The Big Bang and two kinds of nothing

[yrreg]

According to the Big Bang Theory time and space and matter started from the Big Bang which is some unimaginable cosmic explosion.

And people conversant with the Big Bang Theory tell us that there was nothing until the Big Bang took place.


However, it is my very rational thought that actually that nothing these people talk about is not absolutely nothing, it is a -- for lack of a better term at this point in time -- pregnant nothing.

A pregnant nothing is a nothing that can transform into something, for example the nothing which led to the Big Bang.



Yrreg

[yrreg]

According to the Big Bang Theory time and space and matter started from the Big Bang which is some unimaginable cosmic explosion.

And people conversant with the Big Bang Theory tell us that there was nothing until the Big Bang took place.


However, it is my very rational thought that actually that nothing these people talk about is not absolutely nothing, it is a -- for lack of a better term at this point in time -- pregnant nothing.

A pregnant nothing is a nothing that can transform into something, for example the nothing which led to the Big Bang.



Yrreg

[Mashuna]

According to the Big Bang Theory time and space and matter started from the Big Bang which is some unimaginable cosmic explosion.

And people conversant with the Big Bang Theory tell us that there was nothing until the Big Bang took place.


However, it is my very rational thought that actually that nothing these people talk about is not absolutely nothing, it is a -- for lack of a better term at this point in time -- pregnant nothing.

A pregnant nothing is a nothing that can transform into something, for example the nothing which led to the Big Bang.



Yrreg

People conversant with the Big Bang theory say that a term like "before the Big Bang" is meaningless and unknowable.

[Foster Zygote]

According to the Big Bang Theory time and space and matter started from the Big Bang which is some unimaginable cosmic explosion.

And people conversant with the Big Bang Theory tell us that there was nothing until the Big Bang took place.


However, it is my very rational thought that actually that nothing these people talk about is not absolutely nothing, it is a -- for lack of a better term at this point in time -- pregnant nothing.

A pregnant nothing is a nothing that can transform into something, for example the nothing which led to the Big Bang.



Yrreg
Your understanding of the Big Bang is incorrect and therefor your conclusion is faulty. Current cosmological theory does not say anything about the universe coming from nothing. The "nothing" that you speak of is actually the compressed universe, so rather than nothing, it was in fact everything.

[Mashuna]

According to the Big Bang Theory time and space and matter started from the Big Bang which is some unimaginable cosmic explosion.

And people conversant with the Big Bang Theory tell us that there was nothing until the Big Bang took place.


However, it is my very rational thought that actually that nothing these people talk about is not absolutely nothing, it is a -- for lack of a better term at this point in time -- pregnant nothing.

A pregnant nothing is a nothing that can transform into something, for example the nothing which led to the Big Bang.



Yrreg

Your understanding of the Big Bang is incorrect and therefor your conclusion is faulty. Current cosmological theory does not say anything about the universe coming from nothing. The "nothing" that you speak of is actually the compressed universe, so rather than nothing, it was in fact everything.

[Cainkane1]

According to the Big Bang Theory time and space and matter started from the Big Bang which is some unimaginable cosmic explosion.

And people conversant with the Big Bang Theory tell us that there was nothing until the Big Bang took place.


However, it is my very rational thought that actually that nothing these people talk about is not absolutely nothing, it is a -- for lack of a better term at this point in time -- pregnant nothing.

A pregnant nothing is a nothing that can transform into something, for example the nothing which led to the Big Bang.



Yrreg
Name one scientist who said there was nothing before the big bang. Whats the name of this scientist? I mean the factors that caused the big bang was there so obviously something was there. Quit saying things that aren't true just because it doesn't fit your belief system.

[Foster Zygote]

According to the Big Bang Theory time and space and matter started from the Big Bang which is some unimaginable cosmic explosion.

And people conversant with the Big Bang Theory tell us that there was nothing until the Big Bang took place.


However, it is my very rational thought that actually that nothing these people talk about is not absolutely nothing, it is a -- for lack of a better term at this point in time -- pregnant nothing.

A pregnant nothing is a nothing that can transform into something, for example the nothing which led to the Big Bang.



Yrreg
People conversant with the Big Bang theory say that a term like "before the Big Bang" is meaningless and unknowable.

[Beerina]

Yes. "A potential for something" is "a far cry from nothing."

[Marquis de Carabas]

Did you duplicate this thread to help us understand the concept two kinds of nothing?

[Safe-Keeper]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

As used by scientists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_condition) at some finite time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_time) in the past, and continues to expand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space) to this day.


Nothing about 'nothing' there.

[RobRoy]

Name one scientist who said there was nothing before the big bang. Whats the name of this scientist? I mean the factors that caused the big bang was there so obviously something was there. Quit saying things that aren't true just because it doesn't fit your belief system.

Isn't he a Buddhist? I didn't know Buddhism was against the Big Bang? It would seem that everything becoming one was right up their alley?

Or is he not a Buddhist?

[Mashuna]

Isn't he a Buddhist? I didn't know Buddhism was against the Big Bang? It would seem that everything becoming one was right up their alley?

Or is he not a Buddhist?

As I recall, he's a fairly fundamental Christian who is very anti-Buddhist.

[Hokulele]

According to the Big Bang Theory time and space and matter started from the Big Bang which is some unimaginable cosmic explosion.


Not even close.

Isn't he a Buddhist? I didn't know Buddhism was against the Big Bang? It would seem that everything becoming one was right up their alley?

Or is he not a Buddhist?


What Mashuna said.

[RobRoy]

As I recall, he's a fairly fundamental Christian who is very anti-Buddhist.

Thanks for enlightening me. His avatar was unclear as to whether he was a Buddhist who offered critiques, or if he was a critic of Buddhism.

[Loss Leader]

Gerry -

Instead of just philosophising about a topic and making up your own terms, why don't you read what others have discovered about it first? Then, the conclusions you come to will have some relation to what is already known to be true.

[JimBenArm]

Thanks for enlightening me. His avatar was unclear as to whether he was a Buddhist who offered critiques, or if he was a critic of Buddhism.
That's not all that's unclear about him...

[JimBenArm]

Nuthin' from Nuthin' leaves Nuthin'
Ya gotta have Sumthin'
If you wanna be with me!

[TMiguel]

Technically lots of properties in the universe when account sums back to nothing (zero). So basically you don’t exist as an all whit the universe.

[brodski]

merged

[Tanstaafl]

But where is the conspiracy of evil Buddhists?

[JimBenArm]

Aw. Now it's only half as much fun as before!

[RobRoy]

But where is the conspiracy of evil Buddhists?

Wouldn't that be an oxymoron?

[Tanstaafl]

To yrreggie, it's redundant.

[Psi Baba]

A pregnant nothing is a nothing that can transform into something, <snip>
I think what you are trying to describe here is generally referred to as "broken symmetry." However, the pre-Bang symmetry is not "nothing."

[RobRoy]

To yrreggie, it's redundant.

Apparently, that's where reality and he diverge.

[Hawk one]

I always enjoy it how fundies are still stuck on "something came from nothing", when that hasn't in fact ever been what any scientific theory concerning the origins of our universe has been about. One should have thought that at least one of'em would have discovered this by now...

[Dancing David]

According to the Big Bang Theory time and space and matter started from the Big Bang which is some unimaginable cosmic explosion.

And people conversant with the Big Bang Theory tell us that there was nothing until the Big Bang took place.


However, it is my very rational thought that actually that nothing these people talk about is not absolutely nothing, it is a -- for lack of a better term at this point in time -- pregnant nothing.

A pregnant nothing is a nothing that can transform into something, for example the nothing which led to the Big Bang.



Yrreg


Welcome back Yrreg, I see your ability to mis-state physics is about the same as your ability to mis-state buddhism.

[yrreg]

Did you duplicate this thread to help us understand the concept two kinds of nothing?

No, it was a mistake because when I tried to transmit the first time the computer did not seem to be working properly, so I tried a second time, and this time the computer worked all right because I saw the post on my screen indicating to me that the post was sent indeed.


Yrreg

[yrreg]

Welcome back Yrreg, I see your ability to mis-state physics is about the same as your ability to mis-state buddhism.

Actually I was not into mis-stating Buddhism but into critique of Buddhism from the standpoint of a thinking person using his inborn reason and intelligence and acting with complete good will and in complete good faith.

If you think about it Buddhism does have a lot of assumptions which are not acceptable to people who do use their reason and intelligence to think constructively and productively, and they act from good will and good faith, for example, Yrreg.

Right away you made a moral judgment on me alleging that I am into making mis-statements, that is a ground for me to suspect that you don't act with good will and in good faith.

But I will not entertain you any further about Buddhism, and about your acting with bad will and in bad fatih.

If you were not in bad faith acting with bad will, then I apologize.


However, if you want to talk about good will and good faith in message boards, tell me what you want to know and I will start a thread on good will and good faith, then we can continue from there, but not here in this thread.



Yrreg

[yrreg]

I always enjoy it how fundies are still stuck on "something came from nothing", when that hasn't in fact ever been what any scientific theory concerning the origins of our universe has been about. One should have thought that at least one of'em would have discovered this by now...

