Where does it begin?

[A.L.P]

Where does it begin?

Nothing can't have always existed . It must have started some where. And if it did. How did it start. It couldn't have started from nothing but if there was something to start it where did that something start. no beginning is truly the beginning. There is always something before it. But what is the beginning before the beginning and what is the first beginning?

 

There can't be an answer to what that beginning is because nothing can be made from nothing so if there is already something then that is not the beginning. So what is the beginning?

 

~.A.L.P~

[Acme]

It begins in the end.

 

Oroboro

[A.L.P]

But the end couldn't have been made with out a beginning.

[Acme]

But the end couldn't have been made with out a beginning.

I'm not going to argue with you. You asked your philosophical question and I gave you my philosophical answer.

[StringJunky]

Something cannot come from nothing, hence, it was always thus.

[Eise]

A.L.P,

 

I think you should read about Kant's antinomies.

[Strange]

Nothing can't have always existed . It must have started some where.

 

Why?

 

It couldn't have started from nothing

 

Why not?

 

 

Your entire question seems to be based on two assumptions which may not be true.

 

Edited March 2, 2015 by Strange

[fiveworlds]

I call Occam's razor on that. The simplest explanation is always the best. We haven't the foggiest.

[A.L.P]

 

Why?

 

 

Why not?

 

 

Your entire question seems to be based on two assumptions which may not be true.

 

I'll use a book as an example. A book can't have been writer without a writer. A writer cannot write there book without being born. The writer could not have been born if his parents hadn't met.

Things always back track to a starting point.

[Strange]

I'll use a book as an example. A book can't have been writer without a writer. A writer cannot write there book without being born. The writer could not have been born if his parents hadn't met.

Things always back track to a starting point.

 

That might be true of books. One example doesn't prove anything.

 

That is like me saying: Swans can fly. Therefore all animals can fly. Look, there is a flying pig.

[Phi for All]

Things always back track to a starting point.

 

Even if this were true, our present knowledge only goes back to a split second after the universe expanded from a hot, dense state. We can't know what happened before that, and the energies are so incredible that even our guesses would have little meaning.

 

Personally, I think it's a waste of time trying to guess when everything began. Rational methodology tells me I shouldn't pretend to know what I can't possibly know. That's straying uncomfortably close to religion.

[StringJunky]

Up to now, I've rationalised it that if time started with the big bang then any idea of time - the order and rate things proceed - must be unknown prior to that. The idea of 'beginning' loses meaning because there was no temporal dimension, or even space. Time is relative to something and when the universe was in a state of high density and homogeneity, everything within it was instantaneously causally connected, so time was not a necessary condition. How long does take it for information to travel between atoms in a Bose-Enstein condensate? They behave as one don't they? I think the pre-BB universe had some sort of nature like this.

Edited March 4, 2015 by StringJunky

[Gees]

Phi for All;

 

Please consider:

 

Even if this were true, our present knowledge only goes back to a split second after the universe expanded from a hot, dense state. We can't know what happened before that, and the energies are so incredible that even our guesses would have little meaning.

 

Personally, I think it's a waste of time trying to guess when everything began. Rational methodology tells me I shouldn't pretend to know what I can't possibly know. That's straying uncomfortably close to religion.

 

Although I agree that guessing and pretending are not viable solutions, I do not agree that we "can't possibly know". Throughout human history there have been many things that we could not possibly know, until we learned them -- this is just another thing to learn.

 

Philosophy is the study of what we can know and how we can know it, or what is true and real. We can not go back to before the BB and witness the event, but if it is indeed true that time and space did not exist prior to that event, we do have some clues as to the idea of non-space and non-time.

 

 

 

StringJunky;

 

Your post is fascinating. I know almost nothing about science and had never heard that science considered the possibility that individual atoms could behave as one. Please consider my thoughts below and let me know if I am misunderstanding you.

