God is unimportant to our salvation; if I’m not mistaken. Not very promising, in terms of providing humanity a real objective purpose, value and meaning.

Buddhism is far less concerned with the origins of the universe than the Abraham religions. The Buddha said that the question of the origin of the universe, whether or not it is eternal, is not relevant to the religious path:

[The Buddha said:] 'The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the dogma that the universe is eternal, nor does it depend on the dogma that the universe is not eternal etc. [many dogmas omitted here]
​

All due respect to your religion, I’m of the same opinion; I couldn’t care less if the Universe is infinite or not; but it still needs a sufficient explanation. The transcendent God of Christianity is a sufficient explanation in regards to the origin of all things and the ultimate purpose and meaning our lives; and it is in this sense that God is the most fulfilling being in respect of the human spiritual need.

Whatever dogma obtains there are still birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair, of which I declare the extinction in the present life.’

God provides a powerful answer to this existentialist problem that plagues us, and he does this through the love and mercy of Jesus Christ his Son. Through the sacrifice, suffering, death and resurrection of Gods only Son Jesus Christ, the Supreme Being–the very ground of all being–invites us to ever lasting joy and perfection. Amen

God solves the mystery and provides a destiny for mankind.

Thank you for debating with me. It’s been fun. Peace and May the greatest good be with you always.

MindOverMatter.​

 

[MindOverMatter]

Caused, not created. String theory has a caused universe, resulting from the collision of two branes. rossum

Your distinction between branes and our Universe is somewhat misleading and superficail. Branes is essentailly the same kind of being or substance as the Universe. In otherwords they are not two distinct entities. They are one and the same being in so far as they are different variations of “physical reality”. They just have different modes of function; so branes cannot possibly be the ultimate cause of motion or physics.

When one asks what is the cause of physics or motion, this means everything that is physical, or everything that is in motion.

 

[yppop]

welcome aboard,

thats cute

but the premise is something is nothing
a self contradictory statement

progress will be made eventually

I wrote: “God is Nothing/Nothing Exists/Therefore, God exists”
Yes, this is a “cute” word game. But the simple syllogism seems to represent warpspeedpetey’s position in the discussion with rossum. For example, Hawking’s position on the question about what exists outside of the finite space-time as proposed by the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary condition, is that *nothing exists *outside of a finite space-time. The H-H scenario and all the other speculative proposals (Wheeler’s oscillating universe, Linde’s recursive bubble universe, string theory’s colliding branes, Hoyle’s steady state, and even Einstein’s cosmological constant) that rossum alludes to as possibilities, are intended, either explicitly or implicitly, to describe, by the materialistic scientists that propose them, reality without a beginning, which implies that there is no God. Hence, the discussion boils down (as warpseedpetey proposes) to two clear choices — 1. a created universe (the God solution), or 2. the winner of the QM wars (the materialist’s solution). So the latest discussion in this thread has apparently reached a level of conflicting beliefs, which to me is a dead-end proposition.

I believe in God, so I vote for a “created universe” that came into existence creatio ex nihilo. On this basis, the answer to the question — what came before the big bang? — should focus not on the premise “God exists”, but on the question of “how does God exist?”

*Nothing exists! *could be an appropriate starting point. If we focus on the word ‘nothing’ the statement seems to mean there is not anything at all — a void. If we focus on the word ‘exists’ the statement seems to mean that nothing is something that has observable properties or effects — a plenum. I think we can rule out a void. So I feel the Nothing that existed before the big bang is a plenum from which the universe emerged. To avoid the inherent ambiguity of the word ‘nothing’,I prefer to think of the nothing that came before the big bang as the “infinite nothingness”.

Have a Happy New Year

 

[JDaniel]

I wrote: “God is Nothing/Nothing Exists/Therefore, God exists”
Yes, this is a “cute” word game. But the simple syllogism seems to represent warpspeedpetey’s position in the discussion with rossum. For example, Hawking’s position on the question about what exists outside of the finite space-time as proposed by the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary condition, is that *nothing exists *outside of a finite space-time. The H-H scenario and all the other speculative proposals (Wheeler’s oscillating universe, Linde’s recursive bubble universe, string theory’s colliding branes, Hoyle’s steady state, and even Einstein’s cosmological constant) that rossum alludes to as possibilities, are intended, either explicitly or implicitly, to describe, by the materialistic scientists that propose them, reality without a beginning, which implies that there is no God. Hence, the discussion boils down (as warpseedpetey proposes) to two clear choices — 1. a created universe (the God solution), or 2. the winner of the QM wars (the materialist’s solution). So the latest discussion in this thread has apparently reached a level of conflicting beliefs, which to me is a dead-end proposition.

