The following is not a question: Can something come from nothing?

[bennyboy]

2. Space and Time (and all attendant concepts such as causality) are not Universal constants but emergent properties

Emergent on what?

[tor]

I was pondering this question today and I think that if something appeared not caused by anything and not in anything(space) it did in fact come from nothing. Not really FROM nothing but in fact it didn't come FROM anything. But how can you test nothing if where nothing is you are not around? You can't reach nothing and when you do it's no longer nothing. So it's just speculation.

[John V]

Could be, and were that the case, temporal relationships would appear to be at least indescribable in the same terms that apply to the temporal universe.

Regardless of what LL meant, there are inflationary cosmological models that don't require singularity. I lean towards singularity being a mathematical oddity of an incomplete model rather than being a feature of reality. Of course I don't claim to know one way or the other.

Yes, there are models other than the singularity, but they're less accepted and lead to the same issues as the singularity, so I just use singularity.

A couple weeks ago some new evidence supporting the singularity was announced, though it is nowhere near conclusive at this point.

---

A singularity is a very strange mathematical and philosophical beast. A true Big Bang-type singularity is essentially a non-conscious deity: existent but having no beginning, not created but having all existent things arise from it etc.

If there is something intrinsic to all matter that allows for some kind of consciousness, then I'd say a singularity is dangerously close to a Deity. I don't know how you'd ever determine at what level mind is matter, or supervenes on forms of matter, or kinds of matter, or only on specific kinds of information flow, etc. This is because we only know of one form, one kind of matter, and one kind of information flow that gives consciousness-- our own.

If the singularity existed eternally, then the big bang, I see two options: it was acted on by an outside force, i.e. a god; or, it decided (so to speak) to explode on its own, which leads to some form of deism or pantheism, which seems to be what you're speaking of above.

[pocaracas]

If the singularity existed eternally,

You have clearly not understood what a singularity is.
Don't worry, it's normal not to understand it... it is a difficult concept, as it is a warping of space-time, turning these into something beyond our intuitive understanding of both time and space.
I can only tell you that what you wrote makes no sense. It's sort of like saying "if the square has round sides,".

[John V]

You have clearly not understood what a singularity is.
Don't worry, it's normal not to understand it... it is a difficult concept, as it is a warping of space-time, turning these into something beyond our intuitive understanding of both time and space.
I can only tell you that what you wrote makes no sense. It's sort of like saying "if the square has round sides,".

It's my understanding that the laws of nature came about just after the big bang, so I doubt that anyone can say they understand the nature of the universe prior to the big bang.

[pocaracas]

You have clearly not understood what a singularity is.
Don't worry, it's normal not to understand it... it is a difficult concept, as it is a warping of space-time, turning these into something beyond our intuitive understanding of both time and space.
I can only tell you that what you wrote makes no sense. It's sort of like saying "if the square has round sides,".

It's my understanding that the laws of nature came about just after the big bang, so I doubt that anyone can say they understand the nature of the universe prior to the big bang.

Which just renders your initial "guess" all the more wrong.

[John V]

It's my understanding that the laws of nature came about just after the big bang, so I doubt that anyone can say they understand the nature of the universe prior to the big bang.

Which just renders your initial "guess" all the more wrong.

1. How does that follow from what I said?

2. Note that I'm exploring various possibilities. If we can rule out an eternal singularity/whatever, then it had a beginning. Works for me either way.

[pocaracas]

Which just renders your initial "guess" all the more wrong.

1. How does that follow from what I said?

2. Note that I'm exploring various possibilities. If we can rule out an eternal singularity/whatever, then it had a beginning. Works for me either way.

There you go, again.
If you want to use a singularity, then the "eternal" part makes no sense.... Time is ill-defined at a singularity.... space too, so even my wording "at" is wrong.
All current evidence hints at such a singularity having happened some 13.8 Billion years ago.
Whatever existed before that singularity is unknown... It is also unknown if "before the singularity" makes sense.
What does it mean for something to start if time itself doesn't exist?

Too many unknowns abound when discussing the singularity... rendering any attempt to squeeze a god in there as a god of the gaps argument or argument from ignorance, which is, as we all know, a fallacy and, as such, should be avoided.
Because of that, please refrain from proceeding with that fallacious argument.

[John V]

There you go, again.
If you want to use a singularity, then the "eternal" part makes no sense.... Time is ill-defined at a singularity.... space too, so even my wording "at" is wrong.

As time is ill-defined, you don't know that any wording is right or wrong. Therefore, all we can do is explore the logical possibilities which we can define, which include an eternally existing singularity, or a singularity with a beginning. You can add options if you like, and can define them.

[pocaracas]

There you go, again.
If you want to use a singularity, then the "eternal" part makes no sense.... Time is ill-defined at a singularity.... space too, so even my wording "at" is wrong.

As time is ill-defined, you don't know that any wording is right or wrong. Therefore, all we can do is explore the logical possibilities which we can define, which include an eternally existing singularity, or a singularity with a beginning. You can add options if you like, and can define them.

The options are limited by your imagination, at this stage... so... anything goes!
Are you sure you want to discuss something on such a shaky ground?