New theory of before the big bang(article)

I am very interested to hear some more takes on this because i agree that the big bang theory is wrong in some way,and i would like some more input from all of you on this one.its absoulutley a facsinating subject.

My question is, does anyone actually know if there was nothing here before the big bang?

I think I read somewhere that loop quantum gravity, a competing theory to string theory predicts that before big bang there was another universe which was squeezed to this big bang singularity, and because in this theory you cannot compress matter indefinetly, resulting repulsive forces caused it to bounce and expand, giving rise to big bang. This could be a cyclic process, too.

Anyway, Id like to point out that big bang does not says that time and space itself were created in it, it is just one of the posibilities.

This transcription of Genesis book, that actually is a clone of Sumerian "Enuma Elish", isn't referring to "God" as a possible intelligent cosmic creator/manager energy, but to the "Elohim" that means "Group of deities", plural, not singular.

I talked to a friend who studied this, and he said that plural instead of singular was widely used then when speaking of honorable subjects, to give credit. We do it in slovak language, too.

reply to post by Maslo
nice thread guys keep up the awesome work i like to keep everyone posotive ,motivated and encouraged to explore this topic deeper i will see what else i can find and keep on asking these great questions!

when there was nothing there was a student , HE wanted to create a Creation, BUT could not , then the master told Him MEDITATE! He did it for 1000 years , when HE opened his eye the Creation has been created from his thoughts.
Who was HE , and Who was His Master? When this happened ?Or How many times ? Is it happening in a cyclick way again and again? it seems yes!Oh dont worry You will know exactly the answere on all this and many other qestions, just need to get Enlightened! Thats all. Whats more fun its easy and effortless! will come 100 percetn , only we dont know exactly when!? Cheers

Originally posted by Before2017Victor

Originally posted by crusaderiam
Boy they are really trying hard to ignore God aren't they?
I mean there is so much evidence of design in life and perfect balance of our planet, yet it is all attributed to mathematically impossible odds. This is what science accepts because they cannot accept the truth of a creator.

Where did God come from? He says he always was, alpha and omega, we cannot imagine something outside of time, everything we know has a beginning and an end. So our minds really cannot fathom something or God that does not have a beginning and an end.
[edit on 21-2-2010 by crusaderiam]

Why do you need "God" inserted in there?

Why can't those universes before our universe have been "outside of time"? Why can't they not have a beginning or an end?

Because time is MOTION, and like centrifugal force, it is merely a figment of your mental processes. If you take away time, you must then coalesce the past, present, and future together, and you must remove all possibility for motion, since motion implies that there is a TIME when the moving object was not at a given location, and a TIME when it is.

Let's trade the word GOD for a description instead:

Imagine a sea of infinite potential, where the possibility for all THINGS, and all MOTION, and all ACTIONS, and all REACTIONS exist. Potential must always precede actuality, for without potential, the actual can never be. To simply assume that the potential exists is derogatory to the goal of understanding. Imagine a vast, infinite ocean of potential, where the possibility for all that we experience is contained, and yet it is ONLY potential, just like the potential you see in your mind before you do anything.

This vast infinite potential could be described as the "MIND" of the universe, the birth place of all possibility. It has no form, for it is a UNITY, having no boundaries whatsoever. Because it has no actual objects and no space, it has no motion either. These do however exist within the possibilities that are contained within it. In one sense, because it has NO THING within it, it is correct to call it NOTHING. In another sense, because it has the potential for all things contained within it, it is correct to call it ALL-THINGS. At the level of this UNITY, the NOTHING and the ALL-THINGS are indeed equivalent. This is my conception of God.

So, what are we, and why do we exist? Since all things exist within this sea of possibility, there must also, by definition, exist things like "limitation", "ignorance", "curiosity", "imagination", "suffering", etc. In other words, for the universe to be complete, it must contain not only the potential for all things, but also the actual. The potential is infinite, while the actual is finite.

So, there is a symbiotic relationship between the infinite and the finite, between potential and the actuality. We exist precisely because the infinite exists, for the infinite can never be anything other than limitless potential, for the moment you ascribe any kind of boundary upon the infinite, it ceases to be infinite. Likewise, without the finite actuality, the infinite is incomplete and this incompleteness creates a boundary of insufficiency once again nullifying the infinite. The infinite requires the finite conclusions and the finite requires the infinite source.

