Cosmogenesis in Myth & Physics
Do Ancient Cosmogonies Mirror the Structure of Modern Cosmology?
“The Mind, O Tat, is of the very Essence of God, if yet there be any Essence of God. What kind of Essence that is, he alone knows himself exactly. The Mind therefore is not cut off, or divided from the essentiality of God, but united as the light of the Sun. And this Mind in men, is God, and therefore are some men Divine, and their Humanity is near Divinity.”
— The Divine Pymander, by Hermes Mercurius Trismegistus, tr. by John Everard (1650) —
When our ancestors looked up at the night sky and saw hundreds of thousands of pinpoints of light, their cosmogonies told them that a primordial unity or undivided mind that contained all potentials lay at the heart of the creation of the cosmos. One that birthed the primordial chaotic waters or oceans from which differentiation emerged and from which matter eventually arose.
When we look up at the night sky, and if it is a clear night, we too see hundreds of thousands of tiny, bright points of light. We’re told that this plethora of cosmic objects is the result of a moment, 13.8 billion years ago, when the universe began as a tiny dense fireball that exploded. Most astronomers consider the Big Bang theory as the most probable explanation for how the universe began. The first stable, long-lived particles that came into existence around one ten-thousandth of a second after the Big Bang were protons and neutrons.
But if we go back further, to a period so early in the history of our Universe that the best theories in physics begins to break down.
Ancient & Esoteric Cosmogonies
Before I begin, I want to make it clear that there are many, many different cultures that each have an origin story of the cosmos. I am not saying that there aren’t ancient cosmogonies that differ in their accounts, or that some are “better” than others. But, for the sake of being authentic and accurate in my understanding, I will be including the ones I have studied and researched. Although there isn’t a single, unified cosmogony that all ancient cultures and wisdom traditions adhered to, there does seem to be a primary thread that runs through the ones I’m familiar with.
Egyptian myth consistently begins with the vast primeval ocean of chaos (Nun) with which the deities Nu (male principle) and Nuanet (female principle) are associated. Nun constituted the soul of Thoth which was the Lord of Time, and was often pictured as an inert potential being who ‘self-generates’ by transforming the dark waters into land, light and life. For example, an old temple theology (Hermopolis) eight deities (the Ogdoad) was envisioned as embodying aspects of Nun (darkness, infinite space, obscurity) that together personify the pre-cosmic abyss. In summary, Egypt described a primordial abyss of water: an undifferentiated, inert “ocean” or dark void from which the ordered world (mound, sun, gods) emerges. Qualities of this medium are inertia, darkness and boundless potential. Creation is then an act of divine will imposing structure on that watery Chaos with unity giving rise to multiplicity.
In hermetic traditions the cosmos similarly begins as an undifferentiated Unity, or chaos, portrayed as a single, divine Mind (Nous) which is the Essence of God from which all things flow. Alchemy similarly speaks of a Prima Materia, a boundless fluid aether or “first matter” underlying all form. This Prima Materia is variously likened to water, chaos, a hermaphroditic monster or dragon that “contains in itself all colours and potentially all metals” and “begets itself.” In other words, it embodies every quality (male–female, spirit–matter, chaos–cosmos) simultaneously.
Such descriptions echo Plato’s Timaeus, where a benevolent Demiurge imposes order on an already-existent formless mass: “mathematical order [is imposed] on a preexistent chaos to generate the ordered universe,” while in Hellenistic-Platonic thought the receptacle of becoming is an inert, passive Chaos or “Receptacle” (khôra) that is shaped by a divine Intellect. Thus Hermetic and Platonic texts similarly agree that a pre-cosmic medium – whether conceived as divine Mind, cosmic air (aether) or Prima Materia – precedes creation and holds latent potential for all forms.
