Are you scared of dying?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Ninja Squirrel
There are many questions science doesn't know at the moment but which will be answered in the future but I don't believe the origin of existence can be determined because the answer itself relies on something which precedes it, the laws that allow the thing to exist in the first place.
Not necessarily. In the cyclical model for instance, the singularity is just a contraction of a previous universe and therefore not really outside us. Anyway, I personally refrain from those sweeping statements because we have no idea what our technology will allow us to do 200, 500 or even thousands of years into the future.
Do you think it's possible that the laws which govern matter and energy always existed?
Again, natural laws are just the way matter and energy interact, they're not really laws that tell them what to do. But yes, it is possible they have always existed in some form or other.
If so do you think it's possible that a conscious entity (god) always existed and is responsible for all creation?
It is impossible to disprove a general deity, so yes, in that sense it's possible, but if there's no evidence for one then what need is there to consider it? Theists cannot on the one hand claim that complexity requires a creator and in the same breath say that the complexity of their god was uncaused. If their god's complexity can have always existed then why can't the universe's?
When you weigh up the options it's not so clear. The first mover is inanimate and created itself or always existed, or the first mover is a conscious entity which created itself or always existed, toss a coin you have a 50/50 chance of being right lol.
I don't think it's as simple as that. There may have been no "first mover" in the sense of one being/force that created everything.
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
It's not ex-nihilo because it's only space-time that originated with the expansion, but the singularity already contained matter/energy and there is no evidence that this matter/energy popped into existence from a literal nothing. Indeed, the origins/lack thereof of the infinitely dense singularity are currently unknown.
"The origins of the singularity are unknown"
"But perhaps there was nothing before the Big Bang, not even time itself. This is the most widely accepted theory, with some well-known supporters, like cosmologists Alexander Vilenkin and Stephen Hawking."
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/07/02/what-existed-before-the-big-bang/23012729/
The notion that there was nothing before the big bang is the most accepted model. Similar to how the most accepted model for the origin of our universe is the big bang.
Original post by St_Dostoyevsky
"The origins of the singularity are unknown"
"But perhaps there was nothing before the Big Bang, not even time itself. This is the most widely accepted theory, with some well-known supporters, like cosmologists Alexander Vilenkin and Stephen Hawking."
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/07/02/what-existed-before-the-big-bang/23012729/
The notion that there was nothing before the big bang is the most accepted model. Similar to how the most accepted model for the origin of our universe is the big bang.
"But perhaps there was nothing before the Big Bang, not even time itself. This is the most widely accepted theory, with some well-known supporters, like cosmologists Alexander Vilenkin and Stephen Hawking."
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/07/02/what-existed-before-the-big-bang/23012729/
The notion that there was nothing before the big bang is the most accepted model. Similar to how the most accepted model for the origin of our universe is the big bang.
Neither of those links even come close to proving that the universe actually came from a literal nothing with scientific evidence. Even the first link utilises repulsive gravitational energy (which is still something) to rationalise an initial expansion. And the link of course even states that those hypotheses have not been confirmed.
The second link I think is really oversimplifying the issue and her use of "nothing before the Big Bang" may be treading on the same erroneous assumption that the singularity was just time and space and ignoring the fact it had to contain mass/energy, otherwise there wouldn't be any in our universe.
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
Neither of those links even come close to proving that the universe actually came from a literal nothing with scientific evidence. Even the first link utilises repulsive gravitational energy (which is still something) to rationalise an initial expansion. And the link of course even states that those hypotheses have not been confirmed.
The second link I think is really oversimplifying the issue and her use of "nothing before the Big Bang" may be treading on the same erroneous assumption that the singularity was just time and space and ignoring the fact it had to contain mass/energy, otherwise there wouldn't be any in our universe.
The second link I think is really oversimplifying the issue and her use of "nothing before the Big Bang" may be treading on the same erroneous assumption that the singularity was just time and space and ignoring the fact it had to contain mass/energy, otherwise there wouldn't be any in our universe.
"But where could we look for such an origin? Well, the theory of relativity permits space and time to possess a variety of boundaries or edges, technically known as singularities. One type of singularity exists in the center of a black hole. Another corresponds to a past boundary of space and time at the big bang. The idea is that, as you move backward in time, the universe becomes more and more compressed and the curvature or warping of space time escalates without limit, until it becomes infinite at the singularity. Very roughly, it resembles the apex of a cone, where the fabric of the cone tapers to an infinitely sharp point and ceases. It is here that space and time begin.
