• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A "Before" the Big Bang?

.13. said:
If you mean that universe is its own container and not in the thermodynamical sense then yes. Exactly correct.
Click to expand...
Yes, I mean the Universe is its own container ... obviously, since I don't understand what you mean by in the "thermodynamical sense?"

And not just appear.
Click to expand...
But this is the whole point, for I would contend that there cannot be nothing without its relation to something. And, even if that something were the Universe, we still have to ask how it could exist in relation to nothing if, in fact nothing is all there was (wasn't) prior to its coming about?

Which, is why I brought up the notion of the Universe being some sort of simulation. For indeed, everything would be contained within the simulation and, for all intents and purpose -- relative to the simulation that is -- nothing would exist outside of it. And yet we would all know better, because we are prompted to ask, who or, what is creating the simulation?

Well, could it be this very God we're speaking of which, exists outside of time and space?

I understand. I hope discussing these things on this message board helps. Keep thinking about these things and ask questions if needed. I'm sure people will be happy to help out if you are genuinenly interested. Don't be affraid to ask because some question may seem stupid to some people. You'll get answers for them.
Click to expand...
Well, I can appreciate what you're saying here, but I'm not sure that's why I'm here. I have to admit though, it has helped me to hash out some of my arguments, and allow me to present a better case. Thus far though, I don't think I'm in league with too many folks on this board. Neither am I sure that's what I'm looking for. :)

Just don't come out asserting yourself, that will put some people off.
Click to expand...
Life is capricious is it not? ;)
 
Last edited:
Iacchus said:
Yes, I mean the Universe is its own container ... obviously, since I don't understand what you mean by in the "thermodynamical sense?"
Click to expand...
I was refering to enthropy.
But this is the whole point, for I would contend that there cannot be nothing without its relation to something. And, even if that something were the Universe, we still have to ask how it could exist in relation to nothing if, in fact nothing is all there was (wasn't) prior to its coming about?
Click to expand...
I don't understand what you mean by that first sentence. I don't really know about "before" the big bang. You would have to ask someone else about that. But since I don't know what's "outside" the universe or "before" the big bang there is no point in making wild guesses. I'll have to think it was nothing untill I know otherwise. (And remember, time started at the big bang and there is no actual outside to the universe, hence the "".)

I don't understand what you mean by simulation. Are you refering to something like the movie matrix? In that case our physical bodies would still exist in a universe. You are just adding extra layers between us and the universe. And we might as well be talking about properties of that universe. So it's better to drop that layer between us and the universe.
 
Iacchus said:
But this is the whole point, for I would contend that there cannot be nothing without its relation to something. And, even if that something were the Universe, we still have to ask how it could exist in relation to nothing if, in fact nothing is all there was (wasn't) prior to its coming about?
Click to expand...
Actually, Iacchus, once again you are treating "nothing" as a type of "something". Nothing does not have a relation to something--if it had any means by which to "relate", it would be something rather than nothing. The universe is all that there is. That's the definition of universe. Anything that is actually relating to other things is, by definition, part of the universe. The "nothing" you are having trouble grasping does not interact, does not relate, does not, is not. You are still treating it as if it was some sort of "empty space".
Which, is why I brought up the notion of the Universe being some sort of simulation. For indeed, everything would be contained within the simulation and, for all intents and purpose -- relative to the simulation that is -- nothing would exist outside of it. And yet we would all know better, because we are prompted to ask, who or, what is creating the simulation?
Click to expand...
And here you are taking your misunderstanding of "nothing" and building castles on it.
Well, could it be this very God we're speaking of which, exists outside of time and space?
Click to expand...
If you are saying god is nothing, do you really mean what you are saying?
 
.13. said:
I was refering to enthropy.
Click to expand...
This is when everything loses its inertia and begins to cool down, correct? Yes, I am beginning to become a bit more familiar with the term.

I don't understand what you mean by that first sentence. I don't really know about "before" the big bang. You would have to ask someone else about that. But since I don't know what's "outside" the universe or "before" the big bang there is no point in making wild guesses. I'll have to think it was nothing untill I know otherwise. (And remember, time started at the big bang and there is no actual outside to the universe, hence the "".)
Click to expand...
Am merely asking how there could ever be a point -- with or without time -- when nothing is not relative to something else?

