What happened before the Big Bang?

Why is there space and matter, and why do we feel things (and have free will)?

We know about the Big Bang. It happened. No arguing there. What that means is that we can pretty reliably use mathematical models to extrapolate current states and trends backwards in time to a point to the sudden expansion of the Universe.

That point, however, is for all practical purposes still infinitely far removed from what actually set off the Big Bang, inflationary expansion and the creation of all matter and space as we know it. Sure there are some pea-brain ideas about p-branes, circular time and whatnot, but there is still no generally accepted explanatory theory for the actual start of everything from nothing. 

We also know there is consciousness. You know it and I know it. That more or less is what consciousness is: sensing, knowing, being aware. That what it is to be conscious is what consciousness is, and we all have it. If you don’t, you’re a zombie, a placeholder, a non-player character. In short, if you’re not conscious, you’re not; and then you don’t know what consciousness is. Otherwise you do.  

Some like to claim that “not even science knows what consciousness is“.

Exactly, scientists don’t know what it is, because they are mostly reductionists and emergentists. They are reductionists in that they believe all things 1) are things, and 2) all things can be broken down into their fundamental components (little ‘billiard balls’ like quarks and electrons, or strings, or “fields”). Scientists are looking for that ultimate one field, string or particle, as well as the one ruling set of equations that govern the ultimate underlying field. That ‘field’ and that ‘equation’ are what I am talking about when I talk of consciousness, that which started it all. The One concept at the ultimate beginning. How it started is an unanswerable question. That there ‘suddenly’ was something rather than nothing is impossible for a physical something in physical reality to grasp.

Scientists are emergentists in that, in the reigning paradigm, they for the most part believe non-conscious fields, and their temporarily measured manifestations as particles through their interrelations, create self-awareness – i.e., consciousness, through a magical process called emergence.

Again, they start with a dead building block, claim these building blocks perform a kind of ‘dance’ with other such building blocks, since the particles can somehow sense each other through a field. They then go on to say that ‘consciousness’ arises from the dance, somewhere in the in-between of particles and fields.

That “emergence” is nothing more than saying “Hey, and then there is magic!“.

The moment before the Big Bang is exactly the same thing; the only interesting part of the story gets a hand-wawing gesture accompanied by “Oh, our models don’t work there. Our models only work after the creation of time, space, electromagnetism, gravity, matter and quantum mechanic interaction principles

Yes, that’s right. The current regime has a lot of practical ideas of how to predict and manipulate the behaviour of matter, but nothing to say of its origins or meaning. Actually, it has even less to say about the start than nothing, since scientists openly admit that their models explicitly break down at the start, as they do inside black holes, and when it comes to consciousness, i.e., more or less everywhere things start to get interesting.

You and I know there is consciousness, but scientists look away and say “Let’s disregard that and focus on something we can measure: particles“. What scientists miss is that particles are just what a consciousness interacts with, what is “sees”, what it chooses to see.

Particles are a social convention between consciousnesses, they are part of a playing field, a rule book: like a computer game or a book. What happens on the screen is not what happens in the CPU or hard drive. The rules for the interactions on the screen, the seeming characters, objects, walls, gravity explosions, bouncing etc., exist as rules in a machine very far removed in character from the graphic representation as icons on the screen.

You can think of how the rules in the CPU and computer memory relate to the actions on the screen as a bit closer to how consciousnesses relate to 3D-space, time, and the fundamental natural laws governing our physical experiences and interaction. In that context the brain is just a complicated “rock”, interacting with the underlying stream of consciousness. The resulting whirls, eddies, waves, turbulence, vortices around the ‘brain rock’ form our everyday experiences of consciousness in the physical realm.

Yes, science has come a long way in explaining cosmology, from the big bang, inflation and entropy to quantum mechanics, gravity and the potential heat death end of the universe.

But it has so far given up on creation, consciousness, truth, goodness and beauty. Not to mention (free) will. Sure, they keep inventing reductionist ideas of how beauty and love relates to “fitness” points in evolutionary processes – but that’s not an explanation or an ontological foundation, it’s just a reductionist play with words. Where does that self-awareness of “beauty” or “love” as attractors come from?

