Before Big Bang God or Singularity

so, at T=0, a self contained system of perfectly ordered energy, if not energy, it isn't real. its something. we can say: energy, or call it: something. but not "nothing".is it easier to say at T=0 there was something that was,that existed singularly as one, that all came from it, and that it was ordered?or easier to say energy?if a self contained system that always was , without any time, with a complexity that is beyond understanding of man, yet spawned from it, an entire universe, including at some point in time, man, who has intelligence, can we say that such an ordered complex energy that existed singularly at T=0 with nothing before it, and evolved from its ordered form a sign of a greater intelligence?is a rock gonna make a computer? how then could a super complex timeless something begat an entire universe with no intelligence at all?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

nothing: absence of anything. no energy, no time, "no-thing"absolutely is not there, never was, never will be. "no" "thing"

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

?yup. im dis here stupidister man on duh face o de' planat.i guess i go n cut mah shoes now so i can maybe walk on wadder. good luck with yourn sciences n all dat schtuff. i am so's sorry i treis to make some sense o dees things. i withdraw.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

i see a lot of Hawkins stuff here, but the topic is really to try to discover the truth of T=0 isn't it?I'm sure that T=0 can be looked at in an easier method by scientific laws first, instead of trying to build on previous theory.let me try to establish a beginning point of discussion to that end?the point: all that is did not exist from literally "nothing"so before what is, was something.the universe eventually has its start from T=0.at T=0 all the energy of the universe existed singularly, or in a singular state, which is timeless.do you agree modulous?the right question: if when the universe as we know it came into existence, was the original T=0 destroyed?i think you touched that in the post. and i would say no. because at T=0 is everything built on top of, if it was destroyed, anything built on top would be destroyed. but i think we should examine T=0 in its initial form before we ask that question.Edited by tesla, : added a point on your "right kind" of question.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

can you further explain?what is "it"the "before" is relative, because we see the evolution unfolding now, and were asking about before that.as : something cant come from nothing is agreed,this means it is agreed that T=0 is "something" but with no measurable time, which can only mean singular and always was.do you agree? or can you further explain how you see T=0?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

it means that regardless of complexity there was no other points before that point. which means the "always existed" existed in perfect timless unity as one energy. regardless of complexity of planes of existence or whatever. i think your closer to the truth than could be comfortable. but it cant be proven.(yet)what can be proven by that we are, is that the first energy from whence the cause of the universe came, IS by necessity. and that it existed before any time could be relevant, and is complex beyond the human mind's ability to reason.however, you know the point i have pushed time and again, that something that complex and the order of all that is coming from it, that it is intelligent by necessity as well.many wont even touch the possibility.but if you take T=0 and look at it in simplicity, before adding the complexities, there can be no other conclusion.eventually, its going to be realized by someone besides me.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

it means, that in order for time to equal zero, there can be no second "thing" or energy "after" the first, because time would be relevant.in order for the "before thats" to be irrelevant, time also must be irrelevant. and at that point, is whatever was "one" even if its a very complex form. if the simplicity of the T=0 energy is understood, then the "law" of what it must be being established, would allow for theories to be built. building a theory on a theory is building a house on sand. building theories on laws is building a house on the rock.the simplest form of what T=0 (which IS law by necessity) (because we ARE) needs to be established first as what it IS or IS not by law, before building the "maybes"

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

the observation is of energy. im looking not at the coordinates alone, but what energy was present at those coordinates.what did the universe look like at T=0?thats where laws can come into play. if you say all science laws are quicksand, and prove nothing, thats the same as saying science is completely useless...so go buy a bible because we don't know anything.my question again, what energy was present at the coordinates T=0?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

now i know why icant keeps pointing out your circular attitude.t=0 is the coordinates. whats at the coordinates.nothing is "north" of the "north" pole.but what is AT the north pole.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

well man has studied science long enough to start askin.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

mankind doesn't need a bunch of recordings from the previous era. mankind need scientists how can freely think on their own.the world is flat : echo: the world i flat the world is flat the world is flatwhy? um. cause that what we know and we'll never know any more than that.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

the "tesla" logiclets explore the realm of scientific enquiry.i view it as a problem such as :2+2=4 2+2 is the path and 4 is the definition of the path.now there are multiple ways to go about solving a problem with missing variables.the definition of 4 is as such:lets say, the argument is a "cup"path + path=cup.2+2=4 and 4 is the cup.in the argument, the argument against it by another individual is that it is ceramic. but ceramic is a different value than the initial object of scrutiny "cup"if the item under scrutiny was then "cup" value 4, and all arguments led to 2+2=4, and then an arguer redefines the value "cup (4)" to ceramic (3) then the argument that led up to cup falls apart.
2+2=3 (false)to determine the truth, ceramic needs to then be scrutinized, which if its the object of scrutiny becomes the value of 4, and the path of 2+2 would have to be hashed out again to find the 2+2. (path)lets look at evolution, which is starting with 4 in theory, but following the path to conclusion.so in evolution. 2+2 is being analyzed to find the value 4. missing variables in the 2+2 have left the value "4" inconclusive.now, exploring universe origin, universe origin is (4)and T=0 is a part of the variables in the path 2+2.the rest of what is or is not in that path by law should be observed in the path of what can be said or not said of the value (4).like so: 2+2=4 (4=origin)2+2 currently understood: 1+0=4 (or something like that)the first element of T=0 being 1.if we discover the other half of that 1, well find the 2, and applying that 2 of the first part of the path, we can potentially discover the other 2 of the equation to get an understanding of the value (4) [origin] in its simplest form.then when analyzing the complexity of the value 4, we can determine each complexity by attributing it with the value 4, and exploring its path individually.this is basic logic, the path to understanding complexity by first observing it in simplicity.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

because the universe is. not maybe is. but is. and it has evolved. not maybe evolved. but has evolved, and is still evolving.this means that you can say absolutely that there was a "before" and by looking at before we find that because we "are" not maybe are, but absolutely are, that the evolution can be followed to a real place where the evolution started from.that real place is T=0

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

well you found an absolute truth in T=0, because no other conclusion is possible, because it would be inviting the possibility you dont exist.so follow the clue.T=0 IS. so whats possible at those coordinates by what we know by all scientific observation of "law"?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

think it out percy, just because a scientist said the world was flat doesn't mean it is. step back form hawking and other scientists and just think about it.i got to get ready for some work (finally!) i hate this time of year everything is dead in this town. okies good luck, i hope you think about what i have said.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides