What existed before the big bang?

[Anonymous No.10702032]

Steven Hawkins made the analogy that this question is like asking "what lies north of the north pole" and therefore since the question contains an illogical premise (nothing can be north of the north pole) it must be unanswerable or rather be classified as an invalid question which should be ignored. Likewise since the BB theory states time didn't exist until after the big bang then asking what happened before must also be an invalid question that should be ignored...according to his implications.

I disagree and think that's nonsense. "No thing"' can exist north of the north pole because no thing can achieve a state of being north of the north pole by definition. It's obvious that's the simple and correct answer, ie nothing exists north of the north pole.

This is apparent in many other analogies. Like what whole number quantity exists which is larger than an infinite whole number quantity? The question clearly has an illogical premise but it's still clearly answerable, it does not default to being an invalid question. No whole number quantity can exist which is larger than an infinite whole number quantity by definition, therefore this quantity does not exist.

So to answer what existed before the BB either you can answer "we don't know" or "nothing existed" and those are both logical answers to a question that is not invalid .

[Anonymous No.10702040]

>>10702032
Incorrect. God existed.

[Anonymous No.10702090]

>>10702032
"No thing exists" and "no thing doesn't exist" have the same meaning. Also time is a property of matter, if there's no matter, there's no time, or the universe is uniform over time and due to this symmetry it's impossible to tell if time passes.

[Anonymous No.10702098]

>>10702090
>Time is a property of matter
Wew lad

[Anonymous No.10702121]

>>10702032
In the beginning (time)
God created the heaven (space)
and the earth (matter)

Bereshit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'arets.

It should be noted that the word for created, “bara,” derived from the word “fat,” literally means to fatten, or expand.

[Anonymous No.10702122]

>>10702032
Maybe our universe with its natural laws exists inside a larger universe with different laws. Perhaps this larger universe has its own version of time, which has multiple dimensions and can flow backwards as well as forwards. So what was before our universe is actually many things coming from different directions converging, including our own future.

[Anonymous No.10702125]

>>10702098
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html
>Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around?
>No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.
>All answers are provided by Dr. Sten Odenwald (Raytheon STX) for the NASA Astronomy Cafe, part of the NASA Education and Public Outreach program.

[Anonymous No.10702131]

>>10702090
>"No thing exists" and "no thing doesn't exist" have the same meaning.
these are clearly different

[Anonymous No.10702246]

>>10702032
Some kind of space-time quantum foam sort of something
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO2vfYNaIbk

[Anonymous No.10702848]

>>10702032
Stop fucking calling him HAWKINS!
You even spelled Stephen wrong you absolute fucking shitstain.

[Anonymous No.10703012]

>>10702032
With our current understanding we can only wind the cosmicc clock back so far before gravity starts effecting things on the quantum scale which tends to shit up the math.
It's not that asking what came before is meaningless, just that we lack the basic vocabulary to even pose meaningful questions about it.
Could be that as soon as you rigorously solve quantum gravity the answer becomes trivial, or at least walks back the point where the math breaks down again.
Unfortunately to experiment at those levels you need ridiculously large energy investments. Like how you need a particle accelerator the size of the solar system to even probe the lowest orders of energy that you need to test string theory, for instance.

[Anonymous No.10703015]

>>10702032
You ask a very human question. Time is of the lower human dimension. We tend to measure events using our biological and surroundings as clock. Beyond our world, time loses meaning. Time can be thought of as an emergent phenomenon of the 5D universe which forever exists, emerging from a white hole and deleting inside a black hole. A white whole being a time reversed black hole.

[Anonymous No.10704662]

>>10702122
This
Also, OP read this article too I take it
https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/

[Anonymous No.10704681]

>>10702032
If time didnt exist prior to the big bang occurring then how did we ever exit the state of there being no time? Wouldn't the transition from no time to time in and of itself require time to already exist.

[Anonymous No.10704687]

>>10702098
Void without matter would be symmetric across time. I think this symmetry would prevent time from passing. Matter is needed to break this symmetry, then you can differentiate between different points in time, otherwise they are identical.

