[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 26 KB, 500x402, 1269513578709.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1418547 No.1418547 [Reply] [Original]

1. Causation requires Time
2. Time was created during the big bang
3. For something to happen, something has to cause it

4. If causation requires time (1), and time didn't existed before the the big bang (2), and something has to cause the big bang for it to exist (3), then the big bang didn't happen.

But that seems kinda odd, doesn't it?

If the first premises is false, then explain how causation works. If the second one is false, then when did time start? If the 3rd one is false, then mustn't we conclude that the big bang just popped up for no reason at all?

Physicsfags, explain for me where my reasoning goes wrong

>> No.1418564

Assumptions in step 2 and 3.

>> No.1418560

>>1418547

We don't know

It's as simple as that

>> No.1418586

For #2

Time isn't something that has or hasn't existed. Time is simply a man made unit of measurement.

>> No.1418593

>>1418564

> If the second one is false, then when did time start?
> If the 3rd one is false, then mustn't we conclude that the big bang just popped up for no reason at all?

Well yea, I'm assuming this, but they're justified and thus rational assumption. I've always heard that time began at the big bang, and that "happenings" requires "causations" just seems common sense.

>> No.1418603

>>1418586

.. And what do you measure?

>> No.1418614

>>1418586
Of what? Time is not the man-made unit, minutes and hours are. You can't say size is a man-made unit, meters and yards are, the object has a size whether or not man has described an exact unit to it.

>>1418564
This! Your logic is deductive, but the premises are not necessarily something we can possibly know at this time (hah!). So you have an invalid argument possibly.

>> No.1418624

>>1418593
Also given pre-big bang the laws of causation might not have been in effect therefore ruling your argument flat-out wrong.

>> No.1418625

>>1418603

When shit happens, it's a means of putting things in perspective.

>> No.1418629

>>1418560
This is the best answer.

>> No.1418660
File: 38 KB, 200x151, julian_barbour.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1418660

>>1418547
>1. Causation requires Time
Lolwut

>> No.1418679

>>1418660

It doesn't?

>> No.1418712

ITT: OP thinks that logic is a better way of discussing the big bang than quantum cosmology.

In reality, it's not.

>> No.1418717

>>1418547
Time isnt real, its a way of measuring change

>> No.1418723

>>1418560
/thread
ITT armchair physicists think up retarded workarounds to the fact that WE DON'T KNOW

>> No.1418728

>>1418723
Please, these aren't even armchair physicists, they're armchair philosophers.

>> No.1418753

>1. Causation requires Time
>2. Time was created during the big bang
>3. For something to happen, something has to cause it

2 cannot be shown. 3 can only show positive bias.

>> No.1418758

>>1418593
>they're justified and thus rational assumption

Not really. Even scientists don't assume these things because they aren't known or verifiable. It's therefore entirely irrational to make such assumptions and then try to build an argument upon them.

Especially given our understanding of quantum vacuum fluctuations, which suggests that your third bullet point in the OP may be flat-out wrong.

>> No.1418801

>>1418712

> Implying you don't have to use logic when discussing anything

>> No.1418836

>>1418547
>4. If causation requires time (1), and time didn't existed before the the big bang (2), and something has to cause the big bang for it to exist (3), then the big bang didn't happen.
1 is undemonstrateable, so you must restate 4. Additionally, no one can show that 2 is true - just that we aren't clever enough for things to happen without causes.

>If the first premises is false, then explain how causation works. If the second one is false, then when did time start? If the 3rd one is false, then mustn't we conclude that the big bang just popped up for no reason at all?
Does causation work? It's a real question with meaning - because causation simply states that "Every event (we have ever seen) requires a cause." But you know the positive bias fallacy, right?

It's meaningless to ask "When did time start?" Time started when 'when' began having meaning. But we can't currently observe anything from before the big bang. Can. Not. It's like knowing what shape an ice sculpture was by looking at the puddle after you stir vigorously, only harder. And assigning 'reasons' to events is below you. Things happen because they do - only minds attempt to explain 'why' over 'how.'

>> No.1418953

two possible answers

Two answers: according to Brief History of Time by Hawkins

One; the laws of physics at the macroscopic scale (general relativity) hold for where the theory of gravity is trivial. Once you get to an area as hot and dense as the beginning universe (a few microseconds after the initial estimated big bang) the effects of the (yet unknown) theory of quantum gravity come into play and general relativity breaks down. Thus the laws of physics are considerably different in the very early universe and are not yet written at this time.

Two; the singularity in the big bang goes away if one allows time to be a complex number (a + bi where a and b are real number coefficients) with an imaginary part not equal to zero (b=/=0). Then we can move through imaginary time and the reason that the universe is expanding so perfectly for is that there is a symmetry which is realized in 5 dimensional space time coordinates.

lol hard dicks

>> No.1418975

what you mean by time? a historical record? would going back in time and changing a scene in this record change the present?

if it did change the present, then for each change in the past, something would have to erase and recalculate each scene from the changed scene onwards. whether the "present" scene would be recalculated as similar to what it was before it was deleted would depend on the butterfly effect.

>> No.1418980

You cannot use logic for the beginning of the universe.