While we know how the universe has evolved over the last 13.8 billion years, scientists are still investigating exactly why the initial explosion occurred. Because space and time were created at the exact moment of the Big Bang, questioning what happened "before" it remains one of the greatest mysteries in modern physics.
"Cause and effect" is a foundation principle of science.
However, due to infinity regress, such foundation fails.
For every "why", there is another "why", making causation chain impossible to happen, because:
everything needs a cause to exist = cause must be outside "everything", which is logically impossible unless we assume supernatural.
the only thing thats left is uncaused cause, and such is supernatural too as it denies the foundation of science.
tho what uncaused cause is, is debated. Empty space is uncaused, but there is nothing in empty space so it cannot cause anything. Smallest possible things could be uncaused, and their combination forms other things which are caused by them.
However, they suffer from problem of infinite regress of time.
The Paradox of Infinity: Thinkers like William Lane Craig argue against the reality of an "actual infinity." If the past were infinite, you would have to cross an infinite amount of time to reach the present, which some argue is logically impossible.
the only "scientific solution" to this is that time had a beginning, and infinite past doesnt exist. But by taking such stance, it is not possible to explain why time even started, because "why" demands a cause which is not possible to happen before time existed.
FLRW wrote:
While we know how the universe has evolved over the last 13.8 billion years, scientists are still investigating exactly why the initial explosion occurred. Because space and time were created at the exact moment of the Big Bang, questioning what happened "before" it remains one of the greatest mysteries in modern physics.
If "space and time were created at the exact moment of the Big Bang", then there was no "before", the moment of the Big Bang and anything prior to that lies outside the space and time frame of reference of science. We can and have come close to the initial moment of creation, within trillionths and trillionths of a second, but by definition, we can't reach it scientifically, whatever the process was, it transcends the scientific frame of reference.
There are scientists working on theories of "everything from nothing", but those are futile because they involve a "process", and a process, bt definition, requires time and space for it to occur in.
The problem of a prior existence to the moment of creation is scientifically irreducible, but human beings have an inherent sense of wonder and we are constitutionally designed to question that prior existence. All science can say about that is that any prior existence you did postulate would have to be postulated as a given, it would necessarily transcend the scientific frame of reference, it would defy physical description since you could not apply the terms of time and space to it, and consequently, it would be rationally incomprehensible and logically transcendent. It would be a matter of having faith in a greater reality that our four dimensional exists within, this realm of being would necessarily be non-physical, and it would not be in any way subject to a logical "proof" within the scientific frame of reference.
This existence could only be described by analogy because words are relative things that can't adequately describe transcendent concepts. The "ultimate reality" being described would necessarily have to be timeless rather than everlasting, universally present rather than infinite in space, uncaused and therefore eternally changeless. This would all have to fall completely outside the realm of science because objective knowledge of it would be impossible, it could not be approached from any ordinary, finite point of reference, and therefore it could never be fully grasped in any fixed form.
This is not to say it cannot be conceived of, or that it does not exist, and I would like to point out that in all times and places that human beings have been known to exist, the vast majority of mankind has postulated just such an entity as existing, and in general they have in described it in much the same way.
Explain no space.
Space and Time are simply intangible potentials, and as such do not need creating.
It is only stuff that needs to appear from nowhere.
And there wasn't a "bang"...Just silence...As ears hadn't been invented.
And what was "big" relative to?...Given the infinite potential of space, it might have been relatively small.
Well, we know what happened before The Big Bang Club !
Well, we know what happened before The Big Bang Club !
So good, you said it twice.
SD...If "space and time were created at the exact moment of the Big Bang", then there was no "before", the moment of the Big Bang and anything prior to that lies outside the space and time frame of reference of science.
Macro-infinite truly non-occupied space and dynamic, finite occupied space Universe @ eternally exist.
What exists outside of beyond{ meta } the above primary, Cosmic Two-ness existence is Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and sometimes ego.
This above is the Cosmic Trinary Set/Outline/Table of Contents.
None have or ever will add to this above Cosmic Trinary set, nor will anyone ever identify and catagory that does not exist in one of more of the above Cosmic Trinary Set. Few have tried and failed
...> meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and sometimes ego
---- conceptual line of demarcation ----
..> macro-infinite, truly non-occupied space ......space......
...> dynamic, transformative, finite, occupied space Universe .....space.....@....space......
Potential only applies to what can emerge from the finite, occupied space Universe. This is because there and eternally existent, finite set of eternally inviolate physical laws and cosmic principles.
Ex five and five regular/symmetrical and convex polyhedra is an eternally inviolate, Cosmic Principle.
The scenario of beginning of spacetime stems from gravitational convegency to a singularity aka null { incomplete } geodesic trajectories of a photon inside a black hole. .......(---> o <----)...... and what a math does not always represent is what exists, or does not exist in our finite occupied space Universe.
Sabine Hossenfelder Blog Spot...."Most physicists believe that the singularity in black holes is not real, but that it is instead of the same type as the other singularities in physics. That is, it just signals that the theory, in this case general relativity, breaks down and to make meaningful predictions, one needs a better theory. For the black hole singularity, that better theory would be a theory for the quantum behavior of space and time, a theory of “quantum gravity” as it’s called. ".... https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/12/are-singularities-real.html
And it was S Hawking suggesting that the Universe....AI Reddit -->..' The association between the universe and black holes stems from his early work with physicist Roger Penrose. They proved mathematically that if you run time backward for our expanding universe, it collapses into a point of infinite density and zero volume called a singularity. This is essentially the exact same mathematical description as the center of a black hole, leading Hawking to point out that the universe began as an "exploding black hole" in reverse '.....
Duhh, I forgot the Lynch part. So above is the post I meant for you also
A good argument for intelligent design if you take things to their logical conclusions.
I still don’t know what to type!
Logical conclusions always breakdown at the point of creation...And this includes an intelligent designer.
Floaty about forever bloke isn't logical.
Logical conclusions always breakdown at the point of creation
Who ever created --discovered and expressed-- the Cosmic Principle of five and only five regular/symmetrical and convex polyhedra is not incorrect --" breakdown"-- does not apply with this principle. None have or every will offer a logical, evidence based contridiction to this principle. Simple.
Finite sets and limits of our eternally existent, finite Universe does not sit well with some people. Worse is those blokes who offer us unverified infinite this that or other, that is not:
1} the macro-infinite truly non-occupied space outside/beyond/meta the finite occupied space Universe,
2} meta-space concepts of infinite set of numbers, this that or other. A concept is not an occupied space. Meta-space concepts stem from human experiences of occupied space parts of Universe.
....2a} there exist --and never will-- no occupied space infinite set of numbers in the sky or elsewhere.
There exist no purple polka dot, biological unicorns, mass produced in a Toyota factory, and sold to a non-existent infinite set of robot fetuses/babies, that exist inside uranium based elements robots created from elements beyond transuranium 142.
Limits exist to what can exist in occupied space Universe. Resistance is futile (:--) O (--:)
This vid with Neil Torok London Institute for Mathematical Sciences may come closer to epitimozing a phrase Ive said often enough, ..logical, common sense critical thinking... > ..... New Testable Theory of Universe....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlP-12yc2f8
Here is another author in cohoots with Neil Turok --who does believe in evidential existence of Dark Energy, just to be clear-- in their CPT symmetrical Universe ideas using the known physical laws that do not include the commonly used inflation moded. And again, this does not appear to dissuade n Turok from belief in Dark Energy, that some refer to early inflation model as Dark Inflation. If such did happen I address in one of my scenarios Ive posted here somewhere in the past.
Before the Big Bang God existed and was in control of the Big Bang.