No need to bring in the fundies; I am not any fundy -- and you are not either I presume, but just a person with reason and intelligence and acting with good will and in good faith to learn the facts in everything, in this James Randi Educational Foundation forum.

If you agree with me that there was something and not absolute nothing, then I am happy that you agree with me or that we concur on the same reasonable and intelligent thought, that the Big Bang started not with absolute nothing but with a as I said for lack of a better term, a pregnant nothing.



Yrreg

[yrreg]

I think what you are trying to describe here is generally referred to as "broken symmetry." However, the pre-Bang symmetry is not "nothing."

I just want to see whether people can concur with me on the basis of reason and intelligence that the Big Bang if there was ever one in objective reality outside all our speculations and mathematics in fact started from not an absolute nothing but from what I call a pregnant nothing.

Because in my reasoning intelligence absolute nothing cannot be the starting point of time and space and matter and energy which are all something.

An absolute nothing is pure and simple nothing, you cannot even think of it; but a pregnant nothing is something, only we don't know what exactly it is in terms of our human knowledge at this time in man's history of acquaintance with reality outside his mind.


Of course we want to hear from the people conversant with the Big Bang Theory what exactly they mean by nothing, specially whether nothing was the material from which, or the agent by which or the point of departure from which.

You bring in the term symmetry, can you please enlighten me in a few words what is your meaning for the term symmetry?

You will tell me to look it up myself?

In the meantime you concur with me that the Big Bang did not start from absolute nothing, yes?





Yrreg

[Reality Check]

No need to bring in the fundies; I am not any fundy -- and you are not either I presume, but just a person with reason and intelligence and acting with good will and in good faith to learn the facts in everything, in this James Randi Educational Foundation forum.

If you agree with me that there was something and not absolute nothing, then I am happy that you agree with me or that we concur on the same reasonable and intelligent thought, that the Big Bang started not with absolute nothing but with a as I said for lack of a better term, a pregnant nothing.



Yrreg
You are still not understanding what the actual Big Bang theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang) states. It states that the universe was in a hot and dense condition at a point in the past and expanded from that condition. This starting point is not the beginning of the universe. It is the starting point of the Big Bang theory. We know that current physics cannot extrapolate past the Planck epoch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_epoch)(10-43 seconds after the beginning of the universe).

There is no speculation in the theory about what was before the starting point of the Big Bang theory. It could be nothing, It could be a pregnant nothing. It could be something.
It could be turtles all the way :).

[Dancing David]

Actually I was not into mis-stating Buddhism but into critique of Buddhism from the standpoint of a thinking person using his inborn reason and intelligence and acting with complete good will and in complete good faith.

If you think about it Buddhism does have a lot of assumptions which are not acceptable to people who do use their reason and intelligence to think constructively and productively, and they act from good will and good faith, for example, Yrreg.

Right away you made a moral judgment on me alleging that I am into making mis-statements, that is a ground for me to suspect that you don't act with good will and in good faith.

But I will not entertain you any further about Buddhism, and about your acting with bad will and in bad fatih.

If you were not in bad faith acting with bad will, then I apologize.


However, if you want to talk about good will and good faith in message boards, tell me what you want to know and I will start a thread on good will and good faith, then we can continue from there, but not here in this thread.



Yrreg

Uh right Yrreg, so where did you find a reputable scientist who says that the big bang event came from nothing.

Are you going to quote Pes Oir Amsus?

As usual you just can't abide to be told any body elses POV, you have mis-stated what the big bang is.

care to cite a source?

[yrreg]

People conversant with the Big Bang theory say that a term like "before the Big Bang" is meaningless and unknowable.

I don't agree with them, but I think that are trying to avoid the question because they cannot say anything about it owing to perhaps lack of imagination or intelligence or reason or plain indolence to think.

From my own reason and intelligence, something can be said to be before not in a chronological sense but in another sense.


What other senses can a thing be said to be before another thing but not in chronological sense?


What about this sense, in ordinal numbering one comes first before two, you start counting from one usually and then proceed to two, then three...

Like this: Count off: one, two, three, four...

But one two three four... are aways there already outside your vocal counting, not one of the numbers in a count off is chronologically before another.


Yrreg

[Dancing David]

In the meantime you concur with me that the Big Bang did not start from absolute nothing, yes?





Yrreg

Of course, you still haven't shown where reputable people who are not writing pop science say it came from nothing. It didn't, we just can't know what it might have come from.

here I am quoting myself from here
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4032287&postcount=128


Hiya RB,
That is because of semantic misapplication of nothing to the BBE (big bang event) remember that is label was applied by a detractor of the theory, it might also just be called 'the expanding universe theory'.

From observations that Hubble and an assistant made it was found that there was a relationship between the luminosity of Cepheid variables and the 'red shift' of galaxies, in that in general the dimmer the Cepheid variable the greater the redshift. Cepheid were used because there is a relationship believed to exist between the period of the variable and it's absolute luminosity IE you can tell how bright it is at it's peak from how long it's period is.

Now while there are some other ideas about where redshift comes from it is commonly accepted theory that it comes from the expansion of the universe. It is not as though a giant firecracker went off, it is more that space time itself is expanding (the cosmological constant that Einstein found , rejected and hated), think of an expanding balloon, that isn't a two dimensional surface.

So here you are with this thing, it looks as though (and may be) that the farther an object is the faster it is moving away from us. this is the main point of the theory called Hubble law. Now someone at some point asked a question, if we know it is expanding, what happens if we look at time? Well if we reverse time then everything is getting closer. And there is a place where it converges in to a very small area.

Now this is where Hoyle's appellation becomes misleading: "big bang". That is not really part of the theory. it looks as though the universe is expanding, so a conjecture is made that at some time it was very small. But and it is the Big Butt of the theory, it is not an explosion, it is not a fire ball, it is not a big bang.

It is a rapid expansion of a very small, very hot, very dense universe. It does not go bang, or whoomf or sproing even. Because here is the deal, we are in a universe that we most likely can not see out of, or leave or get information in and out of. we are closed into our universe and can not do any more than speculate about what is 'outside' of it. All we know is that it is expanding and it looks as though we can make theories that match it having expanded from a very small universe to a very large one.

We can not leave sense or see beyond the space or time of our universe. It did not come from nothing, it came from "We don't know, we can't know." There are many possible somethings that our universe could have come from yet all of them are hidden from us and can't be known at this time.

So as I said earlier, the universe came from something something we are ignorant of and that is hidden from us. It could be 'nothing' as in a quantum fluctuation creating universe, anti-universe pairs, it could be recursive inflationary bubbles of space time, it could be branes intersecting in 11 dimensional space, and it could be the Great Burrito eaten by the Great Fox and A Mighty Fart Was Loosed. We don't know.

Now some bright person will find a way to perhaps judge the consequences of the different theories.

But the BBE does not violate the 2nd law of thermo dynamics. as far as we know it came from 'something' or 'nothing we can know'.

But I think there is a clue, space is empty right? Like take space between galaxy clusters and find an area that has no matter for a huge area, like a couple square meters. What is that space, there are no particles in it, and there is no energy (like photons) in it. there is no something as we think or stuff in it, but there is this thing called the ‘vacuum energy' there, even in empty space. Or so the story goes.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy


With a caveat from TubbyThin
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4032570&postcount=131

The Universe is not expanding because of the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant was added because Einstein erroneously thought the Universe was stationary. However, acting on an expanding Universe, it can cause an acceleration. Hence it could be the solution to "dark energy".

[Dancing David]

Isn't he a Buddhist? I didn't know Buddhism was against the Big Bang? It would seem that everything becoming one was right up their alley?

Or is he not a Buddhist?


hard to say, probably not a buddhist and one who despises his mother in law for being one.

[godless dave]

I don't agree with them, but I think that are trying to avoid the question because they cannot say anything about it owing to perhaps lack of imagination or intelligence or reason or plain indolence to think.

Or maybe it's because there is no known way to gather information about that time or to extrapolate about it mathematically.

[Theophage]

Whether or not the Big Bang actually represents the beginning of the universe, or simply the earliest state we can study is something we simply don't know yet. But the fact that the Big Bang happened is not controversial and is well supported by the evidence.

I personally have no problem with the idea that the universe actually began at the Big Bang. In fact, it solves the question of where everything came from quite nicely. Allow me to explain:

Cause and effect is something that happens in time. Causes don't come after their effects, or at the same time as their effects, causes always come before their effects. There is a definite temporal sequence going on here.

Whatever the state of the universe was at the absolute beginning, t=0, it could not have been a caused effect, because there is no point in time before the very first point in time. No place for a cause, means no cause; the state of the universe at the beginning cannot logically have a cause.

So what we have in effect is a naturalistic First Cause, Prime Mover, Uncaused Cause of everything. Simple.

[Marquis de Carabas]

No, it was a mistake because when I tried to transmit the first time the computer did not seem to be working properly, so I tried a second time, and this time the computer worked all right because I saw the post on my screen indicating to me that the post was sent indeed.


Yrreg
Did you answer my question seriously to help us understand the concept no sense of humor?

