What happened BEFORE the big bang?

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by micpsi

 

The problem with such questions as what existed before the Big Bang is that science ASSUMES that it has in principle the ability to provide a complete explanation of everything.

That is a libel against science.

The actual assumption (which is by no means restricted to science) is that everything is ultimately explicable, if not by science then by some other means. The assumption may be false, but we don't know it yet, and we would be stupid indeed to act as though it were.

Its inability to move beyond the singularities of Einstein's general relativity equations at t = 0 demonstrates, of course, that it cannot.

You seem to have something against science. The very concept of a singularity, a place where the laws of mathematics and physics break down, is itself sufficient proof that science recognizes its own limitations.

Not even wrong.

If we suppose that the religions of the world, are indeed, correct in asserting the existence of superphysical realities, don't you think their interface with physical reality would need to be understood before the question of what existed before the space-time continuum was born could be completely answered?

Time enough to address that question when the religions of the world have proved this wonderful assertion of theirs. They've had tens of thousands of years to do so, by the way, yet we're still waiting.

Science cannot even prove the existence of the 'mind' or the 'thinker'; which, for all practical purposes, are no more real than either phlogiston or the "ether" of classical physics.

In other words, science cannot prove the existence of its 'God' any more than religion can prove the existence of its God.

Oh, by the way, Revelations do, in fact, provide an explanation of reality; even if you do not agree with that explanation.

Michael

reply to post by operation mindcrime

I wish I had your level of understanding on this subject. Respect!!

You're too kind. There are many on this site--Maslo, moebius, buddhasystem to name only the first that spring to mind--who could wipe the floor with me.

So........you know anything about singularity's motivation to change its state??

'Fraid not. But it would seem to me that singularities are fundamentally unstable--indeed, unnatural, since they contain infinities, which are not otherwise known in nature. This is why a so-called 'naked singularity' would be a scientific scandal if one were ever found.

Black holes are gravitational singularities--decently clothed in their event horizons, of course. Hawking showed that black holes aren't the universe-gobbling terrors of initial conception but have finite lifespans and eventually dissipate altogether. The way this works is actually quite easy to understand once you swallow the concept of 'virtual particles' that are constantly being created and annihilated in so-called empty space. That is to say, space 'splits apart' to form a virtual particle-antiparticle pair.

Normally these pairs soon recollide and annhiliate one another. But if a virtual particle-antipartilce pair appear near a black hole, one half of the pair may be captured by the black hole's gravity and disappear beyond the event horizon. The other particle then hasn't got anything to annihilate with, so it hangs around long enough to be detectable, which makes it a real particle. To the observer, it looks like the black hole is emitting particles--radiating energy. For the law of conservation of energy to hold, this means the particle that fell into the event horizon must have negative energy. Its capture by the black hole reduces the energy, and therefore the mass, of the hole. After this has happened often enough, the mass of the black hole reaches zero. Bingo! No more singularity!

You probably know that the energy of the whole universe equals zero. It's only locally nonzero. Sounds a bit like what's left after a black hole dissipates, no?

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by operation mindcrime

 

I wish I had your level of understanding on this subject. Respect!!

You're too kind. There are many on this site--Maslo, moebius, buddhasystem to name only the first that spring to mind--who could wipe the floor with me.

So........you know anything about singularity's motivation to change its state??

'Fraid not.

Well, how 'bout consciousness, then?

Was consciousness there at the Big Bang?

Either the consciousness of the 'thinker' or the consciousness of the "self"?

And, if not, when did they arrive on the scene?

And where did they come from when they arrived on the scene?

Michael

Two words: "Bing Bounce"

My idea:
To turn a balloon to the outside and to the inside, again and again and again....there is no beginning.

reply to post by Michael Cecil

Ah, forget it...

reply to post by cushycrux


The big bounce was also covered in that Horizon show last night.
It really was a good show.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Well i will start by saying that the big bang "theory" is just that "a theory".

There are other possibilities such as Inflation theory and Membrane theory to name but two.

The big bang theory is now pretty much on its last legs as a possibility due to the void in the background radiation images and the misdirected Galaxy flow in the optical images.

The void is not in the center of our Universe and some Galaxies are moving in the wrong direction!

