Where does it begin?

[Phi for All]

Phi for All;

 

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 would suggest you read my post again. I brought up god(s) as an example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis, not as an alternative topic. And it still applies to this question. If philosophy can't answer this question, science won't even touch it until there's a way to refute it.

[Gees]

Tx0;

 

Please consider my following thoughts.

 

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.

 

The problem is that I don't see how "nothing" can actually exist. There can be a concept of nothing, but it is an abstract concept that has no base in reality. There was a time when we thought that a cup, without coffee in it, was empty -- there was nothing in it -- but we now know that there is at least air in it. There was a time when we thought that space was mostly empty with nothing in it, but we are learning that this idea was also wrong.

 

So when we say that there is "nothing" there, what we are really saying is that the things we expect to be "there" are missing or lacking. It does not imply that nothing is a state of reality.

 

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

 

Well I don't know much about physics, but the "physical zero" was introduced to us and math sometime in the Middle Ages. I remember reading about the Crusaders, who came back from the Middle East with the idea of "zero". There was a huge debate about the ungodliness of "zero" in Europe, as God created everything -- not nothing. I am not sure if the Europeans were more upset about the ungodliness of zero, or if they were just ticked off to find that the "heathens" were actually smarter than they were, but it was fun reading. The zero was eventually accepted, and math changed forever advancing at incredible speed.

 

I doubt that even the concept of "zero" came from nothing, and think that it came from the abacus. According to my encyclopedia set, the abacus was invented by the Romans, as they would use stones in the sand as place holders to do their math, but I doubt this. The Romans were well noted for adopting and adapting other peoples' ideas, as they were great managers. In the Far East, the abacus is still used today to teach math to children, and it started as beads set on a reed to hold a number while counting. I suspect this is the origin of the abacus. If you consider that zero is just a placeholder, and consider that a written zero looks very much like a bead (or a stone), it becomes a feasible idea that zero originated in the East, and originated as something.

 

I am not sure why you think that zero is a "common reference point" in philosophy, but would appreciate a reference so that I can study it. For myself, I do not consider zero as a starting point in philosophy as that would deny the negative. I think of = as a starting point and an ending point.

 

Consider this thought experiment:

 

Take a plain white sheet of paper (nothing on it) and draw a circle on the paper. Now consider that although you have drawn only one thing, the circle, you have created three things, the circle, the inside and the outside. If there was nothing on the paper, then where did the inside and outside come from?

 

You might think that "inside" and "outside" are just abstract concepts like "nothing", but this is not true. Even a dog understands the concepts of inside and outside, especially if it is raining, but a dog can not understand an abstract idea like nothing as having any reality. Inside and outside are parts of each other, are innate understandings, and relate to each other as a whole; nothing relates to nothing but itself, as it is not part of any whole, which is because nothing does not have any reality.

 

The more I learn, the more convinced I become that reality is holistic in it's nature. From life and ecosystems to forces and photons, everything seems to work in patterns and cycles, and I suspect that it all relates to the whole. Holistically speaking, a beginning is just a sign that an end has come, and an ending is the prelude to a beginning. Everything cycles, so we are living in a linear universe that is dependent upon a holistic reality. Life is interesting.

 

In my opinion

 

Gee

 

 

 

 

I would suggest you read my post again. I brought up god(s) as an example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis, not as an alternative topic. And it still applies to this question. If philosophy can't answer this question, science won't even touch it until there's a way to refute it.

 

My apologies for misunderstanding your reasoning.

 

Gee

[Strange]

The problem is that I don't see how "nothing" can actually exist. There can be a concept of nothing, but it is an abstract concept that has no base in reality. There was a time when we thought that a cup, without coffee in it, was empty -- there was nothing in it -- but we now know that there is at least air in it. There was a time when we thought that space was mostly empty with nothing in it, but we are learning that this idea was also wrong.

 

In the classical view, the expanding universe can be tracked back to a point of zero size. This, I assume, is where the "something from nothing" myth comes from.

 

You are correct that "nothing" is impossible in our universe, but it can be useful to consider it as a theoretical model. The various "vacuum solutions" to the equations of GR, for example, can tell us interesting things about how space-time behave. (For example, even an empyy universe will expand.)

[1x0]

It begins in the end.

 

There is just one beginning. It must be a very delicate one. There might be an awful lot of cyclic events. (big bang(s)?)

 

I wonder can states and values disappear as they once were? Can they evolve?

