|
Dear Sir,
Please read the theory below and let me know your thoughts.
Q1: Did the beginning start with a "Big Bang?
In the beginning there was nothing, a state of pure Nothingness. The singularity did not exist. One moment there was nothing, and then there was something. There appeared a soup of pure Energy everywhere at once and by no means uniform, but totally random in nature.
Q2: What caused the beginning to happen?
A: There could not have been a cause because that would suggest that there was something within the Nothingness to initiate the beginning. That would conflict with my concept of Nothingness. Perhaps a mathematical solution to the problem might suggest that in a state where an infinite number of possibilities exist, there would eventually occur a condition where a suggestiveness of something might emanate from the Nothingness. Once that state exists, then instantaneously some thing comes into existence, which in this scenario is the Cosmos including our known Universe. This suggests that no external influence would be required to initiate the beginning. The singularity and inflation model could therefore not have occurred because the singularity would have existed within the Nothingness as an entity containing all the ingredients of the Cosmos. This conflicts with my concept of Nothingness. The singularity could not have existed as a stand-alone entity surrounded by Nothingness. Its very existence would not permit the state of Nothingness. The presence of the singularity would have placed substance on the state surrounding the singularity; therefore the qualifying condition for Nothingness is not met. It therefore follows that the inflationary condition could not have taken place simply because the singularity never existed.
Q3: If the so-called "Missing Mass" is found in our Universe, will this be sufficient to cause the "Big Crunch"?
A: The Big Crunch could not happen because of the misinterpretation of the beginning. If a singularity did not exist and the expanding Universe based on there being this singularity and a corresponding big bang/inflation phase did not occur and is not at present taking place, then the mass issue is not a concern. The instantaneous coming into existence from "The Nothingness" does not require there to be a big bang or in fact any type of inflationary period. The expansion we see in our observable Universe is simply a remnant of the beginning. There was no purposeful big bang to set the movement we see in motion; it was just a by-product of the beginning. Because our known Universe is not the whole, the "big crunch" scenario cannot happen. The BC is based on what I've been calling "our known Universe" and the mass within it. If the mass is sufficiently dense, in relation to the size of our known Universe, then assuming there was a big bang and inflationary phase, the known Universe could cease to expand under the influence of gravity and contract back into a singularity. This model is fundamentally incorrect because we have not taken into account that our known Universe is not the whole and a singularity could not exist within the true meaning of Nothingness, which was the true state in the beginning.
Q4: Will our known Universe continue to expand and eventually die, or will it expand and grow?
Our known Universe will eventually reach a condition where no useful energy exists and therefore will become inactive, but will not die. The whole will continue to invade the Nothingness and grow, but at the same time other parts of the whole will or may suffer the same fate as our Universe. The whole can never die because it has violated the Nothingness and Nothingness can never be re-instated. Therefore if something exists, it cannot be dead.
Q5: Will man ever understand the true beginning?
A: The Physics we understand can only be applied to our known Universe and not the whole. It was the whole that came into existence, in the beginning; therefore interpreting the beginning using just our known physical laws cannot be undertaken. Man will never know the true nature of the beginning because he will not have access to the physics of the whole, which is different from what he knows or will ever know. Only the laws governing man's own known Universe can be applied to his thoughts and reasoning to try and comprehend the beginning. Therefore, in true reality the beginning is, and always will be, beyond human reach. Understanding the beginning of our known Universe is within the bounds of modern science and the current models should reflect the fact that we are not dealing with the true beginning, but only with our known Universe's beginning. Our beginning will obviously have some relationship with the very beginning and therefore my theory will hold good for both occurrences. They are both intrinsically linked and the separating factor will be the time of each event. Although the beginnings were instantaneous; due to the infinite dimensions involved, a time factor can be applied albeit minute in proportion. So there is a definitive difference between the very beginning and our own Universe's beginning. Also, there is a difference between our physical laws and those that came into existence at the very start of everything.
Q6: What is "Nothingness"?
