The physical zero state as the origin of the Universe

[1x0]

I think our Universe has evolved from the physical 0 state which is a space(time), energy(matter) information free nothing.

 

The current physical/mathematical explanations of our Universe do not take information and intelligence into account when as far as I understand everything has built related to a general law.

I think the exponential development of space and energy and the linear information about them provided by time points that the Universe have started from the physical 0 state.

Because of this I have had to ask which mathematical operation would describe the first physical process and what would be that?

The first physical process I would say 0x1=1

where 0 is the space time energy matter information free nothing and 1 is the first sign of intelligence/information - the will of existence - described by a natural number.

I have to assume that information/intelligence is the first metaphysical unit since the sign of intelligence/information is in every physical unit in our universe.

The will of existence like this at this given space-time moment would be: 0.0000...001 Smaller than any other physical/metaphysical unit but more than the physical 0.

I do believe that math has the ability to describe the physical operations. I inspect the mathematical world from the physical realities point of view.

I do believe that every physical unit actually already manipulated by zero or in other worlds our reality is existing in proportion to zero. (everything already multiplied/divided by zero) The operation with zero on any value is giving the value presented in the mathematical operation.

Zero is a conception ever since anything exist!

On the quest to understand:

The beginning is unknown but we can assume it from what we experience.

The explanation for the beginning of the Universe is a philosophical/physical/mathematical assumption.

1. Our physical world built by the Laws of Nature. Every atom and subatomic particle carries the information of the Laws of Nature.

As I inspected my existence and I gave the usual questions to myself why am I here? what is the purpose of my life? etc... I realized that actually I am intelligent, that my intelligence can exist because my physical appearance allows it.

Like this my energy with consciousness is a consequence of a 13.7 billion years long cause and causality development guided by the Laws of Nature.

Realizing this and take in consideration that Humanity is just about to enter the age of technological Singularity I had have to realize that biological existences might have created 3-4 billion years after the big bang and that a civilization starting to evolve 5 billion years before ours must be a type 4-5 civilization by now.

We could call them Gods since the Intelligence what they own related to ours is like Our intelligence related to bacterias. We could call them Gods and related to Us they are, but in my opinion God is the starting will of existence which appeared in the physical 0 state. It have appeared before the big bang and determined the evolution of space and the appearance of energy then evolve to be the Laws Of Nature which is as general intelligence presented in everything.

Every information/Intelligence/consciousness in the entire Universe determined by this Laws and so God (the basic will of existence, the evolving general intelligence) is part of everything.

 

2. Value is a subjective conception. We use abstract mathematics today which has difficulties to give values to the physical world (1x0=...2/0=...0/2=?...) Because of this the determination of value is subjective. One thing we can still know. If we understand the state of physical 0 (space time energy matter and even information free nothing) related to that state everything has some kind of value.

Electrons, atoms and the whole physical world is revealing values and by that and since we are physical entities our attributes connected to the physical world reveals values too.

We are not able to evaluate those values on the right way yet but they are there.

Intelligence, Freedom, Responsibility, Peace, Love, Unity, Good will, Curiosity, Power, Respect.......

 

 

3. Everything what I inspect has a reason why it has evolved.

Through gravity We are connected to the entire Universe. By this every atom and electron plays a role in Our existence.

 

Every creature around Us has a function and has a reason why it evolved and how it has evolved.

The whole world is built on each other creating an interconnected biophysical mass.

The ground reason is the will of existence what is presented in our own intelligence at this given space-time we live in.

4, Everywhere around me I see the evidence of Intelligence. Everything is carrying the sing of Intelligence. Everything what is existing is an evidence.

I do not think that energy and matter always existed.

I think our Universe is energy matter organized by the Laws of Nature in space

I think our Universe has evolved from the physical 0 state which is a space(time), energy(matter) information free nothing.

I think first, the Laws of Nature got introduced in the physical 0 state as a BASIC Intelligence the simple will of existence which determined the evolution of space and the appearance of energy..etc. The big bang is a consequence and it is most likely still on and it is still produces energy. Everything in our Universe has a cause and causality relation.

