William James: Proof Proves Nothing

[TENYEARS]

Yes continue in your pursuit of "truth" lol lol. When the wagon arives you will jump on also. It's ok your human and don't know it yet because you don't know what that means.

 

[magus niche]

surely we as humans, no matter how 'enlightened' we are with 'knowledge' or 'truth' or 'objectivity' we are the ones who invented these words. or are there people here who believe language came BEFORE life/consciousness?

i think animals/lifeforms without 'language' as we know it (aural,visual etc.), could and may very well have a consciousness greater than we would like to believe.

also, i would like to ask, is 'nothing' simply non-physicality? ie. not describable using physical means like verbal or written language? like consciousness for example.

 

[NeutronStar]

{Hypothesis}
yes, you cannot prove anything. Once you "prove" something, it becomes a memory, and everything that exists could have been created an instant ago, and your "proof" is just a memory that could have been created. So it may not have existed at all.
{conclusion}
You can never know. Since you can never truly prove anything.

Sounds like a proof to me.

 

[Canute]

Do you know if he envisioned an empty center during the first moments of materialization?

I suspect that he would assert that the 'empty centre' remains an empty centre, and always will. (Consistent with the assertion that 'emptiness is at the heart of everything' by Buddhists, Taoists etc.)

According to me, it cannot be called nothing. Nothing would exactly be the component that must be missing from the previous state. Nothing is nothing, it is not something, where as the previous state was something. Nothing is the absence of something.

Agree. The concept of nothing requires the concept of something. This is why I mentioned that 'something' and 'nothing' are usually put in inverted commas by Chuang-Tsu et al. What is being referred to cannot be properly be characterised as either.

Another example of nothing in relationship with the previous state would be the separation that exists in matter of our current materialized state of the universe from the previous unmaterialized state before the big bang. From our 'materialized' point of view nothing can be discovered about the previous state. We can theorize about the known facts to also include a previous state, and that is exactly what we are doing in this thread.

Hmm. If 'before' the BB there was not nothing, as you argue, then why can't we know anything about it?

It is not important if I was the first or the last to come up with an idea. I believe the idea has validity and that's why I express the idea.

That's fine. I wasn't accusing you of plagiarism, I just wondered.

Theory (the Greek word Theo means god) is a proposed structure that surrounds known facts. Multiple theories may exist about the same set of data. If a theory is proven to be correct, the information ceases to be a theory; it has then become fact.

That's sort of true but don't forget that it's impossible to prove a theory. It's only possible not to be able to falsify it. Certain knowledge cannot take the form of theories.

Believing is an instrument of freedom: one can say close to anything as long as the word belief is used and then nobody can touch you. The person who believes the sky is green may be an outcast, but from a structural/linguistic point of view this person may say just that. That's the beauty of believing: you do not have to back it up with facts, and you can say almost anything.

I suppose that's true, but it would seem irrational to me to believe something that one does not know is true. One might have faith that it is true, but that's a slightly different thing.

Science = fact based = limited to only that what is true.

I wish that was true. Unfortunately what science means by 'true' is only 'does not contradict other theories or our habitual assumptions'. That works ok much of the time, for practical purposes, but not when thinking about what is really true.

And this is where science and religion are basically cat and dog. Where one already has a completed finished delivery (in religion), the other is having a really hard time matching up all the facts in a single structure (the scientific theory).

Just my opinion, but I feel it's a mistake to distinguish between science and religion in this way. I don't see why a religious follower should be any less rational or intellectually rigorous than any scientific researcher, even though on the whole they are probably not. And a philosophical materialist or idealist is just as much a believer in a metaphysical conjecture as is a creationist, for all three views give rise to paradoxes on analysis.

In science there is no such freedom. Science is almost a prisoner of its own rules: the theory must fit the known facts: no more, no less. It cannot just look pretty, it has to be correct and it doesn't matter if you are a Buddhist, a Christian, a man, a woman, a loony, or a genius: the facts must fit.

Quite agree. Btw the Dalai Lama writes that anything that contradicts the facts or logic should be abandoned. Unfortunately scientific thinkers tend not to do this, but very often would rather hang on to their metaphysical assumptions come what may.

In their heads, not all but quite a few scientists contain that idea of unity (which is so readily available in religion) and use it as the structure for a scientific theory of everything. You cannot count me among them.