A: This is the very crux of the whole understanding of how our Universe is constructed, what lies beyond our known Universe and what lies beyond that. Nothingness can explain the beginning and whether there will ever be an end. This fundamental state, which cannot really be called a state because that would imply that something existed in the Nothingness, is and was the absolute condition. Nothingness is beyond the bounds of human comprehension and will never be understood by any entity that exists within the confines of this known Universe. Nothingness can only be vaguely understood by beings that have substance who are made up of energy and matter. Although our very existence came from Nothingness, we are handicapped by our physical being and severely constrained by it which does not permit us to accept that something can come from nothing. This constraint will always prevent us from understanding the true nature of what Nothingness was really like. We can however imagine, to a limited degree, what Nothingness might be like by attempting to visualize, within our minds, this fascinating concept of Nothingness. What is it? I don't know because it's beyond my comprehension.
Q7: Doesn't the background radiation, in the Universe, prove that there must have been a big bang?
A: The background radiation is indeed the remnants of our beginning, but not a beginning originating from a big bang/singularity. The instantaneous coming into being of our known Universe happened everywhere at the same moment in no time because there was no time in the beginning. When you consider Nothingness as being the true condition, when the suggestion of something becomes evident this produces instant space, time and energy and anything else that would randomly come into being at that point. The background radiation is simply what remains of the coming into being phase. The random distribution of the background radiation does not imply an inflation, expansion state or indeed a single point origin for the beginning.
Q8: How can something come from Nothing?
A: This is indeed the million dollar question and one that man will never answer. The concept of Nothingness is beyond the bounds of human understanding and we can only glimpse at its true nature through our imaginations. Because we exist in a Universe that contains energy and matter, albeit originating from the Nothingness, man is not able to accept that substance does not have an origin. Nothingness cannot be construed as being an origin because that would imply something within the Nothingness. This abstract concept of Nothingness is and always will be beyond our reach. To suggest that everything we are and the place in space and time that we occupy is the by-product of Nothing is unacceptable. The most fundamental constituent of matter is Nothing. Continue to break down matter, past Quarks, and on through an infinite number of further divisions and what ultimately will be found is Nothing! The concept is so simple, but the acceptance is impossible. Something can come from Nothing if there is an infinite number of possibilities. If we extend our thoughts beyond the realms of our known Universe and accept that our Universe is but a minute part of the whole, and our physics and natural physical laws of nature are not absolute throughout the whole, the possibilities then become infinite. In this case something emanating from Nothing becomes a possibility.
Q9: Is our Universe infinite and unbounded?
A: Our known Universe is finite but unbounded and the reason is that the physical laws governing our Universe are not the laws governing everything. That place which prevents us from knowing beyond is a boundary to us because the physical laws there are different to what we know and therefore we cannot exist there. An existence beyond the boundary is present, but we can never know it so it might just as well not exist as far as man is concerned. Therefore our known Universe is finite insomuch as we cannot go beyond the boundary, but unbounded because there exists something beyond (The Cosmos, I call it - Science has a different meaning) which we can never known. So man has concluded that our Universe is the whole, an assumption I think should not be made. Although I have said we can never know beyond our known Universe, this should not prevent us from at least being aware that our home, in the order of everything, is not the complete picture. It is important to appreciate this if we are to have any chance of grasping some minute understanding of Nothingness and all its ramifications, we must try to understand that our Universe is not the whole but only a part of the whole.
Q10: How is our known Universe shaped?