[Anonymous No.10704688]

>>10702032
>"No thing"' can exist north of the north pole because no thing can achieve a state of being north of the north pole by definition.

And no thing can achieve a state of “before time” by definition.

[Anonymous No.10704691]

>>10704681
>If time didnt exist prior to the big bang occurring then how did we ever exit the state of there being no time?

Rather intuitively, that state never existed.

[Anonymous No.10704696]

>>10702098
Brainlet

[Anonymous No.10704697]

>>10702032
A Divine "something" rather than a net nothing, and it always existed, before time. Which means it is irrelevant and pointless to ask how long it has been there.

https://youtu.be/PUrsOQanozo

[Anonymous No.10704720]

>>10704688
So no thing, or simply nothing, exists "before time" in the same way no thing, or nothing, exists "north of the north pole" because its impossible for anything to exist in those states.

[Anonymous No.10704738]

>>10704662
actually no. That article was published 15 hours ago according to google and I made the thread a day ago. Just a coincidence that it's a similar topic.

[Sage No.10704752]

>>10704720
Time can’t be “caused” because, of course, causality implies time already exists, so.

A. Time extends infinitely into the past and we’re merely unable to obtain any information about time prior to the singularity due to its conditions

B. Time doesn’t extend infinitely into the past and instead is finite, beginning with a metaphorical “North Pole” at some point prior to the present, seemingly without cause.
Does this imply a metaphorical “South Pole” where time ends, and if so, would the end of time be “caused”? If not, does it extend infinitely into the future? Fuck if I know. Seems to be the barrier of human reasoning, if not my own.

[Anonymous No.10704759]

>>10704697
>Sub specie aeternitatis

[Anonymous No.10704765]

>>10704720
But.. something does exist above the north pole. Earth's atmosphere above the north pole.

[Anonymous No.10704768]

>>10704765
But nothing is more “northern”, which is the point. “North” isn’t “up” and “south” isn’t “down”. All “above” even means is further from the center of the Earth’s gravitational well.

[Anonymous No.10704775]

>>10704768
So you claim that the atmosphere is "nothing" because it isn't earth, as they claim that because it isn't time or matter it is therefore "nothing".

[Anonymous No.10704782]

>>10704775
This "something" I'm talking about would have been described by Spinoza or Einstein as "god", by which of course they meant a higher realm not accessible from ours, rather than a personal god.

[Anonymous No.10704784]

>>10704775
>So you claim that the atmosphere is "nothing" because it isn't earth,

.....No. The air above the ground is not more “Northern” than the North Pole. You reach that point and you can not get more “northern”. You can get more “up” by flying into the air but that’s a difference frame of reference. It’s not getting more “northern”. The fluid of gasses hugging the solid matter of the Earth is definitely still part of the Earth.

>as they claim that because it isn't time or matter it is therefore "nothing".

If something doesn’t possess a location within time and space, meaning it exists nowhere and never, what does it mean to say it exists?

[Anonymous No.10704786]

>>10704782
You never even used the word “something” except to refer to air.

>by which of course they meant a higher realm not accessible from ours

That’s just time extending infinitely into the past, then, because unless time exists in this “higher realm”, nothing is happening there and nothing is coming from it.

[Anonymous No.10704787]

>>10704784
It's just not comprehensible to a creature who only knows time and space. See >>10704782

[Anonymous No.10704789]

>>10704786
Well, I meant to. My mistake. It cannot be infinite time. It's infinite something, but not time.

[Anonymous No.10704792]

>>10702032
Space and time are seen as separate dimension in classical physics. In QM, they are part of the same dimension but we can sometimes still differentiate them. However at big bang, space-time were inseparable and were the same thing, thus there is no "before big bang" because its all infinite in beginning.

In the end, even the big bang is not really a "starter" in a sense because there's the argument of vacuum genesis which is a pet theory of many physicists/cosmologists but we haven't been able to connect inflationary universe to vacuum genesis properly yet. Once that sort of proper mathematical paper comes out, the idea of big bang as the "beginning" would cease to be.

