probably an old and worn out question

[Brian W (Brian)]

Hi all, Not that I am attempting to promote my beliefs or challenge some one else's, but as a very unenlightened Buddhist I believe in a reality with no beginning.

I am simply wondering if the belief that matter can be neither created nor destroyed is still valid and if it is, does that not necessitate a reality with no beginning and no end.

Which is not to say 'without change'. Changes such as that caused by the 'Big Bang' or by being captured by a super massive black hole. Changes so drastic that the before and after universes would have very little in common except for the fact that one came from the other.

Brian

[CraigS]

Hi Brian;

Welcome back !
I enjoy your threads, by the way … this one should be interesting, also ...

Originally Posted by Brian W

I believe in a reality with no beginning.

Before folk attempt to answer your question, I find myself asking whether you're looking for us to disprove or prove your beliefs ?

If this is so, I don't think anyone will ever do that.

Its OK to continue with your beliefs.

Science doesn't attempt to change beliefs.

People might though …

Cheers & Rgds

[Brian W (Brian)]

No, my beliefs are validated or changed by experience and that experience includes science.

I am just curious what science, ie; empirically provable or disprovable theories, have to say about an infinite in time if not size reality / universe.

If Science agrees with the probability of an infinite reality with no need for a beginning and that everything apparently does indeed need a cause then my ponderings can go one way... if not then perhaps they should move in another direction.

I am not of the opinion that a life needs to be either rational or spiritual.

Brian

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

I am an Unlightened Buddhist also as I am not a Buddha yet. But I think that there is a good chance and this is an opinion and I can't prove it that the big bang came from a big crunch and our mind stream has continued over from the previous universe or whatever was there before. Just some of my thoughts.

[CraigS]

Brian;

I've been having a think about your question.

Wiki gives a pretty thorough description of the theories about the end of the Universe. Most cover ideas about the fate of matter, given the data/observations presently at hand.

A summary list is:
1) Big Freeze or heat death
2) Big Rip
3) Big Crunch
4) Big Bounce
5) Multiverse: no complete end
6) False vacuum
7) Cosmic Uncertainty.

Each of these outcomes would seem to be valid, depending on the framework one chooses. The opposite would also seem to be true ie: some outcomes may not be valid, depending on the framework one chooses.

For example: the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics posits that the destructive capability of decay from a false vacuum state to a true vacuum state, will not result in in the annihilation of matter, energy and spacetime (unlike the 'effective' destruction of matter (perhaps) in the Big Rip scenario).

So, a simple answer to your question might be that it would seem that the old adage: "that matter can be neither created nor destroyed", may not be necessarily so … and … it may be necessarily so … depending on which flavour of model one selects.

Unfortunately, the answer may not be as clear cut as one might hope for.

Other comments welcome.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

The Buddha would say...."don't worry about where you have been or where you are going. What matters is where you are". He would also say..."This reality is an illusion anyway, so the universe exists wherever you are. You create it, you can destroy it. It's up to you".

But don't tell the scientists that

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

The Buddha would say...."don't worry about where you have been or where you are going. What matters is where you are". He would also say..."This reality is an illusion anyway, so the universe exists wherever you are. You create it, you can destroy it. It's up to you".

But don't tell the scientists that

Kind of like a 'Buddha Hubble Bubble", eh ?

Should register the rights that name … its got a ring to it !
(Pardon the pun).

Cheers

[Brian W (Brian)]

Hmmmm I seem to have tapped into the latent humour of the group which is ok but to get back to the essence of the question can the fundamental building block of everything only be altered or can it be destroyed? please and thank you.
Brian

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Brian W

Hmmmm I seem to have tapped into the latent humour of the group which is ok but to get back to the essence of the question can the fundamental building block of everything only be altered or can it be destroyed? please and thank you.
Brian

No disrespect intended there Brian.

What is the 'fundamental building block' you are referring to ?

Cheers

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

I dont think the basic building blocks can be altered but our vision of the building blocks can be altered via discoveries.

As we gain more insight within the science we can either create more questions and theories or we can narrow them down to a final solution.

Just a ever increasing thirst for knowledge.

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

In the physical world, you cannot create something out of nothing, therefore something cannot become nothing.
Pure and simple.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Brian W

Hmmmm I seem to have tapped into the latent humour of the group which is ok but to get back to the essence of the question can the fundamental building block of everything only be altered or can it be destroyed? please and thank you.
Brian

Depends on your definition of destroyed. You are talking about matter. All matter is nothing more than a highly ordered form of energy. You may break the bonds of the atoms in molecules and destroy the form that matter takes up...as in how it appears to an observer, but all you are doing is returning the matter to the energy from which it formed. There is no loss occurring at all. The energy is just changing from being highly ordered (matter) into it highly disordered ("normal" energy). So, you disintegrate a cube of wood...no more cube. But the energy which makes up that cube is still present. If you were to reconstitute the cube, the energy would also still be there, just back in the form of the cube.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Depends on your definition of destroyed. You are talking about matter. All matter is nothing more than a highly ordered form of energy. You may break the bonds of the atoms in molecules and destroy the form that matter takes up...as in how it appears to an observer, but all you are doing is returning the matter to the energy from which it formed. There is no loss occurring at all. The energy is just changing from being highly ordered (matter) into it highly disordered ("normal" energy). So, you disintegrate a cube of wood...no more cube. But the energy which makes up that cube is still present. If you were to reconstitute the cube, the energy would also still be there, just back in the form of the cube.