A: A hypothetical analogy that one can make is a bolt of lightning with its core bolt and many tenuous channels coming off from the main bolt in a purely random nature. The main core contains our natural laws and we can exist within the core. We could also exist within the channels. The surrounding space is the place that we can never know because outside of our lightning core and channels lies the other part of the whole where our laws do not reign, therefore we cannot exist there. It does however exist, in its own right, and makes up another part of the whole or Cosmos. It could well be that some of the channels connect to other bolts that contain similar natural laws as our own and therefore this could be regarded as a parallel Universe in which we could exist if we were able to travel the huge distances. The lightning bolt is what came into being after the true beginning. It is this lightning bolt that our scientists are confusing with the true beginning and also not understanding how that lightning bolt came into being. Imagine how a lightning bolt comes into being, you've seen it, and you are close to understanding how your Universe came into being. It wasn't from a singularity/big bang. It was just there in an instant. This is probably the closest I can get to trying to describe our known Universe's shape and form. It is said, by many eminent minds, that our Universe has a multi-dimensional shape and form. I have no problem with this theory because it would not necessarily conflict with the basic analogy that I have put forward here. The basic principle I have suggested could easily be applied to our four or any numbered dimensional Universe.
Q11: Do the laws of nature, we have discovered, apply everywhere?
A: No ......They only apply in our known Universe and possibly parallel Universes connected by the conduits described earlier. Because of the nature of the true beginning and the infinite dimensions of the whole, which includes our known Universe, the randomness of the coming into being has to suggest that an infinite number of variations in natural laws apply. The laws of nature here are different to those elsewhere. The elsewhere being beyond the bounds of our known Universe. That place where we cannot go because we are governed by the laws of this Universe, our home.
Q12: Does the whole (Cosmos) have a finite size or is it infinite?
A: In the beginning there was Nothing, then came something. Part of the something is the Universe we exist in today. The rest of the something is possibly other Universes where other beings are asking the same questions as us. We will never know these other places because our existence is governed by the laws of this Universe and possibly other similar parallel Universes. The whole came into being from the Nothingness and as soon as this occurred, then Nothingness was no longer the condition. The something coming into being instantly created space, therefore Nothingness no longer existed. Nothingness couldn't however have existed because that would imply that Nothingness had substance and that suggests something which conflicts with the concept of Nothingness. Very abstract thinking, but why not when dealing with what I regard as the most fundamental concept of everything. The whole is finite insomuch as it is continuing to compromise a condition between the state of Nothingness and something.
Q13: If there was absolutely Nothing in the beginning, where did God come from?
A: If the Creator is an entity within the Cosmos, then to ensure that the understanding we have acquired on the concept of Nothingness still applies, he must have evolved from within the Cosmos after the true beginning. The implication of this is that our understanding of an eternal Creator who had no beginning cannot be correct if Nothingness is to hold good. The Creator's influence on the evolution of the Cosmos need not be affected in any way by having a measurable existence. If the Creator indeed had a finite beginning, this should not have any effect on his standing within the Cosmos. The authority of the Creator is not challenged or compromised because he is the highest order of being and to suggest that he had a beginning should not be a concern. I use the word Creator to describe a higher order of existence that has influenced the development of the Cosmos and perhaps molded man in his own image. It also allows our study of Nothingness to continue with his blessing (I hope!).
Q14: Why did the beginning happen?
A: This question is similar to, "What is the meaning of life and everything”? There is no reason why, it just did! Why should there be a reason? In a situation of infinite possibilities, the chance of a Cosmos coming into being has to be considered. The real question is "How did the beginning happen”? What triggered the Nothingness into life? Again, if we adhere to our principle on the concept of Nothingness, there was no triggering mechanism because it would have been necessary for the trigger to be in place initially. This would conflict with Nothingness and therefore no trigger was present. Perhaps some notion of probability suggesting that because Nothingness has no bounds, anything is possible, therefore the probability of a Cosmos emanating from Nothing is possible. We know that it is possible because we are living proof. Once Nothingness lost its fundamental property, it twisted, contorted and did any number of possibilities to form energy, matter and anything else that an infinite number of possibilities can concoct to bring into being this Cosmos, a part of which we exist within. A Cosmos had to come into being, there was no reason for it not to.
Q15: How did the Nothingness create Something?