Is the idea of unity 'readily available' in religion? I'm not so sure. Unity is inconsistent with most forms of theism. In most God-based religions it is considered blasphemous to claim that all is one, for it implies that we are all God. This is why Christian mystics have been given such a hard time by senior management. If we are all God then it would follow that we don't need an elaborate system of priests and clerics as intermediaries between us and the truth, nor some centrally authorised and second-hand dogma in place of genuine knowledge.

You said earlier - "To the contrary. I believe it was the creation of nothing that lead to the Big Bang - it did not exist at first. In other words: our universe exists due to the created existence of nothing. If it wasn't for nothing, we would not be here."
That makes sense. It is precisely what GSB means when he says that the universe (the world of appearances) comes into existence by a process of distinction-making (or symmetry-breaking?). By creating (the concept of) something, we inevitably create (the concept of) nothing. He suggests that in the end, at the level of what is ultimate, reality is non-dual and that 'something/nothing' is a false distinction. Similarly when Lao-Tsu writes "The Tao begot the one" he means also that the Tao begot the 0, for the two concepts are dependent on each other, and the Tao itself is neither 0 or 1, even though by the nature of our everyday reasoning it must be conceived as being one or the other. Is this in line with what you're suggesting?

 

[Fredrick]

Manifestation of Nothing

Thank you for a lot of information, Canute, you seem to know your stuff - wonderful.

The concept of nothing requires the concept of something. Agree. This is why I mentioned that 'something' and 'nothing' are usually put in inverted commas by Chuang-Tsu et al. What is being referred to cannot be properly be characterised as either.

I understand we are almost in agreement here, but while according to me the previous state can be called 'something,' it would not be possible to call it 'nothing.' Again, according to me, nothing or 'nothing' did not exist. While it was potentially available, the second it became available is the moment our universe came into being.

Hmm. If 'before' the BB there was not nothing, as you argue, then why can't we know anything about it?

I need to clarify my words here. We can 'know' about what existed before the BB because everything we know came forth out of it. But to deliver scientifically sound information is, according to me, beyond interesting. In theory, we can deliver, but it needs to be postulated from the evidence we are able to gather on this side. So yes, there is something we can deliver: consciousness for instance, most likely consciousness that is less than what we consider consciousness today. It think there is probably not too much there there. If we consider ourselves as color savvy, aqua marin, honey yellow, rosy red, etc, then the state before the BB would be grey. Does grey exist in our world today? Yes. But most people do not get warm about that color.
To explain the first statement in this example of colors: we can experience moments of no color in our universe/life today. Before the BB 'no color' did not exist; it was all grey. If we considered black to not be a color (no reflection of light) then black would be a perfect example of nothing. As you can tell black exists in our universe (can even be beautiful), so this nothing should only be seen as the nothing of 'reflection of light.' Other examples are, again, an empty wallet, very important I hate to say, or zeroes in binary language. Breaks in music, silence, and so on.

Don't forget that it's impossible to prove a theory.

You are right.

It would seem irrational to me to believe something that one does not know is true.

That is correct. We all prefer to be taken seriously, and therefore we try not to go out on a limb too far. Believing delivers freedom, but we tend to stay shy from making a fool of ourselves.

I wish that was true. Unfortunately what science means by 'true' is only 'does not contradict other theories or our habitual assumptions'. That works ok much of the time, for practical purposes, but not when thinking about what is really true.

Just my opinion, but I feel it's a mistake to distinguish between science and religion in this way. I don't see why a religious follower should be any less rational or intellectually rigorous than any scientific researcher, even though on the whole they are probably not. And a philosophical materialist or idealist is just as much a believer in a metaphysical conjecture as is a creationist, for all three views give rise to paradoxes on analysis.

I guess we differ a tiny bit here. But it may also be just semantics. Science is very strict in its word use, and I am not truly versatile in staying within the allowed lines. Daily language and scientific language often vie in my mind for best spot and I personally prefer daily language over scientific language use.
So apologies for word use. However, when it comes down to the difference of science and religion I do see a gigantic difference in attitude. One wants to go from what is known to the large picture, while the other goes from the large picture to what is known. Never the twain shall meet - even when everything discussed and delivered is the same. That's what I mean with cats and dogs. Wagging your tail is a friendly sign for a dog, but not for a cat. Can a person be both scientist and a believer? Absolutely, but it is important to keep the differences apart.