Anyway, those details can be quarrelled about for eternity. What I am proposing isn’t for scientist to stop looking. They are finding good stuff, stuff underlying my current mode of thinking. Physicists for example know that there is nothing at the bottom, no ‘billiard balls’, just emptiness, 1-dimensional points, rules of interaction. What we choose to measure is what we see and interact with, the rest remains hidden.

Physicists thus actually know that there is no matter (as we used to think about it). There are no canon balls dancing, governed by gravity or electromagnetism. Physicists now choose to see reality as consisting of a field or several fields manifesting as particles if we choose to observe the fields in a manner requiring a particle-like result. 

To conclude, starting with an explicitly un-explained creation of all from nothing, continuing with fields or matter with an added sprinkle of magical emergence to get to consciousness, is not an explanation at all. It’s just bureaucrats playing with words and symbols. They aren’t even attempting to examine consciousness, which is the only thing we really know there is. And they and us alike know there is no matter if we look closely enough, just rules for our experience of what we’re looking at.

Then why not simply start with the idea that there is a fundamental ground of being, a something that is what it is to sense, to be aware. Perhaps the idea of a circle, the concept of no beginning, no end, but a kind of primordial self-referential, i.e., a closing in on itself. That ontological prime has no explanation as we could ever understand in the meaning of trying to reduce it further.

My ideas are no more incredible or un-explained than the ideas of the Big Bang and emergence of consciousness. It’s just another way of thinking about the building blocks. It’s actually a further reductionist view of the ontological underpinnings on what we actually observe. Since we observe both consciousness and rules for interaction (i.e., fields/particles), but there is no good way to get from particles to consciousness without magically adding consciousness, then why not start with consciousness and thus avoid the whole having-to-add-something-more theatre?

The ideas I have tried to explain in the last three posts are not saying any of the practical science and knowledge about particles, biology, cosmology, the Big Bang and so on are wrong. Not in any way.

I’m just pointing out that science has little intelligible to say about 1) what set off the Big Bang and the creation of space, time and the natural laws as we know them, 2) consciousness [as well as will] (since it is the ultimate ground of being, irreducible into anything else)

2 Replies to “What happened before the Big Bang?”

  1. Mikael,

    I believe you will enjoy the following interview with an American ex catholic lawyer that had a near death experience. She left law and catholicism at the same time after this.

    Her consciousness expanded and she was able to trade perspectives with what she calls “the source”, or the original consciousness.

    It gives a perspective that is very very unique because she felt in herself what you try to put into words. She experienced what we try to understand, losing her sense of self.

    It’s called “my religion lied to me” :
    https://youtu.be/z7JmmJVKoyM

    The short of it is that there once was Nothing. Nothing became everything. The two are one. Then “what is” divided itself into an infinite number of pieces, of which you and I both are one. The universe in essence is a self aware entity that tries to avoid knowing itself.

    Because it doesn’t know itself, it is able to experience itself. Thus you cannot know where the electron is and where it is going at the same time.

    We are in a labyrinth that becomes ever more complex, shrinking the human being inside of it.

    The actual size of the labyrinth doesn’t change, but the sophistication of the pathways does, giving the illusion of us knowing more and expanding more our consciousness.

    We are actually becoming smaller when we try to focus on something in particular, and then add it up to the rest, which is what modern science does.

    Modern scientists are like ants, adding up knowledge atom by atom into a framework built by groupthink.
    The early scientists such as Aristotle were generalists. Today we laugh at certain assumptions they made, but in light of quantum physics, certain ideas seem not so stupid after all.

    Take for example Aristotle’s assumption that light is a beam that leaves the eye and illuminates the observed objects, thus giving eyesight, versus what we know today that light actually enters the eyes and is interpreted by the brain.

    The observer does have a say on the shape and behaviour of the perceived object. Thus, the object and the eye looking at it are related. In that sense, yes there is an energy, a “something” that leaves the eye and interacts with the object.

