It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# How can the universe just "be"?

page: 4
0
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
So yes, logic dictates that time (without matter or the physical spectrum of energy) did exist prior to The Big Bang. It was a period of time without matter and consciousness afloat in a void, i.e., without galaxies, stars and planets.

I'm not sure what you mean by "prior to the big bang", but I'm taking it to mean "prior to the existence of the universe". If that is what you mean, how is it possible for time to precede the universe, when time is part of the universe? We are compelled to conclude that the universe has existed for all time. If you could somehow observe the big bang external to our universe in a linear time frame, our universe would be infinitely old from your perspective.

To say that the universe has a beginning is to imply that there is a t=0. But there isn't, because it can never be reached. The age of the universe is bounded, but there is no starting point because it is not possible to reach the singularity.

If you are familiar with calculus, you could perhaps find an analogy with the area under the curve 1/x^2. The area is bounded within the range x=(1,inf), even though x is not.

posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 04:12 PM

Originally posted by spamandham
I'm not sure what you mean by "prior to the big bang", but I'm taking it to mean "prior to the existence of the universe". If that is what you mean, how is it possible for time to precede the universe, when time is part of the universe?

That's a good question.

Time is not bound to only existing in the physical universe. Time can also exist independently of any material aspect of reality.

You assume that the only way that time can exist is within a physical context. You do not take into consideration the idea of a soul that can exist without being part of a physical continuum. But that is exactly what I am suggesting: that before there was a physical universe, consciousness existed in the Spirit. Consciousness which eventually intiated The Big Bang.

Time is a condition of consciousness. You cannot have consciousness in any capacity without experiencing time. So time existed before there was a physical universe, before there was a Big Bang. Consciousness preceded the physical universe and therefore...so did time.

posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 05:53 PM

Originally posted by Paul_Richard

Originally posted by spamandham
I'm not sure what you mean by "prior to the big bang", but I'm taking it to mean "prior to the existence of the universe". If that is what you mean, how is it possible for time to precede the universe, when time is part of the universe?

That's a good question.

Time is not bound to only existing in the physical universe. Time can also exist independently of any material aspect of reality.

If that's true, then explain relativity. Time is dependent not only on acceleration and relative velocity, but also on gravity.

If time were something independent of the universe, then it interacts with space and mass in a deterministic way, meaning that space and mass are also independent of the universe, making the word "universe" totally meaningless. If time transcends, then space and mass also transcend.

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
You do not take into consideration the idea of a soul that can exist without being part of a physical continuum. But that is exactly what I am suggesting: that before there was a physical universe, consciousness existed in the Spirit. Consciousness which eventually intiated The Big Bang.

Please present compelling evidence that time transcends the universe. We already have strong evidence from relativity that time (space-time really) is an aspect of the universe, so whatever you present must be equally compelling.

Before the concept of a soul even begins to make sense, you need to address the issue of time.

posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 06:27 PM
Just to break it down I see what the question means so I will try describe it another way from my point of view and maybe others have thought it this way too.

To keep it simple

if 0=NOTHING then nothing can come out of it.

If 1=SOMETHING then 1 has always been.

For there to be 1 then does it mean it can not exist ouside time? 1 can be counted it has a past and a future even if 1=1.

1 has to comprise of a past and future otherwise 1 will not exist unless we are talking about a 1 dimentional universe which is imposible because all dimentions need to exist for there to be any.

So if 1 can be counted then time can be counted so as Scientists have put it, time is a dimension. Time goes in all directions as does the other 3 dimentions. So the question is what kick started time? All explosions are made from 4 dimentions.

What ever particles or mixtures to an explosion it needs to be counted as a number even a single dimention or particle or 1 dimention needs to be counted as number for it to exist. So where ever we the universe came from,

It has no time, no numbers no particles (as partilces only exist in 4 dimensions), no energy as energy takes time.

Unless there are other dimentions? how many? but even if there are any more they still have a number for that dimention to count. If you count you have 4 dimentional universe.

What ever started the unverse its beyond us and some people find a creator a good enough excuse and they are not taking a stupid option either.

Its just an opinion and there are probably hundreds of explantions on the internet and books. But I thought it boils down to numbers rather than particle physics to keep it simple. Everyone asks how anything can be from nothing=0. Its good to hear peoples views what ever they are.

[edit on 30-6-2005 by The time lord]

[edit on 30-6-2005 by The time lord]

posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 06:52 PM
Past and future are merely human illusions. Most scientific theories breakdown because they can't describe things in the distant past or future well enough. Thats why we rely on things like the big bang and the end of the universe to give us some sort of psychological end/start point. The only thing that is "real" is THIS moment NOW.