Is the idea of unity 'readily available' in religion? I'm not so sure. Unity is inconsistent with most forms of theism. In most God-based religions it is considered blasphemous to claim that all is one, for it implies that we are all God. This is why Christian mystics have been given such a hard time by senior management. If we are all God then it would follow that we don't need an elaborate system of priests and clerics as intermediaries between us and the truth, nor some centrally authorised and second-hand dogma in place of genuine knowledge.

Wonderfully said, Canute. Again, I need to spruce up my language use because it is so easy to deliver words that can be considered something else.
Unity is readily available in religion in that god contains the unity.
I claim that the word god derived from a root word that may imply 'nothing.' The Dutch word 'god' is pronounced very similar to the word 'gat' which means 'hole.' The words 'hole' and 'whole' in English are almost the same. I think both words 'god' and 'whole' have the same roots as 'get' and 'haul.'
I am not a linguist, so I am truly free-wheeling here, but the 'haul' segment is the action of bringing over stuff, while to 'get' is the same action - bringing over stuff - but it first starts with an empty spot. I am here, I want my stuff which is not here so I need to 'get' it. Once I am there I 'haul' it over. Get it? As such I can state that the word 'god' would also imply 'understanding.' First I did not understand and then I got it.

GSB says that the universe (the world of appearances) comes into existence by a process of distinction-making (or symmetry-breaking?). By creating (the concept of) something, we inevitably create (the concept of) nothing. He suggests that in the end, at the level of what is ultimate, reality is non-dual and that 'something/nothing' is a false distinction. Similarly when Lao-Tsu writes "The Tao begot the one" he means also that the Tao begot the 0, for the two concepts are dependent on each other, and the Tao itself is neither 0 or 1, even though by the nature of our everyday reasoning it must be conceived as being one or the other. Is this in line with what you're suggesting?

Yes, the previous state is expressed in our reality twice in that it delivers unity and dis-unity at the same time. While segments are based on unity, together the segments are in a state of dis-unity. I am a whole human being. The fact that I have a gender cannot be translated into me being that gender. I am a human being first, my gender delivers only a fraction of who I am. The color of my hair, skin, the length of my body are all fractions of my being. Together they form the whole of me. The fact that there are two genders tells me that to get the whole picture there are two options and at an early stage (six weeks I believe) the fetus has to make a (conscious or not) choice. Up to that moment both genders exist potentially in the genetic material, and in almost all cases a singular path is followed (but not always) by the materializing fetus. In general, we cannot be unity in an absolute sense so we must give unity to a segment; expressed in our gender. I retain my sense of unity, but it is mine only, not in an absolute sense.

Since we are on the track of religion and science I like to add that I think we are still in the Renaissance. The renaissance is the period after the 'dark' middle ages, where believing was more important than knowing the facts. It was Venice that had the first connections with the Islamic world in the middle ages. And as such the whole of Italy got to experience the knowledge that had been savored in the Islamic world. Scholars had saved much of the old world knowledge, and slowly the Italians (what we call today the Italians) were warming up to these Greek and Middle-Eastern ideas/facts/ fascinations. The focus shifted back from god onto the surrounding world. Interestingly enough, while the West was getting more fact-based, the Islamic world was put more in a second position by the developments of the West. Nevertheless, the focus remained different in the Western world than it had been in the Greek world. In the Greek world the idea of a single god did not exist; a single god was not acceptable. I believe that it was not acceptable because they based their religion on the (by them) 'known' facts. Unity did not exist and therefore there could not be a single god. I think we are still experiencing a further Renaissance in that we are learning that the facts do not deliver a unified platform.

Though it is possible to hold on to our beliefs despite evidence of the opposite of our belief, our ideas tend to come in line with the known facts. If not now then with the next generation. I think that is happening right now. It may take a few centuries but I think that we either accept our diversity as the basis of the ultimate platform (and/)or we learn to see that a singular god is always based on everything (which again contains diversity). I believe that scientists may find the link between everything, but that this link delivers importance to disconnection as well. As I wrote somewhere else: the four forces AB, BC, CD, and DA show signs of connections, but they are not all based on the same principles. I can connect a maximum of three to a single principle (for instance: AB, BC, and DA connected through the A and the B) but the fourth (CD) does not fit in with these three.