 

I wonder can nothing be everything? I mean if it is true as Strange said that we can follow the origin to a point zero size why can not we follow it to a total physical zero state. Assume that the Universe could have evolved from nothing. The question will be which steps the Universe have started with. An other question is does the state of nothing still exist at the edge of the universe? The edge of information or basic intelligence filled space and nothing. (I assume here that space is a different dimension as energy/matter)

 

Can nothing be everything? I mean if we assume that the universe have started from nothing (or infinitely small) it means that actually the whole system we inspect actually is nothing or more it exist in relation to nothing. I mean like all physically inspectible value already operated with all physical(mathematical) operation possible with nothing. But how can that be? 0=1 ? Can the question be: where we inspect the system from? Can we make sense of everything if we give that two value theirs actual properties?

 

0= space (time) energy (matter) information free nothing

1= information space energy matter filled everything

 

Everything exist in proportion to nothing. All operation ever could happen in this system gives this One. Energy can not disappear from the system but as space can be created can energy be created too? Or not? I mean space´s expansion accelerate, the gravitational constant is stabil. Does that not mean that energy and so matter and mass is increasing too? Can 1 as discribed up there be an actually increasing reference point (if we inspect it from the exponentionally increasing amount of fractals in the system´s point of view) ?

 

It feels like the Universe is evolving and not "just" changing and reorganizing energy.

 

We can not say for sure how the beginning have happened but at least we can play with the thought of nothing.

 

In proportion to nothing the observed value or information is clear.

Edited March 10, 2015 by 1x0

[Strange]

I mean if it is true as Strange said that we can follow the origin to a point zero size

 

I didn't say that. I strongly disagree with that statement.

 

It feels like the Universe is evolving

 

It is: this is known as the "big bang" theory.

[1x0]

 

I didn't say that. I strongly disagree with that statement.

 

My bad Strange. I see you have said "in the classical view".

 

Then what is your current understanding Strange? If it is not from nothing then where is it from? Can you say this is the origin if there is anything? (I guess this is more a philosopical question than a physical one)

 

How fast empty space expands you think?

[Strange]

Then what is your current understanding Strange? If it is not from nothing then where is it from?

 

We don't know.

 

How fast empty space expands you think?

 

500 km/s/Mpc

[1x0]

 

We don't know.

 

 

Why can´t we say out it is from nothing?

 

 

500 km/s/Mpc

Why it can not be c2?

[Strange]

Why can´t we say out it is from nothing?

 

Because we don't know. Because there is no evidence for that.

 

 

Why it can not be c2?

 

Because c² is not a speed. And because expansion cannot be described in terms of speed.

[1x0]

 

Because we don't know. Because there is no evidence for that.

 

If anything exist nothing can not exist. We can just see the signs of it´s possible existence. Also since anything exist there is no physical possiblility to prove that zero can exist.

 

What is c2 then? Why can not expansion be explaind in terms of speed?

[Strange]

What is c2 then?

 

I'm not sure what you mean. It is the speed of light squared. It appears as a conversion constant for the equivalence of mass and energy (the famous e=mc²) and maybe other places, I can't think of right now.

 

Why can not expansion be explaind in terms of speed?

 

Because it is a scaling effect. Imagine three points:

A........B........C

 

Now, if the distance increases by 10% each second, then we get the follwoing:

A.........B.........C

A..........B..........C

A...........B...........C

A............B...........C

A.............B............C

 

Now, the speed of separation between A and B (or between B and C) is one dot per second. The speed of separation between A and C is two dots per second. If you draw the diagram with more points then you can see that the speed of separation between any two points is proportional to how far apart they are. Which is exactly what we see in the universe.

 

What this means is that the "speed of expansion" depends on which two points you pick to measure the speed. The further apart they are, the greater the speed.

[Gees]

Strange;

 

Hi. Please consider my following thoughts and let me know if you think I've lost my mind yet. (chuckle) These ideas can give a person a headache.

 

In the classical view, the expanding universe can be tracked back to a point of zero size. This, I assume, is where the "something from nothing" myth comes from.

 

Agreed, except the myth appeared before we could track the universe, so I am not sure that is the cause. On the other hand, tracking reality down to the smallest particle, photon, or whatever, and then implying that this line of thought leads to "nothing" reinforces and supports the idea that the reverse is also possible -- nothing leads to something; the god concepts.

 

This idea does not serve science or philosophy well. Since the idea of "nothing" is not a part of actual reality, I have thrown out "0', or nothing, as the starting point, because I see no truth in it. If we use "=" as the starting point, then things work out differently.

 

If we posit that the start of everything was equal, then we have a concept where all is the same, there is no differentiation in anything, so there is nothing to measure. So there are no dimensions? Size becomes irrelevant? Motion causes the parts that were equal to take on different qualities causing the Big Bang and the universe as we now know it. So the universe will continue to exist as long as there is motion. Maybe?

