How did the Big Bang happen?

[mikkel_the_dane]

@Amanaki

Now in practice for the everyday world we are apparently all a part of, there are certain aspects of science in practice you can't avoid. But what you can learn is to differentiate between science in practice and science as a worldview. The latter is a belief system and that is the soft spot in some non-religious believers. They can't separate science in practice with science as a world view.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, old friend, I do NOT believe in my hypotheses ─ which I've clearly labelled 'hypotheses' ─ in any way that equates to a belief in God. I defend my speculations only by observing that they're not ruled out by what we know.

Whereas, at this date, a real God is indeed ruled out by what we know.
1

No, because your claim to knowledge is subjective. That is what you don't get.

 

[ratiocinator]

But to my mind mass-energy must have pre-existed the Big Bang, since mass-energy appears to have been the entire contents of the Big Bang at Time Zero. The idea of mass-energy coming into being ex nihilo is so utterly, so fathomlessly inexplicable that it must be at the bottom of any list of possibilities.

Both mass and energy are properties of things, they are not things in themselves. If general relativity is broadly correct, then it's possible that the idea of "pre-existing" the big bang may be literally nonsensical because the past timelike direction would be finite. There would be the space-time manifold with a finite past direction through it. If there is a reason for its existence, then it may have nothing at all to do with the big bang.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Both mass and energy are properties of things, they are not things in themselves. If general relativity is broadly correct, then it's possible that the idea of "pre-existing" the big bang may be literally nonsensical because the past timelike direction would be finite. There would be the space-time manifold with a finite past direction through it. If there is a reason for its existence, then it may have nothing at all to do with the big bang.

I like it, when you play naturalistic scientific theology/philosophy and debate the scientific version of "How many angels can stand on the point of a pin?"

 

[blü 2]

No, because your claim to knowledge is subjective. That is what you don't get.

I know there's no definition appropriate to a real God. That's why no test will tell me whether my keyboard is God or not.

And I know a reasonable amount about the world external to me.

My knowledge is (often enough) functional. It cruises happily past Agrippa's trilemma on the fourth option ─ it works.

You can call it subjective ─ or epistemologically unsound ─ or Alice Wallace, call it what you will.

It works. It encounters, and deals with, and has a fair and increasing understanding of that world.

 

[blü 2]

Both mass and energy are properties of things, they are not things in themselves.

What do you say was in the Big Bang at Time Zero?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I know there's no definition appropriate to a real God. That's why no test will tell me whether my keyboard is God or not.

And I know a reasonable amount about the world external to me.

My knowledge is (often enough) functional. It cruises happily past Agrippa's trilemma on the fourth option ─ it works.

You can call it subjective ─ or epistemologically unsound ─ or Alice Wallace, call it what you will.

It works. It encounters, and deals with, and has a fair and increasing understanding of that world.

Yes, it works for you. But that is not the world. That is you and the world.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What do you say was in the Big Bang at Time Zero?

Fairies, tea pots and invisible dragons.

 

[Polymath257]

What do you say was in the Big Bang at Time Zero?

It is quite possible that only T>0 is allowed and not T=0.

 

[shunyadragon]

If we look at the Big Bang theory. ( not the Tv series)
Most of the science community say everything started with the bang.

Actually no bang. Scientists do not support 'everything started with the expansion of our universe. The Quantum World existed before the expansion of our universe Scientists consider it a possibility that that the universe began as a singuality or it is cyclic expanding and coontracting. The present dominante view in science is that our universe is a part of a multiverse containing all possible universes.

But what made it go Bang? If there is no creator or God or intelligent being that put it in motion.
If there was nothing before the big bang. What made it go bang?

Again it did not go Bang. It is actually possible that our universe is cyclic and eternal.The cause of the origin of our universe lies in the Quantum Mechanics nature of the Quantum World our universe expanded into.The science of cosmology and physics is indifferent to whether God is involved. Science just deals with the objective verifiable evidence, and theory of the origins of our universe.

What was in the space we today know as the universe?

At present the unverse expanded into a matrix Quantum World of Quantum Mechanics. Possibly from a singularity The expansion of our universe created a time/space world of our universe and all possible universes.

Can there be a nothing or a void if there was nothing there before?

The Quantum World with Quantum Gravity. Actually not nothing, but oftern misnamed as Quantum Nothing.