 

[Canute]

I don't understand all of that I'm afraid but, one thing, I'm not sure you're right about the Greeks here. For the early Greek philosophers a central problem was the resolution of the 'one' and the 'many'. They deduced that the cosmos ought to be one, but could see that it was many. This problem has run through western philosophy ever since. It is at the root of Zeno's paradoxes of motion, for instance. I feel that they had a far more sophisticated notion of reality that most of us do these days, and hadn't yet thought of the clever wheeze of calling all the difficult questions 'metaphysical' and ignoring them.

 

[Fredrick]

What are your ideas?

Canute, I read and re-read your entrees and though I see what you are saying (and you are saying a lot), you also quote a lot of other people. When I go to your journal you show a lot of other people's journals.

What are your words? How do you think everything fits in?

 

[Canute]

I hadn't thought of starting a journal, (hadn't really noticed that feature). I'll check out a few, see how they are being used and may start one.

What do I think about the 'nothing' 'before' the BB? I agree with Buddhists and Taoists about it. To me this view presents a credible, complete and verifiable (in principle at least) picture of the cosmos that is free from the sort of metaphysical contradictions entailed by the current scientific/western philosophical model, and which does not contradict the facts in any way but instead explains them. From what you have written above about 'something' and 'nothing' you seem to be heading in the same direction.

The starting point for me was realising that (ontologically) something and nothing cannot be two different things at the limit, for if they are then our existence contradicts reason. They must be just two aspects of 'something', some entity or substance, that cannot properly be considered as either something or nothing, (as you seem to be suggesting). This would explain why nobody has ever come up with a metaphysically coherent doctrine predicated on dualism, monism or pluralism.

So I agree with you that nothing was created at the same time as something, and that the 'thing' from which these two things arose must remain undefined, whether in discussion or conceptually. We can call this the Tao, emptiness, Buddha-nature, ultimate reality, the Absolute or whatever, there are dozens of names, but these are just place-holders standing in for something that cannot be represented in words or even properly conceptualised.

 

[CrankFan]

"Proof" is a general phrase and means different things in different disciplines. If one accepts the set of hypotheses of a Mathematical proof then he will accept the conclusion of that proof and has, at least, proven to his own satisfaction a consequence of the set of assumptions.

 

[Fredrick]

How about transition?

... and that the 'thing' from which these two things arose must remain undefined, whether in discussion or conceptually. We can call this the Tao, emptiness, Buddha-nature, ultimate reality, the Absolute or whatever, there are dozens of names, but these are just place-holders standing in for something that cannot be represented in words or even properly conceptualised.

Thank you for explaining your views; they appear much in sink with the people you have been quoting and with your interwoven own words.

How do you envision the transition from previous state to current state?

 

[Fredrick]

Greek pie

"Proof" is a general phrase and means different things in different disciplines. If one accepts the set of hypotheses of a Mathematical proof then he will accept the conclusion of that proof and has, at least, proven to his own satisfaction a consequence of the set of assumptions.

I agree. Even though I like the word 'proof' myself rather well, I understand how others can dislike the word, and prefer to talk about 'evidence' instead of proof. Proof appears to be more like undeniable, while evidence appears to deliver a direction in which 'facts' have their own place.

It is still used in mathematics, but other disciplines use evidence more and more. Pi, for instance, is one of those situations in which the word proof cannot really be used to explain why it is what it is. Do you agree? The Greeks already figured out how to get to pi; the picture is very clear but 'proof' escapes unfortunately.

When drawing a diagonal line through the middle of a square, one can use the middle point on that line as the starting point to make an outward step the size of one-third of the base line, and use that point to move back towards the middle of one-fifth of the baseline, go out again one-seventh, in one-ninth etc, and one will get closer and closer to the circle with r as the base line. From the diagonal line it is +1/3, -1/5, +1/7, -1/9, + 1/11, -1/13 etc. The pattern is absolutely clear, but is it proof?

 

[CrankFan]

It [proof] is still used in mathematics, but other disciplines use evidence more and more. Pi, for instance, is one of those situations in which the word proof cannot really be used to explain why it is what it is. Do you agree?