[Fredrik]

Of course, you still haven't shown where reputable people who are not writing pop science say it came from nothing. It didn't, we just can't know what it might have come from.

That annoying British guy in the BBC documentary "The big bang machine". I think he's an experimental physicist working on the LHC. He said: "In the beginning there was nothing. Absolutely nothing. Then there was an explosion".

It was quite embarrassing really.

[shadron]

However, it is my very rational thought that actually that nothing these people talk about is not absolutely nothing, it is a -- for lack of a better term at this point in time -- pregnant nothing.

Well, very rational or not, I don't think it much cares what you call it, as long as you don't call it late for dinner.

[Hokulele]

I don't agree with them, but I think that are trying to avoid the question because they cannot say anything about it owing to perhaps lack of imagination or intelligence or reason or plain indolence to think.

From my own reason and intelligence, something can be said to be before not in a chronological sense but in another sense.


So when you do not know the answer to something (or cannot know), make poo up. Got it.

[Silentknight]

According to the Big Bang Theory time and space and matter started from the Big Bang which is some unimaginable cosmic explosion.

And people conversant with the Big Bang Theory tell us that there was nothing until the Big Bang took place.


However, it is my very rational thought that actually that nothing these people talk about is not absolutely nothing, it is a -- for lack of a better term at this point in time -- pregnant nothing.

A pregnant nothing is a nothing that can transform into something, for example the nothing which led to the Big Bang.



Yrreg

To avoid restating what others have already said, here's something to consider. The universe as we know it demonstrates a tendency towards increasing disorder. A state of utter nothingness, if at all possible, would actually be a very ordered state. The sudden existence of things under these conditions would simply be this trend in motion towards increasing disorder. I'm not saying this is true, but try to wrap your brain around it.

...Actually on second thought, don't wrap your brain around it. I don't want it to get all slimy and greasy, and then I'd just have to wipe it off later.

[Loss Leader]

That annoying British guy in the BBC documentary "The big bang machine". I think he's an experimental physicist working on the LHC. He said: "In the beginning there was nothing. Absolutely nothing. Then there was an explosion".

It was quite embarrassing really.


I think you're remembering Terry Pratchett, a sarcastic author and non-scientist, who said, "In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded."

[plumjam]

To avoid restating what others have already said, here's something to consider. The universe as we know it demonstrates a tendency towards increasing disorder. A state of utter nothingness, if at all possible, would actually be a very ordered state. The sudden existence of things under these conditions would simply be this trend in motion towards increasing disorder. I'm not saying this is true, but try to wrap your brain around it.

...Actually on second thought, don't wrap your brain around it. I don't want it to get all slimy and greasy, and then I'd just have to wipe it off later.

How can you describe nothingness as 'a very ordered state'? The whole notion of ordering presupposes the existence of bits n bobs to put into an order.
Instead you might be able to get away with the notion of nothingness being perfectly uniform. Uniformly nowt, zilch, nada.

[Foster Zygote]

How can you describe nothingness as 'a very ordered state'? The whole notion of ordering presupposes the existence of bits n bobs to put into an order.
Instead you might be able to get away with the notion of nothingness being perfectly uniform. Uniformly nowt, zilch, nada.

What SN is referring to is the end state of an expanding universe, in which case there would be nothing in the universe but extremely diffuse radiation, all even and uniform.

[Silentknight]

Actually I meant that nothingness, again in purely abstract terms since it may very well be impossible to have nothing at all, would be ordered in the sense of lacking any things that could have a disordered arrangement. I admit though that there is a problem with labeling a total lack of disorder as "ordered" and that uniformity and order are not necessarily the same. Come to think of it now, I also see a problem with taking a property of the universe and applying it to a hypothetical situation where not even the universe exists. It's probably the same fallacy as asking what there was "before" the Big Bang, given that time is a property of the universe, and you'd essentially be trying to apply time to a hypothetical situation where there's no universe.

[yrreg]

Your understanding of the Big Bang is incorrect and therefor your conclusion is faulty. Current cosmological theory does not say anything about the universe coming from nothing. The "nothing" that you speak of is actually the compressed universe, so rather than nothing, it was in fact everything.


That's what I think also, but I have read science writers who say that before the Big Bang there was nothing and if any question is asked about anything existing before the Big Bang, that question is scoffed at for being meaningless.

Here, search for Big Bang nothing with Google, and you will get the following hits among very many:


Results 1 - 10 of about 4,350,000 for Big Bang nothing. (0.31 seconds)

Search Results

Big Bang Theory Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what ...
www.big-bang-theory.com/ - 31k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

World Religions
Theism Truth Claims
Additional Content To Explore

More results from big-bang-theory.com »

The Big Bang Theory of the Origin of the UniverseEarlier versions of the Big Bang theory had the universe originating from a ... by the idea that the universe originated from literally nothing at all. ...
www.kheper.net/cosmos/universe/Big_Bang.htm - 10k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

What Happened Before the Big Bang? : Paul DaviesThe problem, at rock bottom, is this: If nothing happens without a cause, ... If the big bang was the beginning of time itself, then any discussion about ...
www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html - 28k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

The Big Bang and two kinds of nothing - JREF ForumThe Big Bang and two kinds of nothing Religion and Philosophy.
forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=126423&goto=newpost - 16 hours ago - Similar pages - Note this

Big Bang Cosmology and AtheismThe old axiom that "out of nothing, nothing comes" remains as obvious today as .... He has published five books, including Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang ...
www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/smith_18_2.html - 35k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

SPACE.com -- Physicists Say Big Bang was 'Nothing Special'27 Oct 2004 ... The big bang could be a normal event in the natural evolution of the universe that will happen repeatedly over incredibly vast time scales ...
www.space.com/scienceastronomy/big_bang_041027.html - 58k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

WikiAnswers - If nothing existed before the big bang does this ...Astronomy question: If nothing existed before the big bang does this suggest an infinity of nothing? First of all the big bang is one of many theories about ...
wiki.answers.com/Q/If_nothing_existed_before_the_big_bang_does_this_s uggest_an_infinity_of_nothing - 46k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

I LovePhilosophy.com • View topic - big bang nothingA discussion forum for philosophy and related fields.
www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=25&p=2017239 - 16k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Wat caused da big bang 2 occur if there existed nothing b4 it, not ...Answers - Wat caused da big bang 2 occur if there existed nothing b4 it, not even TIME? – Discover the answer for this question and Earn more points for the ...
in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081015061828AAJ1U7s - 18 hours ago - Similar pages - Note this

Dharma the Cat’s Blog » A Hindu perspective on “The Big Bang”Creation began with a big bang. before this big bang nothing existed.” Not even time, without which we would think we could know nothing at all thought the ...
www.dharmathecatcartoons.com/15blog/?p=225 - 14k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next




That is why I say there are two kinds of nothing, the absolute nothing and the pregnant nothing, which latter is whatever exists prior to the Big Bang -- again it is not absolute nothing but pregnant nothing.

Writers a lot of them emphasize nothing without any distinction whatever, which is misleading and gives people the idea that the universe just started from nothing, understanding it to be absolute nothing; and they get so puzzled but are afraid to insist that nothing can come from nothing, because they might be laughed at for being ignorant of science -- really flabbergasted that science can vouch for something starting from nothing because there was nothing absolutely nothing until the Big Bang.



Yrreg

[Reality Check]

Yrreg, Can I ask how many of the 4,350,000 Googled results stated that the Big Bang theory does not include the beginning of the universe? How big a sample did you look at? Is your listing only those sites that support your preconception?

The fact is that you have just seen a common misunderstanding about cosmology. People tend to call the origin of the universe the 'Big Bang'. This is not correct.

The actual Big Bang theory that scientists use is not about the origin of the universe. It makes no statements about the origin of the universe. It makes no statement about the universe before a specified time. The timeline of the Big Bang theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang) starts with
The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models, the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density, huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling.
Note that it starts with the assumption that the universe already exists - there is no mention of the origin of the universe.

Science writers want to make things simple for their readers so they often ignore the fact that the Big Bang theory does not include the origin of the universe.

[CardZeus]

So, Yrreg, what was before your 'pregnant nothing'?

[plumjam]

So, Yrreg, what was before your 'pregnant nothing'?

****ing nothing

[Fredrik]

I think you're remembering Terry Pratchett, a sarcastic author and non-scientist, who said, "In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded."
No, it was this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cox_(physicist)), and he wasn't sarcastic.

I just found the other post I made about this, so now I can tell you his exact words:
"In the beginning, there was nothing. (The picture is black here). No space, no time. Just endless...nothing. (Now they're showing sparks). Then, 13.7 billion years ago, from nothing (now they're showing an explosion with a huge fireball), came everything. The universe exploded into existence."

[Dancing David]

Hmmm, the pattern in the past was to ignore what other people write except for when it makes their point.

It was not nothing Yrreg, it was nothing we can know about, there is a difference.

Ex occultum, not ex nihilio.

[JimBenArm]

So, Yrreg, what was before your 'pregnant nothing'?
There was a mommy nothing and a daddy nothing, and they loved each other very much. Then the nothing stork came, and left a special bundle of nothing on their doorstep.

