Is "I have no frickin clue." an acceptable answer? I'm pretty sure it's the only true one.

Philosophy as physics without the maths.

The initial singularity was not located "anywhere" nor at "any specific time". Temporo-spatiality applies to the universe as we know it, — Benj96

Does it apply to the whole universe? Where and when is the whole universe located?

So where is the singularity? When is the singularity? If it is not in any specific location nor at any specific time, how can we say it "precedes" the big bang or "began" the universe. In what dimension would the singularity exist. Does it still exist? — Benj96

You are noting the limitations of materialistic traditional conventional language, for expressing immaterial novel unconventional conjectures of philosophy. In materialistic physics, everything is immanent, in time, in space. But in speculative philosophy, our minds are free to explore transcendent dimensions, such as the "time before Time". :smile:

PS___The speculative mathematics of String Theory found 10 or 11 dimensions to be necessary for their numbers to add-up. As ideal figments of Logic, it didn't matter "when" or "where" those dimensions were located in the "real" world. When & where does Mathematics exist?
PPS___For my own musings, I imagine the Singularity (associated with Big Bang) not as a space-time object, but as the mathematical definition (e.g. program) of a Potential (not yet actual) universe. This is a philosophical conjecture, not a scientific theory. It "still exists", as a general concept, whenever someone thinks of the Source or Cause of the Cosmic Bang that created the space-time we know and love.

Consider this equation-free gloss on the Hartle-Hawking No-Boundary proposal (alternative to BB cosmology) ...

https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/famous-scientists/physicists/stephen-hawking3.htm#:~:text=Hawking%20likened%20his%20no%2Dboundary,you%20reach%20the%20South%20Pole.

In sum: modern cosmology accounts only for the development of the universe and, in its quantum gravity formulation, calls into question that it had a "beginning" (or that the BB was "the beginning of space and time"). Just as the Earth has no "edge", the universe might have had no beginning-point (i.e. "singularity") according to James Hartle, Stephen Hawking et al.

Some years ago, when Lawrence Krauss published A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing those who are well versed in both philosophy and physics were highly critical. They pointed out that his "nothing" was not nothing. Despite the title what he described is a universe from something,

I imagine the Singularity (associated with Big Bang) not as a space-time object, but as the mathematical definition (e.g. program) of a Potential (not yet actual) universe — Gnomon

Well, in math a singularity is roughly where a function goes haywire, but your interpretation is interesting.

(Pure mathematics I have dabbled with suggests the origins of the universe might never have had a "beginning point" in time, and that - in this weird perspective - virtually anything might have set up a causal chain at any point in early enough time.)

Philosophy as physics without the maths. — Banno

:100:

Well, in math a singularity is roughly where a function goes haywire, but your interpretation is interesting. — jgill

I am familiar with the mathematical definition. But some Futurists have borrowed the term for other applications, such as a technological Singularity where human tech "goes haywire", and may begin to dominate its creators.

As an Originist though, I was referring to the speculative non-mathematical philosophical notion of the Big Bang Singularity, as a creation event, to explain how Space-Time mysteriously emerged from Infinity-Eternity. Yet, a somewhat less inscrutable way to look at the inexplicable emergence of something-from-nothingness is to imagine a more familiar scenario.

For example, picture the Mathematical Singularity as a simple Algorithm, serving as the kernel of a program for creating a Cosmos via computational evolution. Energy/Causation was provided by the teleological Intention (goal, output) of the program, and Matter was defined numerically in the initial setup. In this story, the physical world is the computer which processes simple mathematical (and-or-not) functions into a recursive process of addition, subtraction, and multiplication of bits into bytes and gazillobytes of complex information, and of physical forms.