I believe in God, so I vote for a “created universe” that came into existence creatio ex nihilo. On this basis, the answer to the question — what came before the big bang? — should focus not on the premise “God exists”, but on the question of “how does God exist?”

*Nothing exists! *could be an appropriate starting point. If we focus on the word ‘nothing’ the statement seems to mean there is not anything at all — a void. If we focus on the word ‘exists’ the statement seems to mean that nothing is something that has observable properties or effects — a plenum. I think we can rule out a void. So I feel the Nothing that existed before the big bang is a plenum from which the universe emerged. To avoid the inherent ambiguity of the word ‘nothing’,I prefer to think of the nothing that came before the big bang as the “infinite nothingness”.

Have a Happy New Year

yppop:

This is very interesting. I am forced to concede to some of your conclusions and declarations, however, with one caveat: your use of the word plenum. I have always defined plenum as an enclosed space, at least with reference to physics and nature.

If the universe begins from a plenum, therefore, then are you suggesting merely that initial spec of immense energy (out of which came the BB), or, are you suggesting a god-ish exigency of some sort that we might be able to call God?

It is rather exciting to think of God. In His immensity, it would certainly appear that He may well consist of much “nothing”.

Merry Christmas and
God Bless,
jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Why? A cause is not automatically immune to its effects.

it is if its on the other side of the expansion. it is separated from that chain of causality.

Infinities in science are usually an indication that the equations being used are incorrect, as with my example of black body radiation.

except these infinities describe something we have claimed for 5,000 years, or at least something similar

Since scientific measurements are only good to a certain degree of accuracy we can allow more than one theory, provided the predictions of those theories lie within the limits of accuracy of the measurements. It is also worth noting that given any set of points there is always more than one curve that passes through all of the points. Occam’s razor will point scientists at the simplest of the many curves but that is again not a secure basis for metaphysical speculation.

which is why i i think QM as an argument in favor of a G-d less universe is weaker than simple Creation.

Make that a caused universe. The word “creation” implies properties that you have agreed are not implicit in the nature of causation.

creation is the correct word. caused is only applicable in the form first cause, any other cause is subject to the chain of causality, that ends regressively with the beginning of time.

Caused, not created. String theory has a caused universe, resulting from the collision of two branes. The collision of two branes lacks many of the properties usually assigned to a “creator”.

those ‘branes’ are simply postulations about conditions prior to the big bang in an attempt to describe asymmetry. more guesses, no facts

 

[RobbyS]

The big band remains a theory…but it’s also another description of the beginning of Creation by God by scientists who think it excludes the action of God. It doesn’t.

It seems to me that here is another effort to confuse thought with thing.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Let’s cut to the quick and first find an atemporal definition of “eternal”.

thefreedictionary.com/eternal Try the first definition.

dictionary.reference.com/search?q=eternal Try the fourth definition and maybe first, second, third and sixth.

yourdictionary.com/eternal Try definition six and possibly definition six, though it contains that word “always”.

Now, let’s see what we can do with “always”.

yourdictionary.com/always Try definition four.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/Always Try definition one, and don’t quibble. It uses the word “time” in a different sense.

Actually, “always” seems to have two connotations: 1. Forever, which is definitely temporal and 2. without exception, which doesn’t have to be temporal, but the temporal sense predominates. I think that warpspeedpetey took the word “always” to mean “without exception” when he made the merely tactical error of choosing a definition that contains the word “always” and you just won’t let him off the hook. The word “eternal” can be defined in a atemporal way without using the word “always”. God is eternal and God is outside of time. We are to spend eternity somewhere so are heaven and hell in some part of the Big Bang Universe? I still say this is a semantic argument.