People of intellect find the notion of a finite God repugnant because at its core, that idea violates reason. Just as ridiculous, however, is the notion of a finite universe existing without some well-spring of origin. I am not saying that this origin is physical, for indeed it cannot be. What I am saying is this: nothing that is finite can exist apart from an infinite beginning. The very existence of things like motion, energy, light, gravity, particles, valence shells, thoughts, emotions, etc. all come from a POTENTIAL for their existence.

What is commonly referred to as the "Mind of God" is in reality this infinite ocean of potential. Unlike our minds, it is not linear, only capable of a single thread of thought at any given time. Within this universal mind, all thoughts exist simultaneously, for there is no past, present, or future. Within this mind, everything just IS, and yet because of this, NO THING physically exists, since physicality requires SPACE and TIME, neither of which exist in the universal mind. Let us not be confused by using the term "mind" in this context, for it is nothing like our minds, which are but mere puny finite versions of the vast infinite original.

But the fact that thought precedes action is demonstrated in us, and is a corollary to how things work in the infinite. God's thoughts are exactly equivalent to universal potential. If you look at all the qualities of this potential, those are the precisely the same qualities of the universal mind.

There is MUCH more that could be said about all this, but in the interest of not overwhelming, I will stop here. To my scientific and very logical mind, this all makes a great deal of sense, and it seeks to understand things from a deep philosophical perspective, which is certainly helpful when trying to understand what our scientific observations truly mean.



[edit on 21-2-2010 by downisreallyup]

You guys would love Proton Exchange Membranes.

Yet, to do ATS a favor, let me reserve my right to link...

..and freedom of speech if I ever do quote from such technology.

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
reply to post by oliveoil

 

How do you think thoughts are generated oliveoil?

Of course there are changes in the brain when we think, grooves or electrical discharges or what not. However, how the thoughts are generated has nothing to do with the the material attributes or in this case lack of, of the thought itself. What you are asserting is that matter(the brain) produces offspring which have not one single attribute in common with it.
Does this make any sense?

reply to post by oliveoil


From what I understand...our thoughts are a part of a complex system within our body as well as influenced by outside stimuli. Course I cant explain it like my school books can...but without our senses, our nervous system, our chemical makeup that carries electrical signals and impulses throughout the nervous system, to the brain, and back out through the system....we would not generate our cognitive thinking or our reactional (lol, I dont think that is a word, bad habit of mine) thoughts to things. Memories of past experiences have alot to do with how we generate our present thinking and responses. I think thoughts are tied deeply to feelings also, but this again, is a part of the system of the chemical makeup.

Over time, from being a babe, to a child, to growing up, we intake many different experiences, which generate feelings and our minds process this feeling for future responses and helps us figure or prepare ourselves for future events that we may want to avoid or partake more of. Cognitive thinking is very much related to the electrical workings of the brain as well as past processing of thoughts.

It seems that when we observe someone who has trouble with cognitive thinking or that has aimless thoughts that dont make much sense...we see some sort of chemical imbalance or electrical misfiring in the brain.

We are still learning so much about our minds and how we function, but I think there is great evidence that points in the direction that our thoughts are a part of a complex system, and that systems foundation is a chemical makeup we call our body.

Just my thoughts on it all...I find the human body to be a master piece of great works. I believe our body, along with the rest of the Universal makeup, is based alot of electrical impulses and signals.

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by oliveoil

 

Alright, when you think, is something being triggered in our brain, or is it just a magical spirit? Yes, neurons carry the information of the thought, obviously it is not the thought in the sense of the meaning and knowledge of it though. I feel like you're trying to pick apart my words here, or going with the some 'science can't explain this, yet' thoughts

Using your example of thinking of justice, our brain is triggered, neurons are going every which way to compile what you know / experience etc. about justice, then your thought about justice is able to be fully understood and present. It didn't just pop out of nowhere.

True However, think this.
When I say that mercy is kinder than justice I am not comparing mercys kind electrical/grooves/neurons or what have you to justices stricter electrical/groves/neurons. There is a difference. These differences have no relation to our material bodies. If we are continuously producing things which have no attribute of matter,it seems reasonable to conclude that there is in us some element which is not matter to produce them. -spirit.

reply to post by oliveoil


Why are you concluding that if thoughts dont have 'matter' that they are from the spirit.

That would be like saying...all mens thoughts that led them to kill people are of spirit...sense their thoughts are not 'matter'.