Gnostic systems echo these themes in a more metaphysical register. The undifferentiated ground is an ineffable Monad or Depth (Bythos), an “original unknowable God” from which pairs of Aeons emanate. These Aeons (male–female syzygies) form the Pleroma, a “Fullness” of divine attributes. Crucially, the transition to the material world occurs when an Aeon (often Sophia) errs or falls, inadvertently generating the Demiurge and the physical cosmos. Here the pre-cosmic medium is a plenum of divinity, an ocean of spiritual light or consciousness. Although not explicitly waters as in other traditions, it still functions analogously: it is a unified source whose disturbance produces darkness and matter. Modern Gnostic commentaries sometimes explicitly liken the Pleroma or Abyss to the Kabbalistic Ein-Sof (the limitless), a “primordial ocean” of divine potential. Thus Gnostic thought emphasises emanation from a unitary source, and the later emergence of dualities (spirit/matter, light/dark) as by-products of that process.
Even Norse myth begins in a yawning void, Ginnungagap, flanked by elemental realms of fire (Múspell) and ice (Niflheim). When sparks from fire melt the ice in the gap, the first being emerges: the giant Ymir, whose body is considered to be the raw “primordial matter” of the cosmos. Gods later slay Ymir and fashion earth from his flesh, sky from his skull, and blood into oceans. Before his death, Ymir is described as a hermaphrodite (“male and female together”) and effectively unformed potential. In effect, the Norse pre-cosmic medium is the formless interplay of fire and ice in the void. It has dynamic polarity (fire vs. ice, light vs. dark), yet remains indeterminate until shaped. Ginnungagap itself is sometimes called “the impersonal void” that contains “limitless potential not actualised.” Thus Germanic myth also features an undifferentiated source that contains the seeds of all being, from which structure is carved out by divine action..
Across these traditions one sees consistent motifs. A primordial unity precedes multiplicity: a single undivided “substance” (whether aether, water, void, field, or mind) contains all potentials. This unity often embodies opposites simultaneously: the chaotic waters of Nun were also the “father and mother” of gods; the alchemical Prima Materia is at once male/female, heaven/earth, spirit/matter; Ymir is hermaphroditic. Creation is invariably depicted as differentiation of this source: speech or thought of the Hermetic Mind imposes form on chaos; a mound rises from Nun; or Ymir’s body is shaped into the world. Light and order emerge in contrast to darkness and chaos, but always out of them. In many accounts the primal medium is not merely inert: it often has a quasi-conscious or symbolic character. Hermeticism literally calls the first cause “Mind”; Gnostic Aeons are sentient emanations; Egyptian cosmogonies sometimes personify the ocean as god-like pairs (Nu and Naunet).
Cosmogony according to modern science
At one ten-millionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth (10⁻⁴³) of a second after the Big Bang we find what is called the Planck epoch. At this stage the Universe was completely devoid of matter, but full of physical activity in the form of energy fluctuations operating at a deeper quantum level. Physicists often describe it as acting in ways similar to the waves on the surface of a deep ocean. During this period, the temperature and average energies within the universe were so high that subatomic particles could not form, and even the four fundamental forces that shape our universe were combined into a single unified force, where spacetime became subject to quantum fluctuations.
This was essentially a “nothing state” that may have consisted of the ingredients that were neither space-like or time-like. From this Nothing, Something emerged; a plenum of innumerable elemental Planck volume nodes (or the space-time foam) that scientist think came about in the same way that a could of water molecules in a gas changes phase into a cloud of liquid droplets when the temperature falls. These droplets of space organised themselves into embedded networks of links that defined its dimensionality into what is called geometrogenesis. But this star was still so unstable it spawned a second phase change in which the Something state dimensions collapsed (called compactification) into what we now think of was the geometric basis for the 11 dimensions in string theory, which then collapsed further into the four dimensional space-time we still have today (cosmogenesis and chronogenesis respectively).
From here the Universe moved into the next time called the GUT (Grand Unified Theory) era, or grand unified epoch. During this 10-43 to 10-36 seconds after the Big Bang, the temperature and density of the cosmos was unimaginably, and quite literally, astronomical while gravity became its own distinct force (which eventually differentiated into what we now experience individually as the separate strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces). This is also where we first see the emergence of proto-particles, or elementary particles1, arising from the energy fluctuations (described above) popping into existence2. These particles consisted of both matter and antimatter in roughly equal quantities. Each particle of matter had its mirror-image antimatter particle annihilated each other in a flash of energy when they met, continuously and constantly creating and destroying each other, that organised themselves into a kind of miasmic mist or cloud that permeated the Universe.