You are correct that "nothing" is impossible in our universe, but it can be useful to consider it as a theoretical model. The various "vacuum solutions" to the equations of GR, for example, can tell us interesting things about how space-time behave. (For example, even an empty universe will expand.)

 

Well, I am not so sure about an empty universe expanding, and wonder if the persons producing this model were cherry picking their assumptions. How could anyone tell if an empty universe was expanding if there was no point to expand from? And if there was a point of origin, then the universe was not empty.

 

I have this same problem studying consciousness. A lot of people suspect that consciousness (God) existed prior to the universe. But consciousness (awareness) requires focus, it requires something to be aware of, and somewhere for the focus to originate from, so it requires at least two points. It requires matter. So I don't see how awareness can exist prior to matter, which is one of my problems with the "God" concept. The same goes for intent, as it requires two points.

 

In my opinion

 

Gee

[Strange]

Agreed, except the myth appeared before we could track the universe, so I am not sure that is the cause.

 

True. But I was thinking of the "scientific myth" of popular science stories that the big bang was the creation of something from nothing (that isn't what the big bang model says).

 

On the other hand, tracking reality down to the smallest particle, photon, or whatever, and then implying that this line of thought leads to "nothing" reinforces and supports the idea that the reverse is also possible -- nothing leads to something; the god concepts.

 

I am always puzzled, for this reason, that a lot of people reject the big bang model on religious grounds. You would imagine it would appeal to them...

 

On the other hand, some people try and reject the model on the basis that one of the main physicists behind it also happened to be a Roman Catholic priest.

 

Well, I am not so sure about an empty universe expanding, and wonder if the persons producing this model were cherry picking their assumptions. How could anyone tell if an empty universe was expanding if there was no point to expand from?

 

Because expansion is purely about geometry: the points in your coordinate system getting further apart. You don't need any "stuff" to know calculate that.

[ydoaPs]

Where does it begin?

The universe as we know it is the result of a symmetry-breaking phase transition.

[1x0]

The universe as we know it is the result of a symmetry-breaking phase transition.

What is that symmetry and where is it originates from?

 

What made the phase transition? Intelligence? Information?

The problem with this approach that it is suggesting that things were there already and so philosophically it can not be the origin. (Where that value is from?) It also would require an enormous force to make that phase transition. Where that force originates from and why that appeared/happened?

 

One of the reasons why I try to approach the origin from the lowest possible physical state and follow it with an evolutionary way of assumptions. That is why I think that metaphysical values like information/intelligence (will of existence) should be the first introduced at the origin. Metaphysical values exist beyond the actual physical reality. With this way of philosophical approac we can keep up a continuous evolution of the Universe, instead we have to explain and work with values "always" existed. What can be confusing, that if anything exist zero is a conception and since we inspect this system from the physical values point of view zero is an impossible idea as we can not recreate that state again. (the reason why mulitverse/paralel universe theories can not work, that state existed just once)

 

What we can do is to inspect the evolution of the sytem and assume how the origine could happen. We can not recreate a 100% precise early universe model and make it a physical reality but we can know its existence based on our observations.

 

How difficult would be to set up a model which works with an absolult zero origin and treats the whole system as 1? Maybe we could set it up as a 3D binary system where the physically inspected Laws apply in the whole system and the physically inspected values evolve in correlation with the Laws apply in the system but treated as stabil evolving values in that binary construction. I hope you can make sense what I mean.

Edited March 11, 2015 by 1x0

[Gees]

Strange;

 

True. But I was thinking of the "scientific myth" of popular science stories that the big bang was the creation of something from nothing (that isn't what the big bang model says).

 

I laughed out loud when I read this -- out of surprise. It never occurred to me that you would be talking about "sci-fi" myths, but I suppose that is something that science forums would have to deal with. I bet the Matrix made people in these forums crazy. And can Scotty beam me up? (chuckle)

 

Because expansion is purely about geometry: the points in your coordinate system getting further apart. You don't need any "stuff" to know calculate that.

 

OK. You are talking about measuring the empty space between things like suns and planets and galaxies. This makes sense. I thought you were saying that an entire universe would be empty, and considered that I don't even know if an empty universe could exist, much less how it would act. I should have known better.

 

 

 

YodaP;

 

The universe as we know it is the result of a symmetry-breaking phase transition.

 

I know your above quote was not addressed to me, but it was still helpful to me.

 

Thank you.