Our universe is one. It is one space with common physical Laws. I think there is no possibility for multiverses theories because everything will ever exist will exist in the common space, time and gravitational field frame.

Math should be refined by physics so it´s operations and the natural numbers fit and describe the physically existing values! (2/0=...1x0=...0/2=...0.1x0.1=....etc)

Note that without physical reality math does not exist, without physical tool as our brain we can not process math…

Note that we are energy with consciousness resulting from a minimum 13.8 billion years of cause and causality development regulated by the Laws of Nature in the physical reality.

We have one past and an infinite possibility of choice for the future. If something happened it will always be like that.

The double slit experiment proves that everything is interconnected and even with inspection, we have effect on the inspected one. The past and the result of the inspection can not be changed. There is no other world where the result of your inspection would be different.

Questions should be answered and task should be performed before trying to explain Quantum Mechanics:

1. Where from the Universe started to evolve?

2. In which shape Space started to extend at the beginning of time?

3. What caused the appearance of the energy?

4. Where the first energy has appeared in the expanding space?

5. What caused the Big Bang?

6. Did the Laws of Nature prevailed in the Big Bang determining the evolution of space, time, energy, matter?

7. In which shape Energy has expanded in the Big-Bang?

8. Did all the space, energy and matter created in one fraction of a second?

9. Can starting space, energy, matter creation be longer than a second?

10. Which force/circumstance stopped the Big-Bang?

11. Can we count the Universe as one?

12. What shape the Universe has?

13. Does the Universe has a center?

14. What position in space the center of a supersymmetric Universe has?

15. Where does the gravitational force is the strongest in the supersymmetric Universe?

16. Does Heisenberg´s uncertainty principle stands in the center of the supersymmetric Universe?

17. How far an other Independent Universe has to be from Us, that our Universes space, time and gravitational force has 0 effect on it?

18. Which mathematical operation describe the first physical process?

19. From the physical point of view how much is 0x1 if 0 is a space-time-energy-matter-information free nothing and 1 is any physical unit described by a natural number?

20. Can you and how can you create a lower value than the physical 0 state?

21. Is there lower values than the physical 0 state in the Universe or is there opposite values in the Universe?

My answers:

1. From the physical 0 state

2. Sphere

3. The emerging space

4. Right in the middle

5. First energy in the emerging space.

6. Yes.

7. Sphere.

8. No

9. Yes

10. Did not stop the Big Bang is still on.

11. Yes. The Universe has evolved from the physical 0 state. Ever since anything exist the physical 0 is a conception. Since the evolution of space originates from this state everything exist has to exist in the same space-time gravitational field frame with the common Laws of Nature.

12. Symmetric. Sphere.

13. Yes

14. Fixed

15. In the center of the system.

16. No

17. There is just one Universe.

18. 0x1=1

19. 1

20. You can not create lower value than the physical 0 state. There are opposite values but lower than the physical 0 can not exist.

21. There are opposite values. Lower value than the physical zero can not exist.

 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to speculations. Please review our guidelines for posts here.

 

Thus far there isn't much, if anything, in the form of a model or specific predictions.

 

One prediction I see is that the universe has a center, which is contrary to what modern cosmology tells us. But you have no model that would predict what properties the universe must have if this is true, e.g. what would the cosmic background radiation spectrum look like if this were true?

[Strange]

What does your notation "0x1=1" mean? Is the "x" supposed to represent multiplication? (In which case it is trivially wrong.) Or does it mean something else, in which case you need to define it.

 

 

10. Did not stop the Big Bang is still on.

 

At least we agree on that. The universe is still expanding.

 

 

13. Yes

 

Where is this center? Why does the universe appear isotropic if it has a centre?

 

 

14. Fixed

 

Then it should be possible to detect motion relative to this fixed centre. Please provide some experimental support for this claim.

 

 

4, Everywhere around me I see the evidence of Intelligence.

 

Apophenia. What you "see" is irrelevant. Please provide some objective way that this "intelligence" can be measured.

 

I do not think that energy and matter always existed.

