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

[JDaniel]

what singularity? there is no evidence that there was ever a singularity at all, its essentially a physicists way of saying first cause.

Oops!

jd

 

[StAnastasia]

frankly, i find that evolution is somewhat of a tempest in a teacup…but leave that to the protestants, their sola scriptura, foundation requires a fairly literal interpretation. its their theological liferaft, so to speak.for us, it matters not one wit as to the veracity of evolution.there is real game afoot. the tea cup

The tea cup interest me very much as well. But I’m not sure why you think there is no evidence of a singularity.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The tea cup interest me very much as well. But I’m not sure why you think there is no evidence of a singularity.

im fishing right now, but im curious, do you have any evidence that there was a singularity? think about it for a while, ill be home tonite, fish or no

 

[Daedelus76]

It is not possible genetically that all humans descended from a single pair, known symbolically in Genesis as “Adam” and “Eve.” The minimum breeding population of hominids was several thousand to perhaps 10,000 individuals, to avoid a genetic bottleneck that would have been fatal to the species. Sorry, but that’s the way it was.

How does this interact with the Christian stories of the Fall in the Garden of Eden, the doctrine of Original Sin, and so forth? I know some Protestant apologists either say there actuall was a first Adam and Eve of some kind in an historical sense, or the fall took place in an “ahistorical dimension” - none of them say it is just a myth, in the sense of an explanation with spiritual truth (where Judaism would tend to go, since they don’t derive alot of doctrines from the Genesis account). This “ahistorical dimension” idea sounds wierd (to me at least, being raised a Protestant), because it sounds like something out of Shamanism or Buddhism (the Dreamtime, the dharmata consciousness).

Are you familiar with Father Pierre Teillhard de Chardin? He invented the concept of the “noosphere” (the idea the Earth was becoming a conscious organism itself, a “superconsciousness”). Some of his writing was censured I believe because he seemed to “reject” the Genesis account, he had an evolutionary metaphysics based on the “Omega Point”.

 

[StAnastasia]

im fishing right now, but im curious, do you have any evidence that there was a singularity? think about it for a while, ill be home tonite, fish or no

I’m not a physicist, but I am in dialogue with physicists and cosmologists. I don’t know any who dispute the Big Bang model of cosmology. But you would have to do your own research to find an alternative perspective. Here is the beginning of the Wikipedia aritlce:

“Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[22] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly not earlier than the Planck epoch. The early hot, dense phase is itself referred to as “the Big Bang”,[notes 2] and is considered the “birth” of our universe. Based on measurements of the expansion using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies, the universe has a calculated age of 13.73 ± 0.12 billion years.[23] The agreement of these three independent measurements strongly supports the ΛCDM model that describes in detail the contents of the universe.”

 

[yppop]

What do you make of what seems to be the commonest held, possibly-scientific, belief that all four of the initial qualities came about simultaneously? Is it possible that your theory could adapt to that idea? Especially since the quantum theory is that that which existed in the singularity was pure energy with the capability of forming matter because of quantum particles?

In other words, could space “pour” out slightly in advance, perhaps, of energy?

Your idea is fascinating to me.

jd

I was about to give up on this forum, when I happened upon your very insightful question. I have given a lot of thought to the nature of reality and the four elements: space, matter, time, and energy and have come to the conclusion that space is the primary element—the substance of reality if you will—from which the other three elements emerged. First of all, time and energy are dynamic elements that only were manifested at the first moment (the interval that is called the Planck era) and matter didn’t emerge until the Higgs boson showed up.

I envision that at t=0, the singularity consisted of a vast number of points immersed in an infinite expanse of nothingness. The points that comprise the singularity are associated with rational numbers; infinite nothingness is comprised of points that are associated with the real numbers. Hence the space that comes out of the singularity, i.e., the space that gives dimensionality to our universe is discrete. How else could it curve or expand? Infinite nothingness, the background that came before and exists beyond our universe, has the nature of continuous space, i.e., it is infinite in extent and at each point; it is associated with the cardinal numbers. Since discrete space is filled with gaps and the gaps are filled with infinite nothingness; this provides duality to reality.

With this duality model of space, it is possible to imagine the basic particle of matter as nothing more than— as are strings or quantum loops— a gnarl in discrete space. Now imagine a cosmic lattice of discrete points configured in such a way that it includes all the matter frozen in a cosmic tableau. There is neither time nor energy until points in the tableau change position and the tableau increments. Only then is time manifested and since energy is nothing more than the motion of matter (ponderable energy) or space (radiant energy) energy is manifested.

Energy does not cause motion; motion is manifested as energy. At the ground of reality, the reconfiguration of the cosmic tableau appears as motion based on. (1) information describing the next position of each s-point relative to its present position, and (2) an impetus to move each s-point to its new position; (3) a set of initial conditions that determine an end point or goal in the path of actualization; in other words, where to go and the impetus to get there. These three conditions are contained in a cosmic algorithm or as Paul Davies implies: the mind of God.

One of the paths of actualization leads to the increasing complexity of matter which eventually reaches a threshold, corpusculates (forms a corpus), and captures a particle of infinite nothingness and becomes a living cell. I continue to build on this scheme to explain multicellular organisms, the appearance of mind and soul, etc. etc. etc.

As you might suppose, I have developed a very extensive hypothesis that explains how God might exist. It is coherently comprehensive in that it connects with a single principle (discrete space) all of the phenomena in the path of creation— from the big bang to the mind and soul of Man.

I have discovered that this forum is not the venue inwhich to present a hypothesis to be critiqued. If you read my Post #83 in this thread and others, you see that I have been hinting at this hypothesis for some time without anyone asking a question like, “What do you mean by….?”