 

Gee

 

 

[Strange]

Strange;

 

 

I laughed out loud when I read this -- out of surprise. It never occurred to me that you would be talking about "sci-fi" myths, but I suppose that is something that science forums would have to deal with. I bet the Matrix made people in these forums crazy. And can Scotty beam me up? (chuckle)

 

I was thinking more of the myths perpetuated by popular science writing and journalism.

 

 

OK. You are talking about measuring the empty space between things like suns and planets and galaxies. This makes sense. I thought you were saying that an entire universe would be empty, and considered that I don't even know if an empty universe could exist, much less how it would act. I should have known better.

 

There are models of completely empty universes (no matter, no energy) which, although they don't describe our universe (obviously!) are still useful for understanding how GR works.

[Gees]

Strange;

 

I was thinking more of the myths perpetuated by popular science writing and journalism.

 

Which are no doubt more sophisticated, but nonetheless not true. I like Flash Gordon, who was always finding planets populated by incredibly beautiful women, where the women felt the need to feed him and then enslave him. (heh heh heh) I'll take fun over sophistication any day.

 

Actually, the Matrix was hard on philosophy forums; solipsism made a strong comeback.

 

There are models of completely empty universes (no matter, no energy) which, although they don't describe our universe (obviously!) are still useful for understanding how GR works.

 

Well, I will not argue science with you, as that would be foolish. But as a philosopher, I would have my doubts about anything learned. There are just too many assumptions.

 

I rely heavily on science to give me hard facts and evidence for my considerations, but recently have found that science is giving me theories based on theories, rather than hard facts. I liked it better when science did science, not speculation or quasi-philosophy. Some of the things that people tell me in forums like this are actually wrong, so I wish that science would be science and let philosophy be philosophy.

 

Gee

 

 

1x0;

Your post was not addressed to me, but I would like to respond anyway, if you don't mind.

First I would like to apologize for misspelling your name in my last post to you. Bad eyes.

1x0, on 11 Mar 2015 - 04:43 AM, said:

What is that symmetry and where is it originates from?

Symmetry means; "the quality of being made up of exactly similar parts facing each other or around an axis." So symmetry means all the same, much like that blank sheet of paper that I noted earlier. Why does it have to come from anywhere?

1x0, on 11 Mar 2015 - 04:43 AM, said:

The problem with this approach that it is suggesting that things were there already and so philosophically it can not be the origin. (Where that value is from?) It also would require an enormous force to make that phase transition. Where that force originates from and why that appeared/happened?

Why can't it be the origin? Whether or not it is the origin, your idea that things must start from zero is an assumption. There is absolutely no evidence that anything starts from nothing, so you can not assume that everything starts from nothing. As to the force, we don't know the properties of reality before the big bang, so how could we know what force was required? It takes a great deal of force to push a large rock up a hill, but a chain reaction can be started with very little force, like an avalanche.

1x0, on 11 Mar 2015 - 04:43 AM, said:

One of the reasons why I try to approach the origin from the lowest possible physical state and follow it with an evolutionary way of assumptions. That is why I think that metaphysical values like information/intelligence (will of existence) should be the first introduced at the origin. Metaphysical values exist beyond the actual physical reality.

But are you following an "evolutionary way of assumptions"? It doesn't look like it. You are stating that the physical can evolve, matter and planets, and that life can evolve, but you are also saying that intelligence does not evolve, that it was always here. I know that I am more intelligent than a dog, and I am pretty sure that a dog is more intelligent than a goldfish, so why do we assume that intelligence does not also evolve?

Consider the following, which is the way most people think -- whether they admit it or not:

Intelligent Designer (God) created the heavens and the Earth. (religion)

Intelligent Designer (God) created life. (religion)

Life evolved. (science)

Eventually man arrived with a brain and consciousness. (science)

Man recognized God (religion) or imagined God (science).

And God created the heavens and the Earth. (religion)

The above is not a cycle, it is circular thinking. A cycle continues and works through cause and effect, the above does not. Even if we assume that the metaphysical exists beyond the actual physical reality, that does not mean that it does not also evolve. Nor does it have any bearing on whether or not the metaphysical and the physical are interdependent. They may well be. Or they may not be.

I used to accept the idea that intelligence/information existed prior to our universe and physical reality, but have recently questioned whether or not that "intelligence" was as intelligent at the time of the big bang as it is now. We know that intelligence evolves within life, so I see no reason to assume that it does not evolve within reality. We also know that billions of years have passed since that time, so it is possible that the metaphysical can also evolve and that it was something very simple in the beginning.

1x0, on 11 Mar 2015 - 04:43 AM, said:

With this way of philosophical approac we can keep up a continuous evolution of the Universe, instead we have to explain and work with values "always" existed. What can be confusing, that if anything exist zero is a conception and since we inspect this system from the physical values point of view zero is an impossible idea as we can not recreate that state again. (the reason why mulitverse/paralel universe theories can not work, that state existed just once)

What do you mean "again"? There is no evidence that "nothing" ever existed.

1x0, on 11 Mar 2015 - 04:43 AM, said:

What we can do is to inspect the evolution of the sytem and assume how the origine could happen. We can not recreate a 100% precise early universe model and make it a physical reality but we can know its existence based on our observations.

If you "assume" something, what you have is an assumption -- a guess. This is not knowledge. Philosophy is the study of what we can know and how we can know it, or what is real and true. It is not the study of assumptions.

If you throw out the "nothing" idea and consider the possibility that the mental can also evolve, I think that you will come to some very different conclusions.

Gee

[1x0]

Thanks for your response Gee,

 

 

 

Symmetry means; "the quality of being made up of exactly similar parts facing each other or around an axis." So symmetry means all the same, much like that blank sheet of paper that I noted earlier. Why does it have to come from anywhere?

I know the actual meaning of symmetry. The question belong to ydoaPs´s expression on the origine as: "The universe as we know it is the result of a symmetry-breaking phase transition."

 

To set up a symmetry we need something to be symmetric. In this case the symmetric something is a result of an other something (cause and causality) and as so can not be the origine. Also the symmetric structure we inspect carries information and most likely something what is symmetric. I hope I could make sense

 

 

1x0, on 11 Mar 2015 - 04:43 AM, said:

The problem with this approach that it is suggesting that things were there already and so philosophically it can not be the origin. (Where that value is from?) It also would require an enormous force to make that phase transition. Where that force originates from and why that appeared/happened?

 

Gees:

Why can't it be the origin? Whether or not it is the origin, your idea that things must start from zero is an assumption. There is absolutely no evidence that anything starts from nothing, so you can not assume that everything starts from nothing. As to the force, we don't know the properties of reality before the big bang, so how could we know what force was required? It takes a great deal of force to push a large rock up a hill, but a chain reaction can be started with very little force, like an avalanche.

Any physically observable or measurable value can not be the origin because it is originating from something/somewhere too (presented there for and with a reason). Cause and causality. The physically observable is a result of something it is evolved from. That is why my assumption is that the origin is nothing, plus that everything seems to evolve in this system so if it evolves it evolves from somewhere/something and I assume that is the lowest possible physical state the physical zero state. And the system evolves step by step from this state, cause and causality. Why from this? Because I can not think of a lower physical state or value than a space time energy matter information free nothing. Anything exist in this Universe present a higher value than the physical zero state. Can you express a lower value? And yes it is an assumption but in this assumption you can not ask what was before and where does that state come from

 

I think there is a lot of evidence that it starts from nothing. The exponentional expansion of the system in a linear timeline for sure is a good indicator, as well as the evolution of other physical properties as information energy and matter.

 

An avalanche like evente with a small force as a trigger ask for a huge amount of matter in a specific construction which again carries a large amount of physical values (can not be the origin). The big bang is a result of something but for sure not the origin of this system. Physical values presented in the big bang, where did they come from?

 

 

1x0, on 11 Mar 2015 - 04:43 AM, said:

One of the reasons why I try to approach the origin from the lowest possible physical state and follow it with an evolutionary way of assumptions. That is why I think that metaphysical values like information/intelligence (will of existence) should be the first introduced at the origin. Metaphysical values exist beyond the actual physical reality.

 

Gees:

But are you following an "evolutionary way of assumptions"? It doesn't look like it. You are stating that the physical can evolve, matter and planets, and that life can evolve, but you are also saying that intelligence does not evolve, that it was always here. I know that I am more intelligent than a dog, and I am pretty sure that a dog is more intelligent than a goldfish, so why do we assume that intelligence does not also evolve?

No. I do not say that intelligence does not evolve. On the contrary. I do think and I do say that Intelligence is evolving too. See my previous posts on page two in this thread or read one of my other posts here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/88043-god-and-the-physical-reality/

 

So I think we do agree that intelligence evolves. That is a good sign

 

 

 

Gees: I used to accept the idea that intelligence/information existed prior to our universe and physical reality, but have recently questioned whether or not that "intelligence" was as intelligent at the time of the big bang as it is now. We know that intelligence evolves within life, so I see no reason to assume that it does not evolve within reality. We also know that billions of years have passed since that time, so it is possible that the metaphysical can also evolve and that it was something very simple in the beginning.

