How did the Big Bang happen?

[shunyadragon]

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.

I accept NO dogmatic set of assumptions on anything. This goes along with:It still remains your posts indicate a warped layman's understanding of science.

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

No it is not a 'belief system, and this goes along with a warped layman religous perception of science. Belief systems are based on subjective philosophical beliefs without objective verifaible evidence to make consistent predictions in science.

 

[Polymath257]

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

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

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

Well, part of the problem here is one of terminology. For example, if our 'universe' is part of a larger 'multiverse', then the question of causality makes sense and the best guesses based on what we know is that it was a quantum event, which are uncaused and probabilistic.

There is also a possibility that there were previous 'universes'. So, we could have a cyclic model with cycles of expansion and contraction or simply a previous universe that was contracting. In these, the current expansion was caused by a 'bounce' from the previous states.

Another basic problem is that we simply don't have any evidence to decide which of several competing descriptions is correct. The issue seems to be how to unify our ideas of gravity with those of quantum mechanics and, to date, NONE of our attempts to unify those has produced a testable theory. So, in this regard *everything* is speculation based on no evidence except consistency with what we know about our universe.

So we have a basic split in possible explanations:

1. There *is* something 'before the Big Bang'

2. There is nothing 'before the Big Bang'

In BOTH of these scenarios, it is better to consider BOTH space and time as aspects of a larger spacetime. This spacetime is a *four* dimensional manifold.

And the point is that time is *inside* of this manifold. So there literally is no 'before' this manifold existed.

It simply exists.

Also, causality is a property of natural laws, which only apply *inside* of this manifold. So to ask for a cause of this manifold is also non-sense. Causality simply does not apply here.

In this sense, the universe (or multiverse) of spacetime 'simply exists' and is not 'caused'.

So, in the model where the Big Bang is the 'start', there is literally nothing before the Big Bang: it is like asking what is north of the north pole. The question assumes that time can be extended past spacetime (like the question on the north pole assumes that north can be extended past the north pole).

The basic mystery of why *anything* exists remains, of course. But that is another question.

 

[shunyadragon]

The basic mystery of why *anything* exists remains, of course. But that is another question.

A philosophical question why?

 

[Polymath257]

A philosophical question why?

Yep. A discussion best had with drinks and friends, but of little actual value.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I accept NO dogmatic set of assumptions on anything. This goes along with:It still remains your posts indicate a warped layman's understanding of science.

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

No it is not a 'belief system, and this goes along with a warped layman religous perception of science.

Well, you are dogmatic in your beliefs to the degree that your beliefs are not beliefs. I get that. You are right and I am wrong. The joke about that, is that I have been doing it for over 20 years now and I am still here.
And I have been told with different true reasons, which contradicts each other, that I am wrong and that I am already in effect dead or gone to Hell.
It gets old. But you know what. That you can't deal with relativism, is a part of relativism. And that you have to believe in an orderly universe as with positive and coherent answers for everything, is on you. I just do limited cognitive, moral and cultural relativism and observe that I can get away with it. See, I can test something using science.

Can I observe that we can think and understand parts of the universe differently? Yes! It is that simple!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yep. A discussion best had with drinks and friends, but of little actual value.

To you. Now please only with objectivity show that it is so. But you can't.

 

[Hawkins]

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

Science has already given up to begin with. Whatever theory humans can come up with is not falsifiable. That is, if a theory is true, science can't tell. If a theory is false, science can't tell either.

Like a history, humans actually rely on testimonies to get to a historical truth. So if a God witnessed an event long before humans are born, then naturally humans need to go through this God to get to such a truth.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, you are dogmatic in your beliefs to the degree that your beliefs are not beliefs. I get that. You are right and I am wrong. The joke about that, is that I have been doing it for over 20 years now and I am still here.

No, unfortunate miss use of domatic. By the accepted layman and scientific definitions beliefs are subjective and lack objective verifiable evidence to falsifiable theory nor hypothesis.

And I have been told with different true reasons, which contradicts each other, that I am wrong and that I am already in effect dead or gone to Hell.