Once this idea is accepted, it is immediately obvious that the question “What happened before the big bang?” is meaningless. There was no such epoch as “before the big bang,” because time began with the big bang. Unfortunately, the question is often answered with the bald statement “There was nothing before the big bang,”and this has caused yet more misunderstandings. Many people interpret “nothing” in this context to mean empty space, but as I have been at pains to point out, space simply did not exist prior to the big bang.
Perhaps “nothing” here means something more subtle, like pre-space, or some abstract state from which space emerges? But again, this is not what is intended by the word. As Stephen Hawking has remarked, the question “What lies north of the North Pole?” can also be answered by “nothing,” not because there is some mysterious Land of Nothing there, but because the region referred to simply does not exist. It is not merely physically, but also logically, non-existent. So too with the epoch before the big bang."
From the book "Nothing" by scientific American
I can't stress to you enough that there really was nothing before the big bang occured.
Original post by St_Dostoyevsky
"But where could we look for such an origin? Well, the theory of relativity permits space and time to possess a variety of boundaries or edges, technically known as singularities. One type of singularity exists in the center of a black hole. Another corresponds to a past boundary of space and time at the big bang. The idea is that, as you move backward in time, the universe becomes more and more compressed and the curvature or warping of space time escalates without limit, until it becomes infinite at the singularity. Very roughly, it resembles the apex of a cone, where the fabric of the cone tapers to an infinitely sharp point and ceases. It is here that space and time begin.
Once this idea is accepted, it is immediately obvious that the question “What happened before the big bang?” is meaningless. There was no such epoch as “before the big bang,” because time began with the big bang. Unfortunately, the question is often answered with the bald statement “There was nothing before the big bang,”and this has caused yet more misunderstandings. Many people interpret “nothing” in this context to mean empty space, but as I have been at pains to point out, space simply did not exist prior to the big bang.
Perhaps “nothing” here means something more subtle, like pre-space, or some abstract state from which space emerges? But again, this is not what is intended by the word. As Stephen Hawking has remarked, the question “What lies north of the North Pole?” can also be answered by “nothing,” not because there is some mysterious Land of Nothing there, but because the region referred to simply does not exist. It is not merely physically, but also logically, non-existent. So too with the epoch before the big bang."
From the book "Nothing" by scientific American
I can't stress to you enough that there really was nothing before the big bang occured.
Once this idea is accepted, it is immediately obvious that the question “What happened before the big bang?” is meaningless. There was no such epoch as “before the big bang,” because time began with the big bang. Unfortunately, the question is often answered with the bald statement “There was nothing before the big bang,”and this has caused yet more misunderstandings. Many people interpret “nothing” in this context to mean empty space, but as I have been at pains to point out, space simply did not exist prior to the big bang.
Perhaps “nothing” here means something more subtle, like pre-space, or some abstract state from which space emerges? But again, this is not what is intended by the word. As Stephen Hawking has remarked, the question “What lies north of the North Pole?” can also be answered by “nothing,” not because there is some mysterious Land of Nothing there, but because the region referred to simply does not exist. It is not merely physically, but also logically, non-existent. So too with the epoch before the big bang."
From the book "Nothing" by scientific American
I can't stress to you enough that there really was nothing before the big bang occured.
This isn't saying there was no matter or energy or that it came from nothing! It's saying that space-time originated with the expansion. But the matter/energy was already infinitely dense in the singularity.
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
This isn't saying there was no matter or energy or that it came from nothing! It's saying that space-time originated with the expansion. But the matter/energy was already infinitely dense in the singularity.
But matter and energy did come from nothing as I cited from the book "Science". Furthermore the book "Universe" by DK states "Time, Space, Energy and matter are all thought to have come into existence 13.7 billion years ago." Matter and Energy came into existence with the big bang and was not an eternal thing as you imply.
Original post by St_Dostoyevsky
But matter and energy did come from nothing as I cited from the book "Science". Furthermore the book "Universe" by DK states "Time, Space, Energy and matter are all thought to have come into existence 13.7 billion years ago." Matter and Energy came into existence with the big bang and was not an eternal thing as you imply.
No, the singularity was an infinitely dense point of plasma/matter/energy that expanded to form space-time and upon cooling allowed the formation of particles.
The singularity must have been something because it expanded, and nothing can’t expand.
Stephen Hawking quite clearly states in “The Beginning of Time” that the singularity contained all the universe’s mass.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Ninja Squirrel
I'm not scared of dying but I'm scared of the eternal nothingness that lies ahead. You die and that's it, never to exist ever again, you'll never think or be aware for eternity... Just gone forever. 