These processes do not make much sense to us as beings rooted in the macroscopic world, but despite this, all the proposed theories describes one thing in particular; there had to be some precursor to the Nothing state since Something cannot come from “Nothing”. And an increasing number of scientists are conceding that, that something may be a kind of Universal Consciousness.
I’ve written about Maria Strømme’s 2025 paper before, so for a more in-depth analysis I suggest you read that first. The long and the short of it is that she put forward a model using the language of physics and mathematics to describe a foundational consciousness field from which matter and physical reality takes shape. Strømme’s model proposes that the Big Bang may not mark the moment in which the universe exploded into existence, but rather the moment in which an unified field of awareness gives rise to space, time and matter that turned this formless primordial state into the physical world we observe today.
She is by far not the only the only scientist to propose this idea, just the most recent, taking a step towards a more formal framework inspired by physics. For instance Max Planck and Erwin Schrödinger, both godfathers of quantum theory, believed that matter is born from consciousness, and that sentience is unitary rather than fragmented across individuals. Similarly, David Bohm, another theoretical quantum physicist, spoke of the hidden implicate order beneath the physical world we observe.
What we see here is a picture of an early universe that begins in an extremely energetic quantum state. During the Planck epoch, space, time, and the fundamental forces may have existed in a unified form, accompanied by intense quantum fluctuations. As the universe expanded and cooled, spacetime geometry emerged and differentiated through a series of phase transitions. Gravity separated from the other forces, elementary particles appeared, and matter and antimatter were continuously created and annihilated. Further differentiation eventually gave rise to stable matter, atoms, elements, stars, and the material universe we observe today. Within this broader picture, a growing number of researchers have begun exploring whether consciousness may represent an even deeper level of reality from which these physical processes emerge.
Remarkable Parallels
Across ancient cosmologies and modern physical theory, a recurring structural pattern appears in the way the origin of the universe is described. The languages differ, but the sequence of transformation remains closely aligned.
For instance, in both ancient and modern cosmogonies there is the idea of a primordial state preceding all structure and differentiation. In ancient systems this appears as Nun in Egyptian cosmology, the Prima Materia in alchemy, the ineffable ground of the Pleroma in Gnostic thought, and Ginnungagap in Norse mythology. Each describes a condition that exists before form, time, or distinct entities. In modern cosmology we have the Planck epoch and the quantum vacuum, where spacetime and classical matter have not yet stabilised into the structures we observe today.
Another commonality is the association of the primordial source with a form of intelligence or organising principle. In ancient traditions this appears explicitly as divine mind or sentient emanation. In some interpretations of modern theoretical physics, consciousness or informational structure is explored as a candidate for this foundational level, although this remains a developing and contested area of research. Similarly, there is the recurrence of a deeper underlying reality that is not directly observable. Ancient systems speak of hidden principles such as Nous, Logos, or the ineffable ground of being. Modern physics similarly posits unobservable foundational levels such as quantum fields, vacuum states, or pre-geometric structures from which observable phenomena emerge.
The next parallel is the character of this primordial state as undifferentiated. In ancient accounts, all qualities exist together without separation. Opposites such as light and dark, male and female, or order and chaos are not yet distinct. In modern physics, this is echoed in the description of a unified force and a regime in which the known distinctions between fundamental interactions have not yet emerged.
Both then move on to the idea that the primordial state contains latent potential for all later forms. Ancient cosmologies consistently treat the origin as a generative totality, in which gods, worlds, and structures already exist in potential form prior to manifestation. In modern cosmology, the early universe is similarly described in terms of fields, symmetries, and quantum states that contain the potential for all later particles, structures, and large-scale cosmic organisation.