It is the tiniest thought can exist in proportion to nothing. The one exist in every physically presented value. The will of existence. This is a basic information presented in every observable physical unit. I also think that metaphysical entities build on this smallest thought too. Every information originates and evolved from this first basic intelligence and so it is part of everything. As zero is part of everything since the physical world exist in proportion to zero. 0=1 (or in other words zero is a conception ever since anything exist )

 

I am aware of the evolution of the system on the physical and metaphysical level too. This is why I am here.

 

I think if you make sense of nothing you will come to some very different conclusions on the field of science.

 

Laszlo

[Gees]

1x0;

 

It is a good thing that you provided that link to your other thread, as I now have a better idea of your thoughts. I also know that you have ticked off the management here, even more than I have, as they have never closed one of my threads.

 

What I think is that you are intelligent and have a good mind as you are asking questions that we all have asked at one time or another, but you also appear to lack patience, as you seem to think that the answers to your questions are forthcoming. They are not. Most of those answers will not appear in our lifetimes, or our children's lifetimes.

 

So if you can discipline yourself to dealing with knowns, or at least well reasoned and logical arguments based upon knowns, then we can have an interesting discussion. I am fairly certain that I have some information that can help you in your considerations, and you may well have information that can help me, but I will not accept assumptions, beliefs, or what you think based on your thoughts. Philosophy is a discipline; beliefs belong in the religion forum, imagination needs to go to Hollywood.

 

To set up a symmetry we need something to be symmetric.

 

Please explain why we need to "set up" a symmetry. Is it possible that symmetry is the beginning and the end? We can assume nothing as we are dealing with unknowns here.

 

Also the symmetric structure we inspect carries information and most likely something what is symmetric.

 

Agreed. Because symmetry is very basic as there is no differentiation, the information that it carried would also be very basic and reflect that symmetry. This is another reason why I see "=" as that basic information.

 

Any physically observable or measurable value can not be the origin because it is originating from something/somewhere too (presented there for and with a reason). Cause and causality. The physically observable is a result of something it is evolved from.

Well, I am not sure I can agree with this. I thought that the "physically observable", or matter, was caused by photons in motion. Since this is a science forum, I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong. If motion is the cause and photons still exist, I am not sure that this could be called an evolutionary change. Symmetry may still exist, and if the motion ever stops, then the symmetry of the photons will be all that is left. (chuckle) This subject gives me a headache.

That is why my assumption is that the origin is nothing, plus that everything seems to evolve in this system so if it evolves it evolves from somewhere/something and I assume that is the lowest possible physical state the physical zero state. And the system evolves step by step from this state, cause and causality.

Your assumption here does not make sense. You state that the "origin is nothing" and then state that it "evolves from somewhere/something". Well, "somewhere/something" is matter -- not nothing. You can not have it both ways.

Why from this? Because I can not think of a lower physical state or value than a space time energy matter information free nothing. Anything exist in this Universe present a higher value than the physical zero state. Can you express a lower value? And yes it is an assumption but in this assumption you can not ask what was before and where does that state come from

Well, just because you can not think of it, has nothing to do with whether or not it exists. Isn't it YodaP, who has that statement in his signature, that states that the Universe has no obligation to not be absurd?

I don't know about "lower" or "higher" values, but the unconscious aspect of mind has no knowledge of time and space, does not work with logic as we know it, but still manages to support cause and effect in it's own way -- with no regard for time and space.

I think there is a lot of evidence that it starts from nothing. The exponentional expansion of the system in a linear timeline for sure is a good indicator, as well as the evolution of other physical properties as information energy and matter.

I disagree. 1 x 0 = 0; 1,000 x 0 = 0; 1,000,000 x 0 = 0. It does not change. There is no "exponential expansion" of nothing. You can not corrupt math and expect to be taken seriously -- especially in a science forum. Science loves math because math gives them facts and truth. Consider that it does not matter what symbols you use in your math for numbers. The root things that matter in math are one to one association, equal, more and less, and same and different. These happen to be the exact same principals that the unconscious mind works with, and the unconscious mind does not know time and space. So I see no reason to believe that these same principles wouldn 't apply whether we are talking matter or nonmatter, after the Big Bang or prior to the Big Bang. imo

An avalanche like evente with a small force as a trigger ask for a huge amount of matter in a specific construction which again carries a large amount of physical values (can not be the origin). The big bang is a result of something but for sure not the origin of this system. Physical values presented in the big bang, where did they come from?

In the case of the Big Bang, no amount of matter was required, because as far as we know no matter existed. The Big Bang is the origin of this system, it is not necessarily the origin of reality. Are you asking where reality came from?

No. I do not say that intelligence does not evolve. On the contrary. I do think and I do say that Intelligence is evolving too.

