Did the universal constants exist before the big bang?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Online
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 7972
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 43 times

Did the universal constants exist before the big bang?

Post #1

Post by Wootah »

Assuming the universe was created via the big bang, did the universal constants exist before the big bang or were they created at the same time as the big bang?
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

Looking for head to head debates, especially on contradictions or the Trinity. PM me your topic.

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

Edit preferences to remove all the fluff: ucp.php?i=ucp_prefs&mode=view

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10556
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 503 times
Been thanked: 1151 times
Contact:

Re: Did the universal constants exist before the big bang?

Post #61

Post by William »

[Replying to Wootah in post #55]
At the time of the big bang how did the stuff of the universe 'know' to follow the laws of the universe? Surely the first part of the bang was the laws then the matter?
The Effect of Sound and The Universe

User avatar
Sherlock Holmes
Under Suspension
Posts: 1707
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Arizona Badlands
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: Did the universal constants exist before the big bang?

Post #62

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

William wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 12:16 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #59]
That is how we, how I, infer God, it is what I see as evidence for God, the presence of the universe is evidence for God.
Search "God"
Essential Meaning of god

1: the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe
Does she believe in God?
(May) God bless us all.


2: a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions
the gods and goddesses of ancient Egypt
a Hindu god


3: a person and especially a man who is greatly loved or admired
a professor who was regarded as a kind of god
a guitar god like Jimi Hendrix
Source.
It is indeed hard to describe a non-material, conscious, non-deterministic, aware entity that has intent and an ability to bring matter, laws, fields into existence, mere words are not enough.
When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10556
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 503 times
Been thanked: 1151 times
Contact:

Re: Did the universal constants exist before the big bang?

Post #63

Post by William »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #62]
It is indeed hard to describe a non-material, conscious, non-deterministic, aware entity that has intent and an ability to bring matter, laws, fields into existence, mere words are not enough.
I understand it as the overall mind/consciousness of the universe.

Re this planet, it is seeable within the activity of conscious life-forms. It is harder to see it in the sun or the other planets of the solar system...how mind expresses itself through various form, is easier to understand re 'that which is happening on Earth'.

User avatar
Sherlock Holmes
Under Suspension
Posts: 1707
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Arizona Badlands
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: Did the universal constants exist before the big bang?

Post #64

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

William wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 1:26 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #62]
It is indeed hard to describe a non-material, conscious, non-deterministic, aware entity that has intent and an ability to bring matter, laws, fields into existence, mere words are not enough.
I understand it as the overall mind/consciousness of the universe.

Re this planet, it is seeable within the activity of conscious life-forms. It is harder to see it in the sun or the other planets of the solar system...how mind expresses itself through various form, is easier to understand re 'that which is happening on Earth'.
It has become more and more reasonable, more rational to me over the past five years or so, to regard "mind" as the most fundamental of all things. The evidence seems clearer to me now that it did years ago.

Consciousness, mind, seems inexplicable materially, not subject to reductionism (Roger Penrose and others speak about this, though he wouldn't quite go that far) and since also a material (scientific) explanation for the universe is a logical impossibility whereas "mind" solves that, this has a better explanatory power than a naively assumed material explanation.
When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10556
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 503 times
Been thanked: 1151 times
Contact:

Re: Did the universal constants exist before the big bang?

Post #65

Post by William »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 1:49 pm
William wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 1:26 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #62]
It is indeed hard to describe a non-material, conscious, non-deterministic, aware entity that has intent and an ability to bring matter, laws, fields into existence, mere words are not enough.
I understand it as the overall mind/consciousness of the universe.

Re this planet, it is seeable within the activity of conscious life-forms. It is harder to see it in the sun or the other planets of the solar system...how mind expresses itself through various form, is easier to understand re 'that which is happening on Earth'.
It has become more and more reasonable, more rational to me over the past five years or so, to regard "mind" as the most fundamental of all things. The evidence seems clearer to me now that it did years ago.

Consciousness, mind, seems inexplicable materially, not subject to reductionism (Roger Penrose and others speak about this, though he wouldn't quite go that far) and since also a material (scientific) explanation for the universe is a logical impossibility whereas "mind" solves that, this has a better explanatory power than a naively assumed material explanation.
That is why Consciousness is the hard problem for materialists. It should not exist if the universe was based upon materialist proclamations.

And yet - here we are, minds experiencing material...

User avatar
Sherlock Holmes
Under Suspension
Posts: 1707
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Arizona Badlands
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: Did the universal constants exist before the big bang?

Post #66

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

William wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 2:02 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 1:49 pm
William wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 1:26 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #62]
It is indeed hard to describe a non-material, conscious, non-deterministic, aware entity that has intent and an ability to bring matter, laws, fields into existence, mere words are not enough.
I understand it as the overall mind/consciousness of the universe.

Re this planet, it is seeable within the activity of conscious life-forms. It is harder to see it in the sun or the other planets of the solar system...how mind expresses itself through various form, is easier to understand re 'that which is happening on Earth'.
It has become more and more reasonable, more rational to me over the past five years or so, to regard "mind" as the most fundamental of all things. The evidence seems clearer to me now that it did years ago.

Consciousness, mind, seems inexplicable materially, not subject to reductionism (Roger Penrose and others speak about this, though he wouldn't quite go that far) and since also a material (scientific) explanation for the universe is a logical impossibility whereas "mind" solves that, this has a better explanatory power than a naively assumed material explanation.
That is why Consciousness is the hard problem for materialists. It should not exist if the universe was based upon materialist proclamations.

