Being before the Big Bang
-
- Posts: 20
- Joined: January 7th, 2017, 5:51 pm
Re: Being before the Big Bang
The word eternity seems to be a more colloquial term, at least from the dictionary definition
- Cuthbert
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 15
- Joined: November 24th, 2016, 5:09 am
Re: Being before the Big Bang
I think Aristotle said that metaphysics arose from the question to ti en eivai - 'what it is for something to be that thing' or 'what it is for anything to exist' or 'what existence consist in'. For Parmenides existence was the only game in town and everything else was just so much chin music. But I think the distinction between predicative and existential 'to be' would have been useful earlier than it was.Chasw wrote:Felix wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
plato dot stanford dot edu-> entries -> aristotle-metaphysics
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: Being before the Big Bang
'The Nothing', or 'The Void', was what 'existed' before the Big Bang, if you want to use the word 'existence', although this term is dubious in relation to such an idea.Chasw wrote: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
The idea here is that the Universe is a Conscious Entity, which is born, lives, and then dies, only to repeat the process eternally. You could also view it as waking up, and then falling asleep again, over and over, just as we do. And all of the matter/substance/form of the Universe is the thought of such an entity, i.e. the Primordial Being creates reality via thought, since there are no competing entities to question Its 'reality'. This means that whatever this Entity visualized/thought/imagined became Reality. And when this Entity 'falls asleep' or 'dies', naturally Everything disappears along with it, since Everything only existed in the first place because It 'said so'.
So basically the Universe existed before the Big Bang, only in such a form that there was no Awareness anywhere, and no projections of any Awareness (like matter, energy, space, time, etc). 'Before' the Big Bang the Universe was asleep, or dead (although 'before' is not really accurate because Time does not apply here). Some ancient systems called this 'The Void', or 'The Nothing'....
-
- Posts: 1780
- Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus
Re: Being before the Big Bang
Now all that are needed are the details.
Details to Follow.
Hermes Trismegistus, Lord of Ring, Keeper of the Holy Grail.
Ya, Amen Ra; Make it so!---->0
-
- Posts: 428
- Joined: August 27th, 2012, 2:11 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Re: Being before the Big Bang
You had to be there to believe it...or here, just not everywhere...time has that. I guess. What gets me is when people try to apply logic, education, or Wiki to answer such a question and end up having a conversation about something other. Its a stone you just can't lift, so you have to expand it, it might as well be infinite, and that way you won't need to get around it or out of it, and in another way you might actually eventually, get over it.
-
- Posts: 1780
- Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus
Re: Being before the Big Bang
In order for a Singularity to have relative, a numerical value of One-1, said singularity must exist as the first in a series, as the beginning of a process such as the Evolutionary Process, must exist as the beginning of a continuum such as The Space-Time Continuum.
It is a given that a real whole number existing as a Singularity having no relative, numerical value, that the singularity of Zero-0 precedes a singularity of One-1 in God’s Universal Math.
It is a given that the first number in a series, a process, a continuum, is Zero-0, Nada, Zip, Zilch, Nothing.
Meaning that before the beginning moment of The Creation of the Physical Universe, the only thing in existence was the Omniscience of a State of Singularity filled with of an Omnipresent Singularity having no relative, numerical value, existing as the Transcendental (Metaphysical) Fully Random Quantum State of Singularity.
Singularity exists as an omnipresent, as an immeasurable, as an Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity within the Omniscience of a State of Singularity, within the Transcendental (Metaphysical) Fully Random Quantum State of Singularity.
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: Being before the Big Bang
1} Space ( ) i.e. positive shaped gravitational space,
2} time ergo frequency of sine-wave topology ^v ^v or as \/\/\,
3} Space )( i.e. negative shaped dark energy space.
Relatively simple set to grasp. imho a cosmically primary three-ness.
Before the big bang is just more of the same mentioned above.
r6
- Consul
- Posts: 6036
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Being before the Big Bang
A relevant distinction:Ace9 wrote:r6 ....In the context of Cosmology, the use of the word infinity is in common use by practitioners in the field that I have read
The word eternity seems to be a more colloquial term, at least from the dictionary definition
"The English word ‘eternal’ comes from aeturnus in Latin, itself a derivation from aevum, an age or time. So ‘eternity’ means everlastingness. However, in the course of philosophical discussion the idea of everlastingness has been further refined, and two contrasting concepts can be denoted by it. It is usual to make the contrast clear by calling one of these ‘eternity’ or ‘atemporality’ and the other ‘sempiternity’ or ‘everlastingness'."
Eternity: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/
Also note that sempiternity doesn't entail (temporal) infinity. For to say that the spacetime world has always existed doesn't mean that it is infinitely old. No matter whether or not its temporal dimension is finite, spacetime has always existed and will always exist, because there wasn't and couldn't have been any time in the past when spacetime didn't exist, and there won't and couldn't be any time in the future when spacetime doesn't exist. That is, the notion of a pre- or post-spacetime time is self-contradictory.
- Bohm2
- Posts: 1129
- Joined: February 23rd, 2013, 6:05 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
- Location: Canada
Re: Being before the Big Bang
Why should any physicist accept such an a priori ontological doctrine? The scope of the real should be delimited by the notions provided by ‘fundamental physics’, and if the physicist proposes that spacetime does not exist at the most fundamental level or that that it is an “emergent” concept, in order to explain some phenomena, then, so be it. The physicist does not care and shouldn't care about some obscure a priori criterion of what exists or doesn't exist, made by some philosopher:Consul wrote:For to say that the spacetime world has always existed doesn't mean that it is infinitely old. No matter whether or not its temporal dimension is finite, spacetime has always existed and will always exist, because there wasn't and couldn't have been any time in the past when spacetime didn't exist, and there won't and couldn't be any time in the future when spacetime doesn't exist. That is, the notion of a pre- or post-spacetime time is self-contradictory.
Science is a bootstrapping operation which is not substantively constrained by a prioristic forms of speculative or analytic philosophy and which can in principle help itself to anything that can meet the test of scientific rationality.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Being before the Big Bang
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: Being before the Big Bang
eternity is to time.
Physical/energy cannot be created nor destroyed and at best--- or worst case scenario ---observed physical/energy is created from Space ( ) - Space )(.
IN this scenario it is Gravity and Dark Energy that eternally exists and our observed Time ^v as physical/energy reality comes and goes from Gravity and Dark Energy
However, as some heat death of Universe's scenarios have made clear, and I have made clear with texticonic visuals of a heat death of Universe scenario. observed Time ^v i.e. observed physical/energy/reality, becomes one, very large, very low amplitude--- think nearly straight line ---, and very long frequency photon.
The simplest, and mininimalist version of 'heat death of Universe' Ive offerered is as follows, however, the one change Ive made over the years is to understand that 2D great circles are now 3D great tori;
O|O = the already known to exist left and right skew set of at least 31 great circles/tori { OO } and longest wave photon |
Instead of tangent great sets of 31 we see the two sets overlapping with the overlap being where the longest wave photon occurs;
( ( | ) )
A variation of the above, is that same sceanario except there exists a multitude of great circle/tori bilateral sets on each side of the longest possible yet finite wave photon;
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
-------------------------------------------------------------
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
In the latter version we can the overlapping scenario also, just to hard for me to create.
123, ABC thats how easy Universe can be. Sung to M. Jackson tune.
r6
Rr6 wrote:Our finite, occupied space Universe, exists eternally as dynamic set of three primary aspects:
1} Space ( ) i.e. positive shaped gravitational space,
2} time ergo frequency of sine-wave topology ^v ^v or as \/\/\,
3} Space )( i.e. negative shaped dark energy space.
Relatively simple set to grasp. imho a cosmically primary three-ness.
Before the big bang is just more of the same mentioned above.
r6
- Consul
- Posts: 6036
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Being before the Big Bang
It's surely not rational to believe in things falling under incoherent concepts; and the concept of a time beyond or outside, before or after, earlier than or later than the temporal dimension of spacetime is self-evidently incoherent, since all times are part of spacetime. As soon as you speak of a spacetime-transcendent temporal dimension you have contradicted yourself. Note that by "spacetime" I mean spacetime as a whole, all of it, and not just some part or the observable part of it. So if the Big Bang is the absolute beginning of time (and space), then there is no before, since there cannot possibly be some time t* < t = 0.Bohm2 wrote:Why should any physicist accept such an a priori ontological doctrine? The scope of the real should be delimited by the notions provided by ‘fundamental physics’, and if the physicist proposes that spacetime does not exist at the most fundamental level or that that it is an “emergent” concept, in order to explain some phenomena, then, so be it. The physicist does not care and shouldn't care about some obscure a priori criterion of what exists or doesn't exist, made by some philosopher:Consul wrote:For to say that the spacetime world has always existed doesn't mean that it is infinitely old. No matter whether or not its temporal dimension is finite, spacetime has always existed and will always exist, because there wasn't and couldn't have been any time in the past when spacetime didn't exist, and there won't and couldn't be any time in the future when spacetime doesn't exist. That is, the notion of a pre- or post-spacetime time is self-contradictory.Science is a bootstrapping operation which is not substantively constrained by a prioristic forms of speculative or analytic philosophy and which can in principle help itself to anything that can meet the test of scientific rationality.