I'm not sure what you mean by "explain why it [some mathematical object] is what it is". One might say that a real number's (including pi's) existence is just a consequence of standard mathematical postulates -- and that is why it is what it is... although I'm not sure if that's what you had in mind.

The Greeks already figured out how to get to pi; the picture is very clear but 'proof' escapes unfortunately.When drawing a diagonal line through the middle of a square, one can use the middle point on that line as the starting point to make an outward step the size of one-third of the base line, and use that point to move back towards the middle of one-fifth of the baseline, go out again one-seventh, in one-ninth etc, and one will get closer and closer to the circle with r as the base line. From the diagonal line it is +1/3, -1/5, +1/7, -1/9, + 1/11, -1/13 etc. The pattern is absolutely clear, but is it proof?

I'm not familiar with this method and I'm having trouble visualizing what you mean however I wouldn't consider a geometric argument alone to be a rigorous proof.

For example this "proof" is erroneous but it's hard to detect visually IMO:
http://www.simeonmagic.com/triangle/triangle1.htm

Geometric arguments are nice tools to aid understanding but if a geometric argument for a theorem is persuasive then there is bound to be an analytic proof of that theorem.

 

[Fredrick]

Seeing is believing

http://www.simeonmagic.com/triangle/triangle1.htm

Thank you very much for this example; it blows my thinking away a bit, and I love it. The only explanation I can think of is the location of the three smaller partitions (side by side in one, stacked in the other) and that changes the angle of the combination delivering more space in one section while using up more space in the other. But this is only an extremely scientific guess based on the assumption that this cannot be done if both sides were of equal length. Really, very nice, thank you.

Pi. If you draw a circle, and from the middle a straight line to the right (point A where line and circle meet), and a line straight up from the middle to point B, the diagonal line coming from the middle will cross the circle at point C (which lies on the circle halfway between A and B). Location of C can be found: straight line drawn between point A and B plus at middle point of this line outward 1/3 the distance found between middle and A, minus 1/5 of distance found between middle and A, plus 1/7 of distance between middle and A, minus 1/9, plus 1/11, minus 1/13 etc. It is infinite so it never gets there, but it is nevertheless right there.

 

[Teslonomikon]

Zero

Yes but if 99% of a proof will do the job then why not 98%?

I agree that usually we have to make do. But surely usefulness is nothing to do with proof, or even with what is true.

Just to throw another analogy onto the platter in relation to this one, how many hairs do you remove from a mans head before he is considered balding? (and yes I know, he wouldn't be balding unless they fell out naturally, but it is still an interesting question if you don't try and go around it like that)

 

[Canute]

Thank you for explaining your views; they appear much in sink with the people you have been quoting and with your interwoven own words.

How do you envision the transition from previous state to current state?

I'm not sure quite what you're asking here.

 

[Fredrick]

Before and after.

Canute. How do you envision the transition from previous state to current state?

What are your thoughts on the transition from before the Big Bang to after the Big Bang. Do you think there was a previous state to our universe? If so, what are your thoughts on what had to be involved to make creation possible? Do you consider the option possible that there wasn't anything before the BB? Are your thoughts on the creation of our universe mainly involved with the actual materialization and its implications, or have you sought for reasons how it could ever be possible to have a transition coming forth out of the invisible?

 

[Canute]

What are your thoughts on the transition from before the Big Bang to after the Big Bang. Do you think there was a previous state to our universe? If so, what are your thoughts on what had to be involved to make creation possible? Do you consider the option possible that there wasn't anything before the BB? Are your thoughts on the creation of our universe mainly involved with the actual materialization and its implications, or have you sought for reasons how it could ever be possible to have a transition coming forth out of the invisible?

I'd rather not think of it in terms of before and after. Time is a slippery concept and the closer you examine it the more it seems some sort of illusion, just like space. If you have a look at the 'Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory' it calls into question the whole notion of past, future and present, just as so many sages have been suggesting for so long.

It seems more a question of what underlies time/space and matter /mind. Whatever it is still exists now, otherwise these things wouldn't exist right now. So I see this as a question of what is fundamental right now, rather than what may have 'predated' the BB. In my opinion it is conciousness that underlies these things, but obviously not everyday human consciousness. To return to Spencer-Brown this is what he was asserting by saying that the universe arises by a process of distinction-making.