Am I misunderstanding your conclusion on thoughts and matter?

If a man thinks to harm someone...is that of spirit, sense the thought has no 'matter'?

reply to post by oliveoil


This is a difficult question, the problem of consciousness. The problem with the perspective you are taking is this: We know that the mind(thoughts ect) effects the brain, because if you think of say, a sad memory, it is possible to identify the emotion centers of your brain activating. We also know that the brain effects the mind, because you can take drugs or have brain damage and this effects your thinking. If the mind and the brain are funamentally different, how can they interact causally, which they obviously do?

The thoughts somehow interact with the neurons, and the neurons with the thoughts. In fact, it's not clear that interact is even right word, because it is so difficult to identify any separation between neural activity and mental activity that many people believe them to be different aspects of the same thing. If they are fundamentally different, how do they interact? And if they are the same, why is describing the brain so different from describing the mind?

this theory is not knew ...

I mean, we all know that before the big bang, there was nothing ... so, one of the possibilities is the collision of 2 "somethings" ..., and we may live in a sea of universes (sea of bubbles expanding) colliding like crazy, at least thats what many scientists believe

Originally posted by OnceReturned
reply to post by oliveoil

 

If they are fundamentally different, how do they interact? And if they are the same, why is describing the brain so different from describing the mind?

The theory in the OP article is the attempt to put such explanation into mathematics.

Nueroscience is just metaphsyics despite the fact many neuro-surgeons want to claim it is all physical. They are unable to prove it is all physical, yet they tend to subscribe to the "believe it or you are stupid."

The conscience, which is part of science, is metaphysics. To simple say "don't believe the conscience exists" is to ignore a large part of what science is all about.

We must consider that it does exist and also that it doesn't exist. It's not mutually exclusive in science.

When there is no math to explain the phenomena, they simply call it metaphysics. What has happened is that anything labeled "metaphysical" also gets considered "delusional mumbo-jumbo." It's as if someone tried to take the literally meaning of the prefix "meta" to not mean what it does when attached to the word "physical."

I've heard of neuro-surgeons become head chief and deny anything metaphysical about the brain and mind. That literally justifies their denial as premeditated murder.

[edit on 22-2-2010 by dzonatas]

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
reply to post by oliveoil

 

Why are you concluding that if thoughts dont have 'matter' that they are from the spirit.

That would be like saying...all mens thoughts that led them to kill people are of spirit...sense their thoughts are not 'matter'.

Am I misunderstanding your conclusion on thoughts and matter?

If a man thinks to harm someone...is that of spirit, sense the thought has no 'matter'?

Your relating spirit to God and assuming all spirit has to be good.You are deceiving yourself.

Originally posted by dzonatas
The theory in the OP article is the attempt to put such explanation into mathematics.

Well, we have strong reason to believe that consciousness is based entirely on physical reality, and physical reality can be described mathematically. We are continuously confirming the connection between the physical brain and consciousness through experiment, and we know that consciousness emerges from purely physical systems: the earth before life was a purely physical system, and it developed for a while and now we have consciousness. We can directly correlate physical brain states with states of consciousness; so much so that we can say with a high degree of certainty that every change in consciousness is mirrored by a physical change in the brain.

But there is a way in which consciousness eludes mathematics. For one thing the contents of consciousness are not quantifiable; they can not be expressed in numbers. My conscious experience cannot - in principal - be expressed mathematically. Math is the wrong language to describe consciousness. Another reason that this is true is that consciousness cannot be objectively measured. No one can determine the contents of my consciousness directly unless the are me; furthermore, I can never be wrong about the contents of my consciousness. We have "privilaged access" to our minds; which would seem to put our minds outside the realm of the physical sciences simply because there is nothing for the scientists to measure.

Nueroscience is just metaphsyics despite the fact many neuro-surgeons want to claim it is all physical. They are unable to prove it is all physical, yet they tend to subscribe to the "believe it or you are stupid."

Well, neuroscience is brain science, which is entirely physical. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. You claim that something nonphysical exists, you have to prove it.

But, I tend to agree with you here; I believe that the picture of reality painted by the physical sciences with mathematics as their basis leaves no room for consciousness/awareness. Furthermore; it is possible to give a complete physical description of the brain(containing all of the physical information about the brain) without even mentioning consciousness. This suggests to me that the physical sciences are missing the mark, and consciousness is somehow outside of the realm of what they are talking about.