It's just a conjecture, but I find it interesting as an alternative to other pre-bang fantasies, such as Many Worlds, and Multiverses. :smile:

Where was matter before the big bang?
The initial singularity is a singularity predicted by some models of the Big Bang theory to have existed before the Big Bang and thought to have contained all the energy and spacetime of the Universe.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/605384/where-was-matter-before-the-big-bang

Physical Relationships among Matter, Energy and Information :
The three concepts – matter, energy and information – are related through scientific laws. Matter and energy relations are more thoroughly understood than relations involving information. At the level of data or signal “difference” is suggested as a more elementary term than “information.”
https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/blogs.gwu.edu/dist/d/257/files/2016/11/2007.SRBS_.MEI_.2col-2brsfmf.pdf

Philosophy as physics without the maths. — Banno

On an opinion-swapping Philosophy Forum, when amateur philosophers pretend to pontificate on material Physics, they are doing Science without the Matter, and Math without the Numbers. :nerd:

On an opinion-swapping Philosophy Forum, when amateur philosophers pretend to pontificate on material Physics, they are doing Science without the Matter, and Math without the Numbers — Gnomon

I would never weigh in on the content of empirical assertions by physicists and characterize my opinions as philosophical. I can only claim a philosophical stance when I remain neutral in this regard, that is, when I am careful not to offer any opinion on the veracity of facts generated within physics, and instead focus on the pre-empirical presuppositions grounding the way questions are posed in physics.

Making those questions means you didn't understand the theory of the origin of our univers. Time and space and thermodynamic laws where being created during bigbang, so it doesn't make sense to ask what was there before or where it happens... time and space were being created!
You should study a bit more physics to understand it.

Your questions are like when people where wondering where was the end of the planet earth because they thought it was flat... then we discovered it is a sphere and the question does not make sense anymore... same for your questions, make no sense!

I would never weigh in on the content of empirical assertions by physicists and characterize my opinions as philosophical. I can only claim a philosophical stance when I remain neutral in this regard, that is, when I am careful not to offer any opinion on the veracity of facts generated within physics, and instead focus on the pre-empirical presuppositions grounding the way questions are posed in physics. — Joshs

That sounds like a reasonable philosophical approach to physical controversies. But some TPF posters challenge philosophical conjectures by insisting on verified empirical evidence. However, such hypotheses may presuppose later empirical evidence. For example, bending of light by gravity was a rational conclusion from Einstein's mathematical theory of gravitation, pending future astronomical confirmation.

Besides, "pre-empirical presuppositions" in mathematics are called "axioms" : presumed to be logically true until proven wrong by finding a black swan. Perhaps speculative philosophy has more in common with Platonic mathematics than with Pragmatic physics. :smile:


Axiom :
In formal mathematics an axiom is a formula or schema of formulas that is stipulated as true (and therefore not requiring proof). Axioms are the counterpart in mathematics of suppositions, assumptions, or premises in ordinary syllogistic logic.
https://platonicrealms.com/encyclopedia/axiom

Given that sound arguments cannot be raised on the following basis, does it ever make sense to 'speculatively interpret' (i.e. philosophically, or categorically, generalize from) falsified or untestable claims about the universe / nature? If so, sir, explain why you think so. Thanks.

Some years ago, when Lawrence Krauss published A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing those who are well versed in both philosophy and physics were highly critical. They pointed out that his "nothing" was not nothing. Despite the title what he described is a universe from something, — Fooloso4

Yes. I take his potent & creative nothingness argument as supportive of my own interpretation of BB theory : that Causal Energy and Limiting Laws necessarily pre-existed the Bang --- not physically, but Platonically.

Non-empirical Philosophical conjectures, such as Multiverse and Many Worlds, also seem to assume that "something" preceded the beginning of our little space-time bubble. However, they imply that the "something" was simply more-of-the-same in a tower-of-turtles all the way down to an eternal Material Motherlode. Ironically, in our part of the ontic bubble, ever-changing matter seems to be anything but eternal. So, a more likely candidate for everlasting existence may be Platonic Logic or Tegmark's Mathematics. :nerd:

They pointed out that his "nothing" was not nothing. Despite the title what he described is a universe from something, — Fooloso4

Indeed and would agree with them in the sense that the concept of "nothing" is nothing without something. Excuse the pun.

They're relative. Its like trying to define light without darkness. You can't. Definition itself is distinction, delineation, separation, contrast. It needs at the very least A and B.

I agree with you gnomon. As per usual lol.

