What happened BEFORE the big bang?

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Science has no scientific basis.

It is founded on metaphysical assumptions which cannot be proven.

You might want to read Karl Popper.

But prolly not.

Michael

You mean the book that I actually have on my shelf?

Science has a rational basis. It has testable applications and testable predictions. You're just tossing out idle speculation as something on par with theories that are predictive and applicable.

You are speculating. That is all you are doing. You are exercising absolutely no level of logic nor are you putting forth testable claims and evidence.

Originally posted by Jezus
Ironically some people would say that the "issue of consciousness" has everything to do with the origin of the physical cosmos that we are experiencing.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
These people wouldn't be scientists.

Originally posted by Jezus
Don't be ridiculous. Many scientists understand the primacy of consciousness.

Madnessinmysoul is not being ridiculous. Who, pray, are these scientists?

Let's not dispute that, from a certain philosophical standpoint, consciousness is primary. This is because it appears to precede all other sensory inputs, experiences, whatever. Taking this view, you may insist that consciousness must be explained before anything else can be. Fair enough.

But in real life, things are different. I don't need to explain consciousness to understand how to tune my guitar, drive my car, or differentiate a function. And I don't need to explain consciousness in order to discuss the physical origins of the universe. To attempt to do so in such a context would be--yes--ridiculous.

The world of knowledge is divided up into subjects. Do you understand this? Do you understand why?

This thread is a discussion on a very, very specific topic: what happened before the Big Bang? If you have a view on that issue, scientific or otherwise, join the discussion and welcome. Be prepared to show how your views can be derived from what is known, rather than what is merely speculated upon. Be prepared to elaborate upon and defend your views and their derivation.

But if you want to discuss such questions as what knowledge is, or how we come by it, or whether it can be trusted, and all the rest of that stuff, please do it on a thread in the Philosophy forum, not in this one. Here, we're taking all that stuff for granted in order to discuss the specific thing we're interested in: what happened before the Big Bang.

And now, if you don't mind, I'd like to return to the topic.

Did a bit more thinking and research about this.

For starters, given an infinite amount of time, anything that can happen will already have happened, for if a physical process is likely to occur with a certain nonzero probability-however small-then given an infinite amount of time the process must occur, with probability one.

This comes from a very interesting article covering this theory.

Well, I didn't promise to provide the answers to life, the universe, and everything, but I have at least given a plausible answer to the question I started out with: What happened before the big bang? The answer is: nothing

Even though it is a very well put together article, I still can't totally agree with the conclusion the Proffessor comes up with. It is just to simple an answer. For me even a theory such as the ones discussed here, would be a better answer than just nothing.

I still cling to the theory of universes, collapsing, then expanding and creating a new one. This has happenned who knows how many times before our universe came into being, and who knows how many times it will still happen after we are gone.

Yes, space is expanding, but it will come to a point where there is simply not enough matter to sustain it. Dark matter and dark energy are two different things. They both infleunce our universe.

VvV

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

You are speculating. That is all you are doing. You are exercising absolutely no level of logic nor are you putting forth testable claims and evidence.

Perhaps a 'thought experiment' would help.

But prolly not:

You are on a moving train and you drop a ball. To you, the path of the ball is always along a line perpendicular to the floor of the moving train; the reason being that you, the ball, and the train are all moving at the same constant speed. And, if you do that ten thousand times, you will never perceive the path of the ball as being anything different.

But I am standing in the train station. When you drop the ball, I see that path as being a curved line to the floor of the train. You, the train and the ball are all moving at the same constant speed. But, in the time that it takes the ball to hit the floor of the train, the ball, the train, and you have moved dozens of feet along the "x" axis.

This is something that you cannot observe because you are moving with the train while I am standing still.

I call you on my cell phone and describe the path of the ball.

You accuse me of speculating or imagining a curved path because all you can see is a straight line.

Translation: I am not speculating; although you 'think' that I am.

I am observing this situation from a different dimension of consciousness.

You, on the moving train, represent the consciousness of the 'thinker'.

Anyone in the train station represents the "observing consciousness".

It's really a no-brainer.

Michael

reply to post by Astyanax

Look, Sir.

When you are talking about the "Big Bang", you are talking about, literally, the origin of everything.

Everything.

So, you cannot then say that the subject of consciousness should not be considered because it is "off topic".

What happened before the "Big Bang"?

The "Big Bang" is a theory or hypothesis or whatever.

The physicist was 'thinking' of what he was going to have for supper.