As to the actual process or mechanism by consciousness 'reifies' these distinctions I couldn't really comment. Perhaps it's something like physicist John Wheeler conjectures, and the process of observation actually brings things into physical existence. It's worth noting just how many appaerently 'real' things turn out to have no ontological foundation outside of our own minds. For instance, any attempt to work out, even in principle or on hypothetical terms, what matter is made out of immediately raises very difficult metaphysical questions. It appears to be made out of nothing, and western philsosphers have never solved this problem. Even the very idea of 'distance' is called into question by physicists these days.

No, I don't think it makes sense to say that nothing existed before the BB, or that nothing underlies the existence of the phenomenal world. However it makes a lot a sense to me that this fundamental substrate appears to be nothing to physicists. Just as it makes sense that scientifically-speaking consciousness appears to be nothing.

In the end I can't say much without wandering into Buddhist or Taoist teachings, which I'll avoid for now. Here's three quotes you might find interesting from two physicists and a mathematician.

"In our everyday experience, we tend to equate empty space with "nothingness". Empty space has no mass, no colour, no opacity, no texture, no hardness, no temperature – if that is not "nothing", what is? However, from the point of view of general relativity, empty space is unambiguously something. According to general relativity, space is not a passive background, but instead a flexible medium that can bend, twist, and flex. This bending of space is the way that a gravitational field is described. In this context, a proposal that the universe was created from empty space seems no more fundamental than a proposal that the universe was spawned by a piece of rubber. It might be true, but one would still want to ask where the piece of rubber came from."

Alan Guth
'The Inflationary Universe'

"When we encounter the Void, we feel that it is primordial emptiness of cosmic proportions and relevance. We become pure consciousness aware of this absolute nothingness; however, at the same time, we have a strange paradoxical sense of its essential fullness. This cosmic vacuum is also a plenum, since nothing seems to be missing in it. While it does not contain in a concrete manifest form, it seems to comprise all of existence in a potential form. In this paradoxical way, we can transcend the usual dichotomy between emptiness and form, or existence and non-existence. However, the possibility of such a resolution cannot be adequately conveyed in words; it has to be experienced to be understood."

Stanislav Grof
'The Cosmic Game'

"So long ago in Greece, when Socrates was young and Parmenides old, the latter laid down a challenge we have sought ever since to pick up. All you can think, he said, is: ‘Being is.’ You cannot think non-being, nothing, the void. Using negation, he told us we cannot use negation. All we can think is ‘Being is.’ We cannot think motion, change, difference, past or future, here and there, you and me, since each requires thinking ‘not’. We can only think ‘Being is.’ How easy to trivialise Parmenides by teaching him to suck eggs: you cannot outlaw negation and proceed to use it. But Parmenides was a poet, and you miss the music if you point out to a poet that his love isn’t really a red, red rose. Parmenides wanted us to stop talking and listen. Like the background hum from the Big Bang, Being pervades. It fills and is the world."

Robert Kaplan
‘The Nothing That Is
- A Natural History of Zero’

 

[Fredrick]

Cool.

A good and extensive answer that satisfies - at least on most cerebral levels. I do go one step further than you are going in that I try to see shape in that what existed before there was any shape.

While I agree that past and future are part of our universe and can therefore not really be applied to what was 'before' I claim it is still possible to use the term 'before' because it helps make the distinction between our universe in which both time frames exist and the origin in which only the potential was available. I therefore make a differentiation on these grounds, and I choose to use the understandable word 'before' though it obviously belongs to our universe.

While I am unable to deliver the ultimate shape of that what was before, I extrapolate the information we do have of shape backwards in time, and claim that — since the Big Bang is an outward movement — the shape leading up to the Big Bang was the opposite: one of an inward movement. Again, I do not know the original shape of what existed 'before,' but in this theory the last 'frame' was an ever tightening situation of inward motion. Since inward motion is not an infinite motion — cannot be an infinite motion — something had to give.

Either a relaxation of the inward motion needed to be established or a natural break had to occur. In as far as relaxation of the inward motion is concerned, it may have been possible that the stage of relaxation was played out several times before. However, every relaxation lead to the very same shape (of which again no further details are known), but the cause of our universe was not relaxation, but the lack thereof. One can say that a break would only occur at a point when there was a complete absence of relaxation: extreme high tension. The intensely clustered tension, the finite movement inwardly, had to be broken to have some of the leading tension move forward.