A: Firstly the beginning was not a creation because this implies that the Nothingness had substance to initiate a creation, or the Nothingness was a creator. This contravenes the concept of Nothingness. A creation suggests something within the Nothingness and this cannot hold true if we are to adhere to our fundamental principle. The most basic constituent of everything is Nothing. How can this be? In the state of Nothingness, a notion of something contravenes that state therefore something has to come into being. As soon as something invades the Nothingness, Space is instantly brought into being plus everything else that exists. Mass, Energy, Dimensions, Time and the fabric of space are but a few possibilities that we are conscious of. This condition becomes the new order and Nothingness becomes extinct in its purest form. What is "A notion of something?". It has no substance, but a suggestion of a condition that states; "If an infinite number of possibilities exist in the state of Nothingness, then at some point the Nothingness must twist, contort and eventually submit to a notion of something which once established causes a chain reaction to occur which is irreversible and the result is a Cosmos of infinite proportions and form. The reaction is unimaginably violent and infinitely diverse and one-way. Pure Nothingness dies forever and only a notion of true Nothingness survives.
Q16: If everything came from Nothing, how did Nothing make Energy and Matter?
A: The basic ingredient of everything is Nothing. Energy was one of the primordial constituents that came into being along with space and time when Nothingness lost its fundamental condition. Once the prime state had been compromised, the second state had to be substance of some sort. If there is no Nothingness, then there has to be something. In the case of our known Universe, that something was made up of Energy. It could well be that within the whole or Cosmos, an infinite number of different states exist that also came into being at the moment of the beginning when Nothing became something. Matter is a by-product of Energy's evolution through time and space within our Universe. A soup of pure Energy was probably the very first "Something" to emerge from the Nothingness. Why? .....No specific reason why, it would have been a random choice from an infinite number of possibilities. In fact, in a condition of pure Nothingness, ALL possibilities would occur instantaneously. So the Cosmos is indeed an infinitely diverse entity. The primordial constituent of our known Universe evolved into what you see today in the night sky. This is not however the absolute condition. There are an infinite number of conditions and states that we can never know, but they exist in their own right. So Energy is the result of Nothingness taking, in this instance, the form of a soup of fundamental particles. The particles came into being through what I described earlier as a "had to be" eventual unstable condition of the state of Nothingness. The Energy that came into being for our Universe cannot be considered to be a fundamental state for the whole. We have made this assumption based on what we see and observe within the confines of our Universe and if this is as far as man wishes to explore then all well and good, but we must not conclude that what we have formulated is applicable to the whole because it is not. So to conclude, the substance of our Universe was one of the results of an infinite number of possibilities forming from the prime state of Nothingness. Once the prime state had been compromised, then substance had to be the secondary state in whatever form it randomly chose. In the case of our Universe it was a soup of Energy containing all that was required to generate the dynamic Universe we live in today.
Q17: Do the physical laws that we understand apply to our entire known Universe?
A: Generally speaking yes they do, but there has to be subtle differences scattered throughout the Universe due to the random nature in which the Universe came into being from the fundamental state of Nothingness. These differences can be detected within the realms of Quantum Mechanics, but are not correctly understood by physicists. The nature of uncertainty and randomness throughout our Universe has to suggest a variation in the rules governing the physical laws that we understand in our region of the Universe. Understanding this concept of variance in the rules would allow us to clearly see the true nature of our place in the whole, rather than just within the confines of our observable, known Universe. It would allow us to understand that our Universe is finite, but unbounded and that the whole has no boundaries other than the variations in its physical being which confines man to his own part of the Cosmos.
Q18: Why is the Universe the way it is?
A: There are an infinite number of ways in which our known Universe could have come into being from the state of Nothingness. Whichever way, and in whatever form it decided to take, it would have evolved based on the laws governing randomness. So it really doesn't matter why the Universe is the way it is. It could have been any shape or form. If it weren’t the way it is, you wouldn't exist to ask the question. So our Universe has to be the way it is.
Q19: Can this concept of Nothingness really be the answer to the true beginning?