[Anonymous No.10704796]

>>10704789
>Well, I meant to. My mistake. It cannot be infinite time. It's infinite something, but not time.

It has to be time or nothing ever happened in any way ever in this “higher realm”, meaning it can not cause this universe to exist at all.

>It's just not comprehensible to a creature who only knows time and space.

I agree. I am unable to comprehend contradictory nonsense

[Anonymous No.10704819]

>>10704796
"Things happening" implies causality, which only exists in a place with a dimension of time, which was the entire point at the beginning of the thread: it only exists in our expanding universe. There doesn't have to be time for there to be phenomena of a sort of which you are entirely not used to. Phenomena such as the universe being born from something else. Again, I refer you to Spinoza:
>Sub specie aeternitatis
>From the perspective of eternity

[Anonymous No.10704860]

>>10702032
The idea is that time is the result of entropy and started when the big bang happened. The question then becomes, why triggered the big bang, or why was there anything to be expanded in the first place.

[Anonymous No.10704870]

>>10704819
>There doesn't have to be time for there to be phenomena of a sort of which you are entirely not used to.

Yes there does. Things either happen because of other things or they do not.

[Anonymous No.10704891]

>>10704860
Completely wrong pseudo-science answer.

[Anonymous No.10704894]

>>10704870
All things that can happen, has happened and is not because of other things, but simple the distribution of laws of quantum mechanics.

Reminder, causality will be BTFO in the coming decades.

[Anonymous No.10704907]

>>10702121
go fuck a goat, retard

[Anonymous No.10704909]

>>10703015
based schizo poster

[Anonymous No.10705661]

>>10704909
fuck off autist. You actually need an open mind to comprehend or even come close to comprehension. When you shall accept that science is literally handicapped when coming to answering about the existence of universe or anything at all, will you get your head out of your ass.

[Anonymous No.10705672]

>>10705661
>open mind
that one had the brain falling out

[Anonymous No.10705675]

>>10702032
The final moments of the last big crunch.

>what happened before that
It's always been. Cyclical. Neverending. The 1st law of thermodynamics.

[Anonymous No.10705679]

>>10702032
>What existed before the big bang?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2%80%93Hawking_state

[Anonymous No.10705820]

>>10702032
>>10702040

>Before the Big Band was, I am.

[Anonymous No.10705851]

>>10705675

But.....how

[Anonymous No.10705861]

this question is like
whats more north than the north pole?
impossible to understand.

[Anonymous No.10705933]

>>10704860
>time is the result of entropy
Cart before the horse

[Anonymous No.10705951]

>>10702032
sneed

[Anonymous No.10706044]

>>10705933
Horses can push carts not only pull them, do you know? :D

[Anonymous No.10706101]

>>10702032
>BB theory states time didn't exist until after the big bang
Time had to have existed before BB. Time is, at its essence, movement and change. Without time, nothing would have moved or changed, ever, and thus there would have been no way to catalist BB. Conditions, of whatever existed for things to exist within to begin with, would have to be changing, moving, malleable and usable enough to build the conditions necessary for BB, which was obviously a release of stored, built, and programmed (directed) energy.

[Anonymous No.10706806]

I guess depends just what we want toto encompass and dub it as part of the universe! With every great answer comes a greater question! We will know once no questions present themselves!

[Anonymous No.10706816]

>>10705851
"how" is asked of something that is caused. Never ending nor beginning has no such thing. It is self evident. What it is cannot be differentiated from what it does.

[Anonymous No.10706834]

>>10705851
"how" is asked of something that is caused. Never ending nor beginning has no such thing. It is self evident. What it is cannot be differentiated from what it does.

>>10705933
>>10704860
>>10706101

>time existing as something with a basis in reality
It's like saying a mile exists. A mile of what?

>>10702032
>So to answer what existed before the BB either you can answer "we don't know" or "nothing existed" and those are both logical answers to a question that is not invalid .

It is incommensurable.

[Anonymous No.10706843]

>>10702032