51–60 of 647 posts
> The Big Bang is often described as the explosive birth of the universe – a singular moment when space, time and matter sprang into existence. It is indeed "often described" in the media as such. However, that is _not_ the currently accepted theory. "What if there were no space and time before the Big Bang" is just Stephen Hawking's pet theory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no proof of "nothing " existing. Every observation we take, we see "something".
Than why do we need a beginning if there was always something.
But a cycling of a previous universe.
I was a little unclear on the ending, where he says this theory would place our entire universe "inside" a black hole of a parent universe.
All in all, it does seem to tie up some loose ends, and suggest some order to what previously required speculation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no proof of "nothing " existing. Every observation we take, we see "something".
Than why do we need a beginning if there was always something.
"Nothing" implies that something exists, this duality creates the universe.
Isn't time a human invention useful to model the nature? It's literally just a defined interaction as a reference, i.e. the sun rising up and going down which is the rotation of the earth. So IRL there's no time, there's no need to have a beginning or an end. Whatever happened when all the matter was close together isn't the beginning of anything, just a phase.
The hot dense universe caused our current cool universe, and not the other way around, which makes the two states of the universe quite different.
> The Big Bang is often described as the explosive birth of the universe – a singular moment when space, time and matter sprang into existence. It is indeed "often described" in the media as such. However, that is _not_ the currently accepted theory. "What if there were no space and time before the Big Bang" is just Stephen Hawking's pet theory.
Might as well believe in God if you’re going to believe in spontaneous accidental creation…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess that's a joke, but it's actually kind of serious that causality, personhood, identity, free will, etc. are all social constructs. They are useful to us, but every now and then it's helpful and humbling to remember it's a fiction we assign, rather than fundamental. Criminal justice or the concept of culpability is one of these areas. I know I've seen material by Robert Sapolsky, a neuroscientist who does not b…
You’re stating this as if determinism has been proven beyond a doubt which is not the case.
However I didn't just assume a lack of free will. I also assumed a lack of identity. Do you realize that who you are is socially defined? When you breathe in, the air in the room around you becomes part of you. When you breathe out, you lose certain gases. When you eat your food, similar story. There's a good case to be made that "you" are in the entire room or the entire food chain. That does make causality and culpability hard to assess objectively. When we do so, we do so subjectively.
Isn't time a human invention useful to model the nature? It's literally just a defined interaction as a reference, i.e. the sun rising up and going down which is the rotation of the earth. So IRL there's no time, there's no need to have a beginning or an end. Whatever happened when all the matter was close together isn't the beginning of anything, just a phase.
No, time is what the clock measures. Consciousness does not collapse the wave function meaning clocks exists without humans and time exists without humans.
It's useful because its quantifiable.