"x has always existed" means "there is no time t when x doesn't exist", and it is an a priori knowable conceptual truth that there can be neither a past time nor a future time when spacetime doesn't exist. This is true even if its temporal dimension is finite toward the past and/or the future.
Moreover, "what is non-fundamental is not therefore non-existent" (David Armstrong). That is, what I say above is true independently of whether or not spacetime is an "emergent" entity. It is also true independently of whether it is a substance or a structure.
Anyway, a non-spatiotemporal world, i.e. one to which the concepts of space/spatiality/extension and time/temporality/duration are inapplicable, is not a physical world.
"The universe did not come into existence, nor will it cease to exist. And this is not just a matter of empirical fact: there is nothing we could intelligibly describe as the universe's coming into existence or its ceasing to exist. Beginnings and endings join causation in being concepts which, while having innumerable instances within our world, resist extrapolation to the universe itself.
So, if the universe cannot have come into existence and cannot cease to exist, is it temporally infinite in both directions?
…
[W]hile the notion of beginning to exist is suspect in application to the universe as a whole, we have an allowable approximation to this notion in terms of the universe's having been in existence for only a finite time. This is not: there was a time at which the universe did not exist; the universe will have existed at all times. Nor will there be a future time when it does not exist. But, for all that, there could be a finite limit to its duration to date as well as to its future history.
Similar caveats apply when speaking of an initial event, as the Big Bang may be thought to provide. Consider the kinds of physical process required to make sense of temporal notions, and in particular that of an instant. An instant, a point of time, can be annexed to the end-point of a change, as with starting or ceasing to move. However, if there is no preceding state of rest, there is no starting to move, so no possibility of marking a point of time by reference to such a happening. With respect to an initial physical happening, we cannot invoke the model of an event to which an instant of time might be assigned which is in any sense a temporal boundary, a point of division between the start of the event and an eventless period which preceded. We must always remain temporally within the universe, never somehow break the barrier and find ourselves on the other side, but if there were an initial instant there would be another side—just as, for a body to have a surface requires there to be a contiguous space. None of this is to deny anything involved in a Big Bang cosmology. It is just that any talk about the universe as coming into existence is to be replaced by talk of its finite duration—a matter of a more apposite redescription. Big Bang or no Big Bang, there has never been a time when there was nothing, and our conception of the Big Bang has to be accommodated to that consideration.
The notion of a finite duration has been offered as an approximation to that of a beginning of existence for the universe, but someone who wished to speak of the universe as having begun to exist might reasonably protest that they had not meant anything more than what is captured by the former: to say that the universe came into existence so many years ago is simply to say that it is so many years old. There need be no implication that some event took place at a first moment of time. What is important is that we should avoid conceptions of a temporal boundary that carry over conditions applicable only to happenings within the universe; likewise with the notion of the universe as ceasing to exist. It is not as if, were this to happen, there would then be nothing there. States, more generally, may be handled in this way. If a body has at no time been stationary, then it will have been in motion at every moment of its existence, in which case we cannot say that it began to move, but we could still, it would seem, speak of it as having been in motion for only a finite time. What is important is that a beginning, whether of change or of existence, rather than a merely finite duration, appears to be needed if we are to have an event, a happening in time, which raises a question of causation."
(Rundle, Bede. Why There is Something rather than Nothing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. pp. 122-4)
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: Being before the Big Bang
This is so simple yet so few appear to grasp the simple, acknowledge the simple much less accept such a simple concepts/scenario. Why?
Mostly it has to do with ego blocking their ability to do so. :--(
Those who want to investigate the true nature of "U"niverse and Universe{ occupied space } need to begin with the above.
To exclude the above is excluding the greatest whole set. imho. For some the truth sets them free while for other it traps them in endless false projections, misunderstandings if not worse.
r6
Rr6---Infinity is to space, as,
eternity is to time.
Physical/energy cannot be created nor destroyed and at best--- or worst case scenario ---observed physical/energy is created from Space ( ) - Space )(.
IN this scenario it is Gravity and Dark Energy that eternally exists and our observed Time ^v as physical/energy reality comes and goes from Gravity and Dark Energy
However, as some heat death of Universe's scenarios have made clear, and I have made clear with texticonic visuals of a heat death of Universe scenario. observed Time ^v i.e. observed physical/energy/reality, becomes one, very large, very low amplitude--- think nearly straight line ---, and very long frequency photon.
The simplest, and mininimalist version of 'heat death of Universe' Ive offerered is as follows, however, the one change Ive made over the years is to understand that 2D great circles are now 3D great tori;
O|O = the already known to exist left and right skew set of at least 31 great circles/tori { OO } and longest wave photon |
Instead of tangent great sets of 31 we see the two sets overlapping with the overlap being where the longest wave photon occurs;
( ( | ) )
A variation of the above, is that same sceanario except there exists a multitude of great circle/tori bilateral sets on each side of the longest possible yet finite wave photon;
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
-------------------------------------------------------------
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
In the latter version we can the overlapping scenario also, just to hard for me to create.