This would suggest the presence of other Universes or possibly areas of strong interactions with other Dimensions, as many as nine other dimensions all encompassed in the 11th temporal dimension.

I am sorry but this member denies the big bang...I prefer the big boing(Inflation)...or the big brane(Membrane).

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Michael Cecil

 

Ah, forget it...

Is it not strange that neither the scientists nor the religionists are at all interested in addressing the question of the origin of consciousness?

"Scientists of consciousness" have no concern about "origins".

All they care about is describing consciousness as it exists; not realizing that they have limited the dimensions of consciousness to only one: the consciousness of the 'thinker'.

Both the findings of the Jungian or archetypal psychiatrists, with regards to the 'unconscious' or the consciousness of the "self", are simply disregarded as being 'unscientific'; which they may very well be; but which does not mean that they are irrelevant to understanding the full range of human consciousness.

Similarly, for the consideration of the "observing consciousness", and such 'paranormal abilities' such as receiving memories of previous lives and Prophecies or predictions of the future.

The religionsists, on the other hand, say that "man was Created by God"; not questioning, of course, the consciousness of man at the very Moment of Creation, or whether that consciousness was the consciousness of the 'thinker', the consciousness of the "self", or another dimension of consciousness altogether.

More pointedly, neither the scientists nor the religionists are at all serious in discovering the truth about human consciousness.

Oh, by the way, "troll" is probably a lot better than "possessed by demons".

So, maybe some progress is being made after all.

Michael

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
Well i will start by saying that the big bang "theory" is just that "a theory".

Precisely.

Just because I have used the term "Big Bang" in my response does not mean that I believe that it is actually something that is real.

It is merely an heuristic device for continuing the conversation.

Michael

Was there space for the big-bang to take place into? Or did space come into excistance the moment the bang started. Space will than be an element like matter/energy which is also the result of a big-bang.

What about time..? Without time there is no change......if there was no time before the big-bang, the big-bang could never have happened.....therefore there must have been time before the big-bang...?

Originally posted by zatara
Was there space for the big-bang to take place into? Or did space come into excistance the moment the bang started. Space will than be an element like matter/energy which is also the result of a big-bang.

What about time..? Without time there is no change......if there was no time before the big-bang, the big-bang could never have happened.....therefore there must have been time before the big-bang...?

The "Big Bang" is a theory or a thought.

A thought originates in the consciousness of the 'thinker'.

What is the origin of the consciousness of the 'thinker'?

Is there any other dimension of consciousness besides the 'thinker' that 'thought' up the theory of the "Big Bang"?

Before there is any physical space, there must be the 'space' within which the consciousness exists that perceives that physical space.

And that 'space' of consciousness must be maintained from one moment to another or else it will collapse in upon itself. Thus, the thought of the 'thinker' creates the 'time' during which that 'spatial' consciousness exists. And this 'time' is then projected upon sensations and perceptions of duration and change in the physical reality.

Science does not want to deal with the origin of 'space', 'time' and consciousness.

Neither does religion.

That is the function of Revelation.

And what is considered in the Eastern esoteric traditions as well.

Michael

reply to post by Astyanax

Astyanax,

I really appreciated that eloquent reply.

I can understand the whole theory but then still, if singularities are fundamentally unstable than that would suggest that they are part of a......uhmmm....rhythm (seriously lacking an education here ). You know, from stable to unstable.....where does that motion come from?? Where lies the origin of this motion??

Or am I asking really stupid questions here??

Respect

My theory about the big bang is a sperm and egg met and it all grew from there.
We are inside a human body, that is inside a human body, that is inside a human body....
There are humans inside us, and humans inside them, etc, etc.

Who knows? It`s as feasible as the next theory.

reply to post by pazcat


I watched this last night, was a bit hard to get my head round all the different possibilities and I was left with a sense that no one really knows.

If the brightest brains on the planet dont know then I doubt anyone on ATS can give a definitive answer.

When speaking about something like the big bang it is important to understand that time is a quality of consciousness.

The Primacy of Consciousness
www.youtube.com...


However, just for fun maybe the other side of the "Big Bang" is the end of another Universe, or maybe a black hole.

reply to post by Cosmic4life

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
Well i will start by saying that the big bang "theory" is just that "a theory".

