Christian Nonduality

[Old Seer]

One could understand God is natural compelling force(s).

No. One can fantasize the existence of a myth. But there is no compelling argument or evidence for the existence of a supernatural realm.

I wasn't referring to anything supernatural, rather universal law. The universe contains nothing super. 

[zorkan]

The universe contains nothing super.

What about the anti-universe?

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a39745160/anti-universe-running-backward-in-time/

https://closertotruth.com/news/book-excerpt-the-janus-point/

[Tank]

lol

[Old Seer]

The universe contains nothing super.

What about the anti-universe?

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a39745160/anti-universe-running-backward-in-time/

https://closertotruth.com/news/book-excerpt-the-janus-point/

If there's an anti-universe it would cancel this one, then there wouldn't be any. I'm familiar with most of these claims. When the universe was created an opposite didn't come with it. There's all manner of claims for and against all these ideas and theories. There's experts for and against---to me they just cancel out the works. No one's proven much of it, to many the big band (rapid expansion) which I favor still hasn't been proven.   
(In addition) I hold the big bang or rapid expansion to be the most likely.

[Old Seer]

The universe contains nothing super.

What about the anti-universe?

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a39745160/anti-universe-running-backward-in-time/

https://closertotruth.com/news/book-excerpt-the-janus-point/

Just for thought: Why would an anti universe be super and this  one we're in, not. 

[zorkan]

... the big band (rapid expansion) which I favor still hasn't been proven.   
(In addition) I hold the big bang or rapid expansion to be the most likely.

Make up your mind.
I quite like the big band idea.
It created one universe with music.
Big bang created another with cannon.

[zorkan]

Just for thought: Why would an anti universe be super and this  one we're in, not. 

Anti one is super.
Ours is super-super. It contains special us.

[Old Seer]

Do you actually believe there's an anti universe?   

[zorkan]

Answer that with another question.

https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/W/bo126163512.html

Could be a big universe in our local group is chomping away at ours.

There is probably an infinity of universes. Some are anti-matter.
Might be that other universes have a different set of prime numbers.

[Old Seer]

I can't agree with ideas that can't be/aren't proven and relegate them to the speculation bin. However, the material universe as we know it seems to returning to its original or another state.   

[zorkan]

the material universe as we know it seems to returning to its original or another state.   

By what means?

[Asmodean]

How does the universe exist?
Was it caused by a singularity or a quantum fluctuation?

I'll try to answer the "spirit" of the question as it is not the question being asked. How does the Universe exist? By its constituent parts existing.

So, what caused the Universe to exist? Singularity or a quantum fluctuation? Likely neither.

While the Big Bang appears to be a spacetimetime singularity, "our" spacetime did not precede it. Thus, analysing its causes from our frame of reference may not lead to a valid conclusion. To put it thusly, we may get very close to the birth of spacetime and yet not see into the "womb."

There are some hypotheses about "colliding membranes," white holes and such like that do try. At present, however, the cause - if ever there was one - of the Universe (Thereby, the cause of the Big Bang, which is the start of "our" timeline) is unknown.

EDIT: I have a nice analogy here. The Big Bang is to the Universe what a mountaintop is to uphill. A point with no "beyond" within its particular scope. You "run out of" Universe at the Big Bang, just like you "run out of" uphill on the top of the mountain. Your question is, in this sense, that of a pebble rolling down the slope, wondering "what's uphill from the mountaintop." Strictly speaking, there is no more uphill. More broadly, there is... A different reality. (Where "uphill" becomes "up in the air" and so forth)

Let me reframe a little bit in keeping with the metaphor, since I am prone to ramble; A mountaintop is the singularity for "uphill." The mountaintop, however, did not cause uphill. So, likely not caused by a singularity. That leaves quantum fluctuation. In what medium? If it is this spacetime, then it could not have been the cause of it, could it? If it was something else... That kind-of brings us back to what's uphill from a mountaintop. It may very well be answerable by ways of more or less measuring the effects of an alien reality on our own, but I doubt that there exists an adequate word to label that process in our current language.

