How did the Big Bang happen?

[blü 2]

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

No.

 

[blü 2]

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?

Nothing need be next.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No.

Then what is good for you, don't need to be good for the world or me. Or so in reverse. Now make that objective! But you can't.
We are playing this:

Cognitive relativism consists of two claims:
(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;
(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.

Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
That is the end result of 2000+ year of philosophy, but you don't like that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nothing need be next.

Yes, because we are still subjective and your model doesn't account for that in the end as far as I can tell.

 

[ratiocinator]

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

I don't know, and neither does anybody else. We have no tested theories that can tell us. If you want some ideas, you could look at the relevant hypotheses, like string theory or loop quantum gravity, but they remain untested. What it can't be is just properties, like mass and energy, because there has to be something that has mass or energy.

And the main point remains, that (assuming general relativity is at least a good approximation) time and causality (in any usual sense) are entirely internal to the universe (or multiverse), so looking for an answer as to why it exists (even if there is one) in the past time direction is about as sensible as looking for the reason why the earth exists at the north pole.

 

[shunyadragon]

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?

No the subjective is without objective evidence by definition, 'of the mind only.'

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No the subjective is without objective evidence by definition, 'of the mind only.'

Yes, I know and if we remove all humans, there would be no definitions, because they are in the mind as meaning.

 

[Brian2]

Nobody knows what made it go bang since there are no evidence of creator or God or intelligent being that put it in motion.

No scientific evidence. But science is not the only way to knowledge or beliefs (which a lot of knowledge even in science seems to be).

 

[QuestioningMind]

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?

The precise cause of TBB is not currently known, though there are several hypothesis which we have yet to find a way to test. Until or unless we can find a means of testing them, these hypothesis will remain virtually useless. One such hypothesis is that some 'god being' did it... however, just like any other hypothesis, it is virtually useless unless we can find a reliable means of testing it.

 

[Brian2]

Before this universe expanded, what was here before? If there is empty space, that means something was here before our current universe.( like a universe before this one)

Maybe universe is reincarnating?

The universe cannot have been reincarnating from eternity or it would have had to have done it an infinite number of times.
I guess that means that time started with the Big Bang.

 

[Spirit of Light]

The universe cannot have been reincarnating from eternity or it would have had to have done it an infinite number of times.
I guess that means that time started with the Big Bang.

In my understanding( from spiritual practice) the universe has reincarnated at least 81 times. So that mean the big bang we know of is only one of many big bangs.

 

[Brian2]

In my understanding( from spiritual practice) the universe has reincarnated at least 81 times. So that mean the big bang we know of is only one of many big bangs.

But in that spiritual practice an eternity of time into the past seems illogical to me however because there would have been the need for eternity before any one of those reincarnations. ie, there is no way of reaching the starting point of any big bang if eternity has to be travelled through to reach that point.
I'm going to bed. It's 2.30 AM in Melbourne and my thinking and typing are starting to play up I'm sure.

 

[Valjean]

Yet? Science will never be able to explain the origin of existence. Im cool with that fact.

and man will never fly....

 

[shunyadragon]

But in that spiritual practice an eternity of time into the past seems illogical to me however because there would have been the need for eternity before any one of those reincarnations. ie, there is no way of reaching the starting point of any big bang if eternity has to be travelled through to reach that point.
I'm going to bed. It's 2.30 AM in Melbourne and my thinking and typing are starting to play up I'm sure.

There are no barriers to the possibility of an eternal past nor future. Simply all you have to do for an eternal past or future is something where ever the percieved end is in the past or the future. Roughly the definition of an infinite.

In Quantum Mechanics the Quantum world has no definable bounds.

 

[ppp]

There are no barriers to the possibility of an eternal past nor future. Simply all you have to do for an eternal past or future is something where ever the percieved end is in the past or the future. Roughly the definition of an infinite.

In Quantum Mechanics the Quantum world has no definable bounds.

Poppycock.
If there were no definable bounds then no mathematical models would be definable.

Also, the logical absolutes still apply.

 

[shunyadragon]

Poppycock.
If there were no definable bounds then no mathematical models would be definable.

Also, the logical absolutes still apply.

Infinites are definable in acience, useful, but of course, not necessary, because the existence nor non existence of the infinite cannot be falsified. Our physical existence is potentially infinite.

Infinity - Wikipedia
Infinity – often denoted by the symbol {\displaystyle \infty }

, ∞, or (in unicode) ∞ – represents something that is boundless or endless, or else something that is larger than any real or natural number.[1] Since the time of the ancient Greeks, the philosophical nature of infinity was the subject of many discussions among philosophers. In the 17th century, with the introduction of the infinity symbol[2] and the infinitesimal calculus, mathematicians began to work with infinite series and what some mathematicians (including l'Hôpital and Bernoulli)[3] regarded as infinitely small quantities, but infinity continued to be associated with endless processes.[4] As mathematicians struggled with the foundation of the calculus, it remained unclear whether infinity could be considered as a number or magnitude and, if so, how this could be done.[2]

At the end of the 19th century, Georg Cantor enlarged the mathematical study of infinity by studying infinite sets and infinite numbers, showing that they can be of various sizes.[2][5] For example, if a line is viewed as the set of all of its points, their infinite number (i.e. the cardinality of the line) is larger than the number of integers.[6] In this usage, infinity is a mathematical concept, and infinite mathematical objects can be studied, manipulated, and used just like any other mathematical object.

The mathematical concept of infinity refines and extends the old philosophical concept, in particular by introducing infinitely many different sizes of infinite sets. Among the axioms of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, on which most of modern mathematics can be developed, is the axiom of infinity, which guarantees the existence of infinite sets.[2] The mathematical concept of infinity and the manipulation of infinite sets are used everywhere in mathematics, even in areas such as combinatorics that may seem to have nothing to do with them. For example, Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem implicitly relies on the existence of very large infinite sets[7] for solving a long-standing problem that is stated in terms of elementary arithmetic.

 

[ppp]

In Quantum Mechanics the Quantum world has no definable bounds.

Infinites are definable in acience, useful, but of course, not necessary...

Even if there were "infinite" components to the quantum realm, the finite components would still represent definable bounds.
Also, the logical absolutes still apply. <--- definable bounds

, because the existence nor non existence of the infinite cannot be falsified.

If neither proposition can be falsified then you cannot say anything about them. Oy!

 

[King Phenomenon]

and man will never fly....

I already am

 

[osgart]

I am hard pressed to believe that the quantum world is well understood. At best it is far from complete. Any mention of quantum mechanical world creating our universe must be pure speculation.

Also many scientists simply ignore the BVG theorem because as Vilenkin says, " we must deal with a cosmic beginning.

https://inference-review.com/article/the-beginning-of-the-universe

So it is my hunch that people are inventing ways to circumvent and evade an ultimate cosmic beginning. Inventing non sensical intuitions as if qm is fully grasped.

Ditching cause and effect is probably premature as well.

 

[Magic Man]

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?

The claim isn't that there was nothing before the Big Bang. The claim is that all matter was condensed into a tiny, tiny mass, which then exploded. We don't know why it "exploded". They're trying to figure that out.

Now for my question. If the implication that something had to exist before the universe (because something can't come from nothing) and that something had to start the universe, then what existed before God, and then what existed before "pre-God"? And so on.