 

Up to now, I've rationalised it that if time started with the big bang then any idea of time - the order and rate things proceed - must be unknown prior to that.

 

This would indicate that cause and effect, as we know it, would also be unknown prior to that event. I suspect that this is the "chaos" that the Ancients referred to that was supposed to be outside of our reality and understanding.

 

The idea of 'beginning' loses meaning because there was no temporal dimension, or even space. Time is relative to something and when the universe was in a state of high density and homogeneity, everything within it was instantaneously causally connected, so time was not a necessary condition.

 

This also aligns with the thinking in philosophy, regarding the snake that eats it's own tail, and in religion, regarding the 'God' that has no beginning and no end. It is my thought that the 'God' idea is interpreted and anthropomorphised, but it is the same understanding of timelessness. When three different disciplines with three different perspectives start to reach the same understanding, it is an indication to me that we are on a viable path.

 

How long does take it for information to travel between atoms in a Bose-Enstein [Einstein] condensate? They behave as one don't they? I think the pre-BB universe had some sort of nature like this.

 

This reminded me of Carl Jung's ideas about "oneness". Although I have not been able to study his work, I know that Jung studied psychology and the sub/unconscious aspect of mind. It is my understanding that his ideas of "oneness" relate to the unconscious.

 

For a long time the sub/unconscious aspect of mind was considered unknowable. It was made up of dreams and symbolism and made no sense. But Dr. Blanco, who studied with Anna Freud, defined levels in the unconscious, I think it was five levels, and also found a sort of logic in the unconscious aspect of mind. One simply has to remove time and space, cause and effect, in order to find the logic of the unconscious.

 

In the unconscious mind, if Mary is Jane's mother, then Jane is Mary's mother. It does not recognize time or cause and effect, and only recognizes relationships, which it understands as equal. This seems to be rather bizarre thinking, but if you consider that time is irrelevant to the unconscious, it begins to make sense. The unconscious aspect of mind understands things in relationships; such as, "wholeness", or "oneness", as same or different, and as self or other.

 

It is my thought that the sub/unconscious aspect of mind does not recognize time because it does not deal with time, or that it is not within time. So if anyone wanted to study the "nature" of the pre-BB universe, I would suggest starting with the study of the logic of the unconscious mind, as it is the only thing that I know of that has any understanding that is not dependent upon time and space.

 

Gee

 

[StringJunky]

...

StringJunky;

 

Your post is fascinating. I know almost nothing about science and had never heard that science considered the possibility that individual atoms could behave as one.

 

 

Phases of Matter

 

.....Bose-Einstein Condensates represent a fifth phase of matter beyond solids. They are less energetic than solids. We can also think of this as more organized than solids, or as colder -- BECs occur in the fractional micro-Kelvin range, less than millionths of a degree above absolute zero; in contrast, the vacuum of interstellar space averages a positively tropical 3 K. BECs are more ordered than solids in that their restrictions occur not on the molecular level but on the atomic level. Atoms in a solid are locked into roughly the same location in regard to the other atoms in the area. Atoms in a BEC are locked into all of the same attributes as each other; they are literally indistinguishable, in the same location and with the same attributes. When a BEC is visible, each part that one can see is the sum of portions of each atom, all behaving in the same way, rather than being the sum of atoms as in the other phases of matter. Read more>>>

 

 

 

 

This would indicate that cause and effect, as we know it, would also be unknown prior to that event. I

Yes, imo

 

 

When three different disciplines with three different perspectives start to reach the same understanding, it is an indication to me that we are on a viable path.