Doesn't it terrify you to think of it like that?
No afterlife, no nothing... Your body will rot into the ground (or cremation if you prefer), then the sun will explode, the Earth will be destroy and in billions of years the universe will be cold and dark with nothing happening... It's a pretty messed up end to such a great universe.
Every living thing to ever exist in the entire universe will be dead and there will be nobody to tell our story and nobody to remember our story. That's pretty sad.
Doesn't it terrify you to think of it like that?
No afterlife, no nothing... Your body will rot into the ground (or cremation if you prefer), then the sun will explode, the Earth will be destroy and in billions of years the universe will be cold and dark with nothing happening... It's a pretty messed up end to such a great universe.
Every living thing to ever exist in the entire universe will be dead and there will be nobody to tell our story and nobody to remember our story. That's pretty sad.
That's life. Nothing happy or sad about it.
The universe will die but the debris that come out of it will form a new big bang, a new universe, and new life.
None of this bothers me as when all this happens in some million years later, I'll be long dead and won't know about any of it.
I don't believe in an afterlife. We live, then we die. That's it really.
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
No, the singularity was an infinitely dense point of plasma/matter/energy that expanded to form space-time and upon cooling allowed the formation of particles.
The singularity must have been something because it expanded, and nothing can’t expand.
Stephen Hawking quite clearly states in “The Beginning of Time” that the singularity contained all the universe’s mass.
The singularity must have been something because it expanded, and nothing can’t expand.
Stephen Hawking quite clearly states in “The Beginning of Time” that the singularity contained all the universe’s mass.
That's just wrong.
The big bang states that there was nothing, then a singularity that rapidly expanded to form the universe we have today. What caused that jump from nothing to something is the mystery.
The big bang is not "there was a singularity of intimately dense matter and energy that rapidly expanded, this rapid expansion created time and space and the universe we now see"
It couldn't possibly be this. Energy cannot exist without time, energy is defined by the joule which needs units of kg, m, and s, but as you said before the expansion there was matter and energy, this couldn't be. As space and time as you suggest came to exist with the expansion there could be no units of m and s to define energy. Therefore there could be no energy prior to the creation of time.
I tend to mull on the fact that I will die quite frequently. I am an agnostic; I have no comfort-blanket provided by religion or spirituality regarding an afterlife. For me I do believe that one-by-one an organ will shut down, oxygenated blood will cease to circulate the veins, the process of breathing will stop as the last brain cell withers. From then on..? There is nothing but the memory of you stored into the brain of another. It does terrify me that one moment a person is conscious, is alive and then quite suddenly there is no conscious and no life. I struggle to grasp that which is common, as the human species we have an innate desire to understand and we cannot understand what is to die because no one individual that has died can report on it. I am often unnerved by the fact that we are a foot print on a beach that the tide, the colossal size of the universe that we know, will rise and wipe that print gone. The individual human life is meaningless compared to the maturity of the universe, compared to knowledge that the universe will exist even when we cease to and that there will be a time in which our sun will too become that footprint on the beach of the universe and as it is wiped gone so is the entirety of all living organisms on the surface of planet Earth. The concept of death, the lack of understanding and therefore uncertainty and genuine insignificance of it is awful... it is belittling and terrifying.
Original post by St_Dostoyevsky
That's just wrong.
The big bang states that there was nothing, then a singularity that rapidly expanded to form the universe we have today. What caused that jump from nothing to something is the mystery.
The big bang is not "there was a singularity of intimately dense matter and energy that rapidly expanded, this rapid expansion created time and space and the universe we now see"
It couldn't possibly be this. Energy cannot exist without time, energy is defined by the joule which needs units of kg, m, and s, but as you said before the expansion there was matter and energy, this couldn't be. As space and time as you suggest came to exist with the expansion there could be no units of m and s to define energy. Therefore there could be no energy prior to the creation of time.
The big bang states that there was nothing, then a singularity that rapidly expanded to form the universe we have today. What caused that jump from nothing to something is the mystery.
The big bang is not "there was a singularity of intimately dense matter and energy that rapidly expanded, this rapid expansion created time and space and the universe we now see"
It couldn't possibly be this. Energy cannot exist without time, energy is defined by the joule which needs units of kg, m, and s, but as you said before the expansion there was matter and energy, this couldn't be. As space and time as you suggest came to exist with the expansion there could be no units of m and s to define energy. Therefore there could be no energy prior to the creation of time.
This is simply not true. The Big Bang IS the expansion of the singularity and of course matter/energy can exist without time. They are not linked like space-time fabric is.
The units of energy you have provided are simply talking about the energy/force required to move an object, not that the energy itself must be time dependent. Furthermore, trying to apply our current laws of nature to the singularity is useless as it’s well known that they break down at points of infinite density.
Again, the Big Bang is the expansion of something. Nothing can’t expand, a singularity can.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by SWCoffee
Everyone is scared of dying. That's why life must matter, however trivial.
If you respect yourself and others, and think constantly, you'll find a purpose. Don't be afraid if the journey there is long.
And don't be a nihilist. Those guys have no creativity.
If you respect yourself and others, and think constantly, you'll find a purpose. Don't be afraid if the journey there is long.
And don't be a nihilist. Those guys have no creativity.
Plenty of people are unafraid of dying. What a lot of people fear is the potential pain/discomfort, but not always the dying process itself.
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
No, the singularity was an infinitely dense point of plasma/matter/energy that expanded to form space-time and upon cooling allowed the formation of particles.
The singularity must have been something because it expanded, and nothing can’t expand.
Stephen Hawking quite clearly states in “The Beginning of Time” that the singularity contained all the universe’s mass.
The singularity must have been something because it expanded, and nothing can’t expand.
Stephen Hawking quite clearly states in “The Beginning of Time” that the singularity contained all the universe’s mass.
So you're saying that matter and energy existed where space and time did not, how does that work exactly?
It would seem more likely to suggest that space, matter, energy and time did not exist and then something brought them into existence simultaneously. It just doesn't make any sense to suggest that things can exist without space or time. Unless of course it's something supernatural, beyond the realm of physics and laws etc.
Original post by Ninja Squirrel
So you're saying that matter and energy existed where space and time did not, how does that work exactly?
It would seem more likely to suggest that space, matter, energy and time did not exist and then something brought them into existence simultaneously. It just doesn't make any sense to suggest that things can exist without space or time. Unless of course it's something supernatural, beyond the realm of physics and laws etc.
It would seem more likely to suggest that space, matter, energy and time did not exist and then something brought them into existence simultaneously. It just doesn't make any sense to suggest that things can exist without space or time. Unless of course it's something supernatural, beyond the realm of physics and laws etc.
It wasn't really matter in the sense that we mean it, subatomic particles and atoms could only form once the universe had cooled sufficiently to allow for their formation. It would have been some plasma-like point of infinite density where the laws of physics completely break down.
Well no, the scientific consensus is not that all things came from nothing, it was that a point of infinite density expanded and this created space-time only, not the energy/plasma that was the precursor to matter as we know it.
Invoking the supernatural, as you well know, is a non-answer and something for which there is no evidence at all.
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
It wasn't really matter in the sense that we mean it, subatomic particles and atoms could only form once the universe had cooled sufficiently to allow for their formation. It would have been some plasma-like point of infinite density where the laws of physics completely break down.
Well no, the scientific consensus is not that all things came from nothing, it was that a point of infinite density expanded and this created space-time only, not the energy/plasma that was the precursor to matter as we know it.
Invoking the supernatural, as you well know, is a non-answer and something for which there is no evidence at all.
Well no, the scientific consensus is not that all things came from nothing, it was that a point of infinite density expanded and this created space-time only, not the energy/plasma that was the precursor to matter as we know it.
Invoking the supernatural, as you well know, is a non-answer and something for which there is no evidence at all.
There's no evidence that the big bang created itself either... It doesn't really matter what the matter or energy was or what kind of structure it had the fact it exists in the first place is the underlining problem. How did it come into existence to begin with when there wasn't even time? And if there was time how did that come into existence?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Best hair dressers close (walking distance) to Uclan
- Wasp infestation in my accom from hell
- my mum is refusing to go to the hospital
- we're all going to die, soon
- Mcdonald’s group interview
- Health fears ruining my life/why am I so mentally weak?
- Do I have anxiety?/Exam stress/Panic
- I once went five days without any sleep. Is that harmful?
- differential equation with substitution
- x = sec^2 3y differentiate
- Implicit and parametric curves
- Help with differential equations please.
- I failed my english literature edexcel coursework what do I do
- Dyed hair a no go for interviews?
- A-level maths help!
- Haven't heard back from LSE
- A Level Maths Exam Question
- The derivative
- A level integration help
- Communication
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
