Being before the Big Bang

[Hal 1949]

Still, I am wondering how Hawking radiation could disprove the idea of white holes because the leakage is so incredibly slow, with largest black holes projected to require quadrillions of years to entirely dissipate.

From Wikipedia:
"In quantum mechanics, the black hole emits Hawking radiation and so can come to thermal equilibrium with a gas of radiation (not compulsory). Because a thermal-equilibrium state is time-reversal-invariant, Stephen Hawking argued that the time reverse of a black hole in thermal equilibrium is again a black hole in thermal equilibrium.[2] This may imply that black holes and white holes are the same object. The Hawking radiation from an ordinary black hole is then identified with the white-hole emission."

[Qualiam]

What do you think existed before the big bang? Was Being the same then as now, or radically different? Did nothingness prevail before the bang? I suggest it helps if we maintain a rather fluid conception of time itself. Stephen Hawking once wrote that, with the advent of modern physics, "Philosophy is dead". The fact that astrophysicists are still stymied by this before-the-bang question, neatly refutes Dr Hawking's claim. Thx - CW

I added the italics to the quote here by Chasw. I think it does help if the concept of time is held very loosely. In fact, I think it helps immensely if the idea of time is released entirely in thinking about the big bang, or any other scientific or philosophic conundrum.

I would like to present a theory that I believe would solve the riddle of what came before the big bang. It is not really new, it is a modification of Plato's Theory of Forms. Please allow me to explain . . .

First, I would like to point out that the entire quandary of what came before the big bang is a time-initiated confusion. This is apparent from the temporal sense in which the word "before" is used in the question. Looked at outside the constraints of a time-oriented existence, the word "before" can be seen as descriptive of a hierarchical system.

In other words, just as A comes before B in the alphabet, so X comes before the big bang. Or maybe a better metaphor might be, just as the king comes before the prince, so X comes before the big bang. These metaphors are just meant to help get a handle on a timeless realm in which we can look at the big bang from outside of a cause and effect, time-based universe.

I don't believe the ultimate Reality is time-based, and neither did Plato, I think. So the only way one can answer the question of "What came before the big bang," is to look at the big bang from the perspective of the ultimate Reality. Here I will evoke the philosophy of Plato and his Theory of Forms.

The Theory of Forms says there are two realms, the physical and the transcendental. The physical is space, time and matter, is changeable, and has existence. The transcendental is abstract, perfect, unchangeable, and has Being. Plato's theory is also called the Theory of Ideas. And it holds that the physical world is only a shadow of the true, reality, which are these pure Ideas, or Forms. My view is a little different in that I hold that only the transcendental realm is real. What we know as physicality is only our perception of this transcendental realm.

So here is what comes before the big bang: The Idea of the big bang.

In my view, not necessarily Plato's, that transcendental realm, which could be called the Ideaverse, has these properties:
Everything is an Idea.
All Ideas have Being.
Only Ideas have Being.
All Ideas are timeless, even Ideas about time.
Ideas are the senior, base substance of reality.
Ideas do not originate in minds.
Mind is the Idea of an activating agent of Ideas.

Ideas are what Plato called "Forms." They are not the same as when we "have an idea." These Ideas are autonomous entities that have Being of themselves. They are not dependent upon a mind, in fact, the mind is itself merely one Idea of infinite many. I have capitalized this sense of the word Idea to differentiate it from mental ideas that we have in our minds.

So the Idea of the big bang always had Being. Always here means that it is timeless. The Idea of the big bang was "activated" by the minds of scientists. That means they chose it from all Ideas and gave it belief and meaning. They could have activated the Idea of the steady state theory of astronomers Fred Hoyle and Thomas Gold, or other theories. Because projection makes perception, the evidence for the big bang, which are actually just transcendent Ideas also, came to be perceived, or observed. It is true that we see what we want to see, because absolutely EVERYTHING is available, in the transcendent realm.

Because we have also chosen to activate the Ideas of time and space, all subsequent Ideas that we activate have to obey the constraints of time and space. But it is a little like putting together a puzzle; all the pieces have to fit. All the Ideas we activate have to fit with the others. And we see places where they don't seem to fit as yet, such as dark energy and matter, string theory, quantum gravity and many quantum mysteries etc. But I have no doubt that creative scientists will someday find the Idea that will explain each one . . .