In defence of the neurosugeons though; claiming that it is not physical with such certainty is just as dogmatic as claiming that it is entirely physical. No one knows what consciousness is, the debate is on going, and is heated. It has been by no means settled. Neurosurgeons ought to proceed as though consciousness is inextricably linked to the brain - because it is - and in fact, that link is so strong that if you treat them as the same thing, you will not make any mistakes or be wrong about anything, except the deeper philosophical problems. My point is that we don't know if consciousness is physical or not for, but it is okay to proceed as though it is physical when you are a neuroscientist because the connection between consciousness and the brain is so strong that you are justified in treating them as the same thing.

The conscience, which is part of science, is metaphysics. To simple say "don't believe the conscience exists" is to ignore a large part of what science is all about.

No one seriously thinks that consciousness doesn't exist, and scientists are making a serious effort to get to the bottom of it:

www.theassc.org...
www.imprint.co.uk...
www.consciousness.arizona.edu...

Philosophers will debate you about whether or not consciousness exsits, but they don't really believe that. The reason to make that inflamitory claim is that if you can prove that consciousness does exist to someone else, then you have made an unprecedented leap foward in understanding it.

We must consider that it does exist and also that it doesn't exist. It's not mutually exclusive in science.

I don't think we do have to consider that consciousness doesn't exist. I can assure you that it does, and I am positive that you can think about your experience right now and become immediately aware that that experience is conscious. Consciousness is one of only a handful of things which we can be sure exists beyond a shadow of a doubt.

When there is no math to explain the phenomena, they simply call it metaphysics. What has happened is that anything labeled "metaphysical" also gets considered "delusional mumbo-jumbo." It's as if someone tried to take the literally meaning of the prefix "meta" to not mean what it does when attached to the word "physical."

Well, so far science has been able to at least address every single thing in the universe except consciousness. The language of science is math. So, it is difficult to believe that this phenomenon of consciousness is the only thing in the universe to which science cannot be brought to bear - especially since the only place we find it is inside our own heads. It would be unbelievably peculiar if this were the case. We should be skeptical of the claim that science is not equiped to deal with it. But I agree that as far as I can tell, this is the case.

I've heard of neuro-surgeons become head chief and deny anything metaphysical about the brain and mind. That literally justifies their denial as premeditated murder.

Neurosurgeons ought only concern themselves with the brain. That is what they work on. And, we don't know anything about consicousness that would be useful for them, so if they ignore it that's okay. There isn't anything metaphysical in the realm of western medicine, and it is wonderfully successful. We ought not give them too hard a time about this.

Conscious experience or lack thereof does not justify murder. If you are a dangerous person you should be locked up; and future murders should be discouraged because of the punishment they will recieve. This is true with or without consciousness; it doesn't need to enter into the debate. And - in fairness - no neurosurgeon ever has actually tried to justify premeditated murder on the grounds you have mentioned above, even though you believe their belief system could lead to such a justification.

I had come across this theory before, good to see that its being recognised more. The maths involved in string theory are far beyond most people, but its the one with legs at the moment.
Good find

Originally posted by OnceReturned
And - in fairness - no neurosurgeon ever has actually tried to justify premeditated murder on the grounds you have mentioned above, even though you believe their belief system could lead to such a justification.

There are just those that I have had experience with that stated their claims in absolutes, so I can't say "no neurosurgeon ever has..."

This group usually gets to the "well it hasn't been proven by science so it isn't true." Science, however, is about knowledge, not about truth. When people treat science as truth, then it is the same as religion.

As you can probably guess, it often relates to religion, in science or by sect, they are all the same when they all make the same effort to find truth.

We can directly correlate physical brain states with states of consciousness; so much so that we can say with a high degree of certainty that every change in consciousness is mirrored by a physical change in the brain.

I would simply consider it an interface, a membrane, rather than that it is mirrored.

You claim that something nonphysical exists, you have to prove it.

Same thing about the mirror, they would have to prove it exists. Just because there is a membrane for the functionality doesn't mean the origin of thought is mirrored into the brain itself.

Many times, we simply don't prove it and just leave it as solid metaphysics. It becomes up to the research to individual look upon metaphysics and decide what part they want or can turn into physicals with whatever system they use. It may simply be not baby-safe enough for general proof to be wildly published. With it presented as metaphysics, the knowledge is obviously not a secret.

This suggests to me that the physical sciences are missing the mark, and consciousness is somehow outside of the realm of what they are talking about.