And yet - here we are, minds experiencing material...
I couldn't agree more, it is in a way, sad that so many are so steeped in materialist dogma that the mere suggestion there are other rational ways to perceive reality is regarded as akin to witchcraft!
When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10556
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 503 times
Been thanked: 1151 times
Contact:

Re: Did the universal constants exist before the big bang?

Post #67

Post by William »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 2:05 pm
William wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 2:02 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 1:49 pm
William wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 1:26 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #62]
It is indeed hard to describe a non-material, conscious, non-deterministic, aware entity that has intent and an ability to bring matter, laws, fields into existence, mere words are not enough.
I understand it as the overall mind/consciousness of the universe.

Re this planet, it is seeable within the activity of conscious life-forms. It is harder to see it in the sun or the other planets of the solar system...how mind expresses itself through various form, is easier to understand re 'that which is happening on Earth'.
It has become more and more reasonable, more rational to me over the past five years or so, to regard "mind" as the most fundamental of all things. The evidence seems clearer to me now that it did years ago.

Consciousness, mind, seems inexplicable materially, not subject to reductionism (Roger Penrose and others speak about this, though he wouldn't quite go that far) and since also a material (scientific) explanation for the universe is a logical impossibility whereas "mind" solves that, this has a better explanatory power than a naively assumed material explanation.
That is why Consciousness is the hard problem for materialists. It should not exist if the universe was based upon materialist proclamations.

And yet - here we are, minds experiencing material...
I couldn't agree more, it is in a way, sad that so many are so steeped in materialist dogma that the mere suggestion there are other rational ways to perceive reality is regarded as akin to witchcraft!
Mostly referred to as "nonsense" and "woo" - a type of 'witch-hunting' for sure. Perhaps like with the Christians, there is an underlying, ill-addressed fear which motivates this type of similar reaction from the materialist sector.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1982
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 367 times
Been thanked: 886 times

Re: Did the universal constants exist before the big bang?

Post #68

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #64]
... and since also a material (scientific) explanation for the universe is a logical impossibility...
Explain how this is a logical impossibility. Sounds like you're taking this option off the table without it having been shown to be impossible, but complaining if materialists do the same thing with gods (or whatever you want to call the mindful creator). I could argue that since no gods have ever been demonstrated to exist, invoking such a being as the creator of the universe has no basis.

At least the prevailing scientific ideas for how the universe may have come into existence are based on some analysis of observations and known physics that feed into the models. These models have not been "proven" of course, but they are not without some observational basis. Gods (or mindful creators) are an easy explanation if such things exist, but this existence is still hypothetical and I'd argue with far less physical evidence in support of it.

But why is a scientific explanation for the universe a logical impossibility?
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10556
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 503 times
Been thanked: 1151 times
Contact:

Re: Did the universal constants exist before the big bang?

Post #69

Post by William »

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #68]
But why is a scientific explanation for the universe a logical impossibility?
I do not think it is logically impossible but what does it mean? So far there have been scientific theories, many of which are very good imo.

What is lacking is any actual scientific explanation which is confirmed as supporting materialistic thinking.

Materialists often cite 'science' but so far actual science hasn't shown us all that materialism is the hot stuff materialists are crowing about.

So indeed, who knows? One day science might have the means in which to settle the debate permanently, whereas materialists appear to think the question has already been settled, and by none other that scientific method.

I see no evidence of that being true...

User avatar
Sherlock Holmes
Under Suspension
Posts: 1707
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Arizona Badlands
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: Did the universal constants exist before the big bang?

Post #70

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 3:57 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #64]
... and since also a material (scientific) explanation for the universe is a logical impossibility...
Explain how this is a logical impossibility. Sounds like you're taking this option off the table without it having been shown to be impossible, but complaining if materialists do the same thing with gods (or whatever you want to call the mindful creator). I could argue that since no gods have ever been demonstrated to exist, invoking such a being as the creator of the universe has no basis.

At least the prevailing scientific ideas for how the universe may have come into existence are based on some analysis of observations and known physics that feed into the models. These models have not been "proven" of course, but they are not without some observational basis. Gods (or mindful creators) are an easy explanation if such things exist, but this existence is still hypothetical and I'd argue with far less physical evidence in support of it.

But why is a scientific explanation for the universe a logical impossibility?
Every scientific theory (aka "explanation") expresses relationships between material quantities, material quantities are presupposed.

To scientifically explain the presence of these material quantities is a self contradictory goal, because until one presupposes some material quantity or other one cannot write down any relationships or laws.

All science can achieve here is to discern apparent behavior of an already existing system, it cannot "explain" its origin, the things we call "laws of nature" cannot be explained except by recourse to some other already existing laws.

Therefore the origin of it cannot be something we can regard as a scientific, material explanation it must - absolutely must - either be unexplained or be explained non-scientifically (e.g. "In the beginning God..." this both serves as a non-scientific explanation and eliminates infinite regress).

These are logically the only options and neither fit the definition of a scientific explanation.

Some will resort to pseudo-science when this is presented to them and start talking about the "quantum vacuum" and so on, even people who should know better like Lawrence Krauss will waffle on about how this is all easily resolved because nothing actually has properties and other silliness.

If we ever did write a "theory of everything" it would of necessity have to be a blank piece of paper (because we'd have to start with nothing, no quantities, no laws and infer quantities and laws from that nothing - I'd love to see that equation!)

Image

I studied theoretical physics with an emphasis on general relativity and much of what I knew about physics (which naturally included a lot of cosmology) helped me reach my current understanding.
When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Post Reply