Where a slight dilemma comes in for me, is that prior to the BB, 'nothing' existed. However, it seems that energy may have existed either in something like a Higgs field, or in the form of something that was symmetric which got broken. Even Branes contain lotsa energy. When they touch, we end up with a BB !

JJJ;
Matter can arise from nothing. The laws of thermodynamics actually predict it !

Cheers

[Brian W (Brian)]

No offence taken Craig, your humour is akin to Red Skeltons which was always funny and never hurtful. If you ever get a chance to see his command performance for Queen E. you will see what I mean.

Ok, time for a summary... the essential building block (which I shall call energy) cannot be created nor destroyed but our understanding of it can and will give us a different way to see it.

So far so good.

The Buddha said a lot of things in his 50+ years of teaching. Perhaps the most important was to 'understand and test before belief' which is a pretty good description of the scientific approach.

In all of the possibilities that CraigS listed most seemed to continue to have 'energy' although in a very different form? Help me out here please and thank you.
Brian

[CraigS]

Brian;

There is a dilemma in all of this for me (see my previous post).

Thanks for your question .. it has opened up an interesting line of query for me !

I suspect that the answer lies in what is evidence supported theory and what isn't supported (too well) at all.

As one goes into the different theories, one usually finds that the good ol' Big Bang (supported by the Lambda CDM model), is the one which stands out as having the best chance of coming up with a consistent story.

Cheers

[Brian W (Brian)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Where a slight dilemma comes in for me, is that prior to the BB, 'nothing' existed. However, it seems that energy may have existed either in something like a Higgs field, or in the form of something that was symmetric which got broken.

JJJ;
Matter can arise from nothing. The laws of thermodynamics actually predict it !

Cheers

Ok you have touched the heart of my query... if nothing existed before the big bang then there is no infinity of time... but if something can only come from something then there must have been something before the BB.

What laws of thermodynamics?
Brian

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Where a slight dilemma comes in for me, is that prior to the BB, 'nothing' existed. However, it seems that energy may have existed either in something like a Higgs field, or in the form of something that was symmetric which got broken. Even Branes contain lotsa energy. When they touch, we end up with a BB !

JJJ;
Matter can arise from nothing. The laws of thermodynamics actually predict it !

Cheers

What we need to do is to get away from the old notion of nothing having existed prior to the formation of the present universe. It's something which is still being taught from out of date texts and unfortunately still being promulgated by scientist who are speaking before they're thinking

If the Universe arose from a quantum field prior to the actual Big Bang....i.e. it was in a state of existence/non existence, or in other words a probability state (e.g. Schrodinger's cat), then what actually existed prior to its formation....I'll let you figure that one out

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Brian W

Ok you have touched the heart of my query... if nothing existed before the big bang then there is no infinity of time... but if something can only come from something then there must have been something before the BB.

What laws of thermodynamics?
Brian

What if time itself is dependent of the observer doing the observations. Remember quantum theory...you cannot divorce the observer from what is being observed and both influence one another.

Time itself maybe no more than an illusion of consciousness trapped in a particular physical state we call "reality". It may not even exist at all, in the larger scheme of things

In other words, if the universe came into being because it was self evident (i.e. it came into existence because it was its own observer), then all time is just time is just a property of that observation....and now we delve into metaphysics and the question about the existence of a higher intelligence. Which science is unwilling to go looking for because of the religious connotations. Quite frankly, the scientific method as it stands isn't up to the task to look for an answer to that question. It needs to be modified to take into account the insight of intuitive thought and the ability to leap beyond logic as some of the things it will have to deal with can't be tested in the strictest sense of the scientific method.

[Brian W (Brian)]

Carl, I am definitely NOT bringing in the concept of an 'higher intelligence' that started everything. .

The core of my question is whether or not science can prove or disprove the concept of 'no beginning' because everything must have a 'cause'.

Now let us, just for fun, assume that time is just an illusion. I am not sure that the absence of time neccesitates the absence of cause and effect.

From my simplistic mind comes this thought.

If through research, observation and meticulous record keeping I find that it is apparently impossible to get a 'result' without a 'cause' I feel that in the true spirit of science I have proved that results need causes.

Does that not neccesitate an infinity of causes?

Please note this does not bring in 'higher intelligence', 'self awareness' or 'G-d'

I am simply putting forward two interconnected ideas (1) everything needs a cause, (2) therefore there can be no first cause.

If there above is correct then the universe (for lack of a better term) may have an ending but it can have no beginning.

Brian

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Brian, I personally think it would be a waste to get science to discover anything prior to the big bang until we determine what actually happened, because theories like the big crunch, bounce and other theories would put a whole new light on the concept of time or no time before the universe.

Time or Space/Time is only a 4 dimensional way of thinking string theory considers at the latest in my understanding the possibility of 11 dimensions and that gravity may hold the key to entering another universe, so while there is so many theories out there they can all present different beginning with or without time. The rest is only assumption.

Science itself is very flexible it is people that are not!