. Time and space and thermodynamic laws where being created during bigbang, so it doesn't make sense to ask what was there before or where it happens... time and space were being created! — Raul

I agree with this as outlined in the OP.
However from what was space, time and thermodynamics being created from? For me the answer is Potential. As potential is not contingent on anything else but itself to "potentiate" the manifestation of emergent properties - such as time, space and thermodynamics.

As in potential is the the sum of all products. The big bang therefore would be the process of potential converting into time, energy, space and matter etc.
Entropy and thermodynamics would be the unwinding of potential into the manifest.

The ability to be (potential) and being (the realised) are a couple. Opposites of a sort.

Well, in math a singularity is roughly where a function goes haywire, but your interpretation is interesting. — jgill

I'm not surprised that a singularity is where a function goes haywire. Because a function requires components: input, function and output. A singularity by definition is singular, what it "does"and what it" is" are unified as one thing. There are no variables, no additional factors, as again variables are multiplicitous by nature of being variables. They vary, and so cannot be one singular entity.

Potential is that which is and does. It is because it does and it does because it is. A cartesian circle of causality because function and being are one and the same. Inseparable

Philosophy as physics without the maths — Banno

Allow me to make it mathematical.
The singularity state = 0.
The manifest state (the universe) = +1 - 1.
Both are equivalent to one another.

+1 - 1 can be derived from 0 and 0 can be derived from +1 - 1. One state is a relativistic couple. Like 2 particles that can cancel eachother out/annihilate. The other is a singular entity that can only interact with itself, as its singular, there's nothing else it could interact with.

And the only interaction it can make of itself is derivation/ separation into mutual couples of opposites. As many as you like, so long as they're equal and opposite and all sum up to 0.

A superposition.

deleted

The initial singularity was not located "anywhere" nor at "any specific time". Temporo-spatiality applies to the universe as we know it, that is - after the big bang, after expansion, after entropy increased, where those dimensions came into play. — Benj96

Per Kant:

"Space is not something objective and real, nor a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation; instead, it is subjective and ideal, and originates from the mind’s nature in accord with a stable law as a scheme, as it were, for coordinating everything sensed externally. (Ak 2: 403)"

This is also his view of time.

We require that events occur in space and time in order to be coherent, but those attributes are not objective properties but are subjective.

Questions about what happened before there were time or location fail not because they preexisted the physical world, but because they are entirely incoherent.

Oh, ; no, zero is not a singularity.

And this:

Perhaps, the singularity from which everything arises, is in a superposition with reality. That is, a double state, in one state the universe exists as a singularity, in the other it exists in the state we are familiar with, with causality and dimensions. — Benj96

remains gobbledegook.

I will add speculations.

In zero dimensions there would be no where or when. So a when and a where can only be defined and begin when the four dimensions exist and can be.

Therefore, whatever expansion that exist within this universe, it expands into "nothing", and with nothing comes no space, no where and when.

This could possibly mean that we are expanding "into ourselves", as an expansion into no dimensions mean that those particles and universal laws have no direction, no where and when to expand into.

It might be that because of this non-dimensionality that we are "moving into", it becomes a feedback loop that can only move particles at the edge of our universe back into our universe since it's the only space and time position for a particle to exist in.

Speculatory, this may be part of the quantum weirdness that we experience; that the influx of looped particles/energy in this feedback, interfere with the particles actually there. It could then support why a singularity happened in the first place, either because it has always happened as a feedback loop, or that within this feedback loop, a special event, an extremely unlikely quantum event, intensified the feedback so much (like a mic/speaker sound feedback), that looped particles and regular particles fuses together, like matter and antimatter, and initiate a big bang.

So that at certain quantum states the universe basically "resets" itself. It could happen right after the big bang, or it could take billions of billions of years, it could happen the next second, or it happened a second ago with this universe being improbably close in causal probability to the universe that was existing before this one but that didn't last past this specific point. Infinite.

Of course, this is extremely speculatory and close to "fan fiction" writing of the nature of reality and the universe. But possibly the only non-paradoxical solutions to our reality and existence "beginning" anywhere in something that doesn't have "anywheres" or "beginnings", is if our reality feedbacks and loops into itself.

