Do you believe in God?

[Danoff]

If its cyclic, then there is no real "before."

There is no real "before" because there is no real time. What does it mean for it to be cyclic? It presupposes time, an order of events on something which is outside of time. At the very least outside of our time, which means from our perspective, it doesn't have time.

Only pre, intra and post big bang. In that space of time,

No, no time. There is no time there. Time is created by the big bang.

I am curious why in that moment its thought that the laws of physics no longer exist, or if perhaps the laws never stop existing and model the process of expansion, collapse and bang.
Edit: for clarity, I am basing this off a single universe model, not a multiverse.

Because the laws of physics require a reality to exist within. The universe (including reality, dimensions, spacetime), is comes into existence during the expansion. The part which happened outside of the existence has no time (at the very least, it does not have our time). It is orthogonal (at a minimum) to our timeline. If something "happens" outside of our timeline, it has no time. It has no beginning or end or position in our perception of time.

Edit:
Stephen Hawking put it this way: "There is nothing south of the South Pole, so there was nothing around before the Big Bang".

 

[zzz_pt]

When I think about this problem, my mind always drifts into this easy answer to make me stop:

It was inevitable. Whatever happened, caused or uncaused, for the Big Bang to take place, it was inevitable. It had to happen with 100% of probability because we're here and there was no time before it happened, so there was no "waiting" until it happened.

If other universes with different laws of physics came/come/will come into being and pop in and out of existence, those could also be inevitable. Some could be eternal, others last for a fraction of a nano second. I don't know if we'll ever have an answer to this question.

I'm sure this has flaws, but it's a thought I end up going to to shut up my brain's shenanigans with.

 

[Danoff]

If other universes with different laws of physics came/come/will come into being and pop in and out of existence, those could also be inevitable. Some could be eternal, others last for a fraction of a nano second. I don't know if we'll ever have an answer to this question.

I'm sure this has flaws, but it's a thought I end up going to to shut up my brain's shenanigans with.

Particles exhibit this behavior within our universe. It is as though (and this goes further into Quantum mechanics than I can), because they could exist in equal and opposite pairs which cancel each other out, they do. And this is testable and observable. @UKMikey posted a video that goes into some of it yesterday.

 

[zzz_pt]

Particles exhibit this behavior within our universe. It is as though (and this goes further into Quantum mechanics than I can), because they could exist in equal and opposite pairs which cancel each other out, they do. And this is testable and observable. @UKMikey posted a video that goes into some of it yesterday.

Yep. The thing is, those particles pop in and out of existence in an pre-existent space-time universe with laws of physics of its own. Unless pre-BigBang / pre-universe there were already a fixed set of laws, I don't think it's quite the same. The time bit is what makes it more compex imo. That's why to me the existence of our universe is inevitable.

As a side note, props to PBS and (public funding) for putting up such great content. I've been subscribed to Space Time for years (among other channels of its network) and the videos they put out are all amazingly produced!

 

[Dotini]

Particles exhibit this behavior within our universe. It is as though (and this goes further into Quantum mechanics than I can), because they could exist in equal and opposite pairs which cancel each other out, they do. And this is testable and observable. @UKMikey posted a video that goes into some of it yesterday.

When the universe was created in the Big Bang, there should have been an equal amount of matter and antimatter created. The problem is that matter and antimatter destroy each other immediately on contact, resulting in a burst of energy. We should have a universe of all energy and no matter. But we infer from our knowledge of the Big Bang that for every 30,000,000 particles of antimatter, there must have been 30,000,001 particles of matter. Why is this? No one knows.

 

[Danoff]

Yep. The thing is, those particles pop in and out of existence in an pre-existent space-time universe with laws of physics of its own. Unless pre-BigBang / pre-universe there were already a fixed set of laws, I don't think it's quite the same.

Well simply because it happens where that physics is doesn't mean that it can't happen where that physics isn't. It might just be expressed a little differently in the absence of time.

The time bit is what makes it more compex imo. That's why to me the existence of our universe is inevitable.

...because from a perspective outside of our universe, it has always existed and will always exist. Yea I agree that the requirement that it is "inevitable" is the only form of an answer that has any real potential to provide closure to the question.

When the universe was created in the Big Bang, there should have been an equal amount of matter and antimatter created. The problem is that matter and antimatter destroy each other immediately on contact, resulting in a burst of energy. We should have a universe of all energy and no matter. But we infer from our knowledge of the Big Bang that for every 30,000,000 particles of antimatter, there must have been 30,000,001 particles of matter. Why is this? No one knows.