I don't understand what you mean by simulation. Are you refering to something like the movie matrix? In that case our physical bodies would still exist in a universe. You are just adding extra layers between us and the universe. And we might as well be talking about properties of that universe. So it's better to drop that layer between us and the universe.
Click to expand...
I am referring to the whole shebang.
 
Last edited:
Mercutio said:
You are still treating it as if it was some sort of "empty space".
Click to expand...
No, I am treating it as if it were the end of the simulation.

And here you are taking your misunderstanding of "nothing" and building castles on it.
Click to expand...
No, am merely explaining how it's possible to conceive of nothing outside of something, because that something is simply based upon what we perceive -- which, is why I brought up the notion of the cardboard boxes initially -- as opposed to everything as "a whole." So, outside of what we are able to think and perceive, we do in fact know "nothing."

If you are saying god is nothing, do you really mean what you are saying?
Click to expand...
No, I think you have it bass-ackwards here.
 
Last edited:
Iacchus said:
No, am merely explaining how it's possible to conceive of nothing outside of something, because that something is simply based upon what we perceive -- which, is why I brought up the notion of the cardboard boxes initially -- as opposed to everything as "a whole." So, outside of what we are able to think and perceive, we do in fact know "nothing."
Click to expand...
So, in getting back to the point of the original post, is it possible that time may in fact exist, outside of our ability to perceive that it does? For if you think about it, the only boundaries that truly exist, are the ones that are in our minds. :)
 
Iacchus said:
No, I am treating it as if it were the end of the simulation.
Click to expand...
So, then, even more than "empty space". You think of "nothing" as quite a lot of "something else".
No, am merely explaining how it's possible to conceive of nothing outside of something, because that something is simply based upon what we perceive -- which, is why I brought up the notion of the cardboard boxes initially -- as opposed to everything as "a whole." So, outside of what we are able to think and perceive, we do in fact know "nothing."
Click to expand...
The very use of the phrase "nothing outside of something" shows that you are still thinking of nothing as something.
No, I think you have it bass-ackwards here.
Click to expand...
Take another look at what you wrote. You spoke of god existing outside of time and space. Time and space are within the entire universe, which by definition encompasses everything. Something "outside" of the universe (Note that your phrasing still implies three-dimensionality, which it should not) is not something at all, but nothing. A god outside of time and space would be a nothing. If this god has any influence, if this god can be described as existing, it is not "outside" of time and space.
 
Iacchus said:
So, in getting back to the point of the original post, is it possible that time may in fact exist, outside of our ability to perceive that it does? For if you think about it, the only boundaries that truly exist, are the ones that are in our minds. :)
Click to expand...
Time can exist quite well without us. We have been here only the tiniest fraction of the history of the universe. That time was real, with none there to observe it.

As for your last sentence...I am sure that if you re-define enough words, you can force it to make sense. I am going to guess that you have redefined "boundaries", "truly", "exist", and "minds". Possibly "our" and "think", as well.
 
Mercutio said:
So, then, even more than "empty space". You think of "nothing" as quite a lot of "something else".
Click to expand...
Yes, everything that pertains to that which "generates" the simulation.

The very use of the phrase "nothing outside of something" shows that you are still thinking of nothing as something.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. I am speaking of nothing in terms of everything that we know of which, does not preclude the non-existence of anything else. Which, is why I say it's merely a matter of what we perceive.

Take another look at what you wrote. You spoke of god existing outside of time and space.
Click to expand...
Yes, He exists outside of the parameters of time and space that "we" know of.

Time and space are within the entire universe, which by definition encompasses everything.
Click to expand...
Yes, time and space exist within the entire Universe that "we" know of ... regardless of anything else.

Something "outside" of the universe (Note that your phrasing still implies three-dimensionality, which it should not) is not something at all, but nothing. A god outside of time and space would be a nothing. If this god has any influence, if this god can be described as existing, it is not "outside" of time and space.
Click to expand...
God exists entirely within the parameters of His own existence, not necessarily within ours. Albeit our existence gives every indication that He exists as a whole ... of which we are a "subset" of.
 
