/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14815627
We know that about 13 billion years ago the universe was about a thousand times denser than it is today. That's what the "big bang" means. It means the universe went from a primordial hot-and-dense state to the current state. All the evidence we have says the process is continuing, and the universe is becoming less dense over time at an accelerating rate.

>>14815649
okay, but that's considered to be the beginning of the universe, right? so what was before that? nothing at all?

>>14815654
The concept of "before" doesn't make any sense when you start talking about the beginning of the universe. TIME originated there as well as space and matter. Asking what was "before" the beginning of the universe is like asking what's north of the north pole. There's no there there.

>>14815660
but how can there be no time and then suddenly time, or no matter and then suddenly matter? how can the complete absence of anything then give rise to something, and what caused it to happen?

>>14815672
Thinking of it as an "absence of anything" is based on the idea of some kind of empty void. There was no void. The universe, including all of space and time, originated with the Big Bang.

>>14815649
>We know
How? Explain it if you can.

>>14815688
but how did it start and what caused it? in the first second of the universe, why was what was happening happening?

>>14815692
Cosmic microwave background.
>>14815698
It didn't "start" because to think of it as "starting" you have to posit a time outside spacetime that can be divided into before and after. We're talking about the origin of the entire universe here, including time.

>>14815715
Okay, so I understand that there can't have been anything "before" to cause it, because time hadn't started. But in the first measurable period of time in the universe, why was that there? Why wasn't there something else, or nothing? I still don't understand the logic behind something starting without a cause

>>14815654
It males sense if you think of it in terms of a booting up. An influx of information that establishes the space and time of the VR. After the run button was pushed, the universe unfolded as an evolving probability distribution of possible outcomes of observation on a hilbert space hard drive (idealization) as internal calculations until the first entity arose which could interface with a non-local unit of consciousness which then was able to make a choice between two states (create information, resolve uncertainty) and define spacetime values. At that point the first selection of a possible history was chosen and then the evolution of possible and instantiated states evolved from there as a combination of possible and actually instantiated outcomes.

>>14815688
that happened for "our" Universe, not the "place" it originated from.

>>14815727
You're looking for a guess, they're telling you the consensus on the subject

>>14815734
There is no such place.

>>14815745
ahahah, yeah, right. What OP doesn't understand is the point. What put that in motion, why it reached that stage that caused the big bag. While it's true the no time only space before, it's for our universe, not the place it comes from, as I said. I can provide much data about it, but if you want I can do my best explaining it. It's technically ass-pull, but it makes sense to me.

>>14815745
Why not?

>>14815753
obviously *Bang and *I can't . Sorry, I type too fast and don't reread.

https://rumble.com/v1idk5n-breaking-okeefe-questions-trinity-school-director-jen-norris-over-how-she-p.html

>>14815734
It happens in spacetime, but the causation is outside of spacetime (non-local). Just as bell type correlations are outside of spacetime, hence why they defy the speed of light why still obeying the no communication theorem. This is again an artifact of the physical world being virtual, as the processing of the virtual space and time and the spatially organized computational objects within the space within the space (matter) must come from outside the virtual world. The computer can not be inside that which it computes and must be outside/non-local, of/to the virtual world. So the virtual world will always appear to the players immersed in it to have come from nowhere and nothing WITHIN the system. The causation is from without.

>>14815627
There wasn't necessarily nothing before the big bang, nor was there necessarily a "before" the big bang. The big bang is just the point at which the fundamental laws of our reality break down and cannot be drawn back any further.

>>14815764
Time and space are not quantized, they're continuous.

>>14815758
Let me tell you why he's wrong. I used this example before and it's the best I can come up with so far. For a character in a videogame that would try to understand where he comes from, he would not be able to determine anything before the first installation of the OS, for him, the time between the first installation and the before is...INFINITE. Think about it. Our universe is something like that. Then we can think how the "server" is like and things like that, but that's the first step one needs to understand.

>>14815764
why you write this to me? Also, can you link me your other replies please?

>>14815780
How about if the character dreams something thats out of those servers or OS, or would they actually be part of the server/OS ?
>just exploring

>>14815627
time is a flat circle

>>14815780
I know this isn't your point, but wouldn't one potential explanation for this be the simulation theory, with the start of the universe being the start of the simulation?