Perhaps there is a universe out there the is only energy, and another that has more matter than ours.

 

[BobK]

Perhaps there is a universe out there the is only energy, and another that has more matter than ours.

Just to make it more interesting, matter can be considered to be dense packets of energy. So arguably our universe is only energy.

 

[zzz_pt]

Well simply because it happens where that physics is doesn't mean that it can't happen where that physics isn't. It might just be expressed a little differently in the absence of time.

...because from a perspective outside of our universe, it has always existed and will always exist. Yea I agree that the requirement that it is "inevitable" is the only form of an answer that has any real potential to provide closure to the question.

When I say it's inevitable, I'm saying it as a gimmick to shut down my brain's rumblings because it gets hard to think about the subject pretty fast. ^^ Not saying I consider the inevitability of universe's existing to be a well thought out or reasonable explanation. It's the "well that's life" argument for when I have to face the fact I know nowhere enough about this topic to pretend I can come up with some ground braking idea that no one ever thought of before.

Still, on the topic of God, I do think "God did it" is an even worse gimmick. ^^

 

[Danoff]

When I say it's inevitable, I'm saying it as a gimmick to shut down my brain's rumblings because it gets hard to think about the subject pretty fast. ^^ Not saying I consider the inevitability of universe's existing to be a well thought out or reasonable explanation. It's the "well that's life" argument for when I have to face the fact I know nowhere enough about this topic to pretend I can come up with some ground braking idea that no one ever thought of before.

When considering the infinite regress of questions, I have a hard time imagining any other answer being sufficient.

 

[Imari]

Just to make it more interesting, matter can be considered to be dense packets of energy. So arguably our universe is only energy.

The distinction between matter and "energy" (like photons) is a pretty arbitrary outcome of quirks of human perception. A baseball seems very different to a spotlight beam to us, but when you start getting deep enough into it then it's all just one big complex mess of the same things.

 

[Rallywagon]

There is no real "before" because there is no real time. What does it mean for it to be cyclic? It presupposes time, an order of events on something which is outside of time. At the very least outside of our time, which means from our perspective, it doesn't have time.



No, no time. There is no time there. Time is created by the big bang.



Because the laws of physics require a reality to exist within. The universe (including reality, dimensions, spacetime), is comes into existence during the expansion. The part which happened outside of the existence has no time (at the very least, it does not have our time). It is orthogonal (at a minimum) to our timeline. If something "happens" outside of our timeline, it has no time. It has no beginning or end or position in our perception of time.

Edit:
Stephen Hawking put it this way: "There is nothing south of the South Pole, so there was nothing around before the Big Bang".

Do you subscribe to the cyclic universe theory? Its certainly the one I find most probable. And that Hawking quote exemplifies it perfectly, and indeed, could be an argument against the idea of nothing that you suggest. If the big bang is the south pole, then it could also mean that spacetime would "travel" north until the point that all matter within space starts to draw itself back into a central point that point being the north pole. Spacetime "travels" then back south until the big bang. In this way, there is never actually a point of nothingness, just a continuing cycle, and in this way, what we call physics, is also never not there.

 

[Danoff]

Do you subscribe to the cyclic universe theory?

I'm not sure what you mean by "subscribe". I find a lot of things plausible. I don't think that a cycle is necessarily required, and I did my best to outline a scenario where it may not be required. I'm not sure I'm completely read up on the details of what happens to spacetime from one cycle to the next in a cyclic model. I think the cyclic model has a problem on the other end - which is that our universe doesn't appear to be contracting and doesn't appear to have a method for doing so. Certainly I've read hypotheses where spacetime exists throughout the big bang, the other side of which has negative space and negative time. In cases where spacetime as we understand ceases to exist, if there is another "cycle" of a universe, I'm not sure how you could say that that cycle occurred before, after, or during this one. Because there is no consistent reference for time. The cyclic universe concept kinda requires spacetime to survive from one to the next or it ceases to have any real meaning, and I'm not sure our present understanding of the big bang really allows for that.

 

[TexRex]

Stare with me into the abyss…

Let’s talk about nothing for a minute. Where does all of this reality come from? Why is there matter and energy and plastic toys for children with The Flash on a motorcycle… I mean he can run faster than a motorcycle right? What’s up with that? Why is there anything at all? Why not nothing?