I don't know.

The same goes for what has been described as the TOE (the Theory of Everything).

After I read it, I concluded that it should be called TOE...BC (BC referring not to "before Christ"; but, rather, "but consciousness").

This categorical refusal of the scientific method to consider consciousness as being in any way relevant to the description of the physical reality has resulted in a civilization which is on the very brink of self-annihilation.

What is the reason for this?

Freud referred to it as the "death instinct".

This is something that originates in both the consciousness of the "self" and the consciousness of the 'thinker'.

And, if this 'slight problem' is not resolved--and fairly quickly--there will be no one left alive to speculate about what happened before the "Big Bang" anyway.

But I suspect that, to you, this is prolly not relevant.

Michael

reply to post by Astyanax

Oh, by the way, Astyanax:

I have suspected from the very beginning that it is no mere coincidence that you have chosen to represent yourself on this discussion group with the picture of a scorpion--which, I must admit, is the ugliest representation I have see on ATS.

In the Revelation of John, the opening of the Fifth Seal--never mind; you would neither believe nor understand anything I was saying were I to explain it to you--results in the unleashing of armies of demons which are described as "locusts which were given the power that scorpions have on earth".

"Locusts" are an "air" symbol signifying thoughts; whereas the "scorpion sting" of these thoughts refers to their psychological origin in fear and desire which establishes the structure of both the "self" and the 'thinker'. In other words, the closest approximation to the meaning of these "scorpion stings" would be the thoughts, assertions, etc. originating in the metaphysical duality.

Of course, you had no way of knowing that I eat scorpions, alive, for breakfast.

I really enjoy the crunching sound that they make when I chew them.

And their dying stings tickle the back of my throat when I swallow them.

They have a sort of bitter taste.

But, hey, life is not perfect.

Michael

reply to post by Michael Cecil

Oh, by the way, Astyanax:

I have suspected from the very beginning that it is no mere coincidence that you have chosen to represent yourself on this discussion group with the picture of a scorpion--which, I must admit, is the ugliest representation I have see on ATS.

In the Revelation of John, blah blah blah blah blether blether blether blether...

My avatar is an artist's impression of an Epidexipteryx.

You've well and truly murdered this thread, haven't you?

Look, Sir.

Your argument, as I understand it, is that no consciousness at all--not even the 3-dimensional 'curved' space, dualistic, 'fallen' consciousness, "maya" consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker'--emerged with the "Big Bang".

This, to my understanding, transforms the "Big Bang" into a Black Hole, or, maybe The Abyss of Revelations 9:11 (interesting synchronicity, huh? Synchronicity...C.G. Jung....oh, never mind)...

In which case you appear to be 'channeling' the Angel of the Abyss.

Originally posted by Astyanax

My avatar is an artist's impression of an Epidexipteryx.

Oops.

Truth be told, I had no idea at all what that critter was.

It was only after I read what you had written that it began to look more and more like a scorpion.

In any case, your arguments sound like the arguments of a "scorpion".

You've well and truly murdered this thread, haven't you?

Can threads be murdered?

I did not know that.

So, anyway, can they be raised from the dead...to another life?

Just wondering.

Michael

reply to post by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Translation: I am not speculating; although you 'think' that I am.

I am observing this situation from a different dimension of consciousness.

You, on the moving train, represent the consciousness of the 'thinker'.

Anyone in the train station represents the "observing consciousness".

It's really a no-brainer.

Yep, the no-brainer being that you simply claim to have an exclusive view on things that is somehow superior to my own, which is ridiculous and unfounded and off topic.

reply to post by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Look, Sir.

When you are talking about the "Big Bang", you are talking about, literally, the origin of everything.

Everything.

So, you cannot then say that the subject of consciousness should not be considered because it is "off topic".

Then I might as well add something interesting to this discussion and share a lovely recipe for New England style clam chowder because clam chowder falls under the category of 'everything'

As for your general comments about consciousness somehow being intrinsic in the structure of the universe, they're incredibly ridiculous. As far as we can see consciousness comes from brain meat. Delicious delicious brain meat...I guess I'm getting into the Halloween spirit already.

Want to talk about consciousness more? Start a thread about it, stop coming into random threads to talk about it.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by Jezus
Ironically some people would say that the "issue of consciousness" has everything to do with the origin of the physical cosmos that we are experiencing.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
These people wouldn't be scientists.

Originally posted by Jezus
Don't be ridiculous. Many scientists understand the primacy of consciousness.