So I think we do agree that intelligence evolves. That is a good sign

Have you ever considered what basic intelligence must have been at the beginning?

It is the tiniest thought can exist in proportion to nothing. The one exist in every physically presented value. The will of existence. This is a basic information presented in every observable physical unit. I also think that metaphysical entities build on this smallest thought too. Every information originates and evolved from this first basic intelligence and so it is part of everything.

The only thing that exists in proportion to nothing is nothing.

"Will of existence" has nothing to do with thought. It applies to knowledge and want. Want is attraction or repulsion, so it is motion and is also known to us as e-motion. The attraction and repulsion of motion causes all things to move, and maybe to exist, from the motion of electrons around a nucleus to the motion of galaxies.

I suspect that the panpsychism explanation that everything knows what it is contributes to the intelligence of reality. But everything is not aware -- only life is aware.

In my opinion -- until someone corrects me, or I learn more, or something changes.

Gee

[1x0]

It is a good thing that you provided that link to your other thread, as I now have a better idea of your thoughts. I also know that you have ticked off the management here, even more than I have, as they have never closed one of my threads.

What I think is that you are intelligent and have a good mind as you are asking questions that we all have asked at one time or another, but you also appear to lack patience, as you seem to think that the answers to your questions are forthcoming. They are not. Most of those answers will not appear in our lifetimes, or our children's lifetimes.

So if you can discipline yourself to dealing with knowns, or at least well reasoned and logical arguments based upon knowns, then we can have an interesting discussion. I am fairly certain that I have some information that can help you in your considerations, and you may well have information that can help me, but I will not accept assumptions, beliefs, or what you think based on your thoughts. Philosophy is a discipline; beliefs belong in the religion forum, imagination needs to go to Hollywood.

It was not my intention to spam but when I started in this community I misunderstood how the forum works and I shared the same thought 2 times. My mistake.

 

Thanks for your nice words, I thy to make sense of my existence Although I think aswers will come while I am alive. Understanding might not be complete but at least I will see some glips of it. I believe technological singularity will support our understanding big time.

 

My whole understanding is based on already know knowledge, I have some questions and doubts but that does not mean that I reject information provided by our scientists. I am very curious which information you can give me and I hope I can participate in a good discussion with you.

 

Thoughts are evolving and even Feynman recommend not to talk about them I believe that results comes faster if we tast and reason different theories together.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4s4U5bfIHw

 

 

 

Please explain why we need to "set up" a symmetry. Is it possible that symmetry is the beginning and the end? We can assume nothing as we are dealing with unknowns here.

 

I mean here that if we speak about symmetry something has to be symmetric and so something is already presented what we can observe. As so it is not the beginning as that something we observe is a result of a previous physical process.

 

 

Laszlo:

That is why my assumption is that the origin is nothing, plus that everything seems to evolve in this system so if it evolves it evolves from somewhere/something and I assume that is the lowest possible physical state the physical zero state. And the system evolves step by step from this state, cause and causality.

 

 

Your assumption here does not make sense. You state that the "origin is nothing" and then state that it "evolves from somewhere/something". Well, "somewhere/something" is matter -- not nothing. You can not have it both ways.

I think it is a step by step evolution. The system has a starting point where the whole system is evolved from. That point is nothing. In proportion to this nothint will that first something exist. It is not like that something always have existed. That would mean that space, time, energy matter and information is infinitely presented in the system. Why would our system be so fine tuned if it would be so. It would be much more chaos then not?

Why space would expand, why time would tick, why information would evolve? What would be the reason for progress?

 

 

Well, just because you can not think of it, has nothing to do with whether or not it exists. Isn't it YodaP, who has that statement in his signature, that states that the Universe has no obligation to not be absurd?

I don't know about "lower" or "higher" values, but the unconscious aspect of mind has no knowledge of time and space, does not work with logic as we know it, but still manages to support cause and effect in it's own way -- with no regard for time and space.

It is not just because I can not. The question is can anyone think of a lower physical state as I presented. The other question can we make sense of something if that something haven´t exist once or we do not know where our understanding originates. Like in our fairy tales the dragons clearly originates from the previous fingings of dinosaurs remains and theirs mistification in fairies. The question could we make sense of nothing if that would not exist once. Can we make sense of infinity? If we can not does not that mean that infinity does not exist?

 

That the unconscious mind has no knowledge of time does not mean that its physical existence does not provide that information.