A: The concept is so simple and pure that it has to be the answer. From the complexity and chaos of what we know and observe in the Universe, the fundamental principle that everything exists due to a probability that something had to exist eventually from nothing, has to be. The Cosmos had to come into being based on the infinite possibilities of something eventually being made from nothing. Because there was no time in the Nothingness, the coming into being of the Cosmos happened in no time from a condition that had no set criteria, in fact no existence at all. Ignoring therefore all the non existence and no time criteria, the only other state had to be substance and form which from it's nature undermines the state of Nothingness and results in a Cosmos of infinite diversity. The Cosmos did not require any type of triggering mechanism to come into being. The coming into being was the next logical evolution from the fundamental condition of Nothingness. The Nothingness could not continue indefinitely when a possibility of something could exist. The result of this is the Cosmos, a part of which you and I exist within. The fundamental state of Nothingness can never be reinstated because it never existed. If it did that would imply substance to the Nothingness and this cannot be. This again is very abstract thinking.
Q20: Will our Universe eventually die?
A: Yes it will, to a degree ......The second law of thermodynamics, entropy, will continue to flow in a positive direction and this will result in our known Universe no longer possessing any useful energy. The Universe can never revert back to its original condition of Nothingness. This cannot happen - something cannot become nothing, not the Nothingness I am discussing here. The whole can never completely die due to its dynamic ingress into the semi-Nothingness produced after the initial state was compromised. At the point where nothing is becoming something, entropy will start but that starting point will move on, so entropy must start again. This is assuming that entropy exists where the new Cosmos is coming into being ..... maybe it doesn't. It really would not matter whether entropy existed or not, the fact that the Cosmos is continuing to come into existence must suggest that the whole cannot and will not revert back to a fundamental state of Nothingness . That condition will never appear again.
At this juncture, I think that it might assist our investigation if we consider the concept of Nothingness as a condition that has form and shape within our imaginations. Although Nothingness is technically speaking beyond our comprehension we must try to grasp the concept, to a limited degree and place substance to the Nothingness. This will go against the true nature of the Nothingness, but we have to meet the beast half way if we are to have any chance of understanding the concept.
Q21: Will we ever understand everything about our Universe?
A: No........It's simply too immense and man has only a finite lifespan. So to learn the meaning of everything, within the realms of our Universe, is beyond our grasp. Due to the nature in which the Universe came into being, from the Nothingness, and the infinite possibilities available, knowing it all is just not an option. Expanding the argument further, if we consider the whole, then there is no debate. To acquire full knowledge of the whole would require an existence, which would have started prior to the beginning. As we know, there effectively was nothing before the beginning. The very concept of Nothingness prevents us from ever knowing everything.
Q22: Why is our science so convinced that the beginning started with a Big Bang?
A: Taking our science, to date, and applying it certainly seems to imply that a Big Bang took place. The problem is however that we do not possess the full science of the whole, which came into being from the Nothingness (remember that we are placing a limited degree of substance to the Nothingness to allow debate). Therefore we can never know whether a Big Bang occurred or not. The remnants of what we observe in our known part of the whole cannot possible be sufficient to draw conclusions about how it all began. It might perhaps serve some purpose in determining our contribution towards the 'coming into being' of the whole, but our observations and conclusions are lacking insomuch as we are missing an infinite amount of data. We might one day have a very good grasp of the mechanics of our known Universe, but we must remember that our Universe was only part of a much bigger beginning, which we can never know. Therefore the Big Bang model is meaningless.
Q23: The argument for a singularity is very strong - why did the beginning not start with a singularity?