I'm airing my own thoughts here so I wouldn't call it as representative of the scientific consensus. But certainly, if my thoughts seem to align wth them that's fine. but science comes first ...as best as I can extrapolate with it from what I've learnt so far. I could easily change my mind tomorrow with new information

[hoola]

In the void was a default, irreducible bit of information that served as a seed. That there was "one nothing". Not 1/2 or 44 or 19 voids, as there can be no separate voids or separations within one. This theoretical single bit was an "impetus without form". Without logic to define that impetus, the void became chaotic (fragmented unstable theoretical values unable to make associations). Later developed a "freeze out"region of logic (randomly developing stable values allowing associations). With that logic a quasi-bit developed which inferred a geometric quasi reality via a dimensionless point, (the theoretical point becomes a quasi point). With the inferred geometry (as guided by logic structure) of that quasi point, the data stream of PI flowed, which led to all maths, and upon sufficient maturation, described the accumulated information (the hidden variables) from within that dimensionless quasi point sufficiently to become a real point (singlularity) with the big bang as the transition of when the quasi point was described in "real time" as a "real point"...

Edited March 5, 2015 by hoola

[Gees]

StringJunky;

 

I'm airing my own thoughts here so I wouldn't call it as representative of the scientific consensus. But certainly, if my thoughts seem to align with them that's fine. but science comes first ...as best as I can extrapolate with it from what I've learnt so far. I could easily change my mind tomorrow with new information

 

Don't worry. I am not going to go around telling everybody about a new theory because StringJunky said so. (chuckle) I change my mind a lot too -- that is what learning is all about.

 

Thank you for the link. I am not sure how much I will understand, but I will try.

 

No. No. Philosophy came first.

 

Gee

 

 

Hoola;

 

Your following quoted statements read like assertion. Is it a definition of "void" or "chaos"? Or maybe it is someone's theory, or your theory? I am probably showing my ignorance, but any kind of reference would be appreciated.

 

In the void was a default, irreducible bit of information that served as a seed. That there was "one nothing". Not 1/2 or 44 or 19 voids, as there can be no separate voids or separations within one. This theoretical single bit was an "impetus without form". Without logic to define that impetus, the void became chaotic (fragmented unstable theoretical values unable to make associations). Later developed a "freeze out"region of logic (randomly developing stable values allowing associations). With that logic a quasi-bit developed which inferred a geometric quasi reality via a dimensionless point, (the theoretical point becomes a quasi point). With the inferred geometry (as guided by logic structure) of that quasi point, the data stream of PI flowed, which led to all maths, and upon sufficient maturation, described the accumulated information (the hidden variables) from within that dimensionless quasi point sufficiently to become a real point (singlularity) with the big bang as the transition of when the quasi point was described in "real time" as a "real point"...

 

I have a problem with "Later developed a "freeze out" region of logic" and "With that logic a quasi-bit developed". My problem is that logic is linear and this logic seems to have developed prior to matter, so how could a linear "logic" exist prior to time and space?

 

Gee

[Finding the Elephant]

nothing, by definition, is nothing. Perhaps it is nothing that is impossible.

[hoola]