>>14815806
That's why they say it's a simulation, outside of some people that love the idea of someone simulating us, which can't be obviously rule out, but I really doubt considering the magnitude of the effort and the apparent lack of purpose (obviously wild guess in already wild guess). More likely, it's just for self-necessity, if there's everything in an infinite space, we must exist at least once. That makes more sense than a timeless void to. Programming also helped me understanding some things about our laws of physics...There's no reason they must be like that, I mean, and this is key, every thing the happened just after the Big Bang follow rules that were created (or set) before the Big Bang itself. They could be some sort of random seeds in an infinite iteration.

>>14815764
>speed of light is a universal limit for no known reason
Not true. The speed of light is what it is because of the fine-structure constant and the Planck length being what they are.
These are mysteries, but it could be that there are other universes with different and random values for the fine-structure constant, most of which don't allow stable matter or life to exist, and we're simply lucky enough to exist in a universe with a value that does

>>14815774
No they are not. The scale is just at such a fine level that it appears that way.

>>14815884
Plank length is not a real thing, it's just the smallest unit of measurement we can say anything about mathematically.

>>14815660
literally "I copied my opinion and lingo from wikipedia" the post.

>>14815884
There are many continuous symmetries and Lorentz invariances that need to be continuous (not have discrete structure) for physics to work. The universe literally can not be discrete, or put on a sort of pixelated lattice like you seem to think is the case.

>doesn't understand ANYTHING at all about the earliest moments in the universe
>literally EVERY single law used today breaks down
>has the ARROGANCE to claim it doesn't make sense to question the beginning of the universe at the same time

L
FUCKING
MAO

>>14815893
>Plank length is not a real thing, it's just the smallest unit of measurement we can say anything about mathematically
It's the smallest possible defined value, correct. You can not have half a pixel. This is the resolution. This also takes care of zeno's paradoxes by the way.

>>14815941
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics

>>14815649
>we
Who is we?

>>14815800
No, keeping this logic, the character can't see anything outside of its world, can't perceive it and probably can't comprehend it. I doubt there would be a way to extract him as well, he can't live outside the code that "governs" him.

>>14815916
Yes, I am aware that there are mathematical models of assumed continuousness and continuous functions overlayed on the physical world which are capable of making predictions. I am talking about the ONTIC nature of the universe though. I am not talking about what SEEMS to be the case to the players immersed in the reality. I am also not talking about what has utility to the players for making predictions about the virtual world. All virtual worlds SEEM to those immersed in the gameplay (us, the consciousnesses in the case of the physical world) to be continuous until you zoom in. We are not zooming in to an arbitrary degree. We are not even close to doing this in terms of planck units. And time also SEEMS to be continuous if the refresh rate is fast enough, UNLESS the processing load is to high, such as during time time dilation. See vid. It's all time stamped for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiZLlpqAQ7U&t=236s

>>14815957
Yes, I think that the digital physics approach is the right model. Tom campbell's model is the best model, as it put's consciousness outside of spacetime (non-local) and so it avoids consciousness being a simulated thing. Then consciousness becomes the fundamental thing, and the physical world is the virtual thing, which gets rendered as a data stream in minds.

>>14816085
The wiki article explicitly explains why it is wrong.

>>14816096
No it doesn't. It explains why it doesn't fit with a certain belief systems that says that the mathematical models that players immersed in the virtual reality called the physical world came up with to make predictions in the virtual world, are describing the world to a degree of arbitrary precision. This is not the case. The continuous model of space is a model and has utility at particular resolutions of reality. It is just an approximation though and says nothing about physical reality at the fundamental level. see pic
Here is a good vid that talks about continuous vs discrete functions and the mechanics of computing reality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYjYhLUGHqI&t=103s

>>14815627
That something not having a beginning would be God so no atheists cannot accept that regardless of evidence

>>14816147
A beginning to the universe implies the need for a creator. Something must boot the system up. It can not push the run button itself, as this would mean it had to exist before it's own beginning.

>>14815627
>>once upon a time there was nothing
No one says this. You created this strawman of of nothing.

>>14816189
Not if that creation includes time itself. There's no before/after causality without time.

