The Great Paradox(es)

[CCoburn]

A Paradoxical Fork in the Road


When existence is reduced to a most fundamental extreme there remains two choices unless of course there is a third that for some reason I am not currently privy:

1.  Something from nothing. (absurdity one)

2. Ever-flowing time. (absurdity two)

The first proposition attempts to resolve the problem of infinite regression in the form of a spatiotemporal negation, but is this absolutely necessary? And is it possible that it may just be a periodic/sporadic spatial negation in the presence of never-ending time?

The second proposition hypothesizes that time may not require a beginning from which to progress forward, but that there may exist some unknown eternal anomaly that somehow governs time in a way that transcends conventional logic and reason?

A God anomaly could most certainly be the case in either proposition, but in proposition one there would be an emergence factor constituting a primordial anomaly whereas in proposition two time would be indistinguishable from eternity thus rendering this "eternal anomaly".

Any preferences here or other possibilities unintentionally overlooked?

[Maxmars]

Bless you for starting this conversation...  I had found an article, but hesitated to bring it here because I wasn't sure that it wasn't only me who was interested.

I offer this:  A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

It seems the epitome of paradoxical... How everything we can see, and sense was a logical extension of nothing.
 

---

One of the great theories of modern cosmology is that the universe began in a Big Bang. This is not just an idea but a scientific theory backed up by numerous lines of evidence.

For a start, there is the cosmic microwave background, which is a kind of echo of the big bang; then there is the ongoing expansion of the cosmos, which when imagined backwards, hints at a Big Bang-type origin; and the abundance of the primordial elements, such as helium-4, helium-3, deuterium and so on, can all be calculated using the theory.

But that still leaves a huge puzzle. What caused the Big Bang itself? For many years, cosmologists have relied on the idea that the universe formed spontaneously, that the Big Bang was the result of quantum fluctuations in which the Universe came into existence from nothing.

---

Being relatively simple-minded, it chafes me to think that in a universe of "quantum fluctuations" the learned would decide that they were a "component" of "nothing."

But I suppose the math must be at least reasonably sound to have been published.
 

---

The new proof is based on a special set of solutions to a mathematical entity known as the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. In the first half of the 20th century, cosmologists struggled to combine the two pillars of modern physics— quantum mechanics and general relativity—in a way that reasonably described the universe. As far as they could tell, these theories were entirely at odds with each other.

The breakthrough came in the 1960s when the physicists John Wheeler and Bryce DeWitt combined these previously incompatible ideas in a mathematical framework now known as the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. The new work of Dongshan and co explores some new solutions to this equation.

At the heart of their thinking is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. This allows a small empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to fluctuations in what physicists call the metastable false vacuum.

---

I have some reservations about the elements... 'metastable vacuum,' spontaneous and random Heisenberg phenomena, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, etc.

Insofar as "ever-flowing time" I find it an amusing perception.  I imagine a parable of old: a man views a river, its' source out of view... far off and away beyond sight, and its final destination similarly out of view, far off, and unseen... he declares it "infinite"... and who would argue otherwise?

I think we should get comfortable with the reality that scientists and philosopher don't know everything... they never have... yet they always proclaim their 'knowledge' as if it were 'all encompassing' and  'unquestionable.'

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Almost synchronously, another article regarding your musings has surfaced... and once again it relies on the Wheeler-DeWitt equation for some support...

Quantum Experiment Shows How Time ‘Emerges’ from Entanglement
Subtitled: Time is an emergent phenomenon that is a side effect of quantum entanglement, say physicists. And they have the first experimental results to prove it
 

---

But it didn’t take physicists long to realise that while the Wheeler-DeWitt equation solved one significant problem, it introduced another. The new problem was that time played no role in this equation. In effect, it says that nothing ever happens in the universe, a prediction that is clearly at odds with the observational evidence.

This conundrum, which physicists call ‘the problem of time’, has proved to be a thorn in flesh of modern physicists, who have tried to ignore it but with little success.

Then in 1983, the theorists Don Page and William Wootters came up with a novel solution based on the quantum phenomenon of entanglement. This is the exotic property in which two quantum particles share the same existence, even though they are physically separated.

---

Perhaps time is all about perception from the framework of an observer... and not something inherently woven into the machinery of the universe... but then that's a relativistic point of view, and might now be insufficient to explain anything....

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

p
A Paradoxical Fork in the Road


When existence is reduced to a most fundamental extreme there remains two choices unless of course there is a third that for some reason I am not currently privy:

1.  Something from nothing. (absurdity one)

2. Ever-flowing time. (absurdity two)

The first proposition attempts to resolve the problem of infinite regression in the form of a spatiotemporal negation, but is this absolutely necessary? And is it possible that it may just be a periodic/sporadic spatial negation in the presence of never-ending time?

The second proposition hypothesizes that time may not require a beginning from which to progress forward, but that there may exist some unknown eternal anomaly that somehow governs time in a way that transcends conventional logic and reason?

A God anomaly could most certainly be the case in either proposition, but in proposition one there would be an emergence factor constituting a primordial anomaly whereas in proposition two time would be indistinguishable from eternity thus rendering this "eternal anomaly".

Any preferences here or other possibilities unintentionally overlooked?

I don't like eating by own tail like a disabled snake, so what's wrong with God = Infinity? They are both pretty much an imaginary concept that cover alpha to omega to the same degree.

But in Vacuum Genesis there's infinite subspace.
In string theories there are infinities of infinity.

So I guess #2 ever-flowing potential.

Clearly there's more missing. The observable universe is most assuredly finite. But an infinite multiverse or infinite zero point field doesn't bug me, even being a parallel idea to an everlasting God.

I don't think it matters what you call it, the more we learn about the multiverse and beyond, the more it looks like God anyway.

I also find it hilarious that Hindu cosmology turned out to be the best one of all antiquity. Makes every theoretical physicist like a contemporary Sanjay or Arjuna viewing the avatars of the infinite, which looks nothing like a nuclear explosion.

[CCoburn]

It seems the epitome of paradoxical... How everything we can see, and sense was a logical extension of nothing.

Aside from the paradoxical, I think what gets most people is the "nothing" terminology. These different aspects of the eternal construct don't appear to be subject to any common terminology in this contemporary day and age.

I might me referencing in some quasi-theological format something to the effect of "movement within the 'mind' of the primordial(or eternal)", and then I see something like "quantum fluctuations", but I don't necessarily equate the two at first because of the differences in the terminology used. Which is to say that different avenues of thought are likely to have alternate bundles of terminology.
 

Being relatively simple-minded, it chafes me to think that in a universe of "quantum fluctuations" the learned would decide that they were a "component" of "nothing."

This seems to go with both propositions one and two. QF are a pre-expansion phenomenon so this seems to me as occurring within a spatial negation but not a temporal one as I would presume that there could be no movement or change in the absence of time.

From a theological standpoint the above would place "time" as the primary dimension, and a creator god would exist in this 'root dimension' not requiring space for its existence but would actually create these other three secondary spatial dimensions.
 

Perhaps time is all about perception from the framework of an observer... and not something inherently woven into the machinery of the universe... but then that's a relativistic point of view, and might now be insufficient to explain anything....

Your getting into the duality of time here - the macro and microcosmic parts. Time experienced via 'internal' consciousness("perception"), as opposed to 'external' movement or change as it pertains to the cosmological.

[CCoburn]

So I guess #2 ever-flowing potential.

That's the alternative being looked at right now which was largely ignored at the outset due to infinite regression, but at some point you might start thinking that one absurdity isn't any better/worse than any other absurdity although given the parameters and circumstances that could be debatable.

Initially it was a "primordial anomaly", but in the context of this ever-flowing time "potentiality" the 'primordial' now gets an upgrade to the 'eternal'.

Of course one might opt to forego the creator/designer element altogether and hypothesize that there is simply no rhyme nor reason to any of it or that there are cosmological laws in place that have sufficiently allowed for a continued quasi-uninterrupted development process that we are at least partially aware although this doesn't really explain much and ends abruptly when the laws themselves have no explicit cause/origin other than maybe just emerging from the chaos for no particular reason.

If a conclusion is to be causeless then I would opt for the simplest and least amount of moving parts such as a bare bones creator as opposed to a complex and coordinated set of laws - a cart without a horse(where I prefer the cartless horse). Neither it seems that there would be any preservation factor in the case of an inanimate conclusion at the core.

So the unmolested development of particular star systems with their perfectly precise parts, conditions, and Goldilocks Zones evolving throughout the eons might require a nanny of sorts or it seems would just fall prey to an uncaring universe at some arbitrary point.

I would imagine the continuity to be something like this:

From P₁

Eternity(zero volume)—>primordial chaos—>re-emergence of creator—>laws and order—>creation—>cessation—>return to initial/default state of eternity(acausal)—>ad infinitum.

- or -

From P₂

Eternity(zero volume)—>ever-flowing time(non-spatial dimension)—>eternal anomaly(creator/designer)—>creation(three spatial dimensions)—>cessation—>return to functioning of timeless anomaly as akin some eternal algorithm —>ad infinitum.

I suppose it goes without saying that any proposition that doesn't involve any type of personal god might be a bit too dismal a concept for many to even consider let alone accept where it might seem a bit excessive to assert any desirable self-serving mundane social characteristics upon some ineffable primordial or eternal creator thing that dwells within the realms of absurdity(P₁ and P₂).

The above anthropomorphic qualities might be better served via some beings/entities farther down in the hierarchy such as intermediaries/angels(although likely not the winged variety).