 

Why not? Please provide some evidence to support this. Without evidence, your opinion has no value.

[1x0]

 

 

Where is this center? Why does the universe appear isotropic if it has a centre?

If it would be isotropic you would not see any structure in it. If you inspect it on a lower scale as our solar system does it seems to you isotropic? I see differences in the distribution of energy and matter gravitational force.

 

Which prove you have for the isotropic distribution?

 

 

Then it should be possible to detect motion relative to this fixed centre. Please provide some experimental support for this claim.

" As is typical for spiral galaxies, the orbital speed of most stars in the Milky Way does not depend strongly on their distance from the center. Away from the central bulge or outer rim, the typical stellar orbital speed is between 210 and 240 km/s"

 

As our galaxy works in the same system the center is the motion presented in the galaxy is relative to the center of the universe.

[Strange]

If it would be isotropic you would not see any structure in it.

 

Perhaps you are confusing isotropic and homogeneous?

 

On large scales, the universe is both homogeneous and isotropic, to a good approximation.

 

If you inspect it on a lower scale as our solar system does it seems to you isotropic?

 

No. But you are talking about the centre of the universe, not the center of the solar system.

 

So, again: where is this claimed centre? What evidence do you have for it?

 

Which prove you have for the isotropic distribution?

 

You are the one making claims, therefore it is up to your to support them.

 

" As is typical for spiral galaxies, the orbital speed of most stars in the Milky Way does not depend strongly on their distance from the center. Away from the central bulge or outer rim, the typical stellar orbital speed is between 210 and 240 km/s"

 

As our galaxy works in the same system the center is the motion presented in the galaxy is relative to the center of the universe.

 

I don't understand the relevance. Are you saying that the centre of our galaxy is the centre of the universe? Or fixed in relation to the centre of the universe? Or ... what?

[1x0]

Apophenia. What you "see" is irrelevant. Please provide some objective way that this "intelligence" can be measured.

 

Every atom in the Universe is operating in correlation with the Laws of Nature. (can you deny it?)

 

The Laws of Nature presents information which determine the construction of the individual physical entities. As your body is built by atoms and so by the Laws of Nature and you present a level of intelligence being able to make sense of your existence, communicate and reason It is sign of intelligence. I raised this questions to be able to make sense of those attributes we own. It is a metaphysical property and so since it is existing beyond our physical appearance the only reference point I can use is zero. Do you understand what I say or you do not make sense. You understand you can have a 1 if you do not understand you have 0. Then you can set it in a binary system and you can present Intelligence.

 

0*1*01001000100001001.2.3.4.5.......1.Strange....001

 

0*1*0*1001000100001001.2.3.4.5....2.Laszlo...001

 

we work in the same system with the exact same origin. Even our DNA which is informative matterialized energy on 99.99% is the same. We are mainly different in our metaphysical properties. This would be the best way to present it in the system.

 

 

Why not? Please provide some evidence to support this. Without evidence, your opinion has no value.

Because the system evolves. Space expands. It is not the result of an almighty creation where everything ever existed. What is your prove to claim that?

 

If space expands it means that it started from somewhere and as time is a linear information about it It points down to a starting point. On the philosophic level you can not claim a point as the beginning or origin if something is presented during the observation. In this case where does the presented physical values originates from? (almighty?)

 

Perhaps you are confusing isotropic and homogeneous?

On large scales, the universe is both homogeneous and isotropic, to a good approximation.

A good approximation is not good enough. And since it is not seems to be a perfect homogeneous and isotropic system I can assume that it is not.

[Strange]

As your body is built by atoms and so by the Laws of Nature and you present a level of intelligence being able to make sense of your existence, communicate and reason It is sign of intelligence.

 

Just because we have intelligence, does not mean that the atoms we are made of have intelligence. Nor does it mean that other things made from those same atoms (rocks, stars, planets) have intelligence either.

 

If you claim all those things have intelligence, then please provide some evidence.

 

Because the system evolves. Space expands.

 

That does not mean that matter and energy didn't always exist.

 

What is your prove to claim that?