A: The singularity, with no volume and infinite mass, containing the whole contents of the Cosmos suddenly explodes and inflates at near to light speed to form space, matter and everything else. The randomly distributed background radiation noise heard in space suggests a cataclysmic violent event in the Universe's early history. The distribution of Galaxies and the manner in which the Universe appears to be expanding, all point towards some kind of explosive event in the beginning. These observations all suggest that a singularity "Big Bang" scenario is the best model, to date, on how the Cosmos came into being. Indeed it is the best model based on what we currently know and understand about our Universe. We do not however possess all the facts and unfortunately never will. You must first understand that our Universe is not the whole picture. Our laws of nature are not Cosmological (do not apply to the whole). Our Universe is finite, but unbounded and the boundary prevents us from every knowing beyond, in a physical sense. Without the science of the beyond, we can never establish the nature of the true beginning of the whole. It was the whole that came into being at the beginning, of which our known Universe is only a part. No complete understanding of the whole and therefore no complete understanding of the beginning. The "Big Bang", singularity model can never be the complete picture, but it sounds good all the same. This is where imagination and vision can help us to break down that universal boundary and allow us to explore a greater Cosmos. We do not completely need hard empirical science to give a clue about the nature of the true beginning, but a vivid imagination and visionary intellect. Imagine the concept of a Cosmos coming into being from a state of pure Nothingness. As soon as the Cosmos was born, Nothingness, in its purest form, no longer existed (remember that Nothingness did not exist because that would imply substance to the Nothingness). The Cosmos is continuing to expand; transgressing into the partial state of Nothingness left over from the initial purest state which was compromised by the beginning. Our Universe is a part of that whole. A singularity however possessed substance and if substance existed so would space and time. Where did space and time have its beginning? It must have been before the singularity, therefore how could the singularity be the beginning? So, there was no singularity and no Big Bang but loads of absolutely nothing in its most purest form.
Q24: Why is imagination more important than knowledge in determining the true nature of the beginning?
A: To understand the concept of Nothingness within the realms of a physical Universe is not possible. The very fact that we are something that originated from nothing blocks our pathway to understanding what nothing really means. When something came into being from the Nothingness, that very act of presence and being destroyed the true nature of nothing and as a consequence trying to apply a physical perspective to something that never existed really makes things very abstract indeed. Imagining what nothing might have been like is the only real way of perhaps getting close to some remote understanding of this concept. One could argue that even thought and imagination are the by-products of a physical process and therefore can not be used to aid our endeavors. This is probably correct and therefore the whole debate on the true nature of Nothingness is fundamentally flawed and will never be understood or accepted as the answer to the beginning. However, imagination is our nearest aid to acquiring a feel for the true nature of the Cosmos and the beginning. Empirical science has a tendency to restrict our vision although it is and must remain a very important part of our understanding and learning processes.
Q25: Can empirical science lead us eventually to the truth about the beginning?
A: No....because of what I stated earlier about our confinement to our own part of the Cosmos. The variance that must exist in the physical laws of nature for every part of the whole that must be understood before a clear picture of the beginning can be p resented. You cannot draw conclusions from just a part of an infinitely expanding Cosmos. The idea of a Universe emanating from absolutely nothing is as good a theory as any other put forward. We must not restrict our knowledge to just science. A combination of science, imagination and the spiritual sounds a more likely approach to having a better grasp on what possibly happened in the beginning and what is happening now.
Q26: Are we creating our own Universal reality?
A: Yes we are insomuch as the time light takes to travel the vast distances before it reaches us. It does not however tell us that the farther one looks out into our observable Universe, the closer we get to events near to the beginning. Astronomers are using the "Big Bang" model and applying it to their observations. The "Big Bang" did not happen and as stated earlier, the Universe came into being in an instant and not from a BB singularity. Therefore problems will arise with applying the wrong model to the observations. The Astronomers will state that the observations fit well with the BB model. I say that we are using the model to fit the observations. The tools and techniques being used have been constructed to give us the Universe that we expect to see based on our theories. Another example of this is that we calculate, using theoretical physics and mathematical models and conclude that a certain exotic particle should exist. We then build a machine, based on the model that will create it from the fabric of the Universe. The particle only exists, usually for a short period before disappearing back into non-existence. We then say that this particle existed in the beginning and was one of the building blocks of the Universe. What I would say to that is - Yes, if the machine to create it had also existed in the beginning. So the observations being made are at present marred by our approach to empirical science. We cannot draw facts about the Universe from science alone. It must be treated as only part of the toolkit that is required to find out the true nature of what's going on. So when we look into the night sky, we are looking at stars as they were many light years ago, in terms of our reference point, but we must not conclude that the observable Universe is an expanding entity originating from a singularity. Think on........... It is a Cosmos of infinite dimensions expanding into a what can only be termed as the remnants of Nothingness which was compromised in the beginning by the coming into being of the whole. The Cosmos is continually being brought into existence as it transgresses into the Nothingness. The Cosmos has, by the nature of its transgression, become eternal.