[Dancing David]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cosmology+big+bang&aq=f&oq=

1. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html

Big Bang Cosmology
The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.


2.http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/inflation.html

For most of this century our view of the large-scale structure and history of the universe has been dominated by the big bang model. According to this model the universe at early times was a nearly uniform expanding collection of high energy, high temperature particles. A system that is uniform—the same everywhere—is known in physics as homogeneous. The small differences in density that did exist from one point to another are called inhomogeneities. As the universe expanded and cooled these small inhomogeneities were then amplified by gravity. The matter in regions with slightly higher than average density collapsed to form the structures we see today such as clusters and galaxies. Extrapolating backwards, on the other hand, that nearly homogeneous fireball would have had higher temperatures and densities at earlier times, ultimately reaching infinite density at a moment about 15 billion years ago. That moment is called the big bang.

3. http://ssscott.tripod.com/BigBang.html

Approximately 13.7 billion years ago, the entirety of our universe was compressed into the confines of an atomic nucleus. Known as a singularity, this is the moment before creation when space and time did not exist. According to the prevailing cosmological models that explain our universe, an ineffable explosion, trillions of degrees in temperature on any measurement scale, that was infinitely dense, created not only fundamental subatomic particles and thus matter and energy but space and time itself. Cosmology theorists combined with the observations of their astronomy colleagues have been able to reconstruct the primordial chronology of events known as the big bang.


4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[20] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly not earlier than the Planck epoch. The early hot, dense phase is itself referred to as "the Big Bang",[21] and is considered the "birth" of our universe.


5. http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm

This one is an embarrasing attempt to do something…

6.http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html
This one does say nothing.

7. http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html

another one like 5.



there are three more, one plasma cosmology and two that state that the BBE is about the status of the universe but not starting in nothing.


So survey says

1 reference to nothing
3 references to critques of the BBE by loosely organized and evidence lacking theories.
6 that refer to the discussion of the BBE theory without mention of the origin

So in this biased survey of Google ‘cosmology big bang’

we have 30% not about the BBE, and one out of seven that uses the started in nothing phrase.

[Dancing David]

There was a mommy nothing and a daddy nothing, and they loved each other very much. Then the nothing stork came, and left a special bundle of nothing on their doorstep.


:D

That's not what I heard...

In the back seat of Papa nothing Chevy , some exploring of nothing led to the usual youthful nothing and then there was a shotgun and well, the baby nothing was premature...

[yrreg]

Okay, so everyone here in effect is of the idea that when or at the point at which the Big Bang occurred and the universe came about, there was already simultaneously at least if not antecedently from the Big Bang, something existing independent of the Big Bang and the resulting universe.


Do I get your people here correctly?



Yrreg

[Foster Zygote]

Do I get your people here correctly?

Yes.

[JCL]

yrreg,

To support a discussion in good faith, would you please restate your OP using the information that has been provided, and removing the strawman scientific POV you used to begin the discussion.

Thanks,

[Mashuna]

Okay, so everyone here in effect is of the idea that when or at the point at which the Big Bang occurred and the universe came about, there was already simultaneously at least if not antecedently from the Big Bang, something existing independent of the Big Bang and the resulting universe.


Do I get your people here correctly?



Yrreg

Not known.

[Foster Zygote]

Yes.

Make that "No".

[Theophage]

Okay, so everyone here in effect is of the idea that when or at the point at which the Big Bang occurred and the universe came about, there was already simultaneously at least if not antecedently from the Big Bang, something existing independent of the Big Bang and the resulting universe.


Do I get your people here correctly?

Not at all. In fact, If someone did say that, I guess I missed it, because none of the answers I read agreed with the above.

Maybe I just don't get what you said above?

[Dancing David]

Okay, so everyone here in effect is of the idea that when or at the point at which the Big Bang occurred and the universe came about, there was already simultaneously at least if not antecedently from the Big Bang, something existing independent of the Big Bang and the resulting universe.


Do I get your people here correctly?



Yrreg

Sort of, we can't know or can't say. It is a realm of endless possibility and no consequences for guessing.

[Reality Check]

Okay, so everyone here in effect is of the idea that when or at the point at which the Big Bang occurred and the universe came about, there was already simultaneously at least if not antecedently from the Big Bang, something existing independent of the Big Bang and the resulting universe.

Do I get your people here correctly?

Yrreg
No you have not. "Big Bang occurred" and "the universe came about" are two different events and did not happen at the same point in time. At the point of the Big Bang the universe already existed. The Big Bang theory states nothing about the origin of the universe.

[yrreg]

yrreg,

To support a discussion in good faith, would you please restate your OP using the information that has been provided, and removing the strawman scientific POV you used to begin the discussion.

Thanks,


I started and am pursuing this thread with good will and in good faith.

The purpose is to hear from others better informed than myself whether they can accept statements found in science writers that the university started from nothing.

So I introduced the distinction between absolute nothing and pregnant nothing -- the phrase I coined for lack of at this point in time a better term.


According to the Big Bang Theory time and space and matter started from the Big Bang which is some unimaginable cosmic explosion.

And people conversant with the Big Bang Theory tell us that there was nothing until the Big Bang took place.


However, it is my very rational thought that actually that nothing these people talk about is not absolutely nothing, it is a -- for lack of a better term at this point in time -- pregnant nothing.

A pregnant nothing is a nothing that can transform into something, for example the nothing which led to the Big Bang.



Yrreg


If you read the OP from the standpoint of the biggest picture man can have of existence and non-existence, i.e., something and nothing, then you will get my orientation immediately, whatever the shortcomings in language and the inaccuracies of details, even seemingly engaging in strawmen from my part which is totally not my intention.

If people want to search for strawmen, they will find them everywhere but they will not get the core message of any honest and sincere writer hoping to reach the comprehension of readers.


After reading the posts here so far written by people whom I see to have gotten my most ultimate essential orientation of something and nothing, I made a general statement which I am as far as honesty and sincerity are concerned, namely, motivated by good will and proceeding in good faith, I said:

Okay, so everyone here in effect is of the idea that when or at the point at which the Big Bang occurred and the universe came about, there was already simultaneously at least if not antecedently from the Big Bang, something existing independent of the Big Bang and the resulting universe.


Do I get your people here correctly?



Yrreg


In brief, there has been something at least simultaneously if not antecedently existing at the Big Bang event.

And it is not in accordance with human reason and intelligence to say that there was absolutely nothing at the Big Bang event and everything started at that event.



Yrreg

[MarkCorrigan]

No, it was this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cox_(physicist)), and he wasn't sarcastic.

I just found the other post I made about this, so now I can tell you his exact words:

Actually the problem was not with Dr Cox but the idiotic BBC documentary makers who decided to take his words to mean that there was an explosion.

If I said the population of rabbits exploded it's obvious that I do not mean that they all blew up like C4.

He used language that was a tad simplistic, but he WAS talking to a public who are not all wonderful at physics.

[yrreg]

Okay, so everyone here in effect is of the idea that when or at the point at which the Big Bang occurred and the universe came about, there was already simultaneously at least if not antecedently from the Big Bang, something existing independent of the Big Bang and the resulting universe.


Do I get your people here correctly?



Yrreg


Not known.

You mean you cannot intelligently reason out that something has been there simultaneously at least if not antecedently (even just with a non-chronological antecedence) with the Big Bang?

Or you will not wherefore you can say "Not known."



Yrreg

[Reality Check]

Yrreg: The problems with the OT are:
According to the Big Bang Theory time and space and matter started from the Big Bang which is some unimaginable cosmic explosion.

The Big Bang is not unimaginable (cosmologists it imagine all the time). It is also not a 'cosmic explosion'. It is a expansion of space-time.
The Big Bang Theory does not say anything about how time and space and matter started.


And people conversant with the Big Bang Theory tell us that there was nothing until the Big Bang took place.

Some citations would be good. For example I am conversant with the Big Bang Theory and I know that it does not say that. In fact it states the opposite - that there was something (a hot dense initial condition).


However, it is my very rational thought that actually that nothing these people talk about is not absolutely nothing, it is a -- for lack of a better term at this point in time -- pregnant nothing.

A pregnant nothing is a nothing that can transform into something, for example the nothing which led to the Big Bang.

Yrreg
That is an assumption that the origin of the universe (not the Big Bang) was nothing. But if it did start from nothing then it started from nothing by definition.
We know that nothing can transform itself into something, e.g. virtual particles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles) emerge from the vacuum. There is no need for a "pregnant nothing".

[DOC]

Your understanding of the Big Bang is incorrect and therefor your conclusion is faulty. Current cosmological theory does not say anything about the universe coming from nothing. The "nothing" that you speak of is actually the compressed universe, so rather than nothing, it was in fact everything.

The word "compressed" implies someone or something compressed everything from one state to its current state of compression. But that doesn't make sense that something just eternally existed in a compressed state and than suddenly no longer became compressed.

[DOC]

Your understanding of the Big Bang is incorrect and therefor your conclusion is faulty. Current cosmological theory does not say anything about the universe coming from nothing. The "nothing" that you speak of is actually the compressed universe, so rather than nothing, it was in fact everything.