Well, let’s consider what nothing would look like. I’m going to capitalize it to mean a universe which lacks anything at all, which I will call Nothing. So what is Nothing?

Nothing would have to consist of a lack of space and time (and any other dimensions any physicist can come up with). Dimensions are something, and very much a part of our reality. So I want you to picture that in your head, a lack of space and time. Go ahead… it’s hard isn’t it. You want to picture a void with no stars and no light, just blackness. But of course a void is something. In Nothing, there is no void.

Let’s ask some questions about Nothing. Where is it? Nowhere, everywhere. That’s not a well defined question. There is no space, so asking where Nothing is is nonsensical. Is it here in my room? Yes, no. Do I have Nothing in my room? Well yes, technically a lack of space exists in my room, but also it doesn’t exist (by definition, because it is nothing). How long did Nothing exist? Well, forever… and never. This is also a nonsensical question. Nothing has no time, so it exists for an eternity, and not at all. What came before Nothing? Also a nonsensical question, it has no time. So nothing came before Nothing, and after. Also everything came before Nothing, and after.

Let’s pretend you have $100. I ask you, do you have $0? Well no, I have $100, $100 is not zero. But do you also possess $0? Well yes, $100 + 0 = $100. So I have $0 in addition to the $100. So you have nothing, and you don’t have nothing.

So did Nothing exist? Of course, and no. Does it exist now? Of course, and no. Will it exist in the future? Of course, and no.

As I already alluded to, there are other forms of nothing. Not only does $100 (reality) + $0 (nothing) exist, but also $100 - $100. Is that $0? Yes, and no. If we have Nothing, should it be 0, or +1 - 1? Or +100 -100? Yes. All of those are Nothing. In terms of dimensions, what does negative even look like? What does “negative” time look like. Well, time. Especially if you’re not comparing it against “positive” time. What does “negative” space look like. Well, space. Especially if you’re not comparing it against “positive” space.

If you had a universe bubble that had positive space and time, and another universe bubble that had negative space and time, and you put a creature inside each one to observe it (but not the other), both of them would perceive space and time. But as far as the balance of universes go, it’s + 1 -1, in other words, Nothing.

So the question of “why isn’t there Nothing?” is easy to answer. Because that would be nothing. Also there is Nothing. Everywhere, and nowhere, all the time, and never. The question of “why is there Something?” is harder to answer, but the answer could come in the form “because it is Nothing”. And I suspect that this answer may be required of this question.

 

[Dotini]

Do you subscribe to the cyclic universe theory? Its certainly the one I find most probable.

For a short time, Einstein subscribed to the cyclic universe model.
In 1934, he abandoned the cyclic model when it was found incompatible with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

 

[Rallywagon]

For a short time, Einstein subscribed to the cyclic universe theory.

Indeed, and called it his biggest blunder when it was observed that the universe was still accelerating. That is until Steinhard and Turok started working on the theory back in 06, as well as Penrose with a group of physicist just last year. A lot of new tools and techniques that weren't available to Einstein seem to be helping to prove at least some parts of his theory as correct and are filling in some of the gaps that he wasn't aware of.
More info is still needed of course. But to me, it makes more sense than a singular event.

 

[zzz_pt]

Maybe Jainism is the closest to being right, then. No God, eternal universe and cycles of wordly existence. 💡

 

[Dotini]

Maybe Jainism is the closest to being right, then. No God, eternal universe and cycles of wordly existence. 💡

Jainism, related to Buddhism and Hindu, definitely has its charms. Detailed and intricate scripture and texts don't turn me on, but I take notice of their essential cosmology that both time and the universe are eternal without beginning and end, and that the universe is transient (impermanent in attributes) at the same time. The universe, body, matter and time are considered in Jain philosophy as separate from the soul.
(from wikipedia)

 

[Danoff]

Indeed, and called it his biggest blunder when it was observed that the universe was still accelerating. That is until Steinhard and Turok started working on the theory back in 06, as well as Penrose with a group of physicist just last year.

The conclusion of that last link isn't very encouraging for the validity of that theory.

More info is still needed of course. But to me, it makes more sense than a singular event.

Why?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Indeed, and called it his biggest blunder when it was observed that the universe was still accelerating. That is until Steinhard and Turok started working on the theory back in 06

Einstein didn't stop calling it his biggest blunder at that point. He was dead.

But to me, it makes more sense than a singular event.