Mercutio said:
Time can exist quite well without us. We have been here only the tiniest fraction of the history of the universe. That time was real, with none there to observe it.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it only exists as a concept, because "we" weren't there. Therefore if, let's say, we had no awarness of the Big Bang whatsoever, and projected time back 20 billion years prior to the Big Bang, have we done something wrong here? How so, when all we've really done is project something with our mind? Whereas, in fact, regardless of whether we "sense" something is "out there," this is all we could ever hope to do.

As for your last sentence...I am sure that if you re-define enough words, you can force it to make sense. I am going to guess that you have redefined "boundaries", "truly", "exist", and "minds". Possibly "our" and "think", as well.
Click to expand...
I am saying that the only boundaries that exist are the ones that exist in our minds.
 
Last edited:
Iacchus said:
Yes, He exists outside of the parameters of time and space that "we" know of.

Yes, time and space exist within the entire Universe that "we" know of ... regardless of anything else.
Click to expand...

The 'we know of' part is rather telling isn't it? If we cannot know of anything that exists with-out the Universe, then there is no use speculating about what there might be.

God exists entirely within the parameters of His own existence, not necessarily within ours. Albeit our existence gives every indication that He exists as a whole ... of which we are a "subset" of.
Click to expand...

It is probable that our four dimensional universe, say, exists within a five dimensional extra-universe. The fourth dimension we experience as time, not as a spatial dimension. So this sort of begs the question, "What exactly would the fifth dimension be?" Would it be a fourth spatial dimension with a fifth temporal one? Or would it be represented in some form that would be completely unexplainable by we mere four-dimensional beings?

In other words, humans (and any other sentient being from this universe) would be entirely incapable of even experiencing extra dimensions. We are not built for it.
 
kuroyume0161 said:
The 'we know of' part is rather telling isn't it? If we cannot know of anything that exists with-out the Universe, then there is no use speculating about what there might be.
Click to expand...
Ah, but we've just identified that "something" does exist. How is this possible? ... aside from the fact that all we've witnessed is what we've established in our minds? Hmm ...

It is probable that our four dimensional universe, say, exists within a five dimensional extra-universe. The fourth dimension we experience as time, not as a spatial dimension. So this sort of begs the question, "What exactly would the fifth dimension be?" Would it be a fourth spatial dimension with a fifth temporal one? Or would it be represented in some form that would be completely unexplainable by we mere four-dimensional beings?
Click to expand...
Yes, but isn't it the least bit strange to you that the only way we can conceive of it is through "our thinking?"

In other words, humans (and any other sentient being from this universe) would be entirely incapable of even experiencing extra dimensions. We are not built for it.
Click to expand...
If we are incapable of experiencing them, then how do we conceive of them? ... aside from the fact that all we've witnessed -- and, all we will ever witness -- is what we've established in our minds? Hmm ...
 
Last edited:
We do not conceive of them, Iacchus. We can not, every, know what is 'outside' the universe. Ever. It is impossible. Also, from our point of view 'within' the universe, nothing exists outside of it. Simply because, existance is defined as being within the universe. Anything outside the universe is outside of space and time, which means it does not exist. Please try to understand this, Iacchus.
 
Taffer said:
We do not conceive of them, Iacchus. We can not, every, know what is 'outside' the universe. Ever. It is impossible. Also, from our point of view 'within' the universe, nothing exists outside of it. Simply because, existance is defined as being within the universe. Anything outside the universe is outside of space and time, which means it does not exist. Please try to understand this, Iacchus.
Click to expand...
Oh I see, and before Christopher Columbus discovered America the earth was flat, right? These boundaries are all in your mind. I mean you really should watch The Truman Show.
 
Iacchus said:
Oh I see, and before Christopher Columbus discovered America the earth was flat, right? These boundaries are all in your mind. I mean you really should watch The Truman Show.
Click to expand...


Nope. By the time that Ol' CC came aboot, pretty much everyone believed that the Earth was round. In fact, it was one of the old Greek philosophers who first posited that it was, in fact, round. I can't recall which one right now, but if it becomes a bone of contention, I'm sure that info can be provided.

What CC did show, was that the world was either a) much bigger than they thought, or b) had more land mass than they thought.

Please make a note of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom