Interesting discussions on Bigbang.Arun referred to Stephen Hawking's history of time.As Arun said Hawking says that time and space originated with Big bang.He says that its futile to go before Bigbang and ask what was there before it. Hawking says since time started at bigbang there was no point called as "before time". He says its like asking "what lies north of north pole?" Northpole is the absolute north.There is nothing north of northpole.Likewise Bigbang is the asbolute starting point of time.Before that there was .........(???? what??)
Hawking refers an intersting incident with pope.I dont want to say that here since it will start a religious debate.But I just speculate on what happened before bigbang or why bigbang occured.
"Something came out of nothing"--now how logical does this sound?How can something come out of nothing?Did that something create itself? Then to create itself it should exist.So did its existence precede its creation?Sounds illogical.
Also it is illogical to think that nothing created something.Nothing can by logic do nothing.So something could have never evolved from nothing.Since something exists now, it makes sense to deduce that something has always existed.every other thing like time,space and matter must have come out of this something.
Since Time came out of this something, this something must be apart from time and space.When something is apart from time and space,it can only be incomprehensible to entities which are caught by time and space-people like us.No wonder we cannot see that entity.
The existence of such an entity is logical.Such an entity can only exist and logically it cannot not exist.But is that entity a living being?Let us analyze it.
Since matter,time and space originated out of that entity only two options exist.
1.That entity created time,space and matter willingly 2.Time space and matter were created by accident.
If option 1 is true then that entity is god If option 2 is true then such entity is just another planet or blackhole.
Can option 2 be true?I will analyze this in my next mail.Tell me if this thought of mine is logical or illogical.
Actually i can give quotes from vedas and geetha on this.These are not my original thoughts actually.Vedas call this as 'sunya' and 'ekam'.Ekam came from sunya is called as sunyavadha.It is the argument of buddhism.But hindu vedas call 'ekam' as the solitary entity which created sunya(maya)Hindu vedas rejected the logic of sunyavadha.Even the concepts of advaitha can be traced to this argument.
advaitha rejects the existence of a second entity. A=no, dwaidha=-two There is no secondary being.apart from 1 and 0 there is nothing.without 1 there is no 2.without 2 there is no 3,4 or 5 or infinity.there is only 0 without 1.only by adding 0 with 1 we create 10,100,1000 etc.when we add 1 with itself we create 2,3 and 4.But 1 is the basis for everything.remove it and there is only 0.
I am no expert in Vedic philosophy, so I will refrain from talking abt that. But a couple of thoughts on the other stuff:
1. I believe you are talking abt what Hawking called the concept of singularity. He refers to a total information loss wherein whatever happened before the Big Bang doesn't affect the universe that came after and the converse is true too. Its actually quite an interesting theory and and in no way refutes/cofirms any religious arguments abt what happened before the Big Bang - it only refutes the cause-effect part of it.
2. Lets assume for a moment that some entity created space-time. And lets also say that it was created willingly. And what makes you think that the entity which created it is God(the traditional definition of God)? Looking at it in a Asimov fashion, the earth(and/or the universe) could be an alien experiment. So God could be a group of green, extraterrestrials for all we know. Just like an individual bacteria has no idea why the heck they are being experimented on, you and I have no clue what the alien's true intention is. We as an individual does not even matter to these aliens. We can only sit here and come up with all kinds of philosophy to explain them, worship them and whatever it is we want to do with them :)
"2. Lets assume for a moment that some entity created space-time. And > lets also say that it was created willingly. And what makes you think > that the entity which created it is God(the traditional definition of > God)? Looking at it in a Asimov fashion, the earth(and/or the > universe) could be an alien experiment. So God could be a group of > green, extraterrestrials for all we know. Just like an individual > bacteria has no idea why the heck they are being experimented on, you > and I have no clue what the alien's true intention is. We as an > individual does not even matter to these aliens. We can only sit here > and come up with all kinds of philosophy to explain them, worship > them and whatever it is we want to do with them :)
I agree completely.. Some people think of those as aliens, some people think of those as gods..some people kill other people saying there is just one god.. we need to accept different truths.. That's the best way to lay these things to rest and continue our everyday lives..
Hawking gives a big fullstop to research before bigbang.He stops with bigbang and doesnt speculate what happened before that.Since his book was about history of time,he starts with the point of origin of time.
I earlier said that there must exist an entity which is apart from time and space.Now as you said is that entity singular or plural?Let me delve on that topic.Let me also analyze whether that entity is God or something else like a blackhole.
If such an entity apart from time and space exists it cannot have the characteristic of change.Changing or transforming comes only with time.This entity is apart from time and hence the concept of change is meaningless to it.If time freezes you will stop changing,stop breathing,stop getting old, have the same thought which you had at the point of time this freeze occured. Similiarly For a timeless entity change is meaningless.It can never get old,get young,cannot grow,cannot contract,cannot be different from what it was initially.It will be the same forever.
Also if it has the nature of changing it must have the nature of not existing.Since this entity can never not exist--i described this in my previous mail--it can never change.
So an unchanging entity caused time,matter and space to exist either voluntarily or involuntarily.
Let me analyze whether it is a singular entity or a plural entity.
I earlier said this entity did not have an origin or a cause which initiated its existence.So this entity exists without a cause.It is the only non-caused entity.Now is this non-caused entity singular or plural?
If it is plural then it means the entities have different properties or natures.We also saw that this entity can never change.So can multiple,non-caused,unchangable entities exist?This is a contradiction since then we ask what caused the difference in the nature of the entities?If this difference did not arise by change,then this difference must have come by a cause.But this entity is uncaused.So we can only conclude that this entity has similar nature and not a different nature.
But can we not have different entities with similar characteristics? Then the interesting question is "if two entities are identical to each other in every single aspect are they really different from each other?"
So it is logical to conclude that this entity can be only singular and can never be multiple.
Did this entity voluntarily cause the existence of the universe,space and time or did they evolve accidentally?
Universe space and time must have been voluntarily created by this entity.Accidents happen with change.Without change there are no accidents.So how can an entity that has no change have accidents and create space and time?So it must have created this voluntarily and this must not have been an accident.
Once we assume that this entity created universe voluntarily--it means this entity isnt a non-living being.Anything that causes an act voluntarily must be a living being and can never be a non-living being.It immediatly qualifies to be more superior to the entities it created in every single aspect.It stands apart from time and space,is creative enough to create time and space and can never not exist---what sort of entity is this?
> Let me analyze whether it is a singular entity or a plural entity. > > I earlier said this entity did not have an origin or a cause which > initiated its existence.So this entity exists without a cause.It is > the only non-caused entity.Now is this non-caused entity singular or > plural? > > If it is plural then it means the entities have different properties > or natures.We also saw that this entity can never change.So can > multiple,non-caused,unchangable entities exist?This is a > contradiction since then we ask what caused the difference in the > nature of the entities?If this difference did not arise by > change,then this difference must have come by a cause.But this > entity is uncaused.So we can only conclude that this entity has > similar nature and not a different nature.
1.they should differ by some characteristics.If they dont differ they are not different. 2.If they differ how did this difference exist?Either by a cause or by change. 3.But this entitiy(s) did not have a cause. 4.This entity(s) is also not subject to change. 5.So when the reason for difference doesnt exist how can difference exist? 6.The only other option is the existence of multiple entities with identical characteristics. 7.But again if mutiple entities which are totally identical to each other exist, are they different entities?
I explained on how this entity cannot change.will explain more on it.
change is process.Something should cause change.Nobody changes without a cause.In the case of this entity there is nothing different from it to cause a change.So how can it change?without a cause for change there is no way and reason to change.
we change because of passage of time,environmental influence and so on.change is external.Internal change is caused by time.mere passage of time causes internal changes.we age just by passage of time.
But an entity apart from time has no cause for change.without a cause for change how can it change?
again without change or a cause how can difference in that entity exist?
Just as Hawking doesn't speculate what happened before the Big Bang(I know a couple of quantum physicists who explained to me once abt how the Big Bang does NOT need a cause but lets not get into that now), you don't speculate what happened before the entity came into being. Who created the entiy? If the entity just exists(of its own accord), by the same logic, an entire universe(regardless of the idea of time) can exist too. Between an omniscient, omnipresent entity existing and the universe existing, some of us would rather put our money on the 'matter'! Logic, after all, is a human invention :)
> 1.they should differ by some characteristics.If they dont differ > they are not different.
TRUE.
> 2.If they differ how did this difference exist?Either by a cause or > by change.
Why do you need a cause or a change for a difference??.. When you assume one non-causal, non-changing entity what prevents you from assuming many of those??.
--- In [email protected], "narendran_g2000" > wrote Why do you need a cause or a change for a difference??.. When you assume one non-causal, non-changing entity what prevents you from assuming many of those??.
If we differ by something it means that you have something which I dont have and vice versa.So both of us arent perfect.But if we assume two such uncaused entities to be different,then it means that one of such entities is not perfect or both of them arent perfect.Imperfect entities are contingent upon a either a perfect entity or other imperfect entities.we are contingent upon atmosphere for breathing,contingent on water to survive and so on.similiarly atmosphere is contingent upon earth,water is contingent upon earth,earth contingent upon sun and so on.
But the uncaused entity could never have been contingent upon anything else.If it wasnt contingent then it should be perfect.If it is perfect,then it cannot lack something.If it doesnt lack something it isnt inferior to anything else.If it isnt inferior to anything else,then either it is superior to everything else or equal to everything or something.If it is equal to something--it has to be a perfect equality,since this being is perfect.If two such perfect entities-perfect in every aspect and equal in every aspect exist- then actually they dont have any difference with each other.If two entities arent different from each other,then they are not different entities.They are one and same.