[ 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: 17 KB, 155x202, 1263553022757.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5104232 No.5104232 [Reply] [Original]

>"Nothing came before the Big Bang because 'time' came into existence at the Big Bang"
>mfw there are adults with expensive university educations who don't understand how stupid this is
>mfw teenagers a few generations ago would know "before" and "time" contain contrary predicates and the statement is logically incoherent
>mfw the domination of STEM majors has turned the intellectual elite into walking calculators lacking basic reasoning abilities

>> No.5104239

explain yourself

>> No.5104241

>mfw they all have jobs and you're complaining how they know nothing

inb4 you have a job which you clearly do not

>> No.5104252

>has turned the intellectual elite into walking calculators lacking basic reasoning abilities

This is a problem with our schools, not universities. Universities can only try and undo the damage done by schools. Without the people wanting to though they can do nothing.

>People still talking about 'before' the big bang like it as a concept even exists, and even if it did as if we could ever make predictions about or find the answer.

>> No.5104258

>>5104232
well time is relative so the time we experience only applies to this universe thus nothing happened before the big bang relative that specific time. You can think of time as a function that is only defined on a closed interval. How hard was that to understand? I'm sorry stem majors are able to grasp complex topics while you struggle with the most basic of concepts. It must be hard to think and breath at the same time you cretin. cretin means retard

>> No.5104292

>>5104258
Who in the world would think people mean "when did the timeline of our universe start?" when they ask "what came before the Big Bang?" What you're saying is tantamount to claiming that everyone, when they ask this question, implicitly means "what was going on in our universe before the Big Bang did its thing?" No one is asking that. It's silly to think they are. It's obviously nonsensical. That the Big Bang started events in our universe is essentially tautological: it'd be like asking what happened on Tuesday before the first thing that happened on Tuesday.

Everyone from the youngest kid to the most science illiterate adult want to know the same thing when they ask this question, in whatever permutation. If something was happening before our local universe took form, in what context was that something happening? What was the singularity doing? Why? Is it possible to know? Is it possible to conceptualize? They're basic metaphysical questions that would (and do) come to the mind of anyone who is told about the Big Bang, because the scientist is basically saying "yeah, the 'something from nothing' idea is the right one. Shit just popped up, yo." It's fine to take that stance, but not fine to teach it like it's self-evident. Your evasion of the issue is dumb.

>> No.5104305

>"Nothing came before the Big Bang because 'time' came into existence at the Big Bang"
That's a stupid way to phrase it.
Time didn't "come into existence".
Time always existed. There is no "before" the Big Bang in any way.

>> No.5104337

> It's fine to take that stance, but not fine to teach it like it's self-evident.
Science isn't philosophy. You obviously don't know how this works.
We have no evidence that anything existed before the Big Bang. We have very decent evidence that suggests that we can never obtain any information "before" that point, neither physical, nor theoretical. Therefore, the question of "before" makes no sense, since neither is there a sensible answer we could find, nor could we ever find evidence to prove any answer we might come up with.
So there isn't an answer, and never will be.

>> No.5104357

>>5104232
>>mfw teenagers a few generations ago would know "before" and "time" contain contrary predicates and the statement is logically incoherent
Haha, no.

>> No.5104360

>>5104337
What you just gave is a sufficient explanation, and thus superior to "nothing came before because time started at the Big Bang."

The entire point - let me make this clear - is that scientists are actually TAKING a philosophical stance on the issue by giving this (standard) answer. They should come right out and say "lol that's outside our purview, son. We just study what happened after."

>> No.5104387

>>5104305
Time is the direction of entropy.

Does this mean that time requires matter/energy to exist?

If it can exist in "space" ie the fabric of our universe, without matter/energy, where did the matter/energy come from?

If the universe exists as a realm of time, matter and energy, what does it exist within.

BBT is sorely lacking.

>> No.5104412

Time hasn't "always" existed. There is no such thing as time. Time is nothing more than a human psychological construct, even when viewed in the framework of a space-time continuum.

We use it as a way to measure an interval between events in physics, that's all.

>> No.5104415

>>5104387

Or rather, within the context of >>5104337
The matter/energy of our universe appears to be moving apart, therefore logically it must coalesce to a single point if you move backwards in time, however, does this mean the fabric in which the matter/energy exists also has to be moving?

Also, backwards in time is not necessarily backwards in entropy.

If you drop a glass and it shatters, if you "rewind" time, it appears to come back together into a glass. If you rewind entropy, it merely has to form an uncrystalised mass of glass.

>> No.5104427
File: 19 KB, 373x273, 080725-office-fun-hmed-135p_hmedium.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5104427

>>5104232
>little kid of 4chan can't understand advanced physics concepts

>thinks they must be wrong

LMFAO

>> No.5104442
File: 28 KB, 640x435, happy-man-looking-at-computer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5104442

>>5104415
You don't know anything about general relativity do you?

It isn't just the fucking matter that is moving, IT IS FUCKING SPACE-TIME YOU IGNORANT FUCK.

Space-time is expanding!

>> No.5104450

>>5104427
>untestable philosophical ideas without evidence
>advanced physics concepts

Choose one. You are clearly a highschooler.

>> No.5104452 [DELETED] 

>>5104232
Why are you suck a fucking moron OP?
Was your mom also mentally retarded?

>> No.5104462
File: 128 KB, 400x259, original.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5104462

>>5104450
>General relaivity
>Cosmology
>Untested Ideas

Trolling? Or just very ignorant?

>> No.5104464
File: 62 KB, 320x240, 8f2e0_ORIG-successful_troll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5104464

>>5104232
Great Troll!