(Gees-the"freeze out" means that a region of less chaotic behavior will randomly occur within a region of maximum chaos.) The overall flow is an evolution of the entity "the point", from a theoretical point to a quasi point to actual point. My underlying modus is to describe the "why anything" question: how could something come from nothing? The nothing is the void, the something is our universe. In this model, which I call the IBH (informational black hole), going backwards from the today, we have the big bang as a "just push play" of the contents of the singularity. The contents of the singularity accrued from the endless string of algorithmic input from PI. PI gets it's specific value from the development of logic/quasi point. Logic arose within chaos as "a randomly occurring less chaotic region within chaos". Chaos arose as the void delivered it's "oneness" as a default virtual-bit, but logic and math were not yet available to serve as vehicle for that "impetus without form". Ongoing stages of development prior bang were the "impetus developing form", and the universe post bang as the "impetus with form"...How can something come from nothing? This is my way of exploring the question. The basic idea is from Wheeler/Tegmark and even an early greek philosopher, which states that from mathematics comes all things. If that is true, from what and where did mathematics come, and why does it have the structure that gives our universe it's structure and properties? My favorite idea is the default bit of virtual information being the "seed" that starts the ball rolling. Again, how many voids can exist? Only one...no other identifier can be allowed. If anyone else has a proposal of how something came from nothing, without a theistic impulse, and no steady-state, I would like to hear it...(Finding the elephant...you are right, there is no true nothing. If there was a true void, or nothing, there were no contents....exactly "1" nothing. That 1 is the default minimum informational state of a void...does that make any sense to you?) The problem at the time of the void was there was no mathematics to describe that 1, as there were no numbers (yet). The impetus began the stages to configure that identifier into a proper digit with the chaos > logic > math/geometry. Once the basis of math was secure, the geometry of the simplest theoretical physical "thing" or the point was possible as a concept. What is this point but a dimensionless sphere, which has the same diameter/circumference ratio of any sphere, giving the endless factoring of PI. These digits form the "hidden variables" that the bell's theorem exclude from this universe. That is because they existed before the bang, hence their in-acsessable nature, but the mathematical "great attractors" describe the fundamentals of a working, logical, durable physical reality...so these prodigious digits develop within the dimensionless theoretical point until the "informational black hole" develops. This has enough descriptive "weight" to become actualized as a real point, which translates into a singularity containing all the information of the endless algorithm of PI. This scenario describes the common genesis of geometry (the point) and the quantum (individual numbers) being generated by mathematical extrapolation of that spherical point. The particular outcome that describes this has qualities of outcome based upon the underlying logic. The logic froze out of the chaos as a function of less chaos within max. chaos. The chaos could have various regions of "less than max. chaos", and develop discrete universes with differing fundamentals based upon the various forms of logic possible in the overall chaos structure. The differing logic structures would form different math/geometries, differing values of PI, which develops differing "mathematical great attractors", or fundamental principles in a given universe...I could go on to describe our IBH as composed of logical information and illogical information. The logical component does the work of actual reality, and the illogical component (hidden illogical variables) are safely within the IBH structure. It does seem that this "firewall" exclusion of illogic can be breached by a recent development within this universe, that is sentience. This gives an upper limit to free will, and to what a sentient being can imagine in any fashion. We cannot imagine anything that is not already described within the IBH (of either logic or illogic), unless described mathematically before the universe came into physical existence...nothing is invented by a sentient being, only discovered...I see this firewall breach as a possible reason that the aliens haven't shown up. All sentient beings must be tested for "durability" once their intellect allows illogical behaviors to possibly overwhelm their logic based collective behaviors.

Edited March 5, 2015 by hoola

[Phi for All]

Phi for All;

 

Please consider:

 

 

Although I agree that guessing and pretending are not viable solutions, I do not agree that we "can't possibly know". Throughout human history there have been many things that we could not possibly know, until we learned them -- this is just another thing to learn.

 

Philosophy is the study of what we can know and how we can know it, or what is true and real. We can not go back to before the BB and witness the event, but if it is indeed true that time and space did not exist prior to that event, we do have some clues as to the idea of non-space and non-time.

 

It's not about the need to witness the event. It's about the fact that the energies and densities involved are so incredibly huge that we have no way to work through them.

 

In science, an explanation needs to be falsifiable, it needs to be capable of being false. We don't know what was going on at T=0, and since everything we understand began at that moment, the speculation as to what was happening before isn't falsifiable. So there is a difference between "what it's possible to know" and "what we can't possibly know".

 

The existence of god(s) is a good example too. Since none of the gods allows themselves to be observed directly, there's no way we can possibly know that they exist. We can't set up an experiment to prove it or falsify it. It's unfalsifiable, and therefore not in the purview of science.

[StringJunky]

 

It's not about the need to witness the event. It's about the fact that the energies and densities involved are so incredibly huge that we have no way to work through them.

 

In science, an explanation needs to be falsifiable, it needs to be capable of being false. We don't know what was going on at T=0, and since everything we understand began at that moment, the speculation as to what was happening before isn't falsifiable. So there is a difference between "what it's possible to know" and "what we can't possibly know".