Madnessinmysoul is not being ridiculous. Who, pray, are these scientists?

It is absolutely ridiculous to say that "no scientists" understand the primacy of consciousness.

And again, when discussing our perception of the beginning of this reality it is certainly a factor.

The "Big Bang" is a concept; it only makes sense in relation to the origin of consciousness itself.


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

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

As for your general comments about consciousness somehow being intrinsic in the structure of the universe, they're incredibly ridiculous.

Well, at least you have put your finger directly on the problem:

The metaphysical duality assumes a fundamental separation between consciousness and the physical reality.

That separation cannot be proven; it is merely assumed.

The metaphysical duality underlies the entire scientific method; which also cannot be proven as the only frame of reference for the description of reality.

(I know poets and song-writers and novelists who are much better at describing both consciousness and reality than any scientist.)

Which is why the scientific method cannot completely explain consciousness

Every hear of Occam's Razor?

Prolly not.

And why, by the way, is there 'madness in your soul'?

Sounds like a personal problem to me.

Why project your merely personal problems--for example, the duality of your consciousness--upon the physical reality?

Michael

reply to post by Michael Cecil


Well this thread sure got way off topic huh?

I think Micheal did raise a relevant point, where did consciousness come from in regards to the Big Bang theory? Although one may say that consciousness is nothing more than a 'side effect' of evolution, how was 'thought' created out of mere energy and matter? In order to concretely delve deeper into this, we must first define what 'thought' is. Modern science says it is a set of internal chemical reactions determined by external environmental factors. Somewhat similarly, Buddhism describes thought as a set of interdependent conditions compounded into a codependent whole. However, many other philosophy's and religions have gave a much more metaphysical explanation, stating that thought is what created our universe. So is our minds an after effect of creation, or is it creation itself? If we choose the latter than we must be faced with an unscientific explanation, but that does not mean it is nessecarily wrong.

Also Micheal: I have noticed you have frequently referred to the term 'Maya' as the Buddhist meaning for illusion. It is not. You may be referring to the term 'Mara' which is what Buddha Gautama labeled as the demon who brought forth illusions in his mind to block him from reaching nirvana. However 'Maya' is known in Hinduism as the sanskrit term for illusion. Maya was also the name of Buddha's mother, so maybe that is where you got mixed up.

Anyways, carry on! It is a most interesting read, besides all the ad-hom bickering.

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
Did a bit more thinking and research about this.

For starters, given an infinite amount of time, anything that can happen will already have happened, for if a physical process is likely to occur with a certain nonzero probability-however small-then given an infinite amount of time the process must occur, with probability one.

This comes from a very interesting article covering this theory.

Well, I didn't promise to provide the answers to life, the universe, and everything, but I have at least given a plausible answer to the question I started out with: What happened before the big bang? The answer is: nothing

Even though it is a very well put together article, I still can't totally agree with the conclusion the Proffessor comes up with. It is just to simple an answer. For me even a theory such as the ones discussed here, would be a better answer than just nothing.

I still cling to the theory of universes, collapsing, then expanding and creating a new one. This has happenned who knows how many times before our universe came into being, and who knows how many times it will still happen after we are gone.

Yes, space is expanding, but it will come to a point where there is simply not enough matter to sustain it. Dark matter and dark energy are two different things. They both infleunce our universe.

VvV

Please read this post. It is an attempt to get the thread back on topic.

Cecil. I do appreciate you posting here, it is always full of insight. However, I do think that you might have strayed a bit far off topic. The theory of the big bang, and what happened before it, is a hard one to explain or to ponder about. I wanted to hear peoples different theories on the subject, and not if it was the start of conciousness. That is a whole new area that may be discussed in a seperate thread.

I have read a lot of your posts, cecil, and you do seem to have a vast knowledge about phylosiphy. Alas, this thread was not intended to be about phylosiphy. You might argue that the whole topic is a philosphy, and it very well might be, but, it does have some grounds in science.

Using your own logic, the anology about a train and a thinker. You seem to be able to apply this methaphor to everything. I don't think it is completely relevent here. It might be, but it was not my intention to discuss that at this point.

Sorry for the rant, just want to get back on topic.

VvV

reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

I still cling to the theory of universes, collapsing, then expanding and creating a new one. This has happened who knows how many times before our universe came into being, and who knows how many times it will still happen after we are gone.