Oh dear sweetness, not again. I hear enough of this with evolution. In science, the word theory is used to describe something that has accurate predictions and plenty of supporting evidence. You're conflating the colloquial and technical versions of the term

Scientifically what you are stating is that you think it is merely a hypothesis.

There are other possibilities such as Inflation theory and Membrane theory to name but two.

Membrane or M theory doesn't conflict with Big Bang cosmology and is merely in its infancy, needing to be properly developed. It is still to be decided which astrophysical theory is going to come out on top.

As for chaotic inflation theory, it's hardly established and is essentially an extension of Big Bang cosmology.

The big bang theory is now pretty much on its last legs as a possibility due to the void in the background radiation images and the misdirected Galaxy flow in the optical images.

There is plenty of background radiation. In fact that is one of the supporting pieces of evidence, here's some info

The void is not in the center of our Universe and some Galaxies are moving in the wrong direction!

I'm sorry, but where does the Big Bang Theory (or BBT) predict the movement of galaxies? How do retrograde galaxies conflict with the BBT?

This would suggest the presence of other Universes or possibly areas of strong interactions with other Dimensions, as many as nine other dimensions all encompassed in the 11th temporal dimension.

11 dimensional spacetime doesn't conflict with the BBT.

I am sorry but this member denies the big bang...I prefer the big boing(Inflation)...or the big brane(Membrane).

I'm sorry, but you've made some outrightly false claims.


reply to post by Michael Cecil


I stopped reading at 'paranormal abilities'. That's not what O&C is about, take it to the paranormal forum.

As for consciousness, it comes from meat. Brain meat.
Absence of brain meat? Absence of consciousness.
Present of functioning brain meat? Presence of consciousness.

Obviously I've oversimplified things, but you get the gist. We don't have an exact way to pinpoint consciousness, but we know it's somewhere in the brain.

reply to post by zatara

Originally posted by zatara
Was there space for the big-bang to take place into? Or did space come into excistance the moment the bang started. Space will than be an element like matter/energy which is also the result of a big-bang.

No, it's a dimension. Think of it like taking a balloon and drawing out graphing lines, then inflating it. It isn't so much a thing as it is a possible location.

What about time..? Without time there is no change......if there was no time before the big-bang, the big-bang could never have happened.....therefore there must have been time before the big-bang...?

Well, that's the thing. The laws of physics prior to the Big Bang could have been radically different. As of right now there are plenty of physicists working on exactly this sort of stuff, but give them time it's really really hard.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


No, it really isn't as feasible as the next theory. It's untestable, non-predictive, and non-explanatory. It's not even a theory, it's a speculation

reply to post by Michael Cecil


Listen, you're in the wrong forum. We're not here to talk about paranormal mumbojumo that has nothing to do with science.

Have some scientific backings for your statements? Provide them.

If not, please leave or start discussing cosmology rather than faux-philosophy of mind.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

You used the word "consciousness".

What do you mean by that term?

You are, apparently, assuming that it can have only one meaning; that is, that there is only one dimension of consciousness.

That is contradicted first by Descartes in the opening passages of the Second Meditation; as well as by, especially, Jung and the archetypal analysts.

And what about the "observing consciousness" of the Eastern esoteric traditions?

Forget 'paranormal abilities'.

I am merely asking what you mean by the term "consciousness" itself.

Michael

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Oh, by the way, this is the Origins & Creationism Conspiracy forum.

What is the origin of consciousness?

(Notice any similarity to the title of the forum?)

Prolly not.

Michael

reply to post by Michael Cecil

Is it not strange that neither the scientists nor the religionists are at all interested in addressing the question of the origin of consciousness?

Start your own thread on the subject instead of barging off-topic into ours. If it's interesting enough, we'll join in.

You might want to get in touch with one of my friends, OnceReturned, who is also deeply interested in the origins of consciousness, though his ideas are not at all like yours.

Be seeing you around on the boards.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Michael Cecil

 

Is it not strange that neither the scientists nor the religionists are at all interested in addressing the question of the origin of consciousness?

Start your own thread on the subject instead of barging off-topic into ours. If it's interesting enough, we'll join in.

Threads do not 'belong' to people.

There is not 'my' thread and 'your' thread and 'their' thread.

There is a subject up for discussion that anyone can join.

I joined this discussion because of the issue of consciousness.

Michael