We're not really close to that, and current hypotheses have all information from before creation destroyed in the creation event. (Admittedly, I'm a bit dated on the current state of creation theory).

I'm not sure anything is the "cause" of that singularity, if that is the thing that is the origin. There's more than one hypothesis being discussed about that event. I'm not entirely certain we'll ever have a full understanding of it, but that's OK.

I'm perfectly good with the transition between nothing and something having no cause at all. It just is or was.

Existence may not need a cause. Maybe that's our short-sightedness at work.

what process lead to the instance of a singularity.

"Nothing" is a physical phenomenon. It has properties. It is not the "philospher's nothing" that has no capability of ever being something.

Instability in "nothing" is likely quantum, with potential energy and pairs of virtual particles randomly popping in and out of existence, similar but probably distinguishable from the process in empty space. If one of these random fluctuations got above a certain size, it could end up expanding forever instead of winking back out of existence. There's a paper online somewhere that proves this mathematically. But we don't a way of verifying it by observation yet.

This is going way back so it may be obsolete by now, but I've seen suggestions that the universe may have been "banging" and then collapsing back to an original state because the universes were so unstable. The "bang" that created the current universe was more "stable" and allowed massive expansion. It wasn't clear at the time if the universe was going to expand infinitely, or if it would collapse back. I think they've determined now that it's going to expand infinitely.

This of course means nothing "caused" the bang, but it was just a state of the universe at that moment, transitioning between the previous universe and the current one.

that the universe is expanding and that the expansion is accelerating. There is no contraction. No nice pleasing endless cycle of birth death and rebirth. Instead the way far distant future is a cold dead effectively empty to each theoretical observer universe.

"nothing" is unstable, and can switch instantly to become something. Odds are we may never know the process of existence existing. There may actually be no process at all. There was nothing and then there was something. I have no problem with that concept.

It's also thought that time did not exist until something material did. If that is the case, it will be impossible to look back beyond that point, even intellectually, since the concept of "before" also wouldn't exist.

Personally, I don't trouble myself with thinking about existence at that level. For me, existence is everything. What led to existence isn't really that interesting for me to ponder. Besides pondering it gives me a headache, and who needs that?

Better than making up a story, anyway.

Preceded by verbiage to mask the patent bullshit.

The beginning of the physical universe may not, and is likely not, the actual beginning. In the beginning was the Word, as some myths state. It seems one of the big differences between mythologies and scientism (not science itself but the philosophy derived from an exclusively materialistic perspective) is the question of the origin of consciousness. Does it emerge out of physical processes as a function of the brain or is the physical universe an expression of consciousness. Mythologies sound like crazy, nonsensical stories if one takes the view that space and time are together the sole origin of all things. But looking at it from the perspective of consciousness as the origin, then it's possible to understand our ancestors and their crazy stories in a whole new light. Literal interpretations are just the covering for fascinating insights from our past, some with roots into prehistory. From what I've read and listened to about mythology, it's a wealth of knowledge that connects us to a stream of consciousness that's been running long before we modern humans showed up with our tiny pin hole view of reality.

Quantum theory, in my limited understanding of it, seems to give special status to the observer, or the act of observation. Schrodinger's cat is alive and dead until we open the box and check. Or maybe that interpretation of QM is incorrect or incomplete. Must the observer be conscious? If not, perhaps the geiger counter is the observer, and the cat is definitely alive or dead before we open the box. Otherwise, perhaps nothing definitely exists without us observing it.

If something exists but nothing observes it, neither internally nor externally, then what is there really. As good as nothing. 🤔

They tell us stories about our own perceptions, and therefore seem compelling, but actually tell us nothing about the physical world. Most of physics is actually counterintuitive, which is one reason why it's such a difficult subject.

We all wonder about things. We have answers for many things that earlier people did not. We do not have answers for everything, however.