    The eye isn’t passively recording information. It is actually more like a laser beam, creating and reshaping the world the observer lives in.

    My caveat is this.

    Democracy may be what the universe prefers, because every consciousness is equal to each other and itself, with all hierarchy being an illusion.

    In that respect, it makes no difference how much intelligence someone has in how important his influence is in the shape and behaviour of the world. Social standing doesn’t matter, as the universe would be dancing with every human being equally.

    Because the universe is immensely vast but also extremely proximal, because nothing is really close or far, left or right, long or short, past or future, it makes no sense to believe that there is not something deeply personal about the universe and mankind.

    We may not be loved by “God”, but man is not alone, because he cannot ever be separated from the whole.

    The idea behind religions was to create a social awareness and the fear of violence. Ironically this created more violence, but if you truly try to imagine humanity without religion, it would be impossible. The first thing man invented was religion, of some sorts. Of all ideas and thoughts he had. This is a very intuitive thing.

    Now in religion there are various schools. All religion is largely human, and any attempts to make it intellectual make it worthless.

    The essence of Christianity, the most dominant religion in the world by far at this point (because we measure time after Christ) , in my opinion is this:

    Me, you, your friends, your family, your neighbour and our politicians are one and the same, living inside each other.
    This is God. The absence of personal pronouns and the idea of ownership.
    No boundaries truly exist, such as when a couple fall in love and feel united, as time becomes irrelevant. A complete union. The rest is the matrix.

    We live in a massive Blockchain of emotions and memories, fear and love combined. In ourselves live our parents and friends.

    Every perspective/consciousness is a clean slate, meaning it has no identity, no answer to “Who am I”. It also has no memory because memory is words on a white, clean page.

    Consciousness is empty memory experiencing different consciousness to actually tell what it is to itself. Otherwise all consciousness would blend into one big mass, and the whole thing would shrink back into nothing.

    Like drops disappearing into the ocean, and finally everything becoming ocean, and the whole thing becoming nothing.

    In that sense total understand is impossible because whoever understands everything is nobody in particular, has no perspective but is the sum of all possible perspectives. He becomes nothing, he becomes nobody. And nobody knows nothing.

    Now a perspective comes to human life, and acquires a memory. Memory, sensory and mostly traumatic, serves as a reference for the “I am” question. The first lie is the question ” who/what am I”. Believing you are something/somebody immediately by definition separates you from the whole. It is a Catch-22.

    Genetic memory is largely inherited, so we see what existed in the old testament : the sins of the parents are inherited by the children. The New testament is that forgiveness erases the past.

    There is a standard called Christ which is that which defines how distant we are from one another. The more strange Christ is, the more cold human relationships become.
    The idea behind the Cross is what revenge, which is the main driver of history, creates in the human body: death.

    Moreover, if our consciousness is also made up of our memory, and a sense of justice, karma becomes a reality because we all want revenge or “justice” for what we perceive to be wrong against us.

    Thus humanity resembles finance, with sins being what somebody perceives to be owned to him. Debts are claimed by debtors, in a gigantic slavery system of mutual competition and opposition, organised by our intellect. Injustice compounds and leads to bankruptcies, revenge.

    Credit is simple trust based on the lie that we are here to help each other out. There can never be mutual satisfaction and peace in the world of private property.

    The irony is that communism is a very private system, actually, because there are laws. There is an authority. Because there is an authority, property exists, though it is not understood in the same way.

    The natural order of things and how our mind views the world will inevitably bring the world government structure, following a centuries old goal that has been wanted by many kings and philosophers in the past.

    This is because every person believes he is who he is, but the collective and the private are illusions. These illusions will blend into one, creating a hive mind and reducing humanity to a mass of insects, all working for a big human called SOCIETY.

    Humans will become owners of society and society will become an owner of them. Currency will be given based on whether or not man has or not fulfilled his obligations to society. Laws will reach their end, which is to set boundaries between men.