Loads of nice definitios, but you all miss the point.
This universe had a beginning, and will have an end.
This universe is a figment of space-time, which exists as a bubble in a universe of a higher dimension.
Any speculation of space time within this universe either befor its beginning, or after its end are meaningless folly.
Yes, space-time exists in a higher dimensional universe in which, this our universe is a mere bubble,
Phyicists have postulated nested universes up to ten dimensions.
It is thus interesting that ancient wisdom postulated seven heavens, which would thus entail a further seven dimensions above our three, (plus time).
These ancient wisdoms place all of these heavens in the realm of G_d, which is thus called the highest heaven, or just the Highest.
How might we perceive this hyperdimensional time is beyond understanding, as it is beyond our perception,
We might logically postulate logical causality, but there is no valid proof that the logic of our universe applies to hyperdimensionality.

 

[yppop]

yppop:

This is very interesting. I am forced to concede to some of your conclusions and declarations, however, with one caveat: your use of the word plenum. I have always defined plenum as an enclosed space, at least with reference to physics and nature.

If the universe begins from a plenum, therefore, then are you suggesting merely that initial spec of immense energy (out of which came the BB), or, are you suggesting a god-ish exigency of some sort that we might be able to call God?

It is rather exciting to think of God. In His immensity, it would certainly appear that He may well consist of much “nothing”.

Merry Christmas and
God Bless,
jd

JDaniel
Thanks for responding. The word plenum is not relevant to what I envision existed before the big bang and still exists beyond the universe. I prefer to think that what existed in the before/beyond, from which the singularity exploded to form the universe, can only be imagined as infinite nothingness. I am invoking Occam’s razor when I suggest that the only plausible thing that existed before the big bang had to be infinite nothingness. If one excepts a scenario of a singularity becoming the only universe we could ever know directly, then as believers we could make the case that the infinite nothingness has all the characteristics of the transcendent God (God the Father). Eternal, immutable, unimaginable, infinite, and creator are givens; omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient will take a bit more discussion.
The discussion might very well give meaning to the “cute syllogism” that began my first post, which I now paraphrase:

Infinite nothingness exists; God is infinite nothingness; therefore God exists.

 

[nablaise]

Ahimsa:
One mystic believe that thoughts convert to energy and energy to matter. So whatever is at the beginning is Thought. This seem align with our Christian belief that in the Beginning was the Word.

Of course while a creatures’ though is finite as well as its energy or mass, or works, the divine Logos has a characteristic of infinity.

There is some interesting stuff about how things which are in time can be explained with the help of the mathematical model of fourrier series.

SINGULARITY AND THE ONE-GOD

As many musicians and electronics enthusiasts know, “…the harmonic nature of…music demonstrates the great harmony of creation.” (See Macaulay quotation, above.) Every musical pulse is made up of the sum of many pure sine-wave tones; an ordinary “square wave” is made up of many odd harmonics, and, by extrapolation, a truly infinite pulse w ould consist of a sum of all possible pure tones.

The way musicians examine the spectrum of musical harmonics is exactly the same as the procedure mathematicians call a Fourier Transform: a sharp loud pulse consists of a broad spectrum of pure tones. Likewise an infinitely loud, short, sharp pulse - which we could compare to a musical Singularity - would produce the harmonic spectrum of ALL tones - which we could liken to ALL-THERE-IS.

The Fourier Transform of ALL-THERE-IS, is a single pulse of infinite intensity and infinitesimal duration at the start of time - at creation. This suggests that the Big Bang unfolds the modern physicist’s model of creation from an exquisitely singular and intense pulse that may be mathematically equivalent to Abraham’s DEFINITION of the One-God.

• Meru Foundation (this is a non-christian jew organisation however like Chesterton remarked, just because they don’t have the truth, it does not mean they don’t have a truth)

 

[iamme]

no one has said the great erection yet?

 

[LegoGE1947]

Well, here’s what I’m wondering. Maybe someone who believes that the “Big Bang” theory proves God didn’t make the universe can answer this for me.

1. What banged?
2. Where did the aforementioned stuff that banged come from?
3. Is it remotely possible that God created the stuff with which to bang and then caused the bang?
4. Have I used the word “bang” too many times in one post?

Of course we could go back to the 60’s to a song by Sonny and Cher called “Bang, Bang, They Shot Me Down” to see if THEY used the word “bang” too many times!