The word "compressed" implies someone or something compressed everything from one state to its current state of compression. If this is true then the BB wasn't the beginning of the known universe as science now theorizes.

And it doesn't make sense that something just eternally existed in a compressed state and then suddenly no longer became compressed because being compressed was an unstable condition for some reason.

[Hokulele]

Heh, which is the poorer interpretation of Big Bang theory, DOC's or yrreg's?

[DOC]

Heh, which is the poorer interpretation of Big Bang theory, DOC's or yrreg's?

Explain your reasoning for your non-specific statement about my post.

[Hokulele]

Explain your reasoning for your non-specific statement about my post.


Which one? You attempted to post the same thing twice.

[DOC]

Which one? You attempted to post the same thing twice.

I asked for an explanation, and I'm not getting one.

[DOC]

Which one? You attempted to post the same thing twice.

This one:

[The word "compressed" implies someone or something compressed everything from one state to its current state of compression. If this is true then the BB wasn't the beginning of the known universe as science now theorizes.

And it doesn't make sense that something just eternally existed in a compressed state and then suddenly no longer became compressed because being compressed was an unstable condition for some reason.]

[erlando]

The word "compressed" implies someone or something compressed everything from one state to its current state of compression. If this is true then the BB wasn't the beginning of the known universe as science now theorizes.


The Big Bang Theory says nothing of the origin of the universe.

Fact is current mathematical models of the universe break down when we try to extrapolate further back than the Planck Epoch.

That's why the notion of the Big Bang being the starting point of the universe has taken hold in pop-science.

You might get away with saying that the Big Bang was the starting point of the current version of spacetime. There might have been other versions before this. There might not.

We don't know. And it might be unknowable unless we find some way of extrapolating further back.

[Dancing David]

You mean you cannot intelligently reason out that something has been there simultaneously at least if not antecedently (even just with a non-chronological antecedence) with the Big Bang?

Or you will not wherefore you can say "Not known."



Yrreg

Yrreg,

The answer has no meaning, if you read about quantum mechanics, which is a very effective approximation of reality, you will soon realize that the universe does not care for human reason or logic, or our intuitive understanding of things.

the answer is unknown. It stand to human reason that there universe may be part of a co-existing structure, yet the universe often does not stand to human reason or logic.

Why should particles the size of bucky balls (C-60) show wave charateristics, why should Bose-Einstein Condenstae exist, why the double slit experiement.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2952
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_slit_experiment


And those just scratch the surface of QM, the universe does not stand to human reason and logic.

[Dancing David]

The word "compressed" implies someone or something compressed everything from one state to its current state of compression. But that doesn't make sense that something just eternally existed in a compressed state and than suddenly no longer became compressed.


The universe does not care about human sense and sensibility. It was it it is.

[Dancing David]

I asked for an explanation, and I'm not getting one.


Ah but then you are hung up on the word compressed, so drop it.

The thing is this, the universe acts as though at some point all of space time and it's energy occupied a very small space (except that space was that very small thing). Given the current acceleration of the expansion of the universe, it is unlikely that something 'compressed' it. Now there is the explanation, the use of the word 'compressed' is an analogy that breaks down due to the fact that it is not a very good approximation of the universe at that time.

The best way to think about it (IMNSHO) is to avoid the comparisons and analogies and just take what we have, the universe. It looks as though it started as a very small thing (the Plank length) and that it was very small, very dense, and very energetic. It is now a much 'bigger' thing, not so dense but equally energetic.

But it is similar to the issue of thinking about electrons as bits of something orbiting the nucleus of the atom. It makes great intuitive sense, it is also highly inaccurate.

The universe may or may not act like it existed before that point in space time, we don't know.
The universe may or may not have come from some pre-existing thing, we don't know.

[Mashuna]

I started and am pursuing this thread with good will and in good faith.

The purpose is to hear from others better informed than myself whether they can accept statements found in science writers that the university started from nothing.


I can agree that the university started from nothing. Any university. That is a reasonable claim you've made.

[Mashuna]

Heh, which is the poorer interpretation of Big Bang theory, DOC's or yrreg's?

Ooh, that's a toughie. . .

The word "compressed" implies someone or something compressed everything from one state to its current state of compression.
No it doesn't


If this is true then the BB wasn't the beginning of the known universe as science now theorizes.
That's ok, your original claim isn't true, so no problem here.



And it doesn't make sense that something just eternally existed in a compressed state and then suddenly no longer became compressed because being compressed was an unstable condition for some reason.
I accept that you're extraordinarily well-equipped to make these arguments from ignorance, but it's still a fallacy.

[Hokulele]

I asked for an explanation, and I'm not getting one.


Yes, it sucks, doesn't it? Maybe from now on you will answer my questions directly and without evasion. Let's start now:

DOC, do you consider our sun to be compressed? If so, why? If not, why not?

[Silentknight]

The word "compressed" implies someone or something compressed everything from one state to its current state of compression. But that doesn't make sense that something just eternally existed in a compressed state and than suddenly no longer became compressed.

That's like saying that the fact that raindrops fall from the sky means that someone placed every last one of those raindrops up there in the first place. But we all know that the god Ying Long causes rainfall whenever he sneezes, so that's kind of a moot point.

[Safe-Keeper]

The word "compressed" implies someone or something compressed everything from one state to its current state of compression. But that doesn't make sense that something just eternally existed in a compressed state and than suddenly no longer became compressed. No more than it makes sense for Yahweh to sit around bored for an infinitely long time, for then to suddenly decide to create a world.

What I think a lot of Christians are failing to grasp is that the Big Bang, formation of planets, Abiogenesis and the Theory of Evolution are not counterparts to the Genesis myth. The Big Bang is not meant to be a replacement for 'in the beginning, God created the Earth'. It's not meant to explain what came first. It's a statement that evidence strongly suggests that all matter in the universe was billions of years ago compressed into a singularity infinitely small and dense. That's it. No one says it's how everything started, or that nothing came before it. But most likely, it's still how it happened.

[Herzblut]

The Big Bang is not unimaginable (cosmologists it imagine all the time). It is also not a 'cosmic explosion'. It is a expansion of space-time.
So, the BB is still ongoing? :D


The Big Bang Theory does not say anything about how time and space and matter started.

Of course it does. The BBT says that the universe (time, space, matter) started all from one singularity and is expanding since then.

[Reality Check]

So, the BB is still ongoing? :D


Of course it does. The BBT says that the universe (time, space, matter) started all from one singularity and is expanding since then.
Yes the BB is ongoing.
You are mostly correct but BBT states that time, space, matter did not start from the singularity - they already existed. BBT does not say anything about where the singularity came from or what was there before the singularity.

The OT starts with the assumption that the BBT states that there was nothing before the singularity. That is wrong. It then introduces an unneeded "pregnant nothing" (why not "potential something").

[Herzblut]

Yes the BB is ongoing.
No, it took place around 14 billion years ago.


You are mostly correct but BBT states that time, space, matter did not start from the singularity - they already existed.

No, it says the exact opposite. Matter could not possibly exist prior to the nucleosynthesis phase (or so) of the early universe, temperature was prohibitive. The very early universe's evolution "configured" the characteristics of space and time etc., as we know it now. That is the whole point of the BBT, if you ask me. :)


The OT starts with the assumption that the BBT states that there was nothing before the singularity. That is wrong. It then introduces an unneeded "pregnant nothing" (why not "potential something").
These are all meaningless phrases for me, unless scientifically defined. And that's hardly possible because all physics breaks down before time zero plus Planck time. And how can an old book say anything about theories that came up roughly 2000 years after it was written?

[Herzblut]

You might get away with saying that the Big Bang was the starting point of the current version of spacetime. There might have been other versions before this. There might not.

Yeah. But, with due respect, if we talk about "the Universe" we mean its current "release". We don't know anything about anything else.

[Reality Check]

No, it took place around 14 billion years ago.

Your are right. The Big Bang event took place 14 billion years ago. The BB expansion caused by the event is ongoing.


No, it says the exact opposite. Matter could not possibly exist prior to the nucleosynthesis phase (or so) of the early universe, temperature was prohibitive. The very early universe's evolution "configured" the characteristics of space and time etc., as we know it now. That is the whole point of the BBT, if you ask me. :)

Matter in the form of a quark-gluon plasma as well as all other elementary particles did not exist until after inflation and before the nucleosynthesis phase. But energy did exist and energy is definitely something and definitely not nothing. I should not really have used the same language as the original poster ("time, space, matter") but the more exact "time, space, energy".

In the BBT space and time are never "configured". They merely exist. The "etc." might be configured, e.g. the relative strengths of the fundamental forces as they separate from each other.


These are all meaningless phrases for me, unless scientifically defined. And that's hardly possible because all physics breaks down before time zero plus Planck time. And how can an old book say anything about theories that came up roughly 2000 years after it was written?
Actually I thought that this thread was about philosophy, not religion ("two kinds of nothing" hints at that).
I agree that a thread that mentions BB should use scientific terminology. Thus "pregnant nothing" is meaningless (as is "potential something" :)).