The result of a single break, the result after the creation of the most minimal of rifts, was the release of a tremendously built-up tension. Its movement: outwardly. The lack of unity lead to the manifestation of energy: materialization. The materialized matter existed on the basis of (some level of) conflict from the very first second. The background sound that has been heard of the Big Bang is not necessarily the manifestation of matter, but the inherent and immediate conflict of the materialized matter. The outward movement was established first, the conflict of matter followed.

Again, I do not say too much extra about that what existed 'before,' but I do allow myself the freedom to use that space to create a possible scenario that leads to what we know today. While I basically agree that what existed 'before' is what exists now, I also have to stand firm that what existed before can never be the same as what exists now. The origin created the result, and while we may still be connected to the origin, we are most definitively part of the result.

The question Where did the origin come from? cannot be answered, but we can apply theory to the question Where do we come from?

 

[Canute]

Fredrick

Interesting idea, but I have some problems with it. If it's a literal explanation rather than a metaphorical one then it raises some questions. What does 'moving' and 'inwards' mean before space and time existed? What was it that was moving inwards? Where did consciousness and energy come from?

The question Where did the origin come from? cannot be answered, but we can apply theory to the question Where do we come from?

Yes, it leaves the question of origins begging, just moving it back a stage. That seems to be a weakness to me. I'd say that a good theory or explanation of cosmogenesis should deal with the origin of everything, answering the question of why anything exists instead of nothing at all.

 

[Fredrick]

My answer is your answer.

Fredrick

Interesting idea, but I have some problems with it. If it's a literal explanation rather than a metaphorical one then it raises some questions. What does 'moving' and 'inwards' mean before space and time existed? What was it that was moving inwards? Where did consciousness and energy come from?

Yes, it leaves the question of origins begging, just moving it back a stage. That seems to be a weakness to me. I'd say that a good theory or explanation of cosmogenesis should deal with the origin of everything, answering the question of why anything exists instead of nothing at all.

Thank you for not blowing the theory out of the water right away. It may certainly seem that the basis is absent of where I am going because information appears to be missing. Yet that is happening only because you are looking for something that I am actually not talking about. First of all, though I am interpreting - extrapolating backwards - I am using the generally accepted idea that result must be based on previous situations as my reasoning. While - just like you - I am unable to deliver any clarification of what I call the previous state, I am using the knowledge we do have to interpret the path of action as it could have existed before materialization began. I do not use that path to say anything about the previous state, but I use this to help clarify what happened to our universe. Since result in our universe is based on previous situations, I can create a previous situation as long as the delivered theory about that previous situation is dealing only with the result as we know it.

I cannot deliver facts - others who are more knowledgeable in the field of our early cosmos have done that for me - but I can deliver theory, and the theory is based on known facts, not on fantasy. As such it can stand on it own.

If I have understood you correctly, you do not believe it is possible to know anything with certainty about the previous state, and I fully concur. My interest does not lie in explaining where the origin comes from, because to me (and you too) there is no use in using the words we have at our command to explain this state with certainty.

What then is the use of adding an extra stage of explanation in front of our current knowledge? It can help explain the basics of our universe. With a clearly theorized center from which our universe derived, we can create constructions (that can contain our information fully) that may otherwise not be constructed. With the actual beginning of our universe placed in the previous non-materialized stage, we may stop looking for an all-connection, a unified field of forces, because then that connection belongs to the not yet materialized stage.

In the current theory about the beginning of our universe everything comes blowing out of one central spot, and spatially it becomes impossible to have anything precede this spot. In the theory I describe materialization does not start until later - after the outward movement has been set in motion already. Materialization is then a phase that takes place in a very large spatial area. In this theory it is possible to have a spatial segment before materialization started, because the center of the materializing area is empty.

The movement right before and right after materialization is then identical: outwardly. After materialization has taken place, the stage is then set for the Big Bang, because the matter is not in concordance with itself. Explosions and fireballs, in laymen terms. The stage before materialization - though also moving outwardly - had to be set up in such a way that this outwardly motion was possible. I therefore need an inwardly motion first that leads to incompatibility in as far as infinity is concerned before I can get to the outwardly movement.