How did it know we were coming?
Was it primed for life to evolve or is life just an accident?

The universe is a system of systems. Some sentient (humans and such-like) while others - not. Does the Earth know when you will eat dinner tonight? I would argue that it does not, even though perhaps a comparatively tiny constellation of systems within it does.

That said, I think you may be approaching this question "backwards." The Universe is certainly not primed for life as we understand it, being nearly-universally hostile to it. However, life arose in at least one place where it could. So, it is life, if anything, that is "attuned" to a tiny speck of the Universe it happens to have arisen in - not the Universe that is somehow "meant to" accommodate it.

How does it decay?
Is it in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics or is it being swallowed up by a neighbouring universe?

Does the Universe decay? Sure, we can use thermodynamics to infer that it is progressing from an ordered state to a disordered one. However, even a "dead" Universe may still be there. Let us say that after some googolplex years, there is nothing in the Universe apart from low energy photons. Well, what is nothing? Spacetime may still be there, even though time is irrelevant by that point. (Since no "clocks" are "ticking," but that does not mean that a clock cannot tick.) The laws of physics may still apply.

What I'm describing is decay of sorts, but whether the Universe as a whole decays... I have not read anything compelling to suggest that it does, but then nor am I aware of anything equally compelling to suggest that it does not.

How the Higgs boson and not something else?
If the Higgs field had not existed would the universe be empty of mass or would another field have made something else?

The universe without massive particles would likely be much like the one I described above - though in that Universe, there may still be a Higgs field. If we can visualise fields as ponds, a "dead" field would simply be one with no ripples in it. I think this analogy is adequate, though it displeases me for some reason.

As I said in the very opening sentence, I did try to frame your questions myself, to a degree, as they were "whys" with the "why" substituted by a different word. Do tell me if I misunderstood what you were asking. You did a fine job expanding them though, so I think we may be covered. (In fact, the questions below the bold ones are the "right" questions.*)

[Old Seer]

the material universe as we know it seems to returning to its original or another state.   

By what means?

It would be something like- energy can be neither created nor destroyed (from common thought). If true, energy must have always been existing. Matter then, is returning to it's original state, energy. So then (this leads to many thoughts) what is energy, does energy have weight and volume. ?? ??  Eg Photons striking material can change the material. IOW, it cleaves something from the objects it collides with.

[zorkan]

While the Big Bang appears to be a spacetimetime singularity

A what?

There are some hypotheses about "colliding membranes

What are they, and why should they collide?

EDIT: I have a nice analogy here. The Big Bang is to the Universe what a mountaintop is to uphill. A point with no "beyond" within its particular scope. You "run out of" Universe at the Big Bang, just like you "run out of" uphill on the top of the mountain. Your question is, in this sense, that of a pebble rolling down the slope, wondering "what's uphill from the mountaintop." Strictly speaking, there is no more uphill. More broadly, there is... A different reality. (Where "uphill" becomes "up in the air" and so forth)
Let me reframe a little bit in keeping with the metaphor, since I am prone to ramble; A mountaintop is the singularity for "uphill." The mountaintop, however, did not cause uphill. So, likely not caused by a singularity. That leaves quantum fluctuation. In what medium? If it is this spacetime, then it could not have been the cause of it, could it? If it was something else... That kind-of brings us back to what's uphill from a mountaintop. It may very well be answerable by ways of more or less measuring the effects of an alien reality on our own, but I doubt that there exists an adequate word to label that process in our current language.

Agreed!
Why not just ask what's north of the North Pole?

Rest of your post is irrelevant.

[zorkan]

It would be something like- energy can be neither created nor destroyed (from common thought). If true, energy must have always been existing. Matter then, is returning to it's original state, energy. So then (this leads to many thoughts) what is energy, does energy have weight and volume. ?? ??  Eg Photons striking material can change the material. IOW, it cleaves something from the objects it collides with.

Sorry. It must be me.