the fabric of unreality?

[randall patrick]

From "Was There a Big Bang?" by Jayant Nablikar [in the anthology Modern Cosmology and Philosophy]

"....it is argued that the entire universe burst out at time zero in a tremendous explosion and the present apparent recession of the galaxies is an indication of the early violent activity. But how did this explosion occur? Why did it occur when it did? And what preceded it? Did matter exist prior to t = 0, or was it created in the explosion? If the latter version is correct, how was matter created in apparent violation of the law of conservation of matter and energy? Questions like these are either conventiently relegated to 'domain outside physics' or dismissed as philosophical nonsense."



Also in the same anthology is this from Adolph Grunbaum's "The Pseudo-Problem of Creation in Physical Cosmology":

"Having assumed that in the classical, pre quantum versions of this theory, one can meaningfully speak of the 'time before the big bang', Bernard Lovell feels entitled to reason that 'One must still enquire...how the primeval gas of the big bang originated. Science has nothing to say on this issue'. And why does he think that science is thus silent? Because the purported creation of matter at the 'definite moment' of the big bang is 'beyond human investigation'. Yet, in his view, the supposed problem of creation 'can tear the human individual's mind asunder' by its gnawing, inescapable intellectual challenge. Therefore Lovell repeatedly chides those whom he calls 'materialists' for indifference, neglect or evasion of the problem."



Here is a "problem" that is utterly extraordinary in its implications for all other investigations science may undertake. After all, it is as though the biggest piece of the puzzle---what is existence and how did it come to be existence---is shunted to the side in order to go after...what?....more important inquiries? But what could be more essential to understanding the existing laws of nature than in understanding how in the world they came to be what they are as existing laws of nature?

People talk abour ghosts and fairies and gods and goblins and angels and poltergeists and devils; they lump all of them together into what is called the "supernatural". James Randi to the best of my knowledge is still offering a million dollars to anyone who can prove they exists. But compared to the unimaginable mystery that must lie behind how and why existence became existence these other alleged paranormal phenomona are kindergarten stuff.

It must be very exasperating for particular scientists to wrap their minds around something that "tears it asunder". For this is as unfathomable an enigma as we are ever likely to encounter. There is no way in which to be rational or logical about it. God at least is conceivable. But everything there is coming out of nothing at all is so far beyond what we imagine we can know we don't even know how to explain how we can't know it yet.

rp

[ericsp23]

There is a scientific theory that can account for the creation of matter at the instant of the big bang that do not violate the conservation of matter and energy. The way I understand it, at the instant of the big bang, there was a singularity, and due to some kind of quantum instability, a massive period of hyperinflation ensued, during which time space-time inflated at a massive rate in an instant (we're talking billions and billions of light years per second). The massive expansion created an "energy deficit" which was filled by the creation of matter and energy. In this scenario, matter and energy are actually created to satisfy the conservation of mass and energy. (This is my understanding of the hyperinflation theory, and it is probably over simplfied, if anyone can elaborate further I would be grateful.)
Now the next obvious question is, where did the original singularity come from? We know that singularities are not that uncommon in our own universe (blackholes), and some physicists have suggested that each one of these singularities could potentially spawn its own universe. In this scenario, there would exist a multiverse, where each universe buds off of an older universe.
So you see, there is no reason to assume that there was any kind of intelligence involved in the big bang. There is a perfectly reasonable scinetific theory to describe it. Whatever you choose to believe is your own business, but you have not proven the existence of god or even demonstrated that god is likely to exist.

[randall patrick]

Quote by: ericsp23 There is a scientific theory that can account for the creation of matter at the instant of the big bang that do not violate the conservation of matter and energy. The way I understand it, at the instant of the big bang, there was a singularity, and due to some kind of quantum instability, a massive period of hyperinflation ensued, during which time space-time inflated at a massive rate in an instant (we're talking billions and billions of light years per second). The massive expansion created an "energy deficit" which was filled by the creation of matter and energy. In this scenario, matter and energy are actually created to satisfy the conservation of mass and energy. (This is my understanding of the hyperinflation theory, and it is probably over simplfied, if anyone can elaborate further I would be grateful.) Now the next obvious question is, where did the original singularity come from? We know that singularities are not that uncommon in our own universe (blackholes), and some physicists have suggested that each one of these singularities could potentially spawn its own universe. In this scenario, there would exist a multiverse, where each universe buds off of an older universe. So you see, there is no reason to assume that there was any kind of intelligence involved in the big bang. There is a perfectly reasonable scinetific theory to describe it. Whatever you choose to believe is your own business, but you have not proven the existence of god or even demonstrated that god is likely to exist.