[Chasw]

Qualiam: Yes, time is a slippery concept, especially in the context of the supposed beginnings of our physical universe. Consider that time as humans conceive of it appears to be quite different from time sequences in the larger observable universe. Students of philosophy can see beyond the obvious and comprehend that conventional time is merely our simplistic way of explaining the nature of moving objects. Speed is the product of distance and elapsed time, as measured by our instruments.

In our local environment of Euclidian space, it all makes perfect sense, but in the larger world of massive bodies and light waves moving across vast distances, a deeper understanding is called for. Even with the conceptual breakthrough of time dilation, we are still baffled by these deeper aspects. For example, physicists cannot explain how the initial inflation after the big bang unfolded so rapidly, by all appearances faster than light speed. Similarly, if the universe is almost 14 billion years old, how can it be that the most distant astronomical object (galaxy GN-z11 ) appears (per spectrographic redshift) to be almost 14 billion light years distant?

In Euclidian space, this most distant observable object was already 14 billion light years away, 14 billion years ago. Clearly, the two moving objects, our galaxy and GN-z11, are on different inertial reference planes, which obscures our perception in ways I don't completely understand, probably due to time dilation. Nevertheless, we can reasonably speculate that the big bang had a preceding cause, even though we weren't there to directly observe it. - CW

[Ace9]

Most cosmologists today would summarize that the big bang was simply a quantum fluctuation, possibly arising from the deep well of a black hole. Infinite gravitational collapse - quantum fluctuation - infinite expansion. The cycle of the multiverse is itself infinite.

I believe the question of 'Being before the big bang' is simply a limitation to our current knowledge. If our history of discovery holds true into the future, at some point we may understand what did in fact come before the big bang. Of course this will not solve what came before that, and so on. I believe we are doomed to inevitable questions as there is no beginning or end to the multiverse. The cycle of beginning and end is a concept that arises from observation like birth and death, whether it is for humans or the stars themselves. Anything we can measure is an increment of change. If we cannot see it we cannot measure it, therefore the notion of infinity lurks constantly outside our view.

If there was no infinity than there would be no change, and therefore nothing would exist.

[Rr6]

Our finite, occupied space Universe, exists eternally. See 1st law of thermodynamics.

The Big Bang is just a set of initial conditions that may reoccur eternally. Putting aside multi-verse scenarios, I think it is best if we consider the following;

Space ( ) - Time ^v - Space )( as it relates to a numerically based torus that has inversions at peak of positive and negative curvature to inside of torus as our observed sine-wave topology of most particles of Universe.

How a multitude or finite myriad set of tori can interfere or not interfere is key to understanding initial conditions of Universe, each particle of Universe and how all interact in complex but finite set.

r6

[Trajk Logik]

Astrophyscist have in recent years begun to propose that the inception of the universe was a spontaneous event. Thereby, being came into existence, replacing nothingness. No Creator involved. My description of their position may be imperfect, but its close enough.

Savvy modern religionists, on the other hand, thank the physicists for their research and accept the idea of a big bang, but still see the hand of an agent, probably a sentient being, in causing the primary event and arranging for the results to be stable and eventually conducive to life.

From a metaphysical POV, both accounts imply or require a prior state of Being, before the big bang. If the inception of the universe was spontaneous, then it must have occurred when conditions were just right in a prior universe, perhaps the same universe, but at an earlier stage. Evidence for this possibility is the recent scientific confirmation of the Higgs Field, a kind of aether which exists everywhere, even where the initial photon-waves from the bang first propagated outward long ago. A wave can only propagate through an existing field.

What do you think existed before the big bang? Was Being the same then as now, or radically different? Did nothingness prevail before the bang? I suggest it helps if we maintain a rather fluid conception of time itself. Stephen Hawking once wrote that, with the advent of modern physics, "Philosophy is dead". The fact that astrophysicists are still stymied by this before-the-bang question, neatly refutes Dr Hawking's claim. Thx - CW

I've thought about something similar in regards to time. Time is simply measured change. We use consistently repeating change (like the hand of a clock moving over the face of the clock, the Earth rotating on it's axis, etc.) to measure other change and we call that measurement, "time".

