Before There Was Everything

[SGOS]

It sounds like you may be for an intrinsic cause. Which is it? Intrinsic or extrinsic?

First, I don't know what that means.  I know the definitions of intrinsic and extrinsic, but I've never heard them in the context of the formation of the universe.

Second, I really don't have enough information to form an opinion.  I'm reading a book about it right now, but I haven't got into the meat of it yet.

I think I could go either way 1. caused by something outside itself  2. a change of state from something already there.

How bout you?

[undercoverbrother]

First, I don't know what that means.  I know the definitions of intrinsic and extrinsic, but I've never heard them in the context of the formation of the universe.

Second, I really don't have enough information to form an opinion.  I'm reading a book about it right now, but I haven't got into the meat of it yet.

I think I could go either way 1. caused by something outside itself  2. a change of state from something already there.

How bout you?

Not sure. Leaning toward intrinsic.

[SGOS]

Not sure. Leaning toward intrinsic.

It would be easy, if we knew the universe existed in an ultraverse, but the general consensus seems to be that there is no such thing.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The question itself seems like Special Pleading to me. And no! I'm not a Christian or a theist.

The question pleads a special instance of faith to believe God must be included in "everything" as no justification is shown for why the Christian is not allowed to do the same thing when they ask you to take their message by faith.

If that is not Special Pleading, it's still intellectually dishonest.

What do you think? Am I correct in what I am saying?

I'm just a simple country boy...

[undercoverbrother]

I'm just a simple country boy...

I'm not much either. Graduated from a class of 53 people.

[aitm]

I'm not much either. Graduated from a class of 53 people.

33 here….hey. I win. LOL….er…..yeah…33 kids.. today that is more like the special ed class,,,,ha ha,,,er,,,,,hmmm

[Solomon Zorn]

33 here….hey. I win. LOL….er…..yeah…33 kids.. today that is more like the special ed class,,,,ha ha,,,er,,,,,hmmm

You guys graduated? High school dropout here. I got a GED in 1984, with a group of about twelve.

[SGOS]

I graduated from high school in a class of 1200, but the first 8 years of grade school, my class size in the same town averaged around 22.  I was totally lost when I got to high school, although I did adjust.

Then I moved to a small town in Montana.  My friends would frequently attend class reunions.  The high school they went to was small enough that a reunion for the class of 1961 would attract and welcome alumni from 1958 to 1964.  And they would have a reunion every 10 years for each class.

On the other hand, a high school reunion for me has no interest because I wouldn't know anyone.  A reunion for my grade school graduating class, I would probably go to.  I'd love to see those folks again, but grade schools don't seem to have reunions.

[Brian37]

I had to ponder this for a while.  And I can almost make logical sense out of it, but something doesn't come together.  If I understand what you're getting at, before everything existed, there was nothing.  This would include the very condition of existence itself.  Or in another way of looking at, the very condition of nothingness itself could not exist in nothing.

I'm not sure that leads to everything always existing.  I think there's a meaningless loop in your reasoning, or perhaps some semantic confusion.  I dunno.

Instead of trying to insert something into the gap  of nothing, know that the why is not as important as figuring out the how. On the QM level it really is not that different than you already accept that you were nothing before you were born and will be nothing after you die. Why should the universe be any different in nature no matter what we are currently trying to figure out about it. The freakish nature of nothing the way Lawrence describing it is far more awe inspiring than trying to insert my importance in all this.

I see all this as a giant weather pattern. It changes too just like the seasons on our planet.

[Solomon Zorn]

This is my uneducated take on it:

"Before" assumes the existence of time. Time only exists if there is motion. Motion only takes place when there is substance. There is no nothing, because nothing is the lack of substance, and a lack of substance, by definition, does not exist, because substance in motion is all that defines time and therefore existence. Time begins when motion begins. The state of Unity is the beginning point on a ray. It occupies no amount of time. Motion and differentiation occur simultaneously, as the prime incident, and the ray has continued on from there to this day.

In other words the universe has always been in motion because time did not exist without motion.

[Brian37]

To think everything came out of nothing is as insane as thinking a God always existed in my opinion. If religion had said this there would be no religion. This is basically what Marilyn Voss Savant said who has the highest recorded IQ, and I agree with her on this. I don't care if all the mathematics and scientist agree on this, it is beyond ridiculous. Even space itself is not nothing. In fact, it's composed of particles like everything else, even if they are anti-particles, and particles that annihilate each other and form particles of energy. Solitary

Why? Why should "all this" be treated any differently than the non existence you accepted you were before you were born?

If you accept the absurdity of a God always existing or the absurdity of God creating something out of nothing. Then the universe can go back and forth from different states or even create itself. The only difference is that you skip the sky hero and chalk it up to nature.

I think you are having the same problem most people have that QM does not have a problem with a "0" state. If you can reject god, then you can accept QM as a much better explanation because unlike the god of the gaps, QM is based on real science. It is still working on the "how" but it is pointing in a much better direction even with all the freaky things it is saying.

[Brian37]

Even those who accept science have a problem with the idea that none of this has a purpose. There does not have to be a why, it is more important to understand how it works.

[Solomon Zorn]

Here's my schizophrenic take on it:

Everything in the universe is a fraction of 1. As soon as there was division, there was complete division, and there was expansive motion to accommodate the newly required space. As soon as there was motion there was relativity, or time. Differentiation, comes as some perfect fraction of 1, is ordered with other perfect fractions of 1, creating a mathematical tapestry of an unfathomable magnitude, which we have only begun to measure. Even the ability to have free will, is somehow an extended function of the initial fragmentation of the Unity. But unity is nothing more than the starting point on the ray. Unity is the beginning of motion.

[Munch]

I follow the matter principle, in that matter cannot be destroyed, it is simply reconstituted from one thing into another, down to an atomic level, or even less then that. This is why I believe matter didn't just come into existence with the big bang, but has always just been. That's not to say big bangs didn't form the universe, of course it did, knowing what extreme gravity does to atoms and neurons, it's all part of the building blocks of the universe forming.

[Solitary]

Why? Why should "all this" be treated any differently than the non existence you accepted you were before you were born?

If you accept the absurdity of a God always existing or the absurdity of God creating something out of nothing. Then the universe can go back and forth from different states or even create itself. The only difference is that you skip the sky hero and chalk it up to nature.

I think you are having the same problem most people have that QM does not have a problem with a "0" state. If you can reject god, then you can accept QM as a much better explanation because unlike the god of the gaps, QM is based on real science. It is still working on the "how" but it is pointing in a much better direction even with all the freaky things it is saying.

Because there wasn't a nothing before I was born, there was energy and particles, and quantum mechanics shows this is true. Even the void of space is composed of particles, as well as every field in spacetime. Quantum mechanics is not about a zero state but two apposing forces like gravity and energy that results in the universe having zero energy like a radio wave canceling out another radio wave, but they both still exist, it is about particles and anti particles constantly annihilating each other into pure energy which is still a particle of energy that creates new particles. The idea that particle physics showing there is nothing, or like a spirit is ludicrous, it actually shows the universe is composed of particles contrary to New Age Gurus like Deepak Chopra.  Solitary