No meaning here.

It gets old. But you know what. That you can't deal with relativism, is a part of relativism. And that you have to believe in an orderly universe as with positive and coherent answers for everything, is on you. I just do limited cognitive, moral and cultural relativism and observe that I can get away with it. See, I can test something using science.

Again no meaning here.

Can I observe that we can think and understand parts of the universe differently? Yes! It is that simple!

Huh?!? Bizzaro!!!!! at best.

 

[blü 2]

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

Of course it's the world.

And it works.

How else do I know you exist in it?

 

[blü 2]

Fairies, tea pots and invisible dragons.

That's why I think my system is better'n yours.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, unfortunate miss use of domatic. By the accepted layman and scientific definitions beliefs are subjective and lack objective verifiable evidence to falsifiable theory nor hypothesis.

...

Huh?!? Bizzaro!!!!! at best.

Now combine the 2 paragraphs and you have stated with science that a part of the universe is Bizzaro!!! That is the evidence for my line of reasoning and you delivered it.
Now please in strict scientific terms denote the scientific terms for Bizzaro!!!

I have do it for so long, that I know when your kind answers with non-science. And that is Bizzaro!!!, because you should answer differently. Namely with science! But you never do.

 

[blü 2]

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

Hmm. If the universe doesn't exist until START+n, wouldn't that mean the universe didn't have a start?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course it's the world.

And it works.

How else do I know you exist in it?

So the world is you and me as one? As the world, singular?

 

[shunyadragon]

To you. Now please only with objectivity show that it is so. But you can't.

The objective predictable evidence found in Quantum Mechanics, can falsify hypothesis and prediction concerning the origins of our universe and the possibility of a multiverse. You are being dogmatic demanding absolutes from the perspective of science. Of course, science does not 'Know' how the universe began nor the existence of the multiverse, but the contemporary theories and hypothesis are fasifiable, and as more information results more predictive hypothesis may develop.

Regardless of what your religious beliefs are you are 'arguing from ignorance' in a very very similar way that fundi Christians argue against evolution, abiogenesis, and a physical existence billions of years old.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's why I think my system is better'n yours.

Yeah, I know. Yours is better and mine is worse and yet I am still here. I have been doing this for over 20 years now. And your kind always end there. So what is next, if we both can do it differently?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The objective predictable evidence found in Quantum Mechanics, can falsify hypothesis and prediction concerning the origins of our universe and the possibility of a multiverse. You are being dogmatic demanding absolutes from the perspective of science. Of course, science does not 'Know' how the universe began nor the existence of the multiverse, but the contemporary theories and hypothesis are fasifiable, and as more information results more predictive hypothesis may develop.

No! In the end I demand scientific evidence for Bizzaro!!! as a part of the physical and objective universe. That is my end game. I always drag your kind down to the subjective as a part of the universe and observe what happens next.

 

[shunyadragon]

No! In the end I demand scientific evidence for Bizzaro!!! as a part of the physical and objective universe. That is my end game. I always drag your kind down to the subjective as a part of the universe and observe what happens next.

Your end game is a personal assertion and not science. Science does not have an end game.

No dragging allowed, The conclusions of science are not subjective by definition. The subjective by definition is without evidence and predictability as in philosophy and theology..

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your end game is a personal assertion and not science. Science does not have an end game.

No dragging allowed, The conclusions of science are not subjective by definition. The subjective by definition is without evidence and predictability as in philosophy and theology..

No! The subjective is with evidence, because the "No!" is subjective and you can observe it. I can predict that as long as you can't differentiate between objective, intersubjective and subjective I can in fact as long as I live and my brain/body functions continue to be subjective and answer: No!!!
See! No!!! No!!! No!!! No!!!

How do you explain, that people can subjectively disagree with you?

 

[Polymath257]

To you. Now please only with objectivity show that it is so. But you can't.

I don't need to. Value is a subjective measurement.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't need to. Value is a subjective measurement.

As long as you then don't claim a "we", that you don't have objective authority over, I will stop for now.