But by that theory you're using a confusing use of "singular" - it's still singular in a cyclic continuum where time is in and outside it's own being and not b...

 

[FoRiZon]

I agreed with this. Confirmed by experience in livinv.

 

[UKMikey]

Today I learned that not every Christian believes in the Rapture and that it appears to be mostly a Baptist and Evangelical thing.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Today I learned that not every Christian believes in the Rapture and that it appears to be mostly a Baptist and Evangelical thing.

View attachment 852622

It's an interesting piece of "modern" interpretation that (as far as I know) is mostly from the Plymouth Brethren, proper puritanical nutters. Most of them bogged off to the States and so it took hold there in a way that it didn't in Europe, even amongst the more Calvinist/Lutheran types.

The irony is that the TV preachers I see proclaiming the Rapture's coming seem to be the least Puritanical characters I can imagine

 

[Michael88]

May I ask a question that is closely related to the topic? There is no other place I could ask the question without derailing the topic hard.

First of all, I consider myself an agnostic, and the question is aimed at those who do believe in the classic Christian or Islamic ''heaven''. It is not my intention to make the question sound sarcastic or disrespectful.

So, if you led a pious and righteous life you go to heaven when you die, right? That's basically a beautiful place of peace and no wrongdoings where you meet your ancestors and god himself, right? Not your physical self but your soul, your mind, your personality as it is right now, right?

My question is, how long does this last? For how long?

I ask because the question of time is important for me, how long do I stay at that place? 100.000 years, a million years or even forever?

My point is, the human mind is not meant for this kind of longevity. Imagine the timespan of a whole healthy life, that is around 90 years.
Now imagine, if you even remotely can, imagine a 100.000 years of existing. That's way back in the stone age, when mammoths and saber-tooth tigers were around. What do you do with this time? How can you exist for that long without going utterly insane? If you do things over and over and over again, or imagine over and over again, even the biggest pleasures turn into absolute horror, and it does not take long to do or imagine everything you ever wanted before it is rinse and repeat. And this does not take even a quarter of an eternity.

When people say they wanted to exist forever (In whatever form) they have never truly thought about the time that is actually involved with that, it would quickly turn into a never ending nightmare of despair with absolutely no way out. That's the idea of hell, isn't it?

Isn't the scientific version of death much more merciful? Just ceasing to exist altogether means no chance of eternal suffering.

The only way out would be reincarnation with a memory swipe, a clean slate beginning in intervals.

 

[HenrySwanson]

May I ask a question that is closely related to the topic? There is no other place I could ask the question without derailing the topic hard.

First of all, I consider myself an agnostic, and the question is aimed at those who do believe in the classic Christian or Islamic ''heaven''. It is not my intention to make the question sound sarcastic or disrespectful.

So, if you led a pious and righteous life you go to heaven when you die, right? That's basically a beautiful place of peace and no wrongdoings where you meet your ancestors and god himself, right? Not your physical self but your soul, your mind, your personality as it is right now, right?

My question is, how long does this last? For how long?

I ask because the question of time is important for me, how long do I stay at that place? 100.000 years, a million years or even forever?

My point is, the human mind is not meant for this kind of longevity. Imagine the timespan of a whole healthy life, that is around 90 years.
Now imagine, if you even remotely can, imagine a 100.000 years of existing. That's way back in the stone age, when mammoths and saber-tooth tigers were around. What do you do with this time? How can you exist for that long without going utterly insane? If you do things over and over and over again, or imagine over and over again, even the biggest pleasures turn into absolute horror, and it does not take long to do or imagine everything you ever wanted before it is rinse and repeat. And this does not take even a quarter of an eternity.

When people say they wanted to exist forever (In whatever form) they have never truly thought about the time that is actually involved with that, it would quickly turn into a never ending nightmare of despair with absolutely no way out. That's the idea of hell, isn't it?

Isn't the scientific version of death much more merciful? Just ceasing to exist altogether means no chance of eternal suffering.

The only way out would be reincarnation with a memory swipe, a clean slate beginning in intervals.

I always thought it was forever, but this is just a personal interpretation from a Methodist upbringing.

You raise good points though.

 

[Dotini]

May I ask a question that is closely related to the topic? There is no other place I could ask the question without derailing the topic hard.

First of all, I consider myself an agnostic, and the question is aimed at those who do believe in the classic Christian or Islamic ''heaven''. It is not my intention to make the question sound sarcastic or disrespectful.