Well, it's conceivable. Or maybe there is a 'parent' universe from which the one we live in somehow 'budded off'. We can work out the maths for it, just like we can for cyclic universes, multiple simultaneous worlds, oscillating antiverses and a whole bunch of other possibilities, some of which have been explained in this thread already. There are concepts of spacetime in which time is not somehow different from the other dimensions (it seems different to us, because we aren't free to move as we like along it, as we are in the other three we perceive) and which different times can be treated mathematically just like different places. Still other theoretical universes are based on the concept of two-dimensional time. That one seriously makes my brain meat hurt.

All these universes are, well 'possible'. I use the quotes because all we mean by 'possible' is that the mathematics and the physics don't seem to forbid it: the sums work out. That doesn't necessarily mean they could or do exist. These are universes of the mind, and human understanding is limited.

None of them can be proved, because that merciless chokepoint, that strangler of narratives in space and time--the singularity--breaks every chain of cause and effect that passes through it. Inside the singularity, anything can happen because there are no laws to prevent it happening. Or rather, no laws we know of. Who knows what goes on inside a singularity?

Originally posted by AstyanaxWho knows what goes on inside a singularity?

The universal consciousness??........

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Peace

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

Please read this post. It is an attempt to get the thread back on topic.

Cecil.

Not my name.

I do appreciate you posting here, it is always full of insight. However, I do think that you might have strayed a bit far off topic. The theory of the big bang, and what happened before it, is a hard one to explain or to ponder about. I wanted to hear peoples different theories on the subject, and not if it was the start of conciousness.

Of course you do not want to hear about whether it is the start of consciousness.

The consciousness of the 'thinker' is concerned exclusively about its own self-preservation; and even contemplating that there was a 'time' when the consciousness of the 'thinker' did not exist--that there was a time when the consciousness of the 'thinker' actually started--constitutes a serious threat to that consciousness. (Thus, it is required to project thought upon the 'time' before thought.) This is the implication of the opening passages of the Second Meditation of Descartes.

That is a whole new area that may be discussed in a seperate thread.

Which merely repeats the error of the metaphysical duality which separates consciousness from the physical universe.

I have read a lot of your posts, cecil,

NOT my name.

and you do seem to have a vast knowledge about phylosiphy. Alas, this thread was not intended to be about phylosiphy. You might argue that the whole topic is a philosphy, and it very well might be, but, it does have some grounds in science.

Science used to be called "natural philosophy" until it got into mathematical constructs which can neither be validated nor contradicted by observation; like "string theory".

Using your own logic, the anology about a train and a thinker. You seem to be able to apply this methaphor to everything. I don't think it is completely relevent here.

Of course you don't. I realize that. That is what the consciousness of the 'thinker' would be expected to say.

It sees the path of the ball as being a line perpendicular to the floor of the train.

Any other description of the path of the ball--for example, by someone in the train station--is "not completely relevant here."

That is the definition of the problem.

Science assumes that it is--from Relativity Theory--an inertial frame of reference (in terms of consciousness) for the description of the physical/conscious reality.

But any description of the physical/conscious reality is relative--and pertains only--to the specific frame of reference in terms of consciousness.

The 'thinker' is one frame of reference in terms of consciousness; those in psychiatric wards have a completely different, and contradictory, frame of reference in terms of consciousness; and the "observing consciousness" is still another dimension of consciousness.

It might be, but it was not my intention to discuss that at this point.

I appreciate that.

So you are not involved in this particular aspect of the discussion

Sorry for the rant, just want to get back on topic.

I don't consider it any rant.

It is merely an explanation that you prefer to describe the path of the ball as being only along a straight line...

Which means, essentially, that you must completely deny the reality of the people in the train station and their description of the path of the ball.

But it is an instance of asymmetric warfare.

Because those in the train station do not deny your description of the path of the ball at all.

They merely deny that it is the ONLY description.

Michael

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
I just spent quite a while searching this. I saw there was alot of threads covering the big bang, and how it never happenned or where the material came from for the big bang to happen. But what happened before the big bang?
Was there anything, or nothing? Did everything just suddenly pop up?

Me, personally, don't subscribe to any preset rule for how the whole universe came into exsistense. I understand that alot of discussions about the subject matter is mostly theory. So I will now give my personal theory, if I may.

I believe there might have been a big bang. I further believe that there has been many big bangs happenning since even before the beginning of time. Our universe came into life via the big bang. And I believe it will end via a big bang.

And after us, there will be another big bang, creating another new universe. It is an endless cycle, going on forever, into infinity. Whole universis being created and collapsed the whole time.