Wherever change occurs, time exists. Cause and effect is a process of change and can be measured with time. If the tim universe was the effect of some cause, then it took time for the universe to form, or be created. Whatever change existed before the Big Bang also can be measured.

This also means that God must also exist in time. If God is a being with thoughts and goals and has the power to create things, then all that is the essence of change and can be measured with time. Thoughts change, goals have to be worked towards to be realized. Creating things is a process of cause and effect.

Another thing we need to address is the term, "being". What does it mean to be, or to be a being? Doesn't it mean that you experience change, or distinctions? What would it be like to be and not experience any change or distinctions - to not experience time?

[Ace9]

Our finite, occupied space Universe, exists eternally. See 1st law of thermodynamics.

The Big Bang is just a set of initial conditions that may reoccur eternally. Putting aside multi-verse scenarios, I think it is best if we consider the following;

Space ( ) - Time ^v - Space )( as it relates to a numerically based torus that has inversions at peak of positive and negative curvature to inside of torus as our observed sine-wave topology of most particles of Universe.

How a multitude or finite myriad set of tori can interfere or not interfere is key to understanding initial conditions of Universe, each particle of Universe and how all interact in complex but finite set.

r6

Yes,...the laws of thermodynamics govern all that we know within our particular expanding universe. The open question is whether our universe expands forever into a 'heat death' or under the influence of gravity (and the potential influence of dark energy/matter?) curves back into itself,...maybe to an infinite density that once more is disturbed by another quantum fluctuation, and the process is renewed again. The concept of the multi-verse is only to suggest that these events may not be limited to our particular universe.

All said, there is still infinity which remains a function of change which in turn makes our existence possible

[Rr6]

"infinity is a function of change" makes no sense to me.

Change is related only to occupied space and the metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts the eternally complement our finite, occupied space Universe.

The only infinity that truly exists is the macro-infinite, non-occupied space, that, embraces our finite, occupied space Universe.

There is the concept of infinity, however, a metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept is not occupied space it is the concept of space, occupied or not.

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/top ... runch.html

Ive posted my simplistic versions of my 'heat death' scenarios of Universe in a few differrent threads around here.

Ive also attempted to start two new threads, "Is Universe ever truly symmetrical and Entropy and prime numbers. Neither have been posted and appear to be in a state of eternal limbo.

Space ( ) - Time ^v - Space )( is the fundamental essence of an eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe, and applies to all finite scenarios that even include multiverse scenarios.

There exist cosmic limits even in multiverse scenarios ex the can exist five and only five regular symmetrical polyhedra.

Anything is possible that does not violate the finite set of cosmic laws. imho

r6

Yes,...the laws of thermodynamics govern all that we know within our particular expanding universe. The open question is whether our universe expands forever into a 'heat death' or under the influence of gravity (and the potential influence of dark energy/matter?) curves back into itself,...maybe to an infinite density that once more is disturbed by another quantum fluctuation, and the process is renewed again. The concept of the multi-verse is only to suggest that these events may not be limited to our particular universe.
All said, there is still infinity which remains a function of change which in turn makes our existence possible

[Steve3007]

Ace9:

...the laws of thermodynamics govern all that we know within our particular expanding universe....

I would say that the laws of thermodynamics describe rather than prescribing, or governing. They were invented by us and so far seem to have been a very good, very widely applicable description (hence the famous comment about the second law by Arthur Eddington) but, like all laws, they're provisional. I think that remembering they are descriptions invented by humans reminds us of that.

[Rr6]

Steve, although I agree with your "describe" universe assessment, I disagree with your cosmic laws/principles being an invention of humans.

Humans at best invent language to express metaphysical-1, cosmic laws/principles via our access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts.

Humans do not invent metaphysical-1 cosmic laws/principles nor do humans invent metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts.

Humans discover what is already existent as metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts that eternally complement our eternally existent and finite, occupied space Universe.

I refer you back to my cosmic heirarchy:

1} "U"niverse

....1a} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts ex concepts of Universe, Space, Mind, Dogs, God, Laws,

-------------------------line-of-demarcation--------------------------------------------------------

.....1b} macro-infinite, non-occupied space, that, embraces the following,

......1c} finite, occupied space Universe aka UniVerse

None have offered any rational, logical common sense to invalidate or add to my above and none ever will, barring some new cosmological info. imho

r6

I would say that the laws of thermodynamics describe rather than prescribing, or governing. They were invented by us and so far seem to have been a very good, very widely applicable description (hence the famous comment about the second law by Arthur Eddington) but, like all laws, they're provisional. I think that remembering they are descriptions invented by humans reminds us of that.