Things like M-branes promote the idea that the big bang is not the beginning of the universe, the speed of light is looking more and more like it is variable (an absolute cornerstone of 20th Century science) and we have minds which, recent studies suggest, rely on quantum effects to produce non-stochastic-like effects such as "creativity" and "will".

I believe the universe "is" because we feel it "now". This justifies (not explains!) past, present and future.

posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 09:01 PM

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Paul_Richard

Originally posted by spamandham
I'm not sure what you mean by "prior to the big bang", but I'm taking it to mean "prior to the existence of the universe". If that is what you mean, how is it possible for time to precede the universe, when time is part of the universe?

That's a good question.

Time is not bound to only existing in the physical universe. Time can also exist independently of any material aspect of reality.

If that's true, then explain relativity. Time is dependent not only on acceleration and relative velocity, but also on gravity.

Again, you are referring to the physical spectrum of energies, not that which existed in Spirit before the physical plane came into being. The discarnate dimensions operate off of an entirely different set of principles. In the Spirit, time is a condition of consciousness and is not dependent on acceleration, relative velocity and gravity.

Originally posted by spamandham
If time were something independent of the universe, then it interacts with space and mass in a deterministic way, meaning that space and mass are also independent of the universe, making the word "universe" totally meaningless. If time transcends, then space and mass also transcend.

I can see why this can get rather confusing.

The physical universe operates off of its own boundaries or laws which govern the space-time continuum. The discarnate dimensions operate off of their own boundaries or laws of the space-time continuum and transcend the physical boundaries. The spiritual plane preceded the physical plane.

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
You do not take into consideration the idea of a soul that can exist without being part of a physical continuum. But that is exactly what I am suggesting: that before there was a physical universe, consciousness existed in the Spirit. Consciousness which eventually initiated The Big Bang.

Originally posted by spamandham
Please present compelling evidence that time transcends the universe...Before the concept of a soul even begins to make sense, you need to address the issue of time.

You cannot prove a metaphysical principle with physical evidence. (Well, at least for the present.) The evidence must be and is experiential. Everyone who has ever had a Near Death Experience has embraced direct and undeniable evidence that time can transcend the universe. Some NDE's involve not only leaving the immediate vicinity of the body but also leaving this world and seeing this planet from a perspective of high in orbit or even from deep space.

Originally posted by spamandham
We already have strong evidence from relativity that time (space-time really) is an aspect of the universe, so whatever you present must be equally compelling.

Compelling evidence is often in the eyes of the beholder.

I suspect that you are a scientific materialist and do not accept the validity of the soul and the discarnate dimensions. Perhaps then we should just agree to disagree.

[edit on 30-6-2005 by Paul_Richard]

posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 10:22 PM

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Again, you are referring to the physical spectrum of energies, not that which existed in Spirit before the physical plane came into being. The discarnate dimensions operate off of an entirely different set of principles. In the Spirit, time is a condition of consciousness and is not dependent on acceleration, relative velocity and gravity.

...and again, you are using terms that relate to the natural, such as energy, dimension, "came into being", etc. If you can not describe your concept, then just say "it's incomprehensible" and move on. You do not do a service to your position by using natural terms inappropriately.

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
I can see why this can get rather confusing.

The physical universe operates off of its own boundaries or laws which govern the space-time continuum. The discarnate dimensions operate off of their own boundaries or laws of the space-time continuum and transcend the physical boundaries. The spiritual plane preceded the physical plane.

You haven't helped alleviate the confusion with this. You're using words such as "preceded", "space-time", and "dimension" in a realm in which you are saying these do not exist ("before" the universe). You are extending properties of spacetime to a realm where they do not apply.

The only comprehensible way to describe what you are saying is to claim that something that transcends the universe is in some way responsible for the existence of the universe. In other words, you might claim "god is necessary and the universe is contingent", and leave it at that without ever attempting to explain why this is true.

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
You cannot prove a metaphysical principle with physical evidence. (Well, at least for the present.) The evidence must be and is experiential.

Then why are you even bothering with the conversation? Those who have this experiential evidence don't need the discussion, and those who don't will learn nothing from it.

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
I suspect that you are a scientific materialist and do not accept the validity of the soul and the discarnate dimensions. Perhaps then we should just agree to disagree.

According to your position, it is impossible to understand your position without "experiential evidence", and I don't have it, so on your last point we can agree.

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 04:25 AM
spamandham,

Illumination and understanding are all a matter of degree and I am sure that there are some here who are more enlightened from this discourse than you are aware of, willing to believe, or admit.

Although it helps, having had an NDE is not a prerequisite to understanding the concept that time can exist in the Spirit without a physical universe. (I am sure that you understand this idea completely.) Then there are also those who have had a spiritual transformative event (STE) in their lives, or an after death communication (ADC) with a loved one, or some other spiritual experience which serves to confirm the logic behind what I am stating.