It may be that we are living within an ontological paradox consisting of variables that in a very specific condition resets itself and begins anew.

If not that, and with further speculation, it might be that we are an actual, literal bubble of a universe. Since energy and matter are one and the same, it may be that there's a dimensionless pure energy, a feedbacked energy that is fundamentally infinite, and from our perspective exists outside of our reality and universe. We know that light is the absolute speed limit for us, so maybe light is the point at which matter reaches the edge of the universe and our reality, and returns to this existence of infinite energy. When this energy slows down, it forms into matter and our dimensions, a form of lag of energy. And what do we know that "lags" energy? The Higgs field. It is part of why matter exists at all.

Could it then, in this scenario, be that we have infinite energy forming bubbles of Higgs fields that slows down energy trapped by the field, and in turn forming matter. And when these bubbles form, they form like inflations of energy slowing down and becoming matter. If that energy is infinite, due to a dimensionless energy not having a beginning, end or position, then there is an infinite possibility of events like inflations of this slowed energy occurring, and they would therefor occur constantly as there's not time.

All of this is unprovable with what we know in science right now. But just think of how the confirmation of the Higgs field opened up new possible hypotheses closer to validity. We don't know how close we are to new understandings of the universe, but it has only been a few years since the confirmation of the Higgs field, and just this year we confirmed gravitational waves.

So the time for all current theoretical physicists to adapt to new standards, work together and produce new theories haven't been long at all based on these confirmations being so recent. There might be theories right now being formulated and calculated based on these confirmations that we will hear about in just a few years.

For me, personally, I find this extremely exciting. That there's been confirmations of so many, "thought to be impossible to confirm"-theories means that new theoretical breakthroughs are more probable to occur than they've been for a long time now.

#2
Given that sound arguments cannot be raised on the following basis, does it ever make sense to 'speculatively interpret' (i.e. philosophically, or categorically, generalize from) falsified or untestable claims about the universe / nature? If so, sir, explain why you think so. Thanks.

This could possibly mean that we are expanding "into ourselves", as an expansion into no dimensions mean that those particles and universal laws have no direction, no where and when to expand into. — Christoffer

This is sort of what I was getting at yes. Like a torus. A kind of self folding geometric process, expanding into itself where spacetime is something of a strange fabric that is both contracting into and expanding from itself. From different relativistic vantage points. We are having issues with locking in on a definitive constant if expansion as there is disparity between measurements through time. It's strange indeed and yes very speculative

We require that events occur in space and time in order to be coherent, but those attributes are not objective properties but are subjective. — Hanover

Precisely. We cannot ignore our own consciousness and the limitations that places on objective measurements. The universe wouldn't surprise me at all if it is fundamentally incoherent to it's own content (for example observers) which are restricted to experiencing time and space from a falsely standardised pov.

no, zero is not a singularity. — Banno

Please elaborate. I find lack of argument in favour of "just so" arguments weak. If you want to go with gobbledegook then please explain exactly why it's gobbledegook.

. I understand a lot of what I say can seems non intuitive
or abstract/obscure. It's difficult to articulate such metaphysical concepts with language based on a material world. And I'm happy to accept fault or error but only after you reason with me your own views so I can gain insight into why I may be talking arse.

But "that's wrong" is not an argument, it's an unqualified conclusion.

#2
Consider this equation-free gloss on the Hartle-Hawking No-Boundary proposal (alternative to BB cosmology) ...

https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/famous-scientists/physicists/stephen-hawking3.htm#:~:text=Hawking%20likened%20his%20no%2Dboundary,you%20reach%20the%20South%20Pole.

In sum: modern cosmology accounts only for the development of the universe and, in its quantum gravity formulation, calls into question that it had a "beginning" (or that the BB was "the beginning of space and time"). Just as the Earth has no "edge", the universe might have had no beginning-point (i.e. "singularity") according to James Hartle, Stephen Hawking et al.

Please elaborate. — Benj96

I linked to a substantive elaboration from Wolfram MathWorld.

Of course, this is... close to "fan fiction" writing of the nature of reality and the universe. — Christoffer

That's a pretty close analogue. Is it harmless? It's not philosophy, not metaphysics, and not physics.

