Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by paddoboy, Feb 3, 2017.
Mathematics is wrong .
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
What was before the universe though? I can't believe there was just nothing.
IMO, a state of nothingness is really an inaccurate description. Is it infinitely large or infinitely small, IOW, a singularity?
I prefer the equation Nothing = Permittive of Everything.
We only need to look at the world around us to see what was mathematically permitted to evolve from nothing.
IOW, Nothingness itself may well have an abstract value. A singular state of nothingness = a singularity of zero dimension.
Question; can a singularity of zero dimension exist at all for any duration, or would there be a mathematical imperative to instantly expand and in the process create energy?
Potential (latent) energy and Expressed (active) energy are the two common denominators of all things.
I very much doubt there was nothing.
What there was didn't include the three spatial dimensions and possibly the one time dimension, but it definitely had its own properties, whatever they were.
Just a musing of a possible simplest way that nothing might become causal to something..
a) Assuming that before the BB there was nothing (a pure vacuum or void).
b) Assuming that nothing is by definition permittive of something.
c) Assuming that nothing is both infinitely large and infinitely small.
If these three conditions were properties of nothing (even for a single instant), would this present a natural mathematical duality, from which a tensor field could be abstracted?
Could an abstract tensor field be a potential causality to an energetic something?
I have no idea how this could be presented in a mathematical equation, but if there is any logic to be found in this line of thought, perhaps someone could build on this flight of fancy.
We cannot know that without knowing whether the Big Bang is cyclic, whether there are other Big Bangs out there, whether we are in a multiverse & probably much more.
Nothing cannot have any properties.
More to the point: 'nothing' is not a scientifically well-defined term. It is useless to use it in the context of pre-Big Bang.
Define nothing, or is it without definition and anything else, including "potential."
I agree, it is not a well defined term. Which also means that a state of nothingness may have some natural properties, some mathematical imperatives which are as yet unknown.
We are still faced with the question if the universe had a true beginning or if it is just an extension of a previously existing condition which had the potential for the BB.
But this question results in an infinite chain of prior causality, which just doesn't sound plausible.
Thus, if there was a beginning, there must have been a state of nothingness before that point and we end up with the question if nothing could have some unknown properties.
I believe we can ignore time and space as factors, so we and up with the assumption that a state of nothingness gave a spontaneous rise to something, even if this something was an abstract potential.
The only thing I can think of which can exist in the abstract is in the form of a tensor, and in its simplest form a tensor requires a duality, a difference between two states.
Can nothing be both simultaneously infinitely large and infinitely small?
If so, could that be considered a form of abstract tensor, a potential?
I am not discounting that possibility or any other for that matter.
But I believe there is consensus agreement that there was a beginning to whatever followed, unless we assume an infinity of cycles, and that seems logically difficult to defend.
As a generality can it be argued that those who wish to maintain that there was an absolute beginning /end to everything have the burden of proof and that otherwise the assumption is that there is an unknowable "before"/"after" to any event we care to adduce?
I would submit the same burden of proof falls on the claim that there was no absolute beginning or end to everything. And I believe that there have been a supportable claims that there will be an end, at least to this universe.
After some reading on the various proposed models of both positions, I am beginning to like my original idea of a potential tensor field emerging from the duality of nothingness as a simultaneous state of being both infinitely large and infinitely small.
Nowhere have I found any mention of such a concept, although several proposed models seem to suggest this as an implied fractal aspect of self similarity at all scales.
If it is not well defined, it is because so many try to use it incorrectly.
Consensus or not, we do not yet know & we might never know & it certainly does no good to pretend to know.
It all seems implausible, neither more than the other but as long as we do not know, the logical default is that every thing has cause(s) & every thing must have come from some thing(s).
Your infinitely small fractal idea seems to this inexpert eye to combine quantum steps and continuity but seems to imply there is no direction to the organization (the arrow can point either way)
As I say that is just an (very inexpert) observation which I in no way "stand by".
I still feel that ,unless indicated otherwise we should not assume an absolute termination or absolute beginning to anything .
Sure ,individual situations (such as our own universe) can come to an end in their own terms but that is a local outcome and the global situation is still unclear.
I am groping in the dark as much as every one else.
But one thing is undeniably true, in an absolute state of nothingness there exists a self similar condition from infinitely large to infinitely small...no? If so, that is the very definition of fractality.
Causal Dynamical Triangulation is a proposed model which based on the concept on the fractal unfolding of enfolded potential, an hierarchical process of self-ordering states or conditions.
Add to this an abstract geometric tensor (or vector) potential between infinitely large and infinitely small..
Could this become causal to a self ordering process beginning inside a state or condition of nothingness?
This dilemma is a matter for philosophists, not scientists.
philosophists?? Really? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hey, if philosophers engage in philosophy, shouldn't people who engage in science be scienters?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think you should look for the answer from the linguists, or should that be languagers?...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Separate names with a comma.