[Tubbythin]

No, it says the exact opposite. Matter could not possibly exist prior to the nucleosynthesis phase (or so) of the early universe, temperature was prohibitive.

This really depends on what you mean by "or so".
Matter certainly did exist before the nucleosynthesis phase. But the Universe had to cool down to the extent that photon energies were no longer great enough to reverse the reaction:
p+p ->d + e+ + neutrino
before this phase could begin.

[erlando]

Yeah. But, with due respect, if we talk about "the Universe" we mean its current "release". We don't know anything about anything else.

That's the precise reason for my built-in disclaimer "might get away with". :)

[Malerin]

Whether or not the Big Bang actually represents the beginning of the universe, or simply the earliest state we can study is something we simply don't know yet. But the fact that the Big Bang happened is not controversial and is well supported by the evidence.

I personally have no problem with the idea that the universe actually began at the Big Bang. In fact, it solves the question of where everything came from quite nicely. Allow me to explain:

Cause and effect is something that happens in time. Causes don't come after their effects, or at the same time as their effects, causes always come before their effects. There is a definite temporal sequence going on here.

Whatever the state of the universe was at the absolute beginning, t=0, it could not have been a caused effect, because there is no point in time before the very first point in time. No place for a cause, means no cause; the state of the universe at the beginning cannot logically have a cause.

So what we have in effect is a naturalistic First Cause, Prime Mover, Uncaused Cause of everything. Simple.

T=0 doesn't quite get you there. The following questions can still be asked: Why did the Big Bang happen at all? Why something (the universe) instead of nothing? What property did the Big Bang have that allowed it to cause itself?

Physicst Craig Hogan and astronomer Bruce Margon don't consider the Big Bang a First Cause:

"What came before the Big Bang?

The standard Big Bang model is singular at the time of the Big Bang, t = 0. This means that one cannot even define time, since spacetime is singular. In some models like the chaotic or perpetual inflation favored by Linde, the Big Bang is just one of many inflating bubbles in a spacetime foam. But there is no possibility of getting information from outside our own one bubble. Thus I conclude that: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

From Bruce Margon and Craig Hogan at the Univ. of Washington


http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBB


Can you find some astronomers, cosmologists, or physicists who consider the Big Bang an "uncaused cause" or "first cause"?

[Tubbythin]

Oops. The reaction I gave before was wrong (it was of course the first reaction in the p-p chain). The relevant reaction is:
p+n->d.

[Molinaro]

I don't agree with them, but I think that are trying to avoid the question because they cannot say anything about it owing to perhaps lack of imagination or intelligence or reason or plain indolence to think.

Yrreg

If you were standing at the north pole and I asked you to point north, and you told me you couldn't from there.. would it be fair for me to say you lack imagination or intelligence or reason or plain indolence to think?

No I don't think it would. By the definition of the cardinal directions on the surface of a spheroid, the direction north does not exist when standing at the north pole.

Likewise, by the definition of time within our universe, before the big bang does not exist. You seem to want to alter the definition of time into something that it is not.

[Malerin]

If you were standing at the north pole and I asked you to point north, and you told me you couldn't from there.. would it be fair for me to say you lack imagination or intelligence or reason or plain indolence to think?

No I don't think it would. By the definition of the cardinal directions on the surface of a spheroid, the direction north does not exist when standing at the north pole.

Likewise, by the definition of time within our universe, before the big bang does not exist. You seem to want to alter the definition of time into something that it is not.

And yet research is still going on regarding what caused the Big Bang:

"Brane cosmology models[53] in which inflation is due to the movement of branes in string theory; the pre-big bang model; the ekpyrotic model, in which the Big Bang is the result of a collision between branes; and the cyclic model, a variant of the ekpyrotic model in which collisions occur periodically.[54][55][56]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

"The two free parameters, which Bojowald found were complementary, represent the quantum uncertainty in the total volume of the universe before and after the Big Bang."

http://www.science.psu.edu/alert/Bojowald6-2007.htm

[Reality Check]

And yet research is still going on regarding what caused the Big Bang:

"Brane cosmology models[53] in which inflation is due to the movement of branes in string theory; the pre-big bang model; the ekpyrotic model, in which the Big Bang is the result of a collision between branes; and the cyclic model, a variant of the ekpyrotic model in which collisions occur periodically.[54][55][56]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

"The two free parameters, which Bojowald found were complementary, represent the quantum uncertainty in the total volume of the universe before and after the Big Bang."

http://www.science.psu.edu/alert/Bojowald6-2007.htm
That is correct:

There is research going on into the origin of the universe (Big Bang).
There is research going on into the evolution of the universe (everything after the Big Bang).
These are 2 different areas of research. This is analogous to the split between research into abiogenesis and research into evolution.

The Brane model of the Big Bang is that space and time always exist and the big bangs are the result of brane intersections.
Thank you for pointing out Bojowald's model which I did not know about before.

[Malerin]

That is correct:

There is research going on into the origin of the universe (Big Bang).
There is research going on into the evolution of the universe (everything after the Big Bang).
These are 2 different areas of research. This is analogous to the split between research into abiogenesis and research into evolution.

The Brane model of the Big Bang is that space and time always exist and the big bangs are the result of brane intersections.
Thank you for pointing out Bojowald's model which I did not know about before.

My point in posting that was in response to someone who claimed that since time didn't exist before the Big Bang, it was pointless to speculate about what casued it. Such speculation is ongoing. I think the "What's North of the North pole" analogy isn't really satisfying for a lot of people. There should be some explanation why the Big Bang occured at all.

Also, glad I was able to dig something up for ya.

[yrreg]

Coming back to the original OP:

According to the Big Bang Theory time and space and matter started from the Big Bang which is some unimaginable cosmic explosion.

And people conversant with the Big Bang Theory tell us that there was nothing until the Big Bang took place.


However, it is my very rational thought that actually that nothing these people talk about is not absolutely nothing, it is a -- for lack of a better term at this point in time -- pregnant nothing.

A pregnant nothing is a nothing that can transform into something, for example the nothing which led to the Big Bang.



Yrreg


I guess everyone is agreed that in the biggest picture of things of something or nothing, there has always been something all the time, before, during, and after the Big Bang.

Science writers who tell readers that before the Big Bang there was nothing and therefore it is meaningless to ask what came before the Big Bang, don't know what is the meaning of meaning.

Scientists can speculate on the ultimate smallest particles of the universe and the remotest reaches of the universe.

At the end of the day they have to admit that something has always been existing which is the source of all things, all existence.

Call that God, and that conclusion had been already in the minds of the earliest men who did look at the biggest picture of things which is something or nothing.

That picture says there is something, not ever nothing.

Think about the poet who declaims thus:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.

He was in the beginning with God, all thing were made through Him, and without Him was nothing made which was made.

In Him was life, and that life is the light of the world, [ etc. ]
Thanks everyone for your enlightening information and opinions.

Yrreg

[Dancing David]

Coming back to the original OP:




I guess everyone is agreed that in the biggest picture of things of something or nothing, there has always been something all the time, before, during, and after the Big Bang.

No we didn't agree to that.

It seems to be a nice intuition.

But we can't know.

You don't like that do you?

The answer is there is no answer.

Yup.


Science writers who tell readers that before the Big Bang there was nothing and therefore it is meaningless to ask what came before the Big Bang, don't know what is the meaning of meaning.

Um, any reputable people say that, did you read any of the posts here, oh Great Masturbator?


Scientists can speculate on the ultimate smallest particles of the universe and the remotest reaches of the universe.

At the end of the day they have to admit that something has always been existing which is the source of all things, all existence.

Nope, just like most of your hot air this is your unsupported assertion.

Nope they don't, you are still a poseur scptic.


Call that God, and that conclusion had been already in the minds of the earliest men who did look at the biggest picture of things which is something or nothing.

Sure Gerry, Magic Sky Pixie, tell me another story.

That picture says there is something, not ever nothing.

Nope, we can't know, I bet that just bothers you.


Think about the poet who declaims thus:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.

He was in the beginning with God, all thing were made through Him, and without Him was nothing made which was made.

In Him was life, and that life is the light of the world, [ etc. ]
Thanks everyone for your enlightening information and opinions.

Yrreg

Um, some poet, pretty weak, take you mission and go rub yourself on it, be sure to tell everyone in your news letter about how we all agreed with your POV, but you know the truth.

We didn't.

[Dancing David]

In the beginning was the Noodle, and the Noodle was with Sauce, and Sauce was the Noodle.

It was in the beginning with Sauce, all things were made through It, and without It was nothing made which was made.

In It was life, and that life is the light of the world,

[PaKu]

In the beginning was the Noodle, and the Noodle was with Sauce, and Sauce was the Noodle.

It was in the beginning with Sauce, all things were made through It, and without It was nothing made which was made.

In It was life, and that life is the light of the world,
If the OP had waited a little more he could have neatly closed this thread with a #100 post, making the statement he was planning to hoist upon us any way.

But now the Theory Of The Noodle takes the cake.

