Is there a big bang inside of us all?

I like the idea that we are co-participants in the act of the creation of the Universe, merely by thinking about such things.

Do we have free will, yes or no? I like to think that we are right inside the black box with the poor Schrödinger cat: as long as we are inside that box, we are superpositioned in a dual state of both freedom-determinism.

Anyway, I still like to think of a God big enough to let us make whatever we want, knowing that we will ultimately stick to the Big Plan—in an infinite multi-verse, how couldn't we? :)

The only thing I didn't like: you misspelled Stephen Hawking's name :-P
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

Red Pill Junkie

Interesting.

Reminds me of a book about singularities i read as a teenager.
I'm not sure what reading you have done, but if you get the chance i think it was along the lines of:

The Edge of Infinity: Naked Singularities and the Destruction of Spacetime (Oxford Paperbacks) (Paperback)

If i remember correctly singularities can occur as space-like constructs, time-like constructs and combinations of the two.

Basically when we think of the big bang we think of it happening at the start, but that applies if it was only space-like, if it had time-like properties then it becomes a four dimensional (at minimum) event and happens throughout time as well as throughout space.

Most singularities are hidden behind event horizons, but given the correct circumstances of charge and spin the event horizon moves inwards towards the centre and can become smaller than the singularity, you then form a naked singularity.

I guess you would call the big bang a naked singularity, either that or we are still within the event horizon. Models of our universe existing within the event horizon of a black hole have been tested and failed by the way.

To your article:

Sub-atomic particles are indeed acausal. Bear in mind that entanglement gives a way around the acausality of the uncertainty principle though. I think you can work out the properties of a subatomic particle without measuring it by means of teasing out its properties without causing the probability function to collapse through multiple encroachments on its value using entanglement. The article i got that from might have been disproven now though.

I would contend with this slightly. It is true that quantum uncertainty ruled when the overall size of the universe was below the plank limit, for sure.

It is believed that unity of the electromagnetic, nuclear and weak forces with increased pressure and temperature inside particle accelerators indicates the unity of these 3 into a super force. Gravity theory puts gravity very close to the point of unity as well so it is thought that all 4 unify into one superforce and that the theory of gravity needs work (i.e. a quantum theory of gravity).

When the universe first formed/expanded/appeared (whatever it did) it expanded quickly and cooled. Quantum forces ruled until it expanded, the superforce split into the 4 forces we know today (the Bosons). Hadrons formed allowing the formation of hydrogen helium etc etc etc. I'll not look it up properly and fill pages. If by the laws of physics increasing you mean the formation of the 4 forces then i agree, if you mean something else then i question it. Once the 4 forces had undergone their phase change then it was physics as normal. This happened in the first few blinks of an eye if memory recalls.

Of course we are talking within the framework of scientific language here, but without it we have none of these concepts anyway and we might as well talk about pizza.

I dont know quite what you mean by this. Polarisation and relative temperature of the much vaunted cosmic background radiation is thought to represent a recording of the quantum state of the big bang just prior to expansion. The affect of the acausal nature of the quantum domain so to speak. Study of this record of the 'initial conditions' forms a huge part of modern physics and has been a major part of disproving different big bang contenders.

Another point to make is that the acausal nature of aspects of quantum mechanics is a part of the laws of physics. In no part is anything occurring outside of them, all that is being said is that particles exist as a wave function that is best thought of mathematically as a probability wave and that the precise nature of the particle cannot be known until this wave function has collapsed; typically by interfering with it. The collapse of this wave function is random, but random within very precise rules. It doesnt collapse into a dolphin or anything remarkable.

This is a tricky quote to validate or repute. What do you mean? From all the evidence we have rules played a major part even in the early quantum stage of the universe. As discussed the initial conditions were not dependant upon the 4 forces we know as they didnt exist at that point, but the order in the background radiation gives no reason to suspect that we live in a fly by your pants, no rules as a kid, kind of universe.

This depends. Any experiment you setup will have initial conditions dependant upon something. I guess the argument here is that the universe is in some way special.

You have already argued in effect for a time-like singularity though in which case it is conceivable that the initial conditions were dependent on future conditions. I'm not sure that is the argument i want to use though. It hurts my head. I think you'll struggle to find any physicist who thinks there was nothing before the big bang. Many think there is no way we can tell what was before, but that is different. There are many theories about what happened before, some are even becoming testable (slightly) so can at least be disproven soonish, though they rely on previous universes having had effects on this one. I would venture a bet that the initial conditions of this universe in some way depended on the one before it, but no-one knows yet.

Possibly, the difficulty here is pinning them down and trying to explain them in a way that is distinguishable from complexity in a neural network or quantum indeterminism/freedom though ever present initial conditions and a time-like singularity.

P.S Are you able to offer up any way of thinking about quantum indeterminism as evidence of a time-like singularity? I like that thought alot.

What was the full quote from Stephen Hawkings? When he starts talking about information and entropy, especially with regard to black holes and singularities it makes my head hurt, especially trying to think of what he might of meant. The full quote would save me brain ache.

Some of the most bioactive crystals contain lithium or beryllium trapped in the crystalline lattice. Typically, the sensitive reports a feeling of transcendence, euphoria, bliss, profound meditation when handling these crystals. The more active beryls are phenacite and herderite. Lithium icluded quartz, petalite, spodumene are typically relaxing and mildly euphoric to handle. Some of us speculate that since lithium and beryllium were the first two elements to coalesce after the big bang then it follows that entrapment in crystalline lattices might in a way harken back to primaeval energy states. Experiencing these energetic states might be a way to emotionally experience source energy.