[Chasw]

Rr6: Regarding your Cosmic Hierarchy, I conceive of a similar hierarchy of ontological categories. Such categories are invented by intellectuals to describe the world around them. In philosophy, I suggest we start with the Cogito, the thinking thing we know, then begin to break down the rest of Being into convenient categories for analysis. My attempt is as follows, starting with the most fundamental, then layering in ever narrower :

1. The universe, observable and unobservable, consisting of matter, energy and the Higgs field that sustains them. The current question concerns how the universe came to be, what caused its inception.
2. All living organisms, wherever they might be, including their central nervous systems, for those which have them
3. The mental activity of higher order animals, those with recognizable consciousness. These are analogous to activities within cyberspace and can best be described as an emergent property of the nervous systems of the host animals. i.e., the Cogito.
4. Admittedly with limited evidence, there appears to be a fourth category, a separate spiritual dimension to reality, connected to human minds in some fashion and inhabited by spirit beings.

This may or may not be complementary to your conceived hierarchy of Being. In any event, my account attempts to put all of existence into separate categories, each with its own rational approach to analysis: 1) physics and chemistry, 2) biology, 3) cognitive science and 3) religious inquiry, respectively. - CW

[Wayne92587]

Creation began with a whimper, a bump in the Night, the Darkness of a Black Whole, the existence of a substance having no mass, no relative, numerical value, having no displacement, no angular momentum, no velocity of speed and direction.

This lack of motion being the nature of a substance having no mass, to include Time, Space and Motion itself, the omniscience of a Singular Substance being omnipresent.

This condition, state of existence, being without change until the beginning moment the creative process began, until the Big Bang.

[Ace9]

"infinity is a function of change" makes no sense to me.

Think of it this way,...without change there is nothing (no existence). Ordinary matter would not exist if it did not change. Infinity is change without beginning or end.

[Rr6]

Chasw---
1. The universe, observable and unobservable, consisting of matter, energy and the Higgs field that sustains them.

Matter is energy ergo your already starting off with inaccurate assessments.

The current question concerns how the universe came to be, what caused its inception.

Huh? Your confused. Our finite, occupied space Universe exists eternally. See 1st law of thermodynamics for starters

The rest of this below falls into place but I think you have not good idea of what is what, where it goes exactly or why.

You need to reread my cosmic heirarchy and start there. You will be a lot better off that way as your starting with more accurate, descriptive and definitive scenario. imho

r6

2. All living organisms, wherever they might be, including their central nervous systems, for those which have them
3. The mental activity of higher order animals, those with recognizable consciousness. These are analogous to activities within cyberspace and can best be described as an emergent property of the nervous systems of the host animals. i.e., the Cogito.
4. Admittedly with limited evidence, there appears to be a fourth category, a separate spiritual dimension to reality, connected to human minds in some fashion and inhabited by spirit beings.

This may or may not be complementary to your conceived hierarchy of Being. In any event, my account attempts to put all of existence into separate categories, each with its own rational approach to analysis: 1) physics and chemistry, 2) biology, 3) cognitive science and 3) religious inquiry, respectively. - CW[/quote]


-- Updated January 23rd, 2017, 7:50 pm to add the following --

Your still not making any sense. Your use of infinity is incorrect. Your confusing eternity with infinity. Please get hold of a dictionary and then we can maybe have a rational, logical common sense conversation.

r6

"infinity is a function of change" makes no sense to me.

Think of it this way,...without change there is nothing (no existence). Ordinary matter would not exist if it did not change. Infinity is change without beginning or end.

[Ace9]

Ace9:

...the laws of thermodynamics govern all that we know within our particular expanding universe....


I would say that the laws of thermodynamics describe rather than prescribing, or governing. They were invented by us and so far seem to have been a very good, very widely applicable description (hence the famous comment about the second law by Arthur Eddington) but, like all laws, they're provisional. I think that remembering they are descriptions invented by humans reminds us of that.


...agreed, the proper word here is describes...