So, if you led a pious and righteous life you go to heaven when you die, right? That's basically a beautiful place of peace and no wrongdoings where you meet your ancestors and god himself, right? Not your physical self but your soul, your mind, your personality as it is right now, right?

My question is, how long does this last? For how long?

I ask because the question of time is important for me, how long do I stay at that place? 100.000 years, a million years or even forever?

My point is, the human mind is not meant for this kind of longevity. Imagine the timespan of a whole healthy life, that is around 90 years.
Now imagine, if you even remotely can, imagine a 100.000 years of existing. That's way back in the stone age, when mammoths and saber-tooth tigers were around. What do you do with this time? How can you exist for that long without going utterly insane? If you do things over and over and over again, or imagine over and over again, even the biggest pleasures turn into absolute horror, and it does not take long to do or imagine everything you ever wanted before it is rinse and repeat. And this does not take even a quarter of an eternity.

When people say they wanted to exist forever (In whatever form) they have never truly thought about the time that is actually involved with that, it would quickly turn into a never ending nightmare of despair with absolutely no way out. That's the idea of hell, isn't it?

Isn't the scientific version of death much more merciful? Just ceasing to exist altogether means no chance of eternal suffering.

The only way out would be reincarnation with a memory swipe, a clean slate beginning in intervals.

In the perennial philosophy I'm looking into, where the universe is a creation of an infinite consciousness (we could call it God, but it's not the traditional one) there are several ideas that address your questions. The main idea is that after death humans rejoin the infinite consciousness, and directly know the mind of the creator of the universe. In this state of universal consciousness, time, like matter, being a part of the creation, has no existence or meaning and would not be experienced. As Lao Tzu put it, it is serene, empty, solitary, unchanging, infinite and eternally present. This is why the universe was created, so the infinite consciousness, through us, could experience time, matter, emotions and all the fun activities we take part in.

To summarize:
- We are a spark of "God's" infinite consciousness that thinks it is separate from "God" (infinite consciousness).
- We incarnate several times.
- We have as many life opportunities as necessary to achieve a state that can reunite with "God" (infinite consciousness).

 

[Michael88]

To summarize:
- We are a spark of "God's" infinite consciousness that thinks it is separate from "God" (infinite consciousness).
- We incarnate several times.
- We have as many life opportunities as necessary to achieve a state that can reunite with "God" (infinite consciousness).

That's a philosophy I can wrap my head round better in a metaphysical sense, but as far as I'm aware its not according to the classical belief of Christianity and Islam.


Even though the question what consciousness really is, remains.
As far as I see it, consciousness is simply self awareness which pops into existence to various degrees once a system reaches a certain complexity. ''Pops into existence'' like a deep physical law, not like a godlike spark.
And it is necessary, a complex system like that needs self awareness to be able to fully succeed and thrive in this world.
The more data you receive and can process the better with higher levels of consciousness you can thrive under dire circumstances or in extreme environments and be extremely adaptable. Consciousness is simply both inevitable and useful but I have a very hard time even pondering about it being some part of a godlike entity or a bigger puzzle.

I think consciousness its simply a sub-system that helps complex systems processing data and be more aware of itself and its surroundings.

 

[Dotini]

That's a philosophy I can wrap my head round better in a metaphysical sense, but as far as I'm aware its not according to the classical belief of Christianity and Islam.

Correct, it is not part of the classical beliefs of Christianity and Islam. But it is part of their esoteric beliefs, and also found in Hindu and Buddhist beliefs.

Edit:
And I highly doubt devout Christians and Muslims really believe they can hide their actions, thoughts and innermost hearts from God.

 

[BobK]

I always thought it was forever, but this is just a personal interpretation from a Methodist upbringing.

As a youngster I was brought up to believe it was for all eternity as well, and furthermore everyone just sat around singing hosannas and such. This struck me even then as a particularly boring way to spend any length of time, much less all eternity.

 

[2_FAST_4_U]

I voted for this one... Of course, without him nothing would exist! 👍

 

[Famine]

As a youngster I was brought up to believe it was for all eternity as well, and furthermore everyone just sat around singing hosannas and such. This struck me even then as a particularly boring way to spend any length of time, much less all eternity.

Which brings an interesting concept and question: can the eternal paradise of heaven actually represent conditions you would consider hell, or would heaven be your own personal paradise even if that represented what others would consider evil and depraved?