 

I am not claiming anything. I am asking you to provide some support for your claims.

 

If space expands it means that it started from somewhere

 

Does it? Why?

 

 

A good approximation is not good enough. And since it is not seems to be a perfect homogeneous and isotropic system I can assume that it is not.

 

Then again: please tell us where the centre is and what evidence this conclusion is based on.

[1x0]

 

No. But you are talking about the centre of the universe, not the center of the solar system.

So, again: where is this claimed centre? What evidence do you have for it?

Our current understanding says that the Universe started from one point which I think is right. If space has started in that moment then it is expanding all directions with the same speed makes it a sphere. If energy applied in the system the most likely place where it would appear is the center of the system. (symmetry) As space will evolve with a symmetric shape so the distribution of energy and later matter will follow a symmetric evolution. Could support the almost isotropic appearance.

[Strange]

Our current understanding says that the Universe started from one point

 

Our current understanding says nothing about how or if the universe started.

 

So, again: WHERE is this claimed centre? What evidence do you have for it?

[swansont]

Our current understanding says that the Universe started from one point which I think is right. If space has started in that moment then it is expanding all directions with the same speed makes it a sphere. If energy applied in the system the most likely place where it would appear is the center of the system. (symmetry) As space will evolve with a symmetric shape so the distribution of energy and later matter will follow a symmetric evolution. Could support the almost isotropic appearance.

 

This appears to be a common misunderstanding of the big bang as an explosion.

 

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/relativity-space-astronomy-and-cosmology/history-of-the-universe/big-bang-expansion-not-explosion/

http://www.livescience.com/32278-was-the-big-bang-really-an-explosion.html

[1x0]

 

 

Our current understanding says nothing about how or if the universe started.

My understanding is that if something is expanding in all directions it is expanding from somewhere. I assume that it is a smaller size it is expanding from. So at the end it is one point where it has expanded from. Prove? Cause and causality with common sense. Not enough? Give an example how otherwise could it happen or what is wrong with the reasoning.

 

The expansion of space therefore has to be spherical. If so this system has to have a center. The same as the earth or the sun. Should I prove it? I can not. I haven´t been there I did not see it with my naked eye. But I can assume it because that is how it is logical from the information I received. These systems are spherical and sphere´s use to have a center. Do you have different understanding. Reason please.

 

My understanding is that the universe has started from nothing. If you inspect any physically presented value and you claim that that is the beginning, you do not inspect the origin. Why? Because that physically presented unit originates from somewhere and there is cause and causality correlation guided by the Law´s of Nature behind it´s presence. Prove? Simple logic.

 

Could you present your understanding of the origin of the system? There are so many different ones.

Edited March 3, 2015 by 1x0

[Phi for All]

My understanding is that if something is expanding in all directions it is expanding from somewhere. I assume that it is a smaller size it is expanding from.

 

*snip*

 

My understanding is that the universe has started from nothing.

 

These two statements seem to be at odds with each other, though they're from the same post.

 

Which current theory are you basing your understanding on?

[1x0]

 

 

My understanding is that if something is expanding in all directions it is expanding from somewhere. I assume that it is a smaller size it is expanding from.

It was a reflection why I assume that space expands as a sphere and the way to reason why I assume It is expanding from a point and pick up the sphere form.

 

 

 

Which current theory are you basing your understanding on?

I am materialized energy with consciousness. A physical entity with metaphysical properties. The results of a 13.8 billion years long cause and causality development governed by the Laws of Nature. I want to make sense of my existence.

 

All of them. Anything what makes sense.

[Strange]

My understanding is that if something is expanding in all directions it is expanding from somewhere. I assume that it is a smaller size it is expanding from.

 

OK so far.

 

So at the end it is one point where it has expanded from.

 

Not necessarily. There are many other possibilities. For example, it could have been expanding at an exponential rate so it was never zero sized, even an infinite time in the past. Or it could have contracted from a previously larger size and then "bounced" before it reached a point. Or it could be that there is one area that is expanding while another is contracting. Or it could be ...