Again, both ancient and modern accounts go on to use fluid or oceanic metaphors. Ancient systems frequently describe the origin as water, abyss, or boundless sea, emphasising continuity and formlessness. Modern cosmology uses closely analogous imagery in descriptions of quantum fields, spacetime foam, and fluctuation-dominated quantum fields that behave in wave-like or fluid-like ways at fundamental scales. Ancient accounts also often describe the primordial condition as empty of form yet full of generative power. Modern physics similarly characterises the quantum vacuum as devoid of classical matter while still exhibiting intense activity through fluctuations and field dynamics, or as the simultaneous presence of emptiness and fullness. Ancient traditions also treat the primordial source as containing all forms in latent condition prior to manifestation, while modern physics describes a similar early universe in terms of probability distributions, field potentials, and symmetry configurations that become actualised as stable particles and structures emerge.
Similarly, both go describe a unity that precedes multiplicity, from which creation unfolds through differentiation. Ancient cosmologies begin with a single undivided source that later differentiates into many gods, principles, or realms. From here, the cosmos emerges when an original unity becomes articulated into distinct forms, often through symbolic acts of ordering, naming, or separation. Modern cosmology reflects the same structure through the early unification of forces, followed by symmetry breaking that produces the distinct interactions and particles that populate the universe, and through the sequential emergence of physical laws as the universe cools and expands. Neither describes creation as a single event. Instead, both present layered processes in which order gradually emerges from pre-cosmic conditions, describing a sequence of epochs, each marked by new structural features.
Another common theme is the appearance of dimensional or structural organisation. Ancient cosmologies often describe layered heavens, realms, or ordered planes of existence. Modern theoretical physics describes the emergence of spacetime geometry itself, including proposals in which dimensional structure arises dynamically through processes such as geometrogenesis or compactification. Likewise, ancient cosmogenic myths speak of the emergence of polarity from an initial unity, frequently describing primordial conditions as containing opposites in an undivided state, such as androgynous beings or coexisting cosmic principles. In modern physics, this is mirrored in the early symmetry of physical laws and the later differentiation into matter and antimatter, as well as the separation of fundamental forces. Ancient and modern descriptions include a further transition from formlessness to form. Ancient cosmogonies consistently describe creation as the imposition of structure on an indeterminate substrate, while modern cosmology likewise describes the emergence of spacetime geometry, particle structure, and stable physical configurations from an earlier pre-geometric or highly symmetric state.
What emerges across both ancient cosmologies and modern physical theory is a striking structural correspondence in how the origin of the universe is described. Although the vocabularies differ, the underlying sequence of transformation remains remarkably consistent.
While I am not suggesting that ancient cosmogonies are literal or empirical descriptions in the modern scientific sense, their symbolic structures appear closely aligned with the conceptual patterns found in contemporary physics and cosmology. This raises the possibility that mythic language, through symbolism and allegory, may have encoded a form of intuitive cosmological structure that resonates with modern scientific descriptions of the early universe. And I for one, can’t help but think that maybe, just maybe, our ancient ancestors understood more about the origins of the cosmos and our place in it than what we gave them credit for.
Footnotes
1 Elementary particles can be divided into the three classes: 1) quarks (the building blocks of protons and neutrons), 2) leptons (the proto-electrons), and 3) bosons (often described as force particles). However, there is at least one more class of particles we don’t know enough about yet to categorise meaningfully.
2 Although it sounds a bit mythical, this phenomenon has been spotted in countless experiments, supporting the notion that the space-time vacuum state was seething with particles seemingly popping into existence out of nothing.
This essay draws on ideas from my books Living in a Quantum Reality and A Participatory Cosmos. For a deeper exploration of these ideas, consider purchasing your copy. To support the work you can subscribe to my Substack, or make a small donation.
Lieze Boshoff is an author and researcher exploring consciousness, metaphysics, and anomalous experience through the lenses of contemporary science, psychology, and philosophy. With a background in clinical psychology, neuropsychology, and doctoral research on consciousness and perception, her work examines reality as a participatory, holographic field in which mind and matter are inseparable. She writes at the intersection of science, symbolism, and the unseen, investigating how experience itself shapes the cosmos we inhabit.
DISCLAIMER: ◦ lieze ◡ boshoff ◦ is a proudly human-made publication and a 100% AI free. Every word is mine, but so is every grammar and spelling mistake. Thank you for reading an supporting my work.