Again, as you can see, all that I am saying concerns something about our universe. I say nothing, nada, niente, about the previous state. I am not interested in that state, I am interested in understanding everything - that is, everything that belongs to our universe. Though the previous state is the precursor, it is not part of our universe as we know it. In our universe result is based on previous situations, in the previous state that is not necessarily the case.

 

[Canute]

If I have understood you correctly, you do not believe it is possible to know anything with certainty about the previous state, and I fully concur.

No, that's a misunderstanding. I believe quite the opposite.

Again, as you can see, all that I am saying concerns something about our universe. I say nothing, nada, niente, about the previous state. I am not interested in that state, I am interested in understanding everything - that is, everything that belongs to our universe.

I see what you're saying. But I'd want to argue that it is impossible to understand everything that belongs to our universe without understanding the state that underlies it. I could make a 'mystical' argument, argue from Goedel, or point to our inability to decide metaphysical questions. One way or the other I don't think we can say we understand the universe unless we understand its origins.

 

[Fredrick]

Addition

Sorry to reply to myself, but I think I can clarify in a different way what I am trying to deliver.

The previous state - that what existed before our universe existed - is based on different grounds than our universe. The basics of our universe are intertwined with materialization, something that most likely (but who knows) was not the case before in the previous state. What the grounds of the previous state are can be discussed in length, but we will never know for sure. However, the previous state did allow for our universe to come into being. Even those who state that our universe started to exist out of nothing agree that that previous state (in their case: nothing) allowed our universe to come into being. I am pretty sure that I can claim universal agreement on this.

As stated in the theory described in my previous message, the empty center of materialization is important in that it delivers a spatial segment we can understand before materialization began. It also helps deliver the creation/ the importance of the phenomenon of nothing. In this theory the previous state did not have a spot of importance for nothing: in other words it did not really exist, but was potentially available like everything else that is important in our universe.

The inward motion - the one that is finite because it cannot continue infinitively - delivered the final moment on which it was impossible for the inward motion to continue. Parts wanted, other parts couldn't continue. I write parts because I do need a moment of separation at that central spot of the finite inward motion, yet these parts may all be identical. Parts let go of each other in a fundamental way at the center of what later was going to be the center of materialization. Nothing, the phenomenon of nothing, got created in this center. Previously, it did not exist.

No big deal, you might say, and viewed from our perspective you would be right. Nothing is not that important for us. But for the previous state it meant that the cohesion of this previous state was broken. The inward motion was reversed to an outwardly motion, and while it was moving outwardly, the newly created phenomenon of nothing had to be dealt with as well. The nothing - the separation / the loss of cohesion - was dealt with in various ways, just like one can write a pair made up out of 1s and 0 in various ways: 10, 01, or 11. What was previously bound, was no longer bound, and what was no longer bound, now could exist in various forms. While trying to get the cohesion back in place, there were now various ways to get the cohesion back in place.

I hope this helps clarify the set up of motion before materialization, which in this theory was the precursor to the Big Bang. At the center of our universe we find the spatial spot in which the phenomenon of nothing got created. The creation of nothing caused the materialization of everything involved with the finite inward motion (or may even have caused everything that existed before in the previous state to materialize). Before there was the birth of our universe, there was the birth of nothing.

 

[Fredrick]

Interesting point of disagreement

One way or the other I don't think we can say we understand the universe unless we understand its origins.

This is an interesting point of disagreement. While in a restaurant I place an order and get my meal and am satisfied with my dinner, you seem to want to eat everything they have on the menu before you are satisfied.

Thank you for a good conversation.

 

[Fredrick]

Picture this

Hi Canute,

In the New York Times Science section of today (3-29-05) I read about the collision of gold nuclei in the Brookhaven National Laboratory. Here is a picture of the result:
http://www.physicscentral.com/pictures/images/pictures-00-4s.jpg
and the abstract can be read at http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0501068

This is powerful imagery that seems to support what I am saying about an empty center at the emergence of the universe. Dr. Horatiu Nastase describes in the NY Times article that "(t)he collision of gold nuclei produce matter as it existed shortly after the Big Bang."

I could not ask for a better image. It does not mean absolute evidence, but it is nice to deliver a picture next to the words.