 

 

 

I disagree. 1 x 0 = 0; 1,000 x 0 = 0; 1,000,000 x 0 = 0. It does not change. There is no "exponential expansion" of nothing. You can not corrupt math and expect to be taken seriously -- especially in a science forum. Science loves math because math gives them facts and truth. Consider that it does not matter what symbols you use in your math for numbers. The root things that matter in math are one to one association, equal, more and less, and same and different. These happen to be the exact same principals that the unconscious mind works with, and the unconscious mind does not know time and space. So I see no reason to believe that these same principles wouldn 't apply whether we are talking matter or nonmatter, after the Big Bang or prior to the Big Bang. im

It is the our common agreement how we inspect this operation with zero. The problem is here that you can not prove this simple 1x0=0 in physical reality as anything you observe will be there even you try to neglect it. The question here is why we do not inspect this operation from the existing values point of view.

 

"there is no exponentional expansion of nothing" I disagree with this. I think the system is originating from nothing and as so in its philosophical aspect everything is the result of the evolution of nothing. If it would not be so we would observe chaos in infinity.

 

"Science loves math because math gives them facts and truth" Will you be nothing because you did not evolve in a given space time moment? If we describe You by the natural number 1 and your lack of evoultion in rest in a moment described by number zero, What will be the result of the operation when we observe You in the next moment of existence? (although this situation can not happen as even you are in rest and you do not receive information the universe evolves around you. - meaningless operation! but lets say that we caunt that evolution of the universe and its effect on you in that moment and the value of that will be 0.0000....001 in proportion to your already existing values) Still the present value what you will have at the end of the operation will be 1 (you) or if we count that minor development 1x0,000...00001=? Will you be the minor development provided by the evolution of the universe or will you be You plus the minor development effecting your whole existence? The question raises why we do not respect the originally presented value in our equations if we operate under 1? (I hope I could make sense)

 

 

 

In the case of the Big Bang, no amount of matter was required, because as far as we know no matter existed. The Big Bang is the origin of this system, it is not necessarily the origin of reality. Are you asking where reality came from?

This system is part of a whole system. The big bang can be the origin just there is progress before which ended up in the big bang.

Yes I am after where reality came from.

 

 

 

Have you ever considered what basic intelligence must have been at the beginning?

Information/intelligence (will of existence) presented with low energy and mass in space expanding with c2 since that moment of appearance.

 

 

The only thing that exists in proportion to nothing is nothing.

I disagree with this. Why the system would evolve and why we would observe the expansion of space if the system would be infinite?

 

"I suspect that the panpsychism explanation that everything knows what it is contributes to the intelligence of reality. But everything is not aware -- only life is aware" - How unconscious matter can support any biological entity and support consciousness in some of them if it does not carry basic intelligence/information which can adjust to the already existing biological system and its consciousness? In other words atoms can have basic intelligence just it is so low we can not measure. (we can not make sense of our intelligence and consciousness yet so how could we make sense of the intelligence of an atom if it has?)

Edited March 25, 2015 by 1x0

[Mr. Laymen]

If there can't be an answer, as you've asserted, then I'd assume the question isn't formed of coherently relate-able expressions comparable to or of whatever "it" is.

 

Where does it begin?

Maybe at the center

 

Nothing can't have always existed .

 

But if "it" is nothing, it probably doesn't, never has, and never will exist.

 

It must have started some where.

 

Probably right here, or wherever structurally is most central to "starting".

And if it did. How did it start.

 

Probably by changing from nothing to something. I'd assume there's a logical function of sorts that describes nothing as being a source of information leaking recursion or something. What happens when you divide by zero? And how complex can infinite structures be?

 

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.

 

Why couldn't "it" have started from nothing? And every beginning is truly a beginning, each moment that qualifies as being a moment... is unique, just as each conceivable coordinate of space or time is unique and a beginning in some way from some perspective.

 

There is always something before it. But what is the beginning before the beginning and what is the first beginning?

 

Why is there always something before it? What about nothing before it? The first beginning would be the first, and the last beginning would be the last.

 

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?

 

What does nothing being made from nothing even signify? There wouldn't be "something" before the first beginning, otherwise we wouldn't call it the first, if we even needed to express that notion, to explain what "it" is to begin with.

 

Perhaps your question or the concept it intends to express is missing critical or asserting false aspects of what "it" is, and what "nothing" is, in relation to how nature actually is.

 

It might turn out that what we are experiencing is non-existence and we just haven't defined existence or the concept of "be" or "being" accurately enough.

 

Possibly the concept of existing or not existing is just a misleading, misinterpretation of how nature actually is.

 

I think there's plenty new territory for us to discover, probably infinite, but there's plenty assumptions we may learn to consider being inaccurate as well, maybe especially when trying to finitely define accuracy of what something is or is not, and from what perspective.