 

There are many possible cosmological models. The scientific ones make testable predictions. Can you do that? Can you show us the maths behind your model?

 

Cause and causality with common sense. Not enough?

 

Definitely not: we know that there are acasual events and we know common sense is frequently wrong. That is why we use the scientific method, instead of making up stories.

 

The expansion of space therefore has to be spherical.

 

Not necessarily. The universe could be infinite. The universe could be finite but unbounded. There are, again, many possibilities for the geometry and topology of the universe. These, of course, depend on mathematical models.

 

My understanding is that the universe has started from nothing.

 

Then you need to provide some evidence of that.

I want to make sense of my existence.

 

Then you probably want religion or philosophy, not science.

[Phi for All]

It was a reflection why I assume that space expands as a sphere and the way to reason why I assume It is expanding from a point and pick up the sphere form.

 

I am materialized energy with consciousness. A physical entity with metaphysical properties. The results of a 13.8 billion years long cause and causality development governed by the Laws of Nature. I want to make sense of my existence.

 

All of them. Anything what makes sense.

 

If the universe expanded from a point, then you really can't say it started from nothing. And the Big Bang theory doesn't cover the very start, it just details the development of the universe once it started expanding from an extremely hot, extremely dense state. It wasn't an explosion. Space, time, and energy expanded rapidly, but that's all there was, there was no space to expand into, so no center.

 

Making sense of existence really isn't what science does. That's philosophy. Science looks for the explanation that has the most evidence to support it.

 

And lastly, be careful about looking for "what makes sense". Many aspects of our universe are far from intuitive. And many things that "make sense" aren't reasonable at all.

 

Edit: Cross-posted with Strange.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Phi for All
added comment

[Strange]

The first physical process I would say 0x1=1

 

What does your notation "0x1=1" mean? Is the "x" supposed to represent multiplication? (In which case it is trivially wrong.) Or does it mean something else, in which case you need to define it.

[MigL]

Take an 'infinitely' long ruler.

Expand the spacing between each graduation from 1cm to 2cm.

Repeat to 3cm and further. As many times as you please.

 

Is there a center ? Is there an original point where it started from ?

What does 'your' common sense tell you about the expansion ?

 

Or is your common sense un-common ?

[1x0]

 

Not necessarily. There are many other possibilities. For example, it could have been expanding at an exponential rate so it was never zero sized, even an infinite time in the past. Or it could have contracted from a previously larger size and then "bounced" before it reached a point. Or it could be that there is one area that is expanding while another is contracting. Or it could be ...

There are many possible cosmological models. The scientific ones make testable predictions. Can you do that? Can you show us the maths behind your model?

I think space expands exponentially, does it from zero, burst to existence, the point where from the exponential evolution started.

 

Time is not infinite. Time exist since anything exist. Time is information about existing physical values like space.

We can not make sense of the origin because we do not have scientific prove of that? We do not have prove of infinity ether. But because space expands and we have the linear information of time about it, is more likely that it started from somewhere than it is infinite. Also assuming that something ever existed is like calling the almighty God for reasoning. I do think that there is some mystery at the beginning of the system but can not imagine someone creates everything so it can just reorganize itself. If it would be so the creator would have to be almighty to set the right laws of nature in this infinite chaos so your metaphysical attributes are actual physical realities after infinite amount of time passed.

 

I think the system evolving. Why? Because space, time, energy, matter, information evolves. If so it is evolving from a smaller and less organized system. If you continue this line long enough you reach the smallest possible physical state which is the physical zero state.

 

 

Definitely not: we know that there are acasual events and we know common sense is frequently wrong. That is why we use the scientific method, instead of making up stories.

It is definitely enough to be able to claim that if you say that there is something at the beginning you do not inspect the beginning. It is enough to set a conception how/what the beginning state could be. Because it is as simple as it sounds.

[Strange]

 

i think ...

I think ...

I think ...

 

No evidence, then.

[1x0]

 

 

Not necessarily. The universe could be infinite. The universe could be finite but unbounded. There are, again, many possibilities for the geometry and topology of the universe. These, of course, depend on mathematical models.

