I do not have a fixed opinion upon the origins of the Universe because that is a question which at this moment in time cannot be answered. But that does not mean that some facts cannot be established with regard to it. The first is that this incarnation of local cosmic space referred to as the Universe began almost fourteen billion years ago. So whether any thing happened before
that cannot be determined as of yet. The second is that there is no such thing as absolute nothing from an eternal perspective because it violates the laws of physics. The notion of it existing
infinitely before the Big Bang is completely false. Absolute nothing can exist but only for an infinitesimal period of time. Nature it would appear really does abhor a vacuum. It is important not
to confuse nothing with absolute nothing as they are not the same. Since nothing is the absence of matter but absolute nothing as the name suggests is the absence of absolutely everything
A word about the singularity from which this Universe is supposed to have emanated from. This is very problematic because it invokes infinity and whenever it occurs in mathematical models
pertaining to physical reality it is regarded as nonsensical. It is important to under stand the difference between mathematical and physical infinity. Now mathematics is an abstract discipline
and although it models physical reality [ the laws of physics are after all written in mathematical form ] it is not a part of it as such. So consequently the notion of infinity is not a problematic
one from a purely mathematical perspective. And take the horizontal number line as an example : it extends to negative infinity on the left and positive infinity on the right from the absolute
centre zero as that is the only non negative / non positive integer on the whole line. There are no physical constraints that impede this as it is external to and independent of physical reality
Now transfer infinity to physical space and particularly the singularity from which this Universe is supposed to have emanated from. The singularity hypothesis references not one but two
infinities : one of absolute density and one of infinitesimal volume. So in other words a mass so great it is actually greater than that of the entire Universe it self shrunk to a size so small
as to be actually non existent. This is plainly nonsensical because something cannot originate from something which is actually invisible so small is it. And so the notion of physical infinity
is constrained by physical laws in a way that mathematical infinity is not. But even if the Universe was born out of a singularity it was not one that was infinitely small and absolute dense
but merely very small and very dense. Now these conditions do not violate the laws of physics. For they actually happen every time that a star dies when pressure and gravity repel each
other when the force of pressure finally allows the force of gravity to collapse up to a point beyond which that can no longer occur. And this is how pulsars and neutron stars are created
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
that cannot be determined as of yet. The second is that there is no such thing as absolute nothing from an eternal perspective because it violates the laws of physics. The notion of it existing
infinitely before the Big Bang is completely false. Absolute nothing can exist but only for an infinitesimal period of time. Nature it would appear really does abhor a vacuum. It is important not
to confuse nothing with absolute nothing as they are not the same. Since nothing is the absence of matter but absolute nothing as the name suggests is the absence of absolutely everything
A word about the singularity from which this Universe is supposed to have emanated from. This is very problematic because it invokes infinity and whenever it occurs in mathematical models
pertaining to physical reality it is regarded as nonsensical. It is important to under stand the difference between mathematical and physical infinity. Now mathematics is an abstract discipline
and although it models physical reality [ the laws of physics are after all written in mathematical form ] it is not a part of it as such. So consequently the notion of infinity is not a problematic
one from a purely mathematical perspective. And take the horizontal number line as an example : it extends to negative infinity on the left and positive infinity on the right from the absolute
centre zero as that is the only non negative / non positive integer on the whole line. There are no physical constraints that impede this as it is external to and independent of physical reality
Now transfer infinity to physical space and particularly the singularity from which this Universe is supposed to have emanated from. The singularity hypothesis references not one but two
infinities : one of absolute density and one of infinitesimal volume. So in other words a mass so great it is actually greater than that of the entire Universe it self shrunk to a size so small
as to be actually non existent. This is plainly nonsensical because something cannot originate from something which is actually invisible so small is it. And so the notion of physical infinity
is constrained by physical laws in a way that mathematical infinity is not. But even if the Universe was born out of a singularity it was not one that was infinitely small and absolute dense
but merely very small and very dense. Now these conditions do not violate the laws of physics. For they actually happen every time that a star dies when pressure and gravity repel each
other when the force of pressure finally allows the force of gravity to collapse up to a point beyond which that can no longer occur. And this is how pulsars and neutron stars are created
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