123, ABC thats how easy Universe can be. Sung to M. Jackson tune.
Our finite, occupied space Universe, exists eternally as dynamic set of three primary aspects:
1} Space ( ) i.e. positive shaped gravitational space,
2} time ergo frequency of sine-wave topology ^v ^v or as \/\/\,
3} Space )( i.e. negative shaped dark energy space.
Relatively simple set to grasp. imho a cosmically primary three-ness.
Before the big bang is just more of the same mentioned above.
r6
-
- Posts: 1780
- Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus
Re: Being before the Big Bang
Imagine if you will, an untold number, quantity, of omnipresent, Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularities having no relative, numerical value of One-1, existing within as an Omniscient Field of Singularities, as an Omniscient Transcendental (Metaphysical) Fully Random Quantum State of Singularity, as a State in which Nothing was relative, had Numerical Value, a
State in which Motion was Meaningless, existed without displacement, without angular momentum, nothing having velocity of speed and direction, the existence or nonexistence of the Whole of existence, Time, Space and motion being Uncertain.
This State, condition, existing at the Zero Hour, in the Beginning, the Moment before the spontaneous Creation of the Reality of First Cause, the First Singularity to have relative, a numerical value of One-1.
A Fully Random Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity having no relative numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0 became dislodged, displaced, spontaneously attaining, angular momentum, velocity of speed and direct, becoming the First Singularity to have a relative,numerical value of One-1.
The Reality of First Cause, the first singularity to have a relative, numerical vale of One-1 becoming the First in a Series, the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, the beginning of a process, such as the Evolutionary Process.
In the Beginning, this State or Condition, existing as the either, as a Substance that had no Mass, as pure unadulterated Energy, OHM.
As a Random Singularity of Zero-0 became dislodged, the Reality of First Cause, the first Singularity
to have relative a numerical value of One-1 became the Single direct cause of a system of chaos (as in the Butterfly Effect) that made manifest the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything that exists in the Material, Physical sense of the Word.
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: Being before the Big Bang
Sticking to facts and rational, logical common sense is so much better for any philosophy forum that is searching for true nature of Universe/Nature/God. imho
r6
Rr6 wrote:There exists macro-micro infinite, non-occupied space, that, embraces the finite occupied space. Simple concept/scenario.
This is so simple yet so few appear to grasp the simple, acknowledge the simple much less accept such a simple concepts/scenario. Why?
Mostly it has to do with ego blocking their ability to do so. :--(
Those who want to investigate the true nature of "U"niverse and Universe{ occupied space } need to begin with the above.
To exclude the above is excluding the greatest whole set. imho. For some the truth sets them free while for other it traps them in endless false projections, misunderstandings if not worse.
r6Rr6---Infinity is to space, as,
eternity is to time.
Physical/energy cannot be created nor destroyed and at best--- or worst case scenario ---observed physical/energy is created from Space ( ) - Space )(.
IN this scenario it is Gravity and Dark Energy that eternally exists and our observed Time ^v as physical/energy reality comes and goes from Gravity and Dark Energy
However, as some heat death of Universe's scenarios have made clear, and I have made clear with texticonic visuals of a heat death of Universe scenario. observed Time ^v i.e. observed physical/energy/reality, becomes one, very large, very low amplitude--- think nearly straight line ---, and very long frequency photon.
The simplest, and mininimalist version of 'heat death of Universe' Ive offerered is as follows, however, the one change Ive made over the years is to understand that 2D great circles are now 3D great tori;
O|O = the already known to exist left and right skew set of at least 31 great circles/tori { OO } and longest wave photon |
Instead of tangent great sets of 31 we see the two sets overlapping with the overlap being where the longest wave photon occurs;
( ( | ) )
A variation of the above, is that same sceanario except there exists a multitude of great circle/tori bilateral sets on each side of the longest possible yet finite wave photon;
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
-------------------------------------------------------------
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
In the latter version we can the overlapping scenario also, just to hard for me to create.
123, ABC thats how easy Universe can be. Sung to M. Jackson tune.
Our finite, occupied space Universe, exists eternally as dynamic set of three primary aspects:
1} Space ( ) i.e. positive shaped gravitational space,
2} time ergo frequency of sine-wave topology ^v ^v or as \/\/\,
3} Space )( i.e. negative shaped dark energy space.
Relatively simple set to grasp. imho a cosmically primary three-ness.
Before the big bang is just more of the same mentioned above.
r6
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023