5/10

>> No.5104466

>>5104462
We're not talking about GR or cosmetology. We're talking about the philosophical concepts of time and causality. Please educate yourself on the topic before posting.

>> No.5104473

>>5104464
You can stop samefagging. It makes you look even more autistic than you already are.

>> No.5104483

>>5104442
>You don't know anything about general relativity do you?

Nope

>Space-time is expanding!

So space time coalesces to a single point as well?

How the hell do you go about proving that empirically?

>> No.5104531

>>5104483
How about you get off your ass and a read fucking book on cosmology/GR?

>> No.5104535

>>5104531
If you're so knowledgable, why can't you explain it, Mr Smartass? Oh wait, it's because you don't know shit.

>> No.5104539
File: 57 KB, 1095x873, 1337298099407.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5104539

I like how the thread turned into STEM majors mistaking observational schema and causal/temporal frameworks for metaphysics, when it was about physics professors inadvertently stumbling into philosophy to begin with.

>> No.5104541

>>5104539
Causality is a philosophical concept.

>> No.5104542
File: 13 KB, 235x278, 263034_1753419204980_1523910138_31298017_762482_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5104542

>>5104483
>>5104483

Yes, Space-time coalesces into a single point.
What the fuck did you think was going on? This is proved rigorously in cosmology.

I'm not gonna fucking waste my time trying to teach a numbnut a whole fucking cosmology course on /sci/. Use the internet, and learn how to fucking research shit!

>> No.5104545

>maths
>calculation

This is what liberal artists actually believe.

>> No.5104547
File: 17 KB, 300x224, umad-300x224.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5104547

>>5104531

>> No.5104551

>>5104542
>proved rigorously

My sides. Nothing is "proved" in science. Only in math we have rigorous proofs.

>> No.5104553

>>5104541
That's why science has to resort to inherently arbitrary frameworks for things to make sense. Science (like pretty much all un-metaphysical activity) needs unquestioned, unfalsifiable first principles.

When you want to make a better refrigerator or whatever it is you're doing, you can't exactly be asking yourself questions about how the concept of causation inherently begs the question.

>> No.5104565

>>5104553
Are you implying that science is no better than any other belief system? You better be trolling.

>> No.5104571
File: 50 KB, 640x512, home-simpson-fire-cereal-epic-fail.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5104571

>>5104232
Here is a free intro cosmology book, it explains the big bang/the overwheling evidence for it. If you are really intrested in this shit, then fucking read it! Else you are just a troll!

http://www.if.ufrgs.br/oei/santiago/fis02012/Introduction-Cosmology-Ryden.pdf

Aquiring knowledge takes fucking time. If you don't put in the time, you will always be a fucking imbecile.

\thread

>> No.5104581

>>5104565
No, and if you read the post properly you would know that's not what it says. To be fair though, 99.9% of liberal arts majors would probably be too fucking stupid to read it properly as well.

But it's true in a way. The scientific method needs to take a few things for granted, let's say, before it can do its thing. Man, the fucking cogito itself is disputed. On an "official" level, western philosophy is still scratching its head over Pyrrhonian skepticism. If you think the scientific method rests on testable and proven rationalist principles all the way down to coherent axioms, you need to take one of those History of Science courses. It has that in common with a religion - it has fiat axioms at the very bottom. Of course both religion and science have that in common with "Why I shouldn't stop existing today".

>> No.5104585

>>5104581
>equating science with religion

Troll confirmed.

>> No.5104589

>>5104585
>Helium and plutonium are both matter
>>equating helium with plutonium
>Troll confirmed.

Saying two things share a feature in common != Saying two things share all features in common

>> No.5104590

How did the big bang happen if time was not flowing?

>> No.5104596

>>5104589
If science (according to you) is nothing but a religion because it requires blind faith in unfalsifiable axioms, then why should we consider science better than any other fairy tales? You're full of shit, troll.

>> No.5104600

I am smart because I go against the grain all day err day.

>> No.5104601

>>5104600
Me too.

>> No.5104605

>>5104600
utilitarian scientism (i.e. materialism)

>Go with the grain, all day erry day

'We have invented happiness,' say the last men, and they blink.

>> No.5104606

>>5104589
>helium and plutonium are both matter

No, helium is a gas.

>> No.5104609

>>5104605
>'We have invented happiness,' say the last men, and they blink.

Sauce on that quote?

>> No.5104627
File: 15 KB, 598x548, history.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5104627

>>5104232

>> No.5104658

To the question raised in the OP, there is no reason to apply causal relationships outside of the current state of the universe. Since the big bang is the beginning of this state, the concept of before, without causaul relationships, cannot be well defined and thus the question is largely meaningless. If we assume that causal relationships exist outside of the current state of the universe, then there is simply no evidence upon which to base such a discussion.

>>5104483

The expansion of space is demonstrated by the distance dependence of the velocity which things are moving away from us with. If this were either constant or reduced with distance rather than increasing, then it would be some real velocity. With the observed case [velocity increasing with distance], the only model that is internally consistent has space expanding and all the junk in space being carried along for the ride. If this were not the case, then we would expect a sort of inhomogeneity and anisotropy in the universe that is not observed.

>> No.5104663

all events prior to the big bang, if they took place have no effect on events after, therefore for all intents and purposes they may as well not have happened, and therefore they didnt because there is no way to detect them

>> No.5104673

>>5104551
blah blah blah fucking retard philosopher we know nothing, you cant know anything, nothing happens. Go write a book, and think about it for a few centuries, faggot

>> No.5105060

>>5104627
now the question is WHY is there everything instead of nothing