VERSION OF MY “Logically Complete Cosmological Concept” Huseyn Qurbanov

[Huseyn]

 

From the Cycles of Conversations with AI

Sometimes conversations held with an AI on an ontological level help both sides unfold — and lead the AI itself to agree that the familiar idea of a “singularity,” that supposed point from which the Universe allegedly emerged, does not explain the origin of the world at all.

Rather, it marks the place where our theories stop working.

This perspective does not contradict science — it simply adds the missing link, making the picture of the Universe continuous and coherent.

 

An explanation for a broad audience, without metaphysical terminology, formulated with the help of AI.

 

1. Singularity is not the “beginning of the Universe,” but a sign that our theories stop working

People often say:

 

But physicists themselves admit:

•          such a point cannot exist,

•          the equations break down there,

•          it is not a physical state,

•          it simply marks the limit of the theory.

So the singularity is not a fact —

it is a gap in our understanding.

Where infinity appears, the theory is asking for an update.

 

2. Between “nothing” and the “Big Bang” there must be something else

If we observe:

•          order,

•          laws,

•          structure,

•          stability,

then it is reasonable to assume that before all this,

there existed a state that made such order possible.

This state is:

•          not emptiness,

•          not chaos,

•          not a mathematical point.

It is a calm, balanced phase

that science has not yet learned to describe.

But it is necessary for a continuous picture of the Universe.

 

3. The Universe develops not from a point, but from a transition

Instead of imagining that “everything appeared instantly,”

we can propose a gentler and more logical model:

1.         There was a calm, balanced state.

2.         Within it, a condensed region emerged — not a point, but an area.

3.         This region began to unfold.

4.         The unfolding produced structure and laws.

This does not contradict science.

It simply adds the missing link.

 

4. Science describes how things happen, but not why they are possible

Science brilliantly explains:

•          how space expands,

•          how galaxies form,

•          how physical laws operate.

But it does not explain:

•          why laws exist at all,

•          why space can expand,

•          why anything can arise.

This is not a flaw in science —

it is simply its boundary.

And beyond that boundary begins philosophy.

 

5. Philosophy does not oppose science — it completes it

Philosophy does not say:

•          “science is wrong.”

It says:

•          “science describes processes,

and we explain why these processes are possible.”

This is a gentle, friendly way to show

that philosophy and science are not enemies,

but two sides of one picture.

 

6. Cyclicity is a natural idea if we see the Universe as a process

If the Universe passes through:

•          a calm phase,

•          condensation,

•          unfolding,

•          formation of structure,

then it is natural to assume that this cycle may repeat.

This does not require belief —

it follows from the structure itself.