>>14816202
So at no point in time, time and space created itself and all matter in the universe

>>14816202
The spacetime of this reality is virtual. Hence why it can slow down under high processing loads (time dilation). Real, objective self existent time would not do that. This is the frame rate slowing. I do believe in a more fundamental time though, one of consciousness. An outer time. And so all virtual realities begin with a boot up which also boots up the virtual time and space of the system. So there is a first delta t of planck time. There is a first definable event.frame of time in THIS reality. So yes, there is no 'before' the boot up in THIS physical reality. That says nothing about temporal constraints on the creator, which likely has not any temporal constraints, no beginning or end. This (the creator being temporally constrained/finite) would lead to infinite temporal regress of temporally constraint/finite contingent entities.The entity which booted up this reality (the physical world) is not inside the virtual space or time constraint of the physical world. He couldn't be, or else this would mean he created/booted himself up, which is illogical. He would have to exist before his own creation. The creator is non-local, ie outside of spacetime, as all minds are. And our consciousness is also outside spacetime by the way, and not virtual, and only interacts with spacetime (the virtual world) via immersion. Here is a good vid on infinite regress of contingent beings if you are interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKKIvmcO5LQ

A young earth type of situation is also possible. So I am not wedded to the idea of the 13.7 billion years ago. The pre-consciousness history could be simulated probabilistically, as long as the rendered history doesn't conflict with the current state in terms of consistant history. And so a sort of procedural generation of what the probable past would have been given the current state. So upon measurement, render to the observer what would be the probable past.

>>14815884
You are a retard, please stop posting

>>14816263
>The spacetime of this reality is virtual
Stopped reading there

>>14816268
This is not an argument. Nice try though. You have to actually elaborate a counter argument.

>>14816278
Planck units define the limitations of our mathematical models, not the limits of reality, reality does not operate with numbers, it does not think with ones and zeroes, it can't be subdivided into discrete parts unless you are willing to do so infinitely, which is redundant and retarded

>>14816274
>Stopped reading there
Ok. I would suggest that you should not enter into debates if you don't have the ability to formulate arguments though. In terms of space being virtual, your first clue should have been bell type correlations. This suggest causation is coming from out side of spacetime and that spacetime is emergent, ie not fundamental. And both leading theories of quantum gravity have spacetime being emergent from underlying NON-LOCAL (outside of spacetime) quantum information processing. Entanglement and bell type correlations make perfect sense in a virtual world. All points in virtual space are equadistant to the processor.

>>14815654
singularity existed for the smallest fraction of time possible and then exploded in all directions, birthing timespace. Before that there was nothing and it didnt exist for no time because thats nothing by definition.

We know the universe can rebirth or give birth to new songularities.

So this whole premise is stupid and i see it all the time ond sci. Learn more about astronomy.

Realise that the universe always was in some form. There was no nothing before the big bang, but anotger similar existence.

>>14816307
I don't debate with the simulation religion

>>14816283
>Planck units define the limitations of our mathematical models
Yeah, the continuous/classical models will of course break down including GR and spacetime, as they have in all cases, ultra violet catastrophe, photo electric effect etc, as I said here.
>>14816066
The continuous models are approximations that have utility in certain situations and certain scales, but they are not describing fundamental reality, which is discrete/digital.
>reality does not operate with numbers
This is your metaphysical assumption. Mine is that it is both calculable and calculated and computable. I believe number 3 in picrel to be the case
>it does not think with ones and zeroes
True, the physical universe does not think at all. It is an output of processing. Spatially organized computational (virtual) objects don't think. They don't even have observer independent existence. The only thinking things related to the physical universe are the consciousnesses immersed in the gameplay, which are outside the virtual space and only interface with the spacetime through immersion.

>It can't be subdivided into discrete parts unless you are willing to do so infinitely.

There is a resolution. The planck length volume pixel. And yes, it's true that you can't divide forever. There is no half a pixel. This is an argument in my favor. There are no zeno's paradoxes. In digital physics.

>>14816345
actually here
>Mine is that it is both calculable and calculated and computable
This is actually not an assumption. In terms of the physical world being calculable. Whether or not it is being calculated is a metaphysical assumption. Or maybe not. There's certainly evidence of the fact that is a product of calculation, like that there are only definable values with regard to observables upon observation at the quantum level. So reality is rendered as needed.

>>14816324
Smart move on your part

>>14816324
You will lose. If you thought you had any sort of argument, you would present the argument. The actual religion is that material reality is observer independent with stand alone existence. This has been consistently been shown not to be the case since bells theorem when he showed that no local hidden variable theory can ever reproduce the predictions of QM. And so reality is non-local. And so spacetime is not fundamental, and neither are the objects in it, it/there is/are derivative.

>>14815715
>Cosmic microwave background.
Not a valid data source. It's all made up out of noise.

>>14816372
Kek

So... if the universe was around like 13 billion years ago, what was around 20 billion or 100 billion or 1000 billion or 1,000,000,000 billion years ago...?
Nothing, what?

>>14816399
God.

>>14816389
>argument not found
lame. Shouldn't enter into debates if you don't have the goods.

>>14816399
Since time itself began at the instance of the big bang that is a meaningless question.

>>14816419
Time is a measure of something. By its definition there must be a "before" if there is an "after." Only timeless beings are exempt.

>>14816423
>began at the instance

>>14816416
Kek I literally said I don't get into debates with religious people

>>14816470
The argument is about the physical world and spacetime. You are just copping out by calling it religious because you have no argument.

>>14816485
NTA, but it became religious when you waved away the fact that the math doesn't add up and started talking about consciousness existing outside of spacetime and the like. Fermilab's holographic universe experiment already disproved half of what you're suggesting. ...and Zeno's Paradox is resolved by convergence, a decided analog phenomenon.

>>14816512
>NTA, but it became religious when you waved away the fact that the math doesn't add up
I didn't say that math didn't add up. What does that even mean? Quote the post.
>started talking about consciousness existing outside of spacetime and the like
Where is consciousness located in spacetime? What are it's dimensions? Not brains by the way. Obviously brains exist in spacetime.
> Fermilab's holographic universe experiment already disproved half of what you're suggesting
Bullshit. Make the argument yourself. Don't just tell me so and so proved this and that. Either elaborate your own personal argument or you are just hand waving. And solve the hard problem of consciousness while you are at it if you want to claim brains cause consciousness or can somehow account for consciousness.

>>14816485
It's a religion because there is no direct evidence and just handwavy bullshit the same as christfags give. You believe it because you have faith in it, not because of a proof.

>>14816543
>Bullshit. Make the argument yourself. Don't just tell me so and so proved this and that. Either elaborate your own personal argument or you are just hand waving. And solve the hard problem of consciousness while you are at it if you want to claim brains cause consciousness or can somehow account for consciousness.
You make your argument. Where's your proof that the planck distance is real and not a mathematical abstraction? Do you do much SEM? What's the angular resolution on your images?

>>14816554
my proof is i can kick your pinche ass
don't fuck with me, i'm loco

>>14816570
Choke on my big dick

>>14816316
>smallest fraction of time possible
Meds right now

>>14816345
Take your meds Mandlbaur

Anon, one day you'll learn that there are somethings that are just best not to think about. I was once a physics major, I changed to CS because the "big questions" constantly posed by physics were fucking with my mental health.

>>14816605
Imagine thinking Mandlbaur continued reading Halliday and Resnick past the angular momentum chapter.

>>14816554
>You make your argument. Where's your proof that the planck distance is real and not a mathematical abstraction?
I can't prove that it's true, any more than you can prove it is not. Proof is a tricky world when dealing with physics. All continuous/classical models have broken down so far. Ultraviolet catastrophe, photoelectric effect, line spectra etc. And the continuous spacetime model (which is also a model, field is a math abstraction as well) breaks down at that level as well (planck). And so while I can't prove digital reality, it's the model that best fits the data. And your BELIEF, one might say religious belief, in the continuous model fails.

>>14816639
I have observed that the simulation model is impossible to observe, and that most of its contentions are misunderstandings.

>>14815688
Theres no reason to believe that just because the big bang was the first event we could observe that there must have been nothing before it. It could be that there was something before the big bang but all the evidence was destroyed

>>14816636
I can't find many retarded peoplr on sci besides Mandlbaur and OP who would think that life is a virtual reality video game consisting of magical virtual pixels
>>14816639
>And the continuous spacetime model (which is also a model, field is a math abstraction as well) breaks down at that level as well (planck)
No, our mathematical assumptions of the universe break down at that level because our models are flawed, you are assuming the universe works how you dictate it to work

>once upon a time there was nothing
Incorrect and incoherent. There was no "once upon a time" either.

Keep this thread alive, I don't want to browse /x , please.

>>14816066
>>14816142
This is a very strange idea but I'll look into it, thanks.