 

[shunyadragon]

The theoretical physics hypotheses beyond a certain point back in time are not supported by evidence. That is why it is theoretical physics. The hypotheses are not supported by evidence and none of them has been tested, because they can't be tested based on current abilities.

Actually based on our current knowledge the origins of our universe may be tested based on Quantum Mechanics. Granted there are a number of possible options for the origin of our universe, and many unknowns, but we are not entirely clueless as to the origins of our unicverse.

When you see the foot prints in the snow you do not have to see the animal that made the footprints.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Actually based on our current knowledge the origins of our universe may be tested based on Quantum Mechanics. Granted there are a number of possible options for the origin of our universe, and many unknowns, but we are not entirely clueless as to the origins of our unicverse.

When you see the foot prints in the snow you do not have to see the animal that made the footprints.

No, but that in the end doesn't tell what animal it is.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, but that in the end doesn't tell what animal it is.

Actually they can tell, because different animals have different foot prints.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Actually they can tell, because different animals have different foot prints.

Unless it wasn't actually an animal. If you want to be correct, it is what appears to be the footprints of an animal. The rest is inference and not evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

Unless it wasn't actually an animal. If you want to be correct, it is what appears to be the footprints of an animal. The rest is inference and not evidence.

Actually no, you have a dispute here with thousands of years of hunters throughout the history of humanity who depended on food being able to track the right animal for food. As a scientist and experienced in hunting, field work in Geology , soil science, and Dendrology your assertions appear to that of a city slicker that has not seen the natural world beyond a city park. I can identify every different animal based on their tracks. There are actually books you can use if you want to learn how. I learned in the field and wilderness by the objective verifiable evidence of animals and their tracks.

Your line of reasoning is oddly ridiculous. It oddly resembles the bogus Creationist argument of: If you were not personally there, 'How would you know?'

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Actually no, you have a dispute here with thousands of years of hunters throughout the history of humanity who depended on food being able to track the right animal for food. As a scientist and experienced in hunting, field work in Geology , soil science, and Dendrology your assertions appear to that of a city slicker that has not seen the natural world beyond a city park. I can identify every different animal based on their tracks. There are actually books you can use if you want to learn how. I learned in the field and wilderness by the objective verifiable evidence of animals and their tracks.

Your line of reasoning is oddly ridiculous. It oddly resembles the bogus Creationist argument of: If you were not personally there, 'How would you know?'

No, you just show me the observation of the Big Bang and you are doing science. What you are doing now, is philosophy.
I accept the red shift and all that. I accept biology, because we can observe it in real life. I accept a lot of thing science say, but I don't accept theoretical physics as facts, because it is called theoretical physics for a reason.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, you just show me the observation of the Big Bang and you are doing science. What you are doing now, is philosophy.
I accept the red shift and all that. I accept biology, because we can observe it in real life. I accept a lot of thing science say, but I don't accept theoretical physics as facts, because it is called theoretical physics for a reason.

This carries forward your ridiculous line of reasoning concerning how scientce works in reality. The falsificaltion of theories and hypothesis are NOT facts in physics and cosmolgy, and not biology. 'Show mw' does not work in any science including Biology. No you cannot simply 'observe' everything in Biology.

Science does not 'say' things.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This carries forward your ridiculous line of reasoning concerning how scientce works in reality. The falsificaltion of theories and hypothesis are NOT facts in physics and cosmolgy, and not biology. 'Show mw' does not work in any science including Biology. No you cannot simply 'observe' everything in Biology.

Science does not 'say' things.

Here is a link by Heyo: An introduction to cosmological inflation

From the start: ...which postulates...

Now I get how science works in practice. And I get that theoretical physics is a part of science, but it is not the same as say evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

Here is a link by Heyo: An introduction to cosmological inflation

From the start: ...which postulates...

Now I get how science works in practice. And I get that theoretical physics is a part of science, but it is not the same as say evolution.

It still remains your posts indicate a warped layman's understanding of science.

Yes, . . . which postualtes is a beginning point in ALL sciences.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It still remains your posts indicate a warped layman's understanding of science.

Yes, . . . which postualtes is a beginning point in ALL sciences.

Yes, it is a belief system. It is a form of philosophy, where you have to accept as dogmatic a certain set of assumptions, which functions as beliefs, which can't be questioned. I get it.