The upshot is this: the physical spectrum is only the outer shell of reality. The Primary Reality is the discarnate dimensions which are governed by laws that transcend the physical universe. Principles that one does not learn in physics class. Only through a metaphysical understanding which embraces the higher dimensions can one come to realize how a physical universe can manifest in the first place. Without the metaphysical component, there is no other explanation, as you cannot have something come about from nothing, no matter how many equations and quantum theories are thrown into the discussion in a vain attempt to convince otherwise.

[edit on 1-7-2005 by Paul_Richard]

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 05:03 AM
I think that if you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ the answer to your question is already known. The Bible states that God created the heavens and the earth and he is responsible for all of it. I hope this helps.

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 05:06 AM

Originally posted by FLYIN HIGH
I think that if you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ the answer to your question is already known. The Bible states that God created the heavens and the earth and he is responsible for all of it. I hope this helps.

Welp it didn't really, I asked for no religious answers because I don't believe in all of that stuff. IMO it is b.s. and a science based answer proves to be a billion times more helpful

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 08:26 AM

Originally posted by xxblackoctoberxx

Originally posted by FLYIN HIGH
I think that if you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ the answer to your question is already known. The Bible states that God created the heavens and the earth and he is responsible for all of it. I hope this helps.

Welp it didn't really, I asked for no religious answers because I don't believe in all of that stuff. IMO it is b.s. and a science based answer proves to be a billion times more helpful

I would suggest not to dismiss religious responses as BS. Nearly everything religion, especially Christianity, suggests is written in story and metaphor... meant to relate ideas and thoughts not actual beliefs and facts. It is entirely possible, and scientific, to think that there really is some supernatural etherical being that put the hampster in the wheel. Science does not disprove this notion.
Trust me, I would enjoy nothing greater than lining up all the fundamental literalists and smacking them in the face one by one (watch and see how many REALLY turn the other cheek, hehehe) but there are those intelligent few who are honestly content with saying "I dont know, but I believe God does." And there is nothing wrong with that.

As far as someone saying Time existed before the Big Bang... well, I suggest a review of the Big Bang Theory. If there is such a thing as the 'spirit world' then it too would have been created in the Big Bang, as this 'world' would indeed be yet another physical dimension we are consciously unaware of. And as ALL the dimensions we exist in, including Time, originated at the Big Bang, then no there was no Time in any way shape or form prior to the Big Bang that could translate to the Time we experience today.

[edit on 1-7-2005 by apc]

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 08:55 AM

Originally posted by apc

I would suggest not to dismiss religious responses as BS. Nearly everything religion, especially Christianity, suggests is written in story and metaphor... meant to relate ideas and thoughts not actual beliefs and facts. It is entirely possible, and scientific, to think that there really is some supernatural etherical being that put the hampster in the wheel. Science does not disprove this notion.

I'll go along with that.

Originally posted by apc
As far as someone saying Time existed before the Big Bang... well, I suggest a review of the Big Bang Theory. If there is such a thing as the 'spirit world' then it too would have been created in the Big Bang, as this 'world' would indeed be yet another physical dimension we are consciously unaware of. And as ALL the dimensions we exist in, including Time, originated at the Big Bang, then no there was no Time in any way shape or form prior to the Big Bang that could translate to the Time we experience today.

The idea I was trying to convey is that thought preceded and initiated physicality. In order to start something, you first have to think about it. The person doing the thinking must have existed prior to The Big Bang and therefore, time in the Spirit must also have existed. The discarnate dimensions are not another physical dimension at all but exist at a higher rate of vibration, just as souls transcend matter and physically-based time after bodily death. Spirit was not created by The Big Bang, it was the cause of it.

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 09:05 AM

I was reading some theory about the creation of the universe and i noticed in a lot of these theories it doesn't give much explanation to where everything came from.

That is the 10 million dollar question isn't it?

Even religion doesn't provide the answer....(i.e. where did God come from?)

The only thing our tiny little minds can comprehend, is that it all simply "always was", and that our idea of beginning and end are false. Indeed, we see that in nature all the time. Nature works in cycles. Perhaps the universe does likewise...forever cycling, just as a star, that flares into birth, then collapses and dies, then eventually later flares again, etc.?

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 09:14 AM
If there's any specific discipline where religion and physics come together, it's probably quantum theory. Requires a great deal of faith for both
.

To contradict a previous poster, this is why I love the Internet. Where else is a kid going to go and post a question like this and get so many serious replies? No "answer"? Not a problem. If it sparks his interest enough to continue the search, who knows where it might lead? Here we have not only a wide divergence of opinion, but it comes from literally all over the globe. For those of you young enough to not remember a time without the Internet, that's probably no big deal. For an old fart like me, it's cool enough to give me goosebumps.