Q27: The boundary between something and nothing, what's it like?
A: It could be described as a quantum fuzziness where neither existence or non existence reside. Time has no meaning here and the laws that will emerge are as yet unknown until they materialize. There is an infinite randomness about what is happening and the whole continues to come into being and advance on into the Nothingness. Motion and speed again are meaningless because you cannot predict what natural laws are going to materialize, so light, time, motion, matter etc. are not guaranteed constituents of what is appearing from the borderline encounter. We cannot base our laws on what's happening at the front line of the coming into being because we simply do not and probably will not ever know. Using this model therefore negates the BB, singularity, open and closed scenarios. Positive entropic flow is possible for our known Universe, but cannot be applied elsewhere in the whole. One can only imagine what the border between something and nothing would be like. The infinite randomness of the uncertainties occurring there are too vast for us to even begin to comprehend and therefore we should just accept that it is happening and live with it.
Q28: Is it correct to say that the "Concept of Nothingness", as a proposal for the beginning, can never be challenged?
A: Yes, because if the fundamental state was Nothing and this condition is beyond our understanding as physical beings, then if it's beyond our comprehension how can we possible challenge whether it's right or wrong. We simply don't know. For science to state that due to empirical study and observation, the Universe is this way and therefore we conclude that it must have started that way is rubbish. Physical science alone is not enough to establish the true beginning. Because the concept that everything started from nothing is impossible for us to grasp, we cannot therefore say that it could or could not have been the true state. In an overall existence encompassing the whole, the infinite scale and endless possibilities gives anything and everything a fair chance.
Q29: Empirical science has to be the correct approach to understanding our Universe - therefore if science is suggesting a big bang as the beginning, how can Nothingness ever be considered as a viable model?
Let's not worry too much about Nothingness and the true beginning if we want to understand how our part of the whole came into being. Because we will never be able to understand the dynamics of the "Cosmos" - (using my interpretation of the word), our science will only ever allow us to grasp the nature of our portion of the whole and nothing else, therefore let's use the Big Bang scenario as our instrument for understanding our beginning, but do not be led to believe that this was the very beginning. Think on..........
Q30: Does there have to be a conflict between current models of the very beginning and the concept of Nothingness?
If we accept that our Universe is not the whole (Cosmos), but only part of the whole and the Cosmos is growing as it continues to come into existence and we can only ever know our physical Universe, then we can use current models to give us a good understanding of how our Universe came into existence. The difference between my "Concept of Nothingness" and the "Big Bang" is that my concept was the very beginning and the Big Bang was the beginning of our Universe.
Q31: Even with pure Nothingness, surely some purpose or design had to be in place to initiate the beginning?
Why does man always seek a reason or purpose? The Cosmos came into being simply because in an infinite number of possibilities, there had to be a Cosmos in there somewhere.
Q32: If we can never comprehend Nothingness, what is the point of debating this abstract subject?
It gets the imagination going and that's the most important tool at man's disposal, so let's use it.....
Imagination will answer all our questions.
Q33: How can imagination, within the confines of this known Universe, help us to grasp some understanding of Nothingness?
Imagination holds no boundaries and the ability to visualize and explore an endless Cosmos is within everyone's grasp. Your imagination is part of the fabric of the whole and therefore possesses infinite knowledge. When I speak of Nothingness being beyond our comprehension, if you apply your imagination it allows a glimpse of how Nothingness could have been the initial state (again I must apply a bit of substance to Nothingness for debate). Knowledge, to understanding our known Universe and imagination to understanding the Cosmos, that's the key to answering our questions.
|