So in a nutshell, my theory: Before the big bang, there was another universe, it collapsed, via a big bang, a "new" big bang happened and our universe was created.

For all we know there might have been many many big bangs happening,

Please give me your ideas and theories, will be greatly appreciated. Let's have a discussion about the topic.


VVV

I always imagine the universe as expanding to a "breaking" point, then back to nothing, then bang,"break", bang, "break", bang, etc.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
I always imagine the universe as expanding to a "breaking" point, then back to nothing, then bang,"break", bang, "break", bang, etc.

Are you at all aware that this kind of thought merely follows the template set out previously by the 'movement' of self-reflection in the creation of the "self"; that is, the consciousness which exists prior to the consciousness of the 'thinker'?

In other words, the 'movement' of self-reflection instantly creates the 'space' within which the consciousness of the "self" exists as different from both other "selves" and the physical reality; then, that "self" completely collapses once it is consumed in one kind of an experience or another. This alternation of an "inflation" of the conscious 'space' and, then, a "collapse" of the conscious 'space' is then projected upon--and asserted as an explanation for the origin of--the 3-dimensional 'curved' space/time reality.

The 'problem' with the opening passages of the Second Meditation of Descartes is the expression of a fear that the conscious 'space' itself is facing an absolute, timeless, and irrversible annihilation.

This is what the postulation of the thought of the 'thinker' is all about: an escape from the collapse of the conscious 'space' by extending that 'space' in 'time' with the thought of the 'thinker'--which is not capable of collapsing.

Thus, thoughts cannot be synthetically separated from the consciousness in which those thoughts originate.

Michael

My responses are in Bold

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

Originally posted by arpgme
Since the universe is space and time itself, it's safe to amuse that nothing existed before the big bang. Then one day it expanded (big bang) and then everything was created. This energy is eternal and it is basically light and some type of heat/gas.

But the universe, as we know it, is more then just space and time. Matter, Energy etc, are all included in the formula.

So if nothing exsisted before the big bang, how did it expand? How does "nothing" expand? Does it become more nothingness?

The universe isn't nothingness and it never was. It was compressed energy and when the big bang happened, it expanded.

Before you say "If it's eternal, why would it just expand automatically?", Let me reply now: My theory is that the universe is eternally expanding AND compressing. It does one and then the other eternally.

I am sorry, but I still hold to the believe that before the big bang, several other universes exsisted. We are living in but one of many universes. I would now even venture onto the subject of parallell universes. I believe that the parallell universes, are basically all these previous universes that existed before ours. The energy of those collapsed universes still linger, as a parrallell universe to our own.

That's nonsensical. If the universe is everything in existence, how can there be another universe? You can have more than everything, that's illogical.

Think about it a bit before shooting me down. I know that all we are doing is speculating, but I find it interesting to see what different minds come up with.

I am suggesting that the parallel universe are former universes that collapsed just before our universe was born. I don't know if Majestic might agree, but this might tie in with his expanding universe theory. In that case the parallel universe, is merely an overlay of another universe. But if that is the case, no two universes can exist in the same time space continium. Therefore I believe that a parallell universe is merely the risidual energy from a previous collapsed universe, existing within our sphere of reality.

If it's outside of the space/time continum then it doesn't exist. You can say "probably on a higher deminsion" but whether it's a 5th deminision or higher it will still have to include the other 4 deminisions (length/height/width/time).

If I told you I had a box at location 1x1 (Space) NOW (time), and you looked and it wasn't there, you'd probably say "Where is it?", then I would say oh... it's not in this space or time, you'll say well the box doesn't exist here and now then! Duh! And you'll probably think I'm crazy. Now you could argue that the box is invisible but where or not that's true it'll still be in that space and time, just invisible
VVv

Originally posted by orangutang
reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

 

this is a post about nothing!
so why even debate it?

the big bang theory is a hypothisis formulated by scientists of limited intelligence. not all scientists agree with it.

when these theorys are bandied around long enough with the right publicity, they take on an imagined sense of rightness, just like moslems and 911, or black holes.

all the above are fiction accepted as real by the sheeple.

Why debate it? Why are you alive? Go somewhere else with your ignorant replies plz.

That being said, thought I'd put my 2 cents in. I've always like the idea of multiple universes. How they are created no one knows but the other side of a black hole which is I believe called a white hole? Lol I could be wrong but it does the opposite of sucking everything in and shoots it out. Sounds like a big bang.