(I need lunch)

[Foster Zygote]

I guess everyone is agreed that in the biggest picture of things of something or nothing, there has always been something all the time, before, during, and after the Big Bang.
There is no "before" the Big Bang. As for "during" and "after": the Big Bang is still going on now.

Science writers who tell readers that before the Big Bang there was nothing and therefore it is meaningless to ask what came before the Big Bang, don't know what is the meaning of meaning.
No. These science writers, whomever they are (could you cite some of them?), don't know the basics of modern cosmology. "The meaning of meaning" may sound deep to some, but it's, well, meaningless.

Scientists can speculate on the ultimate smallest particles of the universe and the remotest reaches of the universe.
So can priests and gurus. Where science is different is in its actual investigation.

At the end of the day they have to admit that something has always been existing which is the source of all things, all existence.
No. That's nonsesical. All existence isn't its own source of existence.

Call that God, and that conclusion had been already in the minds of the earliest men who did look at the biggest picture of things which is something or nothing.
Can I just call my cat "God"?

That picture says there is something, not ever nothing.
So you've abandoned your "pregnant nothing" argument in favor of arguing that stuff exists. Well, you're making progress.

Think about the poet who declaims thus:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.

He was in the beginning with God, all thing were made through Him, and without Him was nothing made which was made.

In Him was life, and that life is the light of the world, [ etc. ]

Consider the poet who wrote:
There's a golden moon that shines up through the mist
And I know that your name can be on that list
There's no eye for an eye, there's no tooth for a tooth
I saw Judas Iscariot carrying John Wilkes Booth
He was down there by the train
Down there by the train
Down there by the train
Down there by the train
He was down there where the train goes slow

Thanks everyone for your enlightening information and opinions.

Yrreg
Thanks for your... ermm...

[Silentknight]

Can I just call my cat "God"?

I was going to come up with a witty reply to this, but I think my God just threw up. God damnit, all over the carpet again!

[yrreg]

...

But we can't know.

...



You were not present but you are now present and possessed of conscious intelligence.

Tell me, from your conscious intelligence, if the universe known to you today had never appeared in reality, has there always been something just the same in reality.

And should the universe leave the stage of reality and no longer be around including you, since you are at present in reality and possessed of conscious intelligence, can you tell me and tell yourself of course, that there is still always the something.

That something is always around even though time and space and matter whatever kinds and quantities of had never become reality, and that something is always around should time, etc., be no longer reality.

Yrreg

[Dancing David]

You were not present but you are now present and possessed of conscious intelligence.

Tell me, from your conscious intelligence, if the universe known to you today had never appeared in reality, has there always been something just the same in reality.

And should the universe leave the stage of reality and no longer be around including you, since you are at present in reality and possessed of conscious intelligence, can you tell me and tell yourself of course, that there is still always the something.

That something is always around even though time and space and matter whatever kinds and quantities of had never become reality, and that something is always around should time, etc., be no longer reality.

Yrreg

Again we can't know. there is no answer, I know you don't like that.

We are talking about a set of items that we can not determine the nature of, IE what existed prior to the BBE, so applying the logic and reason of what exists after and within the BBE does not extend to a set we can not have knowledge of.

As I said, it makes sense to out human reason that there would be 'something' that the BBE 'came from', however reality does not have to agree with with our human reason. This is true quite often within the BBE.

So it is safer to say "We don't have knowledge of what might or might not have existed prior to the BBE.", that is the most accurate statement that can be made.

If we are stuck in the space/time of the universe and there is no way we can see outside of the universe, then all speculation about what is outside of the closed universe is just that speculation.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Call that God, and that conclusion had been already in the minds of the earliest men who did look at the biggest picture of things which is something or nothing.

Can I call it Balls?

Think about the poet who declaims thus:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.

He was in the beginning with God, all thing were made through Him, and without Him was nothing made which was made.

In Him was life, and that life is the light of the world,

What is referred to here is generally considered to be beyond our scope of comprehension, but somehow this poet assumed “it” possessed genitalia? :jaw-dropp

[Malerin]

There is no "before" the Big Bang. As for "during" and "after": the Big Bang is still going on now.


No. These science writers, whomever they are (could you cite some of them?), don't know the basics of modern cosmology. "The meaning of meaning" may sound deep to some, but it's, well, meaningless.


"Brane cosmology models[53] in which inflation is due to the movement of branes in string theory; the pre-big bang model; the ekpyrotic model, in which the Big Bang is the result of a collision between branes; and the cyclic model, a variant of the ekpyrotic model in which collisions occur periodically.[54][55][56]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

"The two free parameters, which Bojowald found were complementary, represent the quantum uncertainty in the total volume of the universe before and after the Big Bang."

http://www.science.psu.edu/alert/Bojowald6-2007.htm

[yrreg]

Again we can't know. there is no answer, I know you don't like that.

We are talking about a set of items that we can not determine the nature of, IE what existed prior to the BBE, so applying the logic and reason of what exists after and within the BBE does not extend to a set we can not have knowledge of.

As I said, it makes sense to out human reason that there would be 'something' that the BBE 'came from', however reality does not have to agree with with our human reason. This is true quite often within the BBE.

So it is safer to say "We don't have knowledge of what might or might not have existed prior to the BBE.", that is the most accurate statement that can be made.

If we are stuck in the space/time of the universe and there is no way we can see outside of the universe, then all speculation about what is outside of the closed universe is just that speculation.

If we are stuck in the space/time of the universe and there is no way we can see outside of the universe, then all speculation about what is outside of the closed universe is just that speculation.
Speculation about (1) whether outside there is this or that something, (2) or speculation that there is something at all or nothing?

Please be specific.


Yrreg

[yrreg]

"Brane cosmology models[53] in which inflation is due to the movement of branes in string theory; the pre-big bang model; the ekpyrotic model, in which the Big Bang is the result of a collision between branes; and the cyclic model, a variant of the ekpyrotic model in which collisions occur periodically.[54][55][56]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

"The two free parameters, which Bojowald found were complementary, represent the quantum uncertainty in the total volume of the universe before and after the Big Bang."

http://www.science.psu.edu/alert/Bojowald6-2007.htm


In simple words, there is always something before time and space and whatever matter and energy and all quantities of particles and kinds of, and if and when they should leave the scene of reality -- there is still always and anywhere in an analogous sense something.


yrreg

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by yrreg
I guess everyone is agreed that in the biggest picture of things of something or nothing, there has always been something all the time, before, during, and after the Big Bang.
There is no "before" the Big Bang. As for "during" and "after": the Big Bang is still going on now.
Quote:
Science writers who tell readers that before the Big Bang there was nothing and therefore it is meaningless to ask what came before the Big Bang, don't know what is the meaning of meaning.
No. These science writers, whomever they are (could you cite some of them?), don't know the basics of modern cosmology. "The meaning of meaning" may sound deep to some, but it's, well, meaningless.

[...]




In regard to “what came before the Big Bang?” I like to hear from you when is a question endowed with meaning and when meaningless?

Is that question, “what came before the Big Bang?” of the same kind as asking which is more: half-full or half-empty.

Or of what kind, can you give another example of a question that is for you as meaningless as the question, “what came before the Big Bang?” which you insist is meaningless for you.

Yrreg

[Hokulele]

Or of what kind, can you give another example of a question that is for you as meaningless as the question, “what came before the Big Bang?” which you insist is meaningless for you.


What did your face look like before you were conceived?

[Silentknight]

What did your face look like before you were conceived?

I don't know about before he was conceived, but before he was born, like the content of his posts, it would have looked a little fishy.

[erlando]

The Comic Sans is REALLY starting to get on my nerves..

But then again it lends a deserved comic book quality to the posts.

[Mashuna]

Or of what kind, can you give another example of a question that is for you as meaningless as the question, “what came before the Big Bang?” which you insist is meaningless for you.

Yrreg

If you just do a search on "All threads started by Yrreg", it'll give you an idea.

[Malerin]

What did your face look like before you were conceived?

Apparently, the question is not meaningless to some scientists. It's a shame I've had to post this three times now:

"Brane cosmology models[53] in which inflation is due to the movement of branes in string theory; the pre-big bang model; the ekpyrotic model, in which the Big Bang is the result of a collision between branes; and the cyclic model, a variant of the ekpyrotic model in which collisions occur periodically.[54][55][56]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

"The two free parameters, which Bojowald found were complementary, represent the quantum uncertainty in the total volume of the universe before and after the Big Bang."

http://www.science.psu.edu/alert/Bojowald6-2007.htm

[Dancing David]

If we are stuck in the space/time of the universe and there is no way we can see outside of the universe, then all speculation about what is outside of the closed universe is just that speculation.
Speculation about (1) whether outside there is this or that something, (2) or speculation that there is something at all or nothing?

Please be specific.


Yrreg

It is speculation what exists outside (if anything) on the universe.

So both are speculation.

[Dancing David]

In regard to “what came before the Big Bang?” I like to hear from you when is a question endowed with meaning and when meaningless?

Is that question, “what came before the Big Bang?” of the same kind as asking which is more: half-full or half-empty.

Or of what kind, can you give another example of a question that is for you as meaningless as the question, “what came before the Big Bang?” which you insist is meaningless for you.

Yrreg

I am with Dmitri Martin

"What if it is a half glass of baby blood, it it is going to a baby that needs blood, that is good, if it is just coming from a baby, that is creepy."

It would be meaningless because there is no way at this time to determine and answer, therefore all answers are speculation.

It is like the question:

"What face did you have before you were conceived?"

[Dancing David]

What did your face look like before you were conceived?

Hokulele must translate as "she who is firstest with the mostest"!

[Malerin]

Do I have to spam this over and over?

"What Happened Before the Big Bang?

1 July 2007 —New discoveries about another universe whose collapse appears to have given birth to the one we live in today will be announced in the early on-line edition of the journal Nature Physics on 1 July 2007 and will be published in the August 2007 issue of the journal's print edition.
http://www.science.psu.edu/alert/Bojowald6-2007.htm

"Now, however, Bojowald and other physicists at Penn State are exploring territory unknown even to Einstein -- the time before the Big Bang -- using a mathematical time machine called Loop Quantum Gravity."

http://www.science.psu.edu/alert/Bojowald6-2007.htm

"What happened before the Big Bang? The conventional answer to that question is usually, "There is no such thing as 'before the Big Bang.'" That's the event that started it all. But the right answer, says physicist Sean Carroll, is, "We just don't know." Carroll, as well as many other physicists and cosmologists have begun to consider the possibility of time before the Big Bang, as well as alternative theories of how our universe came to be. Carroll discussed this type of "speculative research" during a talk at the American Astronomical Society Meeting last week in St. Louis, Missouri."

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/06/13/thinking-about-time-before-the-big-bang/

[yrreg]

Tell me, D David, what is your speculation about, whether outside the Big Bang there is something at all or there is nothing.

At one time men speculated whether there was land beyond the distant horizon of the oceans as they looked at the horizon.

Are you now in that kind of a frame of mind, or are you saying you will not want to know because you have promised an allegiance to some whatever entity or yourself, by which you must censor your mind to not even think about what there might be something at all or nothing absolutely nothing outside the universe which you know.

And do you know everything there is to know of the universe and outside whatever you put as limits to the universe, the one you know and to all appearances presume to be equivalent to your known universe?



Yrreg

PS, for the information of everyone this morning at exactly local time 0848h I sent a post in that thread on morality and it got posted, because I just wanted to try whether in this routine working computer things have cleared up here, and it has; now I don't have to switch to the other older slower computer.

I am now going to send this post in this here thread on two kinds of nothing; if it comes out then whatever was the devil torturing me here, preventing me from posting messages and pms, it has left.

[Dancing David]

Tell me, D David, what is your speculation about, whether outside the Big Bang there is something at all or there is nothing.

If you were paying attention, you would have noticed that i stated it makes intuitive sense that the something of the BBE came from, something.

However that is speculation.

I think that Thoth said "I love you" to Nu and then they made babies. But that was only after Thoth borrowed the Rainbow Ibis from Parma the half-elf magic user and went back past the beggining of time.


At one time men speculated whether there was land beyond the distant horizon of the oceans as they looked at the horizon.

ones who thought might have thought that there was water or more land, or maybe a nice hotels with soft towels.


Are you now in that kind of a frame of mind, or are you saying you will not want to know because you have promised an allegiance to some whatever entity or yourself, by which you must censor your mind to not even think about what there might be something at all or nothing absolutely nothing outside the universe which you know.

No but I think it is great that there are questions without answers, just as there are things that happen in reality that don't make human sense. Like Bose-Einstien Condensate.

Like wow man if you got the whole universe really cold, and like in a really small space, it would all be like one thing. Far out.

So whatever I speculate is just that, speculation.

And do you know everything there is to know of the universe and outside whatever you put as limits to the universe, the one you know and to all appearances presume to be equivalent to your known universe?

That one is simple, no. I can't know everything about the universe, although the laws of physics do seem to be consistent as far as light has travelled, but whatever is out side , nope can't know.





Yrreg

PS, for the information of everyone this morning at exactly local time 0848h I sent a post in that thread on morality and it got posted, because I just wanted to try whether in this routine working computer things have cleared up here, and it has; now I don't have to switch to the other older slower computer.

I am now going to send this post in this here thread on two kinds of nothing; if it comes out then whatever was the devil torturing me here, preventing me from posting messages and pms, it has left.


I doubt it is a devil, although servers can act like one sometimes.

[yrreg]

Well, D David, I am happy to read that you admit that you don't know everything and that your known universe is not equivalent to the universe that is the totality of everything including everything and excluding only what is absolute nothing.


Now, have you read and thought carefully whether you should enlarge your known universe so that it includes things which Maleerin mentions here in posts #115 and #119.


There is something outside your self-delimited universe although people are still trying to determine what it is.

That discovery of something is already 99.99999999nth answer to the question what comes before the Big Bang, i.e., something, not nothing.

And that something is if you prefer, a pregnant nothing if you insist on using the word nothing.

Time to go up higher and go down deeper and go wider beyond all your present horizons with pure thinking, than delimiting your heart and mind to observation and experimentation and mathematicization.




Yrreg

[Dancing David]

Again, there are questions with no answers.

It could be this it could be that, I am already aware of what Malerin has linked to, that doesn't mean it is not speculation.
It could be quantum fluctuations, it could be a bit of modeling clay dropped by the Unknown Being, I like life and the world. Good enough for me.
When string theory makes a testable hypothesis, I will be thrilled.

Have you read about vacum energy or the double slit experiment? How about quantum indeterminancy? Especially since that indeterminancy is a requisite for fusion at the heart of stars. If protons were not indeterminate there would not be fusion. Wierd , eh?

Things in the universe rarely meets our notions of what they should be. So while I like my thoughts and ideas, intuitions and associations, they may have little meaning in reality.

Your psychic powers are failing again, I already swim the stars and drink the dew.

[yrreg]

I just want to hear from you that you admit there is something outside your universe.

If you admit that, then that is the whole point of my thread here.

You seem to say you admit but then you keep bringing in more about speculation and you have no answer, etc.


Tell me, yes or no, there is something outside your known universe.

Here, just answer this question with yes or no:


There is something outside your known universe: Yes? No?



Yrreg

[Dancing David]

Gee, Yrreg I stated before, we can't know. It makes sense that there would be, but I don't see how I can make that choice.

If you tell me that there is a box at the bottom of the sea, and that we know it is there. But no one knows where it came from:
Then you ask me, is there anything in the box other than water?
I would say I don't know.

It is appealing to say that the BBE occured in some sort of context but the universe often doesn't meet our expectations.
So without taking a bunch of oaths, I will say, I don't know what to think.

I don't know.

[erlando]

Tell me, yes or no, there is something outside your known universe.

That is not a yes/no question.

You even answer it yourself: "our known universe". So if there's anything outside our known universe it is per definition UNknown.

The answer to your question is: "We don't know", even "we can't know" per definition of unknown.

This is not a question of belief.

[Mashuna]

I just want to hear from you that you admit there is something outside your universe.

If you admit that, then that is the whole point of my thread here.

You seem to say you admit but then you keep bringing in more about speculation and you have no answer, etc.


Tell me, yes or no, there is something outside your known universe.

Here, just answer this question with yes or no:


There is something outside your known universe: Yes? No?



Yrreg

The answer to your question is yes. Or no.

[Dancing David]

Relevant discussion here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=127867

[Tanstaafl]

In simple words, there is always something before time and space and whatever matter and energy and all quantities of particles and kinds of, and if and when they should leave the scene of reality -- there is still always and anywhere in an analogous sense something.


yrreg


I think I'm finally getting the concept of two kinds of nothing.

An example of one kind would be an empty post here (if the forum SW would allow).

And example of the second kind is quoted above.

[Pi_314]

People conversant with the Big Bang theory say that a term like "before the Big Bang" is meaningless and unknowable.
I've always hated reading or hearing these words, meanwhile those "quote" experts speculate on this, on a regular basis, they just think you're not allowed to do it.

Fact is - We don't know if the universe came from nothing, and there is nothing wrong with a healthy dose of speculation. So without further ado?

Here are some cogitations I consider to be most definately true, in regard to the possibility of a universe from nothing.

1. If we take a reductionist approach toward the removal of everything. We eventually come to the conclusion that (nothing) cannot be removed.
2. A universe from nothing must by fiat, be made of nothing, there is no choice but to take it with you in the explanation of it.
3. One must be in a state of Non-Existence to create that which does not exist.
4. If existence is equally dependent on what it is not, you will find nothing in the bowels of reality.
5. In our universe there are only ONES, one at a time, Where time is the nothing that ONES are composed of.
6. The universe is no more than the definition of nothing. I.E. The reality of Non-Existence.

One thing of note here, (nothing) is not a physical entity, it is entirely conceptual, thusly a universe from nothing cannot become a physical enterprise by any means whatsoever, physicality must be, for lack of any other choice, a conceptual rendition of the physical reality we so perceive, nothing more, and nothing less., in other words, it's not physical, we just think it is.