Mythology fills the gap for some people. Some other people understand that and no longer require anything to fill that gap. It is enough for them to recognize the gap and to follow it as it becomes smaller and smaller. I do not demand answers to all of my questions. I realize that I will not have those answers in my lifetime. However, I have lived during a period where answers are coming fast and where the gap is becoming much smaller. It will not close during my lifetime, however, and that's just fine. It's interesting to learn from those who are studying it. In reality, the gap may never close completely from a human point of view. No matter, though. Existence exists. That is enough.

So, the very concept of something "before the universe existed" is meaningless. Lights out. Lights on. When the light comes on, photons stream from it. When it is off, though, do those photons even exist? Where were they? I see the universe like that - like a single photon. Where was it before? Does that even matter?

For me, the entire metaphysical discussion about existence is meaningless. There was no "beginning" of the physical universe, because it's impossible to talk about a state where there was no physical universe.

I think what we may possibly discover, eventually, is that the physical universe we can experience is just a local manifestation of something much larger that we cannot experience. That is my instinct for where this exploration is going, frankly, and others are hypothesizing about that as well.

For me, it is of no consequence. I do and will occupy only a very brief, insignificant moment.

that consciousness is separate from brain function. Or that it exists outside the brain?

so easily answered. I won't even attempt it. I rely on my experience and education to build a model of reality, just as everyone does, and they have led me to conclude that they are separate. But your mileage may vary. Your question is the subject of tomes and plenty of debate so please forgive me for not answering it in a post. But it's a damn good question. I don't have the definitive answer for everyone, just my own subjective experience to draw on. What do you think?

so I don't accept non-material existence. I appreciate your response, and yes it is a BIG discussion.

Time starts at the singularity. There is no before.

Step on a crack, break your mother's back!

Finish your food, there's starving children in China!

See a funeral, hold a button!

The tooth fairy will visit you tonight!

Don't worry about (insert horrible crime here), believe in Jeebus and you'll be saved!

Heaven!

Trickle-down economics works!

All fallacies. Total bullshit.

We exist. That's enough. The universe in which we exist exists. That's also enough. It's all very interesting.

Like presented in The Matrix, or The Thirteenth Floor, or Dark City. (Interesting how all those movies came out around the same time.) But I had thought about it as a child. What if I'm the only one with free will? What if I'm being tested, part of some experiment by a more powerful being or beings?

But I decided long ago that things would go much better for me and those around me (who may or may not have thought about this, who may or may not be real, but I have to assume they are) if I assumed that reality is real, and that we are all real.

at some point. At least people who bother to think about such things at all. I discarded that idea at about age 16, though. It doesn't hold up under serious scrutiny, I'm afraid.

Last edited Fri Feb 1, 2019, 10:19 AM - Edit history (1)

...watches as the Ainur create the universe with music.

Last edited Fri Feb 1, 2019, 10:24 AM - Edit history (1)

I was never a Tolkein fan, for some reason. However, I remember being aware of the parallel constructions of the world he created and the world I was experiencing. Somehow, though, it never took, and I read other books instead.

I remember The Silmarillion from its publication. I read it at the time, and was reminded, once again, why I never got into his writings. I gave Tolkien a try, but just never got caught up in his writing.

...I myself have given a few well (oops, strike-out well) often recommended books a pass. Their inherently mythological stories never 'stuck' to me either.

A guy has been demanding to be allowed to (using his own money) create a Biblical display showing the six day creation of the Earth. He says it's his right to do so because there is a Native American quote on the main fountain about caring for the Earth, an image of the Indian god Ganesh amongst other elephant imagery near the elephant area, and because he says evolution (for which there is a display) is the true myth. The city council eventually got enough religious nuts sympathetic to his pleas that they were going to let him do it until calls started flooding in against it. I like to think I had a hand in it because I called in several times saying, "Hello, I am a member of <a different religion each time>. If so-and-so is allowed to make a display showing his religion's creation story, then I should be allowed to do so as well." Then I would describe the creation story and my ideas for a display.

Anyway, they soon realized they had a tempest in a teapot and reversed their decision.

"Hello, I am an ancient Aztec [...] then I should be allowed to as well. We believe that man came from corn sprinkled with the blood of the gods, of which there are numerous ones, but I would focus on the goddess Coatlicue..."

TlalocW