I do not think infinity is a possibility as I said before. The universe is an every evolving, increasing but in every moment a finite/complete system. I start to think that information/intelligence is the reason of it´s way of evolution.

 

There can be many possibilities as geometry and topology. The possibilities are actually infinite. And every mathematician or physician appears will find a different approach for explanation in the infinite possibilities. If you inspect it from the zero state and you adjust the observed scientific results it will be just one option for the evolution. Also if we try to work with a system all of the systems components should be accounted as intelligence and information what I miss from the current explanations.

 

 

Then you need to provide some evidence of that.

You would not be able to make sense of a subatomic particle if you would not be able to make sense of its absence. Imagine the absence of space time energy matter and information. That is the physical zero state. This state can not exist again (multiverse theories??) it is a conception. But you can make sense of metaphysical attributes with this tool. It is a reference point. I can prove it with any value presented in the system because it´s complete physical properties (evolution included) can explained in proportion to zero. If you try to explain it from any other subjectively set point you won´t be able to give the complete information describes the inspected physical value.

 

 

Then you probably want religion or philosophy, not science.

No I don´t. I exist in a physical reality and my metaphysical attributes presented in this system through a physical tool. I want to make sense of it with science tries to explain this physical reality. One of my problems with the current approaches, that they do not include intelligence and its evolution in the current theories. How can I trust that they do not manipulate what they work with so it is supporting theirs current theories. I think this is one of the reasons why we are not able to have a common working physical model of the universe. Scientists do not work with all of the components of the system so obviously the can not provide a complete answer. + the confusing infinity......

Edited March 4, 2015 by 1x0

[Mordred]

The key point science isn't religion or philosophy, it's what we can quantify and measurements. We describe those observations. When we encounter an observation that counters our previous understanding we develop a new understanding. This is not based on faith. This is based on observation, evidence, and math predictions.

 

 

If your looking for the meaning of existence, it's to live, learn and experience.

[1x0]

 

If the universe expanded from a point, then you really can't say it started from nothing. And the Big Bang theory doesn't cover the very start, it just details the development of the universe once it started expanding from an extremely hot, extremely dense state. It wasn't an explosion. Space, time, and energy expanded rapidly, but that's all there was, there was no space to expand into, so no center.

 

I can because I has burst to existence at a point. Where from the exponential expansion started. Exactly. I do not think it was explosion it is my expression mistake. Time did not expand rapidly. Time is linear information about space and energy. There is a center. It is expanding in a certain way. Otherwise you would not be able to make sense of symmetry.

 

 

Making sense of existence really isn't what science does. That's philosophy. Science looks for the explanation that has the most evidence to support it.

Explained in a previous comment to strange. Existence is part of the physical reality. It belongs to the system you have to count with it.

 

 

And lastly, be careful about looking for "what makes sense". Many aspects of our universe are far from intuitive. And many things that "make sense" aren't reasonable at all.

It is far from intuitive because we work with mathematical tools not able to make sense. They would make sense if you would work with a tool adjust to the system you use the tool in.

 

 

What does your notation "0x1=1" mean? Is the "x" supposed to represent multiplication? (In which case it is trivially wrong.) Or does it mean something else, in which case you need to define it.

0*1=1

I assume this related my understanding of the proportions of zero. As it does not contain any information any operation with this state does not make sense. It is a reference point for the physically presented values. I do not see any evidence that it would be on any different way. None of the existing phyisical values will be infinite or zero in proportion to zero. They will indicate the same value as before the operation.

[Mordred]

Time is simply a measurable rate of change or duration of change. The hot big bang only covers a beginning from a hot dense state at 10 ^-43 sec forward.

[1x0]

 

Take an 'infinitely' long ruler.

Expand the spacing between each graduation from 1cm to 2cm.

Repeat to 3cm and further. As many times as you please.

take a 1 cm long ruler. expand the spacing between each graduation from 0cm to 1 cm. Repeat it further. The ruler will have an exact center does not matter how many times you expand it.

[Mordred]

You are describing mathematic tools with no correlations. In all honesty its meaningless.