Let me know if you are interested in pursuing this approach to the nature of reality and a possible answer to how God may be involved.

Best to you,
Yppop

 

[Daedelus76]

Let me know if you are interested in pursuing this approach to the nature of reality and a possible answer to how God may be involved.

My own intuition is that the universe is a kind of emanation from the mind of God, just like the Greeks said (an emanation from the Monad). Panentheism also seems to be the theosophy that fits the experience of many of the worlds religions, too. Which religion is “true” is a different matter, but I believe naturalism isn’t a viable philosophy to live, it is completely locking out the magical/mythic and mystical modes of human experience.

 

[JDaniel]

I was about to give up on this forum, when I happened upon your very insightful question. I have given a lot of thought to the nature of reality and the four elements: space, matter, time, and energy and have come to the conclusion that space is the primary element—the substance of reality if you will—from which the other three elements emerged. First of all, time and energy are dynamic elements that only were manifested at the first moment (the interval that is called the Planck era) and matter didn’t emerge until the Higgs boson showed up.

I envision that at t=0, the singularity consisted of a vast number of points immersed in an infinite expanse of nothingness. The points that comprise the singularity are associated with rational numbers; infinite nothingness is comprised of points that are associated with the real numbers. Hence the space that comes out of the singularity, i.e., the space that gives dimensionality to our universe is discrete. How else could it curve or expand? Infinite nothingness, the background that came before and exists beyond our universe, has the nature of continuous space, i.e., it is infinite in extent and at each point; it is associated with the cardinal numbers. Since discrete space is filled with gaps and the gaps are filled with infinite nothingness; this provides duality to reality.

With this duality model of space, it is possible to imagine the basic particle of matter as nothing more than— as are strings or quantum loops— a gnarl in discrete space. Now imagine a cosmic lattice of discrete points configured in such a way that it includes all the matter frozen in a cosmic tableau. There is neither time nor energy until points in the tableau change position and the tableau increments. Only then is time manifested and since energy is nothing more than the motion of matter (ponderable energy) or space (radiant energy) energy is manifested.

Energy does not cause motion; motion is manifested as energy. At the ground of reality, the reconfiguration of the cosmic tableau appears as motion based on. (1) information describing the next position of each s-point relative to its present position, and (2) an impetus to move each s-point to its new position; (3) a set of initial conditions that determine an end point or goal in the path of actualization; in other words, where to go and the impetus to get there. These three conditions are contained in a cosmic algorithm or as Paul Davies implies: the mind of God.

One of the paths of actualization leads to the increasing complexity of matter which eventually reaches a threshold, corpusculates (forms a corpus), and captures a particle of infinite nothingness and becomes a living cell. I continue to build on this scheme to explain multicellular organisms, the appearance of mind and soul, etc. etc. etc.

As you might suppose, I have developed a very extensive hypothesis that explains how God might exist. It is coherently comprehensive in that it connects with a single principle (discrete space) all of the phenomena in the path of creation— from the big bang to the mind and soul of Man.

I have discovered that this forum is not the venue inwhich to present a hypothesis to be critiqued. If you read my Post #83 in this thread and others, you see that I have been hinting at this hypothesis for some time without anyone asking a question like, “What do you mean by….?”

Let me know if you are interested in pursuing this approach to the nature of reality and a possible answer to how God may be involved.

Best to you,
Yppop

Absolutely. Let’s go on. Shall we make another thread? I have a number of questions for you.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

My own intuition is that the universe is a kind of emanation from the mind of God, just like the Greeks said (an emanation from the Monad). Panentheism also seems to be the theosophy that fits the experience of many of the worlds religions, too. Which religion is “true” is a different matter, but I believe naturalism isn’t a viable philosophy to live, it is completely locking out the magical/mythic and mystical modes of human experience.

That is a very interesting statement: “naturalism locks out mysticism.” I will leave out, for the moment, “magic and myth”, but, these, too, may ultimately be expressions containing truth/reality. But, I have experienced the mystical, so, I am sure of the existence of that realm. So, naturalism cannot have, in your view, any kind of supernatural phenomena - no “mother nature”, if you will?

Many American Indians were, and are, quasi-naturalists - grounding reality in the Earth, but, believing that “spirits” inhabited the earth somehow, at least in and around their grave sites. Also, since the earth and their ancestors became one, in a sense, the earth itself had spirituality. Can pure naturalism spread that far for the modern naturalist, in your opinion? Or, have they completely “locked themselves out”, as you say?

jd

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please, everyone, stick to the OP’s topic and take side issues to new or existing threads. Thank you, all.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I’m not a physicist, but I am in dialogue with physicists and cosmologists. I don’t know any who dispute the Big Bang model of cosmology. But you would have to do your own research to find an alternative perspective. Here is the beginning of the Wikipedia aritlce:

“Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[22] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly not earlier than the Planck epoch. The early hot, dense phase is itself referred to as “the Big Bang”,[notes 2] and is considered the “birth” of our universe. Based on measurements of the expansion using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies, the universe has a calculated age of 13.73 ± 0.12 billion years.[23] The agreement of these three independent measurements strongly supports the ΛCDM model that describes in detail the contents of the universe.”

its fishing time so im a little busy, but i had this conversationwith a physicist not long ago, here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=288380&highlight=monobloc&page=3

post 42, bottom line.

 

[yppop]

Absolutely. Let’s go on. Shall we make another thread? I have a number of questions for you.
jd

jd
Thank you for your encouragement. I am contemplating starting a thread, maybe as a lenten sacrifice!

Yppop