Anyway, I'd like to share a book- The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. At over 1,000 pages, it's not a light read, but this is not a light topic. The first part of the book deals extensively with math, which you need to understand the topic. If you seriously want to get into this subject, this book gets
from me. Take your time, as in months, to digest. You will be rewarded.

Off the topic- Backtoreality, your avatar and signature cracks me up every time I see it.

Keep pluggin'

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Without the metaphysical component, there is no other explanation, as you cannot have something come about from nothing, no matter how many equations and quantum theories are thrown into the discussion in a vain attempt to convince otherwise.

The metaphysical component provides no answer at all. It's the equivalent of saying "it's magic", which is nothing more than a resignation that we can't comprehend it.

If you've been reading this thread, you'll see that there is no inconsistency with the position that the universe has always existed even considering the big bang. That being the case, it didn't come from nothing, as it has always been.

You face the "something from nothing" dilemma with the metaphysical dimensions argument as well. Something must always have existed. There's no reason that something can't be the universe itself, and all evidence suggests that it is.

You can not describe in comprehensible terms what you are talking about without referencing natural concepts, except to describe it as what it is not.

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 09:40 AM

Originally posted by apc
It is entirely possible, and scientific, to think that there really is some supernatural etherical being that put the hampster in the wheel. Science does not disprove this notion.

It isn't possible if the universe has always existed, and it isn't the least bit scientific, as it is a hypothesis drawn out of thin air supported by nothing, and intentionally designed such that no attempts at falsification can be made. Each time 'god did it' is falsified, the definition of god changes.

An uncreated universe would be a serious blow to the 'god hypothesis' as there would no longer be a role for a creator. I suspect that the role would change from 'creator' to 'sustainer' and the god hypothesis would morph once again to prevent attempts at falsification.

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 10:00 AM
This has always been one of my favorites. Hope somebody gets a chuckle out of it.

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 10:32 AM
This posting brings to the attention of the readers the point at which creationists and evolutionists (inaptly named) are in complete concurrence.

Whether you support the school of thought which embodies an initial, endless void populated solely by a supreme being, or alternatively by an intial void into which suddenly there appears (with a resounding 'Bang') that which over the millenia evolves into our universe..... you are stumped.

Neither line of logic can explain (in a language limited by our 3-dimensional realities) ..........that original point in space and time.

Carl Sagan, a wonderfully intelligent example of how eons of DNA re-arrangements can result in a cogent argument for science, himself fell considerably short of adequately explaining our origins. Not his fault. I think his example of the visitation of a 3D object into a 2D ("Cosmos" 1979)world is the finest example of the difficulties of such description.
On the other hand. the 'creationists' (of late calling themselves emissaries of Intelligent Design)....utilized primarily the absence of alternative explanation as the basis for their beliefs. Understand, I'm not at all anti-religious. Too many years of Jesuit education have flawed me in that regard. A caring, loving personal Deity, responsible for the formation of everything from the most intricate snowflake to the half-life of the radioactive isotopes that will no doubt end our reign as king species on this ball or rock............just does not exist.
And don't get me started on Allah.

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 01:36 PM

Originally posted by periwinkle blue
This posting brings to the attention of the readers the point at which creationists and evolutionists (inaptly named) are in complete concurrence.

Whether you support the school of thought which embodies an initial, endless void populated solely by a supreme being, or alternatively by an intial void into which suddenly there appears (with a resounding 'Bang') that which over the millenia evolves into our universe..... you are stumped.

Then wouldn't the proper response be to reject both of these as neither makes any sense?

The singularity we call the universe has always existed. This is not contradictory to the big bang. The problem is a failure to comprehend what the big bang is. Here's what it isn't; an explosion.

It's a shame the term "big bang" was selected, because it leads to confusion.

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 02:23 PM

Originally posted by apc

I would suggest not to dismiss religious responses as BS. Nearly everything religion, especially Christianity, suggests is written in story and metaphor... meant to relate ideas and thoughts not actual beliefs and facts. It is entirely possible, and scientific, to think that there really is some supernatural etherical being that put the hampster in the wheel. Science does not disprove this notion.

[edit on 1-7-2005 by apc]

IMO, even though it is hard for me to comprehend most of these theories about the subject, it is a lot more likely that the universe has always been or the universe just came from nowhere than an all powerful being that does not exist in the physical universe, who has control over everything and awesome, unlimited power. I'll admit it.. I am not religious (Could ya guess?) I was never brought up on any religion, I wouldn't consider myself atheist or even agnostic because I simply do not care enough to think about that subject. Either way I didn't want religious answers because the only way to prove something is by saying 'you must rely on faith' or to actually have something happen. For science, there is a ton of ways to prove things scientifically, giving real evidence.

top topics

0