I agree. Without data there is no point dwelling on what it might be at T=0 and before.. All I wanted to do was try and satisfy the conundrum of an eternal universe and time starting at T=0. Until researchers come up with some scientifically satisfying ideas I don't feel conflicted looking at the problem like that. I mentioned. earlier.

[Gees]

Phi for All;

 

Please consider my following thoughts.

 

It's not about the need to witness the event. It's about the fact that the energies and densities involved are so incredibly huge that we have no way to work through them.

 

It is not always necessary to go "through" something to learn what is on the other side. If you will read my statement carefully, you will note the words "before" and "prior", as I was not referring to the event, but to the nature of reality before the event.

 

In science, an explanation needs to be falsifiable, it needs to be capable of being false. We don't know what was going on at T=0, and since everything we understand began at that moment, the speculation as to what was happening before isn't falsifiable. So there is a difference between "what it's possible to know" and "what we can't possibly know".

I have no doubt that everything, regarding science, that you state in the above quote is true, but what I stated was "Philosophy is the study of". I did not state anything about science being the study of knowledge, because it would not be true. Science studies facts; philosophy studies what we can know and how we know it. Slight difference, but relevant.

So when philosophy finally comes up with an "explanation", science can have a good time testing, proving, or falsifying it.

But this is a difficult problem, so give us a few weeks. (Yes. That was a joke.)

The existence of god(s) is a good example too. Since none of the gods allows themselves to be observed directly, there's no way we can possibly know that they exist. We can't set up an experiment to prove it or falsify it. It's unfalsifiable, and therefore not in the purview of science.

 

The concept of god(s) is so fraught with ignorance that it is mind boggling to me. I have rarely found a person, who is informed and intelligent enough to even discuss this subject, and that goes for believers and nonbelievers alike. They don't even know what they are talking about.

 

So if you want to discuss the existence of god(s), I would suggest doing it in another thread, as it will take this thread off topic.

 

I want to take some time to study voids, chaos, and the link that was provided before responding to hoola. I expect that our discussion is over as you do not seem interested in the current topic.

 

Gee

[StringJunky]

(Gees-the"freeze out" means that a region< SNIP> behaviors to possibly overwhelm their logic based collective behaviors.

Have you just randomly cut and pasted and just stuck sentences together? Utter *codswallop hoola. And you've done it as a wall-of-text; you've got nearly 500 posts, so should surely know this is really annoying and a sure way not to have it read properly. Minus 1.

 

*insert stronger words

[Dr. Funkenstein]

E=MC^{2 divided by} QM (Theory) in 5D= E x cold% = 1. It can't be zero. In the absence of E what accounts for non E (Dark matter).

[1x0]

It started from nothing. It have stared from the physical zero state which is a space time energy matter information free nothing.

 

I think the exponential evolution of space and the linear information about it point´s to a zero state origin.

 

I also think that information/intelligence had been the first step of evolution. The smallest physical(metaphysical) value in proportion to zero.

 

Note that nothing(zero) is a conception ever since anything exist.

 

Note that the physical zero state is a common reference point for physics, mathematics and philosophy

Edited March 7, 2015 by 1x0

[hoola]

there was a default, irreducable bit of proto information that acted as the seed, given a "true void" environment...not only this was this ideal state required for the genesis, but the expression of accumulated information needed a same environment to proceed with the big bang, hence the contamination was necessarily sequestered within an inescapable boundary, that of the information black hole...so the original "virtual particle pair" was allowed to describe it's maximum energy as it existed as the only thing in the universe at the time exterior to the IBH. This was no special pair, just the first expression. Any true void (no atmosphere of virtual particles) occurring within a macroscopic region and sufficient duration will cause at least a preliminary reaction, perhaps some small fraction of the gamma ray bursters in an existing universe...