/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2976791]

/sci! I need you.

I was having a debate with my friend and i was trying to argue for god being a first cause. Not that I believe in God, but for the sake of argument cos I like the kalam cosmological argument.

However I found it near impossible to him to get to the topic of the singularity (beginning point of the big bang), nevermind impossible to even get him to contemplate causes for the big bang.

I disagree that the singularity could have been in that state for an infinite period before the big bang, and that it could have just randomly started to expand. He argues however that if one goes backwards for an inifnite amount of time, the universe may reach the singularity (as mainstream science implies) but the singularity becomes more and more compacted as time moves back. Could this be a valid thought? Or is there something inherently wrong with that?

I myself like ideas like m-theory or the infinite cycle of big bangs and big crunches as a naturalistic theory of the cause of the big bang. so how could i get him to contemplate these theories? help!

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.2976798]

I think the current understanding is that time did not exist before the big bang. the big bang started off time and space, so there was no 'before'

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2976797]

>pic

[sage No.2976802]

>>2976791
>god

Do you still argue about Santa Clause too?

[Anonymous No.2976801]

My view has always been that it doesn't make sense to talk about anything "before" the big bang.

[Anonymous No.2976806]

>>2976798
I thought there was a new theory or hypothesis suggesting time doesn't exist and never did.

[Anonymous No.2976808]

that pic demands an explanation

[sage No.2976812]

>>2976798
Yes

\thread

[Anonymous No.2976813]

>>2976802

i've always liked the idea of god even though i don't believe in god. and since my friend is a staunch atheist its always good fun to have debates. i will take either side of the argument.

[Anonymous No.2976814]

>>2976791

>>2976798
>>2976801
Yep. Time began with the big bang. There is no "before". In other words, the universe "has always existed" if you rely on time as a measure.

[Anonymous No.2976816]

I understand time did not exist before the big bang, but what caused it? you can't possibly say that there was nothing and then something just came from nothing. that just doesn't make sense. so something must have caused the big bang to happen, otherwise the universe would not exist, and since the universe had a beginning you cant say that it always was. so how do i get my friend to contemplate the cause of the expansion of the universe and the creation of time?

[Anonymous No.2976819]

>>2976814

in that sense, yes, but that doesn't take away the fact that the universe did have a beginning. and something that has a beginning must have a cause.

[Anonymous No.2976849]

ok wait. my friend was saying that the singularity had existed forever in an expanding state - if you go backwards it would become infinitely more compact, if you go forward you will eventually come to the point in which the singularity had expanded to a rational size in which matter was created.

My thoughts - the universe at one stage was an infinitely dense point (singularity) in which no time existed. it just was. then it suddenly expanded and time began. it might make no sense to think about what came before, but it doesn't make sense to say there was no time and then there was without talking about at least a First cause.

Now I need your ideas on my friend's theory and mine.

[Anonymous No.2976860]

>>2976816
>>2976819
>you can't possibly say that there was nothing and then something just came from nothing. that just doesn't make sense
>and something that has a beginning must have a cause
maybe it does make sense

[Anonymous No.2976861]

>>2976797
>>2976808

Google "vore" or "vorarephilia"

Search for "PD's vore art and comics" in /rs/

Enjoy.

[Anonymous No.2976990]

>>2976819
Law of causality only makes sense when the laws of time apply. Without time, how do you have an event that happens "before" to cause the event that happens "after"? It makes no sense without time. Simply put, we don't know anything about what happened when time = 0. All we can do for now is make educated guesses, but I'm guessing that the law of causality might be out the fucking window in such an environment.

[Anonymous No.2977116]

>>2976990

how do we even know that time was created at the big bang? there might have been something before.

[Anonymous No.2977155]

>>2977116
As far as I understand it, the modern understanding and general acceptance is that time as we know it began with the big bang. Now you keep thinking about "before" and "after", but you have to understand that doesn't make sense in this context. Without time, there can be no before and after. So when you say "there might have been something before", it makes no sense. There is no "before". It doesn't exist. And yeah it's really counter-intuitive, but that's because you're used to thinking within the dimension of time. But that dimension no longer exists within the context of this conversation.

[Anonymous No.2977160]

>>2977155
>As far as I understand it,

Translation:

>At the point I was comfortable with accepting,

[Anonymous No.2977227]

>>2977160
Uhh, no. I just don't know a lot and have more reading to do. Either way, it doesn't really fucking matter to me. I was just pointing out that "before" and "after" cannot be used sensibly in the absence of time. If time didn't actually begin, then fine, whatever. If it did, then fine, whatever. It really doesn't affect my every day life. All I know is that I'm here, I'm going to live my life. It doesn't matter whether time began or not. So no, I didn't read just enough to support a presupposed belief and then stop; I have no such presupposed belief to support. I just don't care either way, it doesn't really seem to affect my world view whether time began at the big bang or not.

[Anonymous No.2977239]

>>2977155

so tell me then. why are there theories about the cause of the universe? like m-theory? and quantum fluctuations? and a cyclical big crunch scenario?

surely there must be a cause for energy to become matter. the singularity still means something existed. its not like nothing existed before the singularity. what you're saying is that the singularity (this intense point of energy) existed in a timeless changeless state. it just was. then it expanded. an event happened in a timeless space. how did that event come to be. there must've been some cause.

[Anonymous No.2977248]

>>2977227

and some people don't care if evolution is true or not. it doesn't affect the way they live their lives. however there are people, like me and many others, who quite enjoy trying to find answers. so its not meaningless to ask what caused the big bang, for the answer does actually matter to a lot of people.

[Anonymous No.2977284]

>>2977239
why is there a bible?

>fucking humans, how do they think?

[Anonymous No.2977287]

>>2977248
what science are you doing that will illuminate the big bang?

[Anonymous No.2977288]

>my friend was saying that the singularity had existed forever in an expanding state -
>if you go backwards it would become infinitely more compact

infinity is not a very long time. if the world was infinitely old and changing (at any arbitrary point), then the big bang would never happen, because the process would never stop, because that's what infinity means.

http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/cosmological-argument/

[Anonymous No.2977295]

>>2977239
1) doesnt understand the thoeries he mentions

2) Talking out of his ass

The concpet you call 'time' came into existance at the big bang. Your shitty plebian notion of 'cause and effect' are meaningless when you try an deal with a system with direct causality patterns. GTFO and go learn some real physics.


\thread

[Anonymous No.2977305]

>>2977248
>caused the big bang

Thinks everything must have a cause. You cannot reduce an irreducable system. Have fun with your shitty reasoning pal.

[Anonymous No.2977303]

>>2976791
>dat pic
source?

[Anonymous No.2977307]

>>2977295
>without direct.....

fixed

[Anonymous No.2977377]

I always like the idea, when assuming the one and only law of the universe(s) - Entropic, or disordic, increase at every phenomenom - is true, that singularities encountered at the big bang and black holes are a result of our mathmatical language not being able to describe these parts of our observable world. But that it is plausible that consecutive, or maybe not in a real order, big bangs are formed at our "other" end of the black whole, therefore increasing the number of big bangs/universes which adds to another power influencing the increase in Entropy..
Or something..

[Anonymous No.2977421]

>>2977295
>without laws of physics
>real physics
herp derp ok