That's a pretty close analogue. Is it harmless? It's not philosophy, not metaphysics, and not physics. — Banno

Yes, there's an epistemic problem to all of this. I'm somewhat knowledgeable about the implications for a number of theories in relativity physics, quantum physics and cosmology. But I do not have extensive knowledge of the math that connects them and their interlinking qualities.

At the same time, physicists and researchers usually work in a "locked in" fashion, in which they spend years focusing on a specific condition to either figure out as theoretical or form tests around established theories. So while they have a dense understanding of a specific part, there's less of a holistic point of view.

And on top of that, what is "outside" our universal bubble might only be possible to form emergent speculations about, since our theories and tests are locked into a universal bubble with defined laws and dimensions. If we lose dimensions or dimensions expand or change outside our universe, how can we form even a basis of a concept other than making creative extrapolations?

It's the same reason why we haven't been able to fully understand the inside of a black hole. The "edge" of our universe is referred to in a similar manner of event horizon, in which the laws and physics of our experienced reality breaks down.

So I think it is important to underline that any form of speculation about what was before the big bang, or what is outside of this universal bubble, is speculation. However rooted these speculations are in existing science, no one can fully claim a theory more valid than another as long as the effort put into it respects what we do know about this universal bubble.

It's also important to remember that creativity has always been part of theoretical physics. Many theories didn't start out as math calculations, they started out as creative reflections on observations and their implications. Einstein imagined a falling man and the relation between falling within a gravitational pull and being in zero gravity and how there's no difference. These weren't math calculations, they were creative concepts that had a rational and logical component that informed a path to conduct further study.

Applying that framework to this, I can never claim truth or validity in the concepts I've written down. But I can be creative, I can inspire new ideas for those who knows the math. Some of it may be nonsense, but some might trigger further thoughts. As long as non-physicists and philosophers understand that what they propose are highly speculative, then that's a good pillar to rest creative ideas upon. To inspire further questions, not to believe they give answers or that others think they are giving answers, but to ignite creative thinking that can inform paths.

What are the basic ideas that formed what I wrote?

The Higgs field slows energy and generate mass. Without the Higgs field, energy would not change over time since there's no friction for said energy to change into mass. So, the question that arise is, where does this Higgs field exist if the spacetime requires the existence of the Higgs field? Without spacetime there's no position, so there wouldn't be any position or point in time where energy would slow down if the position and time is generated out of the very event of slowing down energy within this field.

So if the problem is something from nothing. Then what about the opposite? Instead of nothing, which is essentially infinite in its absolute nothingness and rationally impossible to form anything, what if there's an absolute something? What, based on our understanding of our universe and reality, is the most absolute? That would be infinite energy. Massless energy that is infinitely absolute. A possible idea for how that could be is if there are no dimensions. Then a set of energy that exists without dimensions would exist in on itself, timeless, spaceless, as a feedback loop without beginning or end and no time to change. And within infinity of such zero dimensionality, there would be both infinite room for and lack of room for something to be. Then it's not impossible to imagine why our universe came from en infinitely small point as with no dimensions, size would not matter. And with the inflation of our universe, the big bang, from an infinitely dense point, it immediately started acting as energy slowing down and forming mass. So what is the Higgs field? What if our universe is wrongly defined as something from nothing, and should rather be thought of as a dimensionless Higgs field bubble, and by its dimensionless existence it slows down energy that infinite energy into the emergent reality that is our universal bubble?

This is creative writing and creative thinking that emerges out of the implications of the concepts we already know about. They're not answers, they are meant to inspire new pathways of thought and that's my limit in my ability to contribute to this scientific topic.

Essentially science has always worked best when acting as a pendulum. Swinging into speculation, creativity, fantasy, and then swinging back into verification, testing, research and calculation, to then swing back into creativity, then back into testing.

The most common traits that scientists who make breakthroughs have is that they are also highly creative, while those who are stuck working on the same thing all their life without any breakthroughs are usually never creative and usually act locked down by the conventions of what's already known. Like a writer who's always questioning his own ideas, always scrapping them because they won't fit into a pre-decided ideal.