This is in response to a post by Govind [ http://csecduac.in/viewtopic.php?t=166 ], which I believe is a physics question but at present has not progressed much beyond metaphysics. I am one of those who had the same thoughts as him (although I did not get a headache but shivers all over when I contemplated nothingness) and have wondered about it ever since. I will not be able to finish writing this in one go so I will fill it up slowly.

First of all let us get a few facts straight. Any discussion on this has to be limited by our present vocabulary; linguistic, mathematical or conceptual, so there is a possibility that this question may not have an answer at the present time. Some people (such as Martin Rees) have imagined the possibility that just as dogs cannot understand quantum mechanics (as far as we know) there might be limits to our understanding as well. May be the concepts required are beyond our grasp. However, if that is the case then there is no point in even wasting our time thinking about it so I am not going to go down that road. There is one troubling aspect about this though; the fact that often an incomplete set of concepts, when applied to a situation that requires expansion of vocabulary, often end up with paradoxes. Examples are the application of statistical physics before the advent of quantum mechanics and Einstein’s teenage thoughts on what we would see if we were to ride an electromagnetic wave. So if we end up with paradoxes then that is a sure sign that we have hit a dead-end and must learn more.

In the original post some replies were very confused about the grammar of physical concepts, so I first wish to put that bit straight. Aristotle posed the philosophical problem of the prime mover, which is based on the premise that everything that causes something is itself caused by something else. So going back through this chain we must have a prime mover that is itself uncaused. Either that or the infinite regression never ends. So either I can postulate the prime mover (may be God) or I can have infinity of such movers, either way the puzzle seems resolved. Science fiction fans can come up with yet another possibility: a time loop. May be the first cause is caused by the last cause and we have a cyclic chain. Cosmogony theories have contemplated all these possibilities at various times. None of them seem to answer the question: why are things?

Our modern conception of the universe is based on the observation that the Universe is expanding, and therefore it must have started from a dense state in the past called The Big Bang (BB). However, a deeper understanding of this result requires Einstein’s General theory of Relativity (GR) which substantially confuses the issue further since it leads to a creation event (which must please creationists a lot!), before which the theory is unable to say anything. However, even this last sentence is fairly full of incorrect usage of language as we will see in a moment. Very precisely speaking, GR clarifies that time is just another dimension, much like the three dimensions of space. So BB is that event where time itself loses continuity. So the question: what precedes BB? is metaphysical within GR (so we cannot say 'before BB').

It also clarifies to us the fact that creation of the universe at a certain point of ‘time’ is the wrong way of approaching the question since space-time is itself not given a-priori, however much Kant may roll in his grave! Space-time is actually a dynamic entity and the notion of how much space or time is out there can be answered in the same way Coulomb’s law gives us electric field around a charged particle. However, without the aid of time, which may not exist before BB how are we to ask a causal question such as ‘what caused the BB’? After all our BB is not an event embedded in yet another space-time where events have a causal relation and things can happen? Our universe is all we see. So you see we are already running out of concepts! The most unfortunate thing is that GR predicts a failure of classical physics at the BB, so there is no way to figure out what is going on there. Quantum Gravity, a theory yet to be invented, is hopefully going to illuminate that moment further, however, it may not solve the problem of creation either.

To give an analogy, when you boot a computer it sort of pulls itself out of a null state and starts accepting commands from the user and becomes fully operational. How it does that is a complicated process but since it is a man made object we never really give it much thought. A fully functioning universe has to self-boot out of nothing. Both the hardware and the software have to exist out there (where is out there before space and time are created?)! Hardware is matter/energy and software the laws of physics. Let me rephrase that: space, time, matter/energy, laws of physics, have all got to boot themselves into existence out of nothing! If nothingness is the antithesis of something then clearly we are led to a logical paradox. However, you see we are again using confused language. 'Created out of nothing' is a causal statement, and we all know that causality defines time, which may not exist independent of space-time. We can certainly imagine discovering laws of physics which imply existence of hardware that our universe is made of but where exactly do these disembodied laws of physics live? In our minds? Sounds complete baloney? What does it all mean? One thing for sure that the problem definitely is not going to be solved by the invention of a God since the problem one is trying to solve heavily depends on the concepts of causality and time which we know are exactly what the problem is, so if we solve that problem may be the problem of existence itself will dissapear.

Let me stop for a breather here and continue later with further thoughts to intrigue your mind.

Really interesting

While reading your post I was reminded of paralell universes. Because, a very pertinent question that has been asked lately is "Is our universe, that we can contemplate upon based on our astronomical observations, the only universe?" Is it possible that the universe as we know it is a result of transformation of our universes?

Quite interesting questions

Any thoughts?

Incidentally, when I was a child,I also used to think on the very same lines as those mentioned here.

If we start by assuming that there was one omnipotent god, which created this universe, then the next question would arise, which would be: Then who created god ? or What was the need for him to create the universe ?

Then I realized that such questions are seldom answered by the religions & such thinking would give way to nothing more than a headache.

Later, I moved on to the 'chain of creators' concept, but reasoned if we had infinite no. of such creators, (which surely sounds silly! ) then we can not tag any one of them as the ultimate creator, in fact, it would be termed as a creator-chain instead !

Then, when I grew up & got to know about the big-bang, I hypothesizedd that the various galaxies, which are moving today further & further away, would tend to decelerate under the influence of the gravitational pull of each other and there would come a time, when the expansion of the universe would cease.

Now, under the influence of the same gravitational pull, the universe would then start shrinking (& some of the laws including that of the 'ever increasing randomness' i.e. the second law of thermodynamics, may have to be revised )
until it collapsed into a point mass of infinite density (which is again highly unstable) and thus, would trigger another big-bang and yet another cycle...
whew! some imagination I had!!



The 'parallel universes' concept was devised to answer the 'Schoedinger's cat paradox' and other paradoxes arising out of the 'ambiguity' of the Quantum-theory.

It was given by Hugh Everett who formulated it in 1957, at the time of his PhD theses submission.

It is apparently not very popular with physicists as it assumes that there is a branching taking place at every moment, when 2 or more outcomes of any event are possible, allowing every possible outcome to every event to define or exist in its own "history" or "world", (via the mechanism of quantum decoherence, instead of wavefunction collapse) as it is quite 'uneconomical' model of looking at the universe.

i.e. for event, there are many parallel universes branching out of that point in time, each folowing a different outcome possible of that particular event.

So, one can calculate for himself, that for even a small event like that of an electron spinning around the nucleus for say, 1 second, how many different parallel universes would arise out of it , let alone those arising from any complex event:!:

it is also known as the 'Many-worlds interpretation' of Quantum Physics

Those interested in it, may clilck 'here' for more information

I will do a follow up article on it in a day or two. Raghu has answered part of your question already. The only thing that I wish to add is that modern cosmology does contemplate rather metaphysical questions, perhaps in the hope that some day we shall find a way to test these ideas. My own belief is that we should try to answer as much as possible within the purview of known facts. I have a thought: we know that not all is revealed by our senses. We use the aid of devices to overcome this limitation, but that too has its limits. Is it possible that the real truth is beyond us, in the same sense as the notion of sight is beyong blind people? Anyway, that requires a separate post so I will start working on it