Theories abound. But name one that explains how nothing at all becames everything there is. How did the "original singularity" instantialte itself?....out of what? The rational mind gets tied into monstrous knots just trying to encompass a starting point.

And my point was not to broach the possible existed on an intelligent creator...a God. I was merely noting that if you are trying tograsp why anything exist at all the idea of God is at least imaginable. It is something that some will construe as the causeless cause. But that does not explain how a causeless cause can exists other than just accepting it on blind faith.

And being an agnostic, I don't.

rp

[jeffl]

Discord compells inflation. Coherence as Life, Truth, Harmony, and Light. Discord as delusion and the perception of life and death. The 'creative' aspect of discord is only delusionally 'creative;' like, the energy and matter are nothing, but what they mean is something. We can learn from the discord that compelled our substance; get back to the Truth that was everywhere before the explosion of discord.

maybe?

[tman_ndsu08]

The same problem that applies to god (what created god? what was before god?) applies to the universe.

IMO, there is something out there bigger than our universe from which our universe was created.

M theory talks abouts planes of existance stacked next to each other (something like a loaf of bread) and that perhaps our universe was created when 2 planes touched. This is also an attempt to understand why gravity in our universe is such a weak force (since it could be that most of our gravity is in another plane or something to that effect).

[MerlinsByte]

I believe in God or an intelligent designer. However playing the devils advocate is easy because of the tidal wave of (incomplete) theories that abound. One to the most promising is the universe coming into existence from a virtual Quantum zero point energy flux. However even that demands that a vacuum of empty space be present.

So god created space time and the nothingness that came before it....this is getting long I will post the rest of my answer in religion topic ...."may the forces be with you"

mb

[dalin]

The human mind is limited. Our perception of existence is a particular construction, fueled only by what we can possibly perceive (directly, i.e. in a sensory mode, or indirectly, i.e. some mental function like induction or the scientific method, etc. or some combination of the two). No matter how hard we struggle and try to reason, there is necessarily that limitation, that maximal mental capacity for "sensing" or being aware of, in the rawest sense. I hope I'm coming across clear.

That said, I think there are certain things we can understand about existence around us, but all human understanding is a model of complete reality. What if, for example, there were some other constituent of existence beside matter and energy, imperceptible to humans?

[tman_ndsu08]

If it were imperceptible, then how could we prove it existed?

[MerlinsByte]

If it were imperceptible, then how could we prove it existed?

Merlin replies...there are many things that exist but are impossible to prove. One could not prove that another is self aware, for example.

eh? Prove that I am self aware and not an AI program. Of course this is what Einstein called a thought experiment. So my self awareness is "real" but you cant prove that its real, can you?

that would be just one example.

mb

[tman_ndsu08]

If we can't prove that it exists, then I'm not going to assume it does.

[dev]

"Will to Truth" do ye call it, ye wisest ones, that which impelleth you and maketh you ardent? Will for the thinkableness of all being: thus do I call your will! All being would ye MAKE thinkable: for ye doubt with good reason whether it be already thinkable. But it shall accommodate and bend itself to you! So willeth your will. Smooth shall it become and subject to the spirit, as its mirror and reflection.

[dalin]

Certainly we have no reason to think so tman (indeed, how can one know/experience something beyond one), but it's interesting that our minds allow us to conceive (at least in a rudimentary, abstract way) that such a limit does exist.

Also note that I'm not saying human understanding is wrong, but that it is possible that our understanding is just a take on existence at some incomplete level.

[LogicaLunatic]

Quote by: MerlinsByte Merlin replies...there are many things that exist but are impossible to prove. One could not prove that another is self aware, for example. eh? Prove that I am self aware and not an AI program. Of course this is what Einstein called a thought experiment. So my self awareness is "real" but you cant prove that its real, can you? that would be just one example. mb

You're obsessed with "proof".

We don't need to prove that something exists. Take gravity for instance. It's existance hasn't been 100% proven but we still say it exists.

Are you self aware? First I would define self aware. Then, since I am self aware I would look at myself to see what self aware beings are. Then I would take my observations and see if you fit. If you happen to have no heart or lungs I'd have to say that you are some sort of AI program. But if you are a human being, just like I am, and your heart is beating and there is brain activity then it would be safe to say that you are self aware, just as I am.

Then we could take our model (human with beating heart and brain activity) and apply it to other things and beings to try to predict whether they're self aware or not.

Blah blah blah, on and on and on...

You get the idea. Outside of mathematics, we don't rely upon what can be "proven".