Some have just decided to ensure baby-steps rather than constantly make leaps. If one consistently makes leaps, then they make no effort to allow for baby-steps.

Of course, there are exceptions.

No one knows what consciousness is, the debate is on going, and is heated. It has been by no means settled.

If they can't prove themselves as alive, then they shouldn't attempt to prove consciousness. Babysteps...

www.theassc.org...
www.imprint.co.uk...
www.consciousness.arizona.edu...

I appreciate the links and have bookmarked them.

The reason to make that inflamitory claim is that if you can prove that consciousness does exist to someone else, then you have made an unprecedented leap foward in understanding it.

One of the obviously exception related directly to the OP article. If we go beyond the big bang, then we go beyond where time become meaningless. To even recognize and affirm time as meaningless does at the same time mean that there is no ordinary time to explain and prove everything to everybody. There simply aren't the resources, for one.

To expect proof of everything is irrational.

I don't think we do have to consider that consciousness doesn't exist. I can assure you that it does, and I am positive that you can think about your experience right now and become immediately aware that that experience is conscious. Consciousness is one of only a handful of things which we can be sure exists beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Can you prove everybody ever born is alive beyond mere consciousness? This is a question to seriously consider. Many have just accepted without any proof that everybody is alive. That directly contradicts the expression: "You claim that something nonphysical exists, you have to prove it." Therefore, they do what, claim it is all physical without proof? Same contradiction rather commutative or transitive.

Well, so far science has been able to at least address every single thing in the universe except consciousness. The language of science is math.

It's surely not the only language of science. Science is all about a systematic knowledge. At the core of it, is it strictly computation, yet computation doesn't need math, especially when it constitutes of pure simulation. One could say the universe is just a simulation of all possible physical resources, in itself.

At some point, someone has to define what the universe means. Does it mean, the planet, the solar system, the galaxy, multiple galaxies, or some ever infinite expansion. Here, now we can look at the bible and see attempts to scale these means in different ways. In genesis, if the tree is a apple tree on earth, then the serpent is the sky. The serpent is the limit "be as wise as your serpents" comprehension of the universe. Therefore, on the scale of an apple tree, the universe is the sky.

We can do this at each level.

If the the tree is the galaxy, the branches of the tree are the spiral arms of the galaxy, the fruit is the stars and planets. The serpent is the universe beyond the galaxy.

See how this works?

It kind of draws a path of how to look at the universe on various scales. It's not metaphorical or metaphysical anymore than the reality of the original apple tree you know today. It's only a way to look at nature and use it as a map into a greater science that tends to be repeated on many levels of scale, like serpent scale.

Consider the bible as "math" in that sense.

[edit on 22-2-2010 by dzonatas]

Originally posted by OnceReturned
reply to post by oliveoil

 

This is a difficult question, the problem of consciousness. The problem with the perspective you are taking is this: We know that the mind(thoughts ect) effects the brain, because if you think of say, a sad memory, it is possible to identify the emotion centers of your brain activating. We also know that the brain effects the mind, because you can take drugs or have brain damage and this effects your thinking. If the mind and the brain are funamentally different, how can they interact causally, which they obviously do?

The thoughts somehow interact with the neurons, and the neurons with the thoughts. In fact, it's not clear that interact is even right word, because it is so difficult to identify any separation between neural activity and mental activity that many people believe them to be different aspects of the same thing. If they are fundamentally different, how do they interact? And if they are the same, why is describing the brain so different from describing the mind?

Im not referring to "stored thought" I am talking about will.ex: I will my hand to pull the trigger of a gun. Matter on the other hand can not produce matter. Can an atom split a atom? Since matter can not produce matter what than produces it? The same way we (man, spirit and body) produces things though thought,( His will,non matter). God(spirit) produces matter.
-catholic theology

It is already complicated enough to try to grasp the sheer size of the universe, now there are other values to consider like pre-big bang and multiple universes. Wow.

I find the phrase "big bang" may be confusing as it implies a boom, a violent explosion. I look at it as a conception, or a slow germination of a seed. I imagine that our universe was once a very small seed with all the potential (blue print) for our beautiful tree of life, it is expanding in each and every direction. The human being is also a universe that started with a "big bang", when the sperm and egg met and divided.
We can not say there was nothing before our own personal big bang, for we know that all seeds need a growth medium and environment to grow and thrive in.