Metaphysics, Context, and the Big Bang
Summary
In Theory Development & Experiment Lab this announcement presents a diatribe on metaphysics and the big bang. It examines context as the driving representation of events, probes the paradox of nothing versus everything, and offers a word-based inquiry into what gives rise to reality. This matters to the community by inviting conceptual debate and foundational theory exploration.
This will be somewhat of a diatribe and thesis on a matter that has been taking a considerable amount of my thought as of late.
We know that most occurrences are happenstantial representations of the context wherein, in fact, it may be easier to simply say that context is and has its due representation. We see this in pretty much all of modern and ancient scientific theory, whether it dabble into theology, or is purely spiritual in emphatic nature. In this regard, one of the most curious concepts is the vapidity of the "big bang theory". There is a lot of contextualized commentary that it 'likely' occurred, or even that it has observable traits, but never much about how. I'd like to take this moment of your time dear reader to supply and perhaps litigate through and for the most devious component of modern science, "metaphysics"; generally, metaphysics is a conceptual and rhetorical field based on the discussion of relations drawn or fostered by abstractions. In this fairly scientific regard I do hope you'll bear with me as I do my best to discuss some normally overlooked but fairly elementary fundamentals.
Before we can explain the big bang, we must take a step to the side and dissect the key components of what gave rise to such a event in the first place. I will be using words rather than specific scientific theories or concepts, please bear that in mind as I do my best to illustrate the physics of this query and quandry.
To lay the situation bare we must address the outlier concepts of reality, what is it's composition? Does it contain limits? What structured or derives that such a natural state should or could occur. I posit it is the space between 'nothing' and 'everything'.
If nothing were to exist that would contradict itself as a paradoxical definition, and everything cannot exist either since nothing cannot exist.
From this essence we can presume that things "must" exist, and that our reality is an erroneous result of definitions in conflict resolving in a natural way. Taking a step back towards the problem but away from the big bang as an event, we must again address the context of such a situation. Under what circumstances would such a computation solve or arise?
While there is no perfect term for the concept as it is, I propose some form of hyper-singularity, in essence, since there was no form it creates a hyper-manifold which triangulates itself. (Note: this is a recognition of the potential mechanics that arise from what is likely the fundamental code of the universe rather than some inquiry on the nature of the big bang.)
However after this hyper-singularity and manifold, the result of what is the digestion and computation of all information through a single point is likely to create some degree of super heating, even if that is not the case, and the heat is nowhere near enough to quite literally "jump start reality" the decay of it not being capable to do so ultimately gives a similar enough projection and expression in the form of decaying energy with waveforms that are inverse though similar to it's true form.
if we think of the computation as a container, their likely must be a limit to the amount of energy generated, since there is no infinite potential from nothing being impossible to exist. Therefore we must presume that whatever 'container' said super heating would exist and permeate through would be quantifiable "similar" to if it's computation was incapable of jumpstarting the universe in the first place. While it's energy would not be the same, nor in real terms, manifested, it is likely that the energy would still be in some way capable of computing it even if only in facsimile.
My apologies for the semantics and rhetoric, however I think that given sciences recent trend to shy away from logistical analysis in favor of raw data, it may be best to discuss that the reason we had logistical analysis was to pontificate, even if wildly, possibilities to narrow down issues or potential research vectors.