    In the final new world order, laws will exist to divide man to the smallest possible unit, the atom.

    Atoms will be molecules in a social order that will crystallise, creating total order. Chaos will be non existent because any atoms that will not fit in will be outcast. 99% of people will be members of society, like limbs on the massive human animal.

    The trap was ever believing we could escape one another. I truly believe that trying to separate from others makes your life a slave to them in a symbolic, invisible way. We were not made to be separate.

    To this day, “atomo” in modern Greek means individual.

    And idiot, means private. Because Athenians believed the idea of individuality and not participating in the common discourse to be stupid, a meaning they remains to this day.

    All thought is and exists within a human body, and the systems we created are understood by us as we are. Thus we have a “human being” filter on reality. Only death removes that filter. It is our language.

    I wish I could send you a book from french economy journalist Pierre Jovanovic. He made the only available biography on JP Morgan’s Blythe Masters, creator of the financial instruments that JP Morgan sold everywhere, creating what would later be the -777.77 in Wall Street, 2008.

    Jovanovic was quite impressed by the -777 because as you know it is the jackpot number. 777 is winning it all. Quite a strong coincidence for the greatest drop in the stock market.

    It also happens that the number 7 is a highly important number in Judaism and Christianity. Wall Street is a reference to Judaism. It is the wall of Jericho if I’m not mistaken.

    As a result of this event he wrote two books called 777 and 666, that are unfortunately in french only, but delve deeper in some themes of Christianity, Judaism and modern finance.

    For example, Apple the company. Or the first apple computer, sold for 666.66$

    (Source: https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=3019#:~:text=%22The%20Apple%20I%20went%20on,About%20200%20units%20were%20produced.)

    Whether these themes are made true by our belief in them or not is less important than their existence, because people are unlikely to stop measuring time after Christ. The storyline is already there, and we were born in it.

    Many many many financial players are Jewish, and they believe and cherish their religion. This defines their behaviour and is a path that creates their destiny. I don’t believe in a conspiracy, that is not important.

    What matters is that we are all juxtapositioned characters in juxtapositioned stories. Stories that have a name. And every story lives it’s life, like an ongoing plot. Nothing ever exists factually if the story dies.

    In that way, we can imagine every idea as a story. Every concept, living it’s cycle, or being true and then eventually false. Growing up and eventually dying.

    Science is the offspring of religion, historically. Religion is the first theme that tried to explain material reality.

    Eventually, because of the circular nature of ideas, science will unknowingly at first but fatally in the end, become a religion. It is inevitable.

    Science is the next big religion, except it won’t be obvious until it’s too late.

    There are two major human stories/plots that are going on as we speak, real or not.

    The first is the birth and return of Christ, killed by the Jews. He will defeat the devil, etc. The second is the wait for the Messiah by the Jews.

    Judaism, Christianity, Jesus and Satan are the four most dominant themes in western culture. I believe somehow these storylines must arrive to a closure.

    Most financial leaders are Jewish and as you know they are working on a global government, to create peace in the world. A new world order without conflict. They live in the Messiah storyline, working to create a kingdom for their incoming King.

    I understand these ideas seem pretty foolish compared to quantum physics and complex mathematical ideas.

    But in the grand scheme of things, stupidity doesn’t really exist. As you said, opposites join in the end.

    Odysseus

  2. Another idea that comes to mind is the concept of zero.

    As we know adding up zero equals zero. But what if that is false?

    0+0= something different than zero.

    The idea is that consciousness is nothing, thinking it is something. Thus, division by zero becomes possible.

    I think in the end science will come full circle, realising one of three things :

    1. That God doesn’t exist, and thus man must become immortal. We are already living this, it’s called transhumanism.

    2. God is real and knows everything and thus science is meaningless because the very existence of a question implies all knowledge is invalid, as further discoveries may invalidate all previous knowledge.

    3. Science becomes God through Ai , worshipping the machine like priests worshipped altars in the past.
    “Siri, what should I eat today ? I am hopelessly stupid”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.