[ 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: 491 KB, 500x216, 1361136.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6652963 No.6652963 [Reply] [Original]

Got a question for all you /sci/entists
As we all know it was the big bang that created the universe and yadayadayada

My question is, where did that original singularity of matter-energy come from?

>inb4 baiting people into religious shit

I mean from a scientific viewpoint, does anyone have any ideas about how the original singularity came to exist?
My viewpoint is gif related

>> No.6652992

To be blunt with you, science says the following:
We really don't know.

/thread

>> No.6653021

>>6652963
oh look its this thread again...

>> No.6653033

>>6652963
We don't know that the big bang created the universe. There are more inclusive and accountable levels of organization both larger and smaller than our comprehension. There's no definitive way to measure the direction of the flow of causality.

>> No.6653041

Nobody knows. Yet the stupid, closed minded scum on this board will tell you right away that a God had absolutely nothing to do with it. Accept Christ as your almighty savior and he will accept you.

Allen

>> No.6653054

>>6653041
We don't say that a God had "absolutely" nothing to do with it. Nothing is absolute. We only say that God didn't do it in the same way that we'd say Santa doesn't deliver presents. We have zero evidence for it, so we don't claim that it happens.

But we don't say that anything absolutely could not have happened. Anything could have. It's just asinine to assume so without evidence.

5/10 for making me reply.

>> No.6653055

>>6653033
>>6653033
Me again, I was actually looking foreword to this conversation, so let me start I guess.

I think that if you look at the double slit experiment, you'll see enough evidence that consciousness, whatever it's mechanics, accounts for physical phenomena. So when looking to further understand causality, you'd have to find a way to actually measure the physical effects of consciousness at organizing reality on the quantum level. And find out exactly how inclusive and accountable this force(s) is.

I'd cnsult rupert sheldrake, Ken Wilber, or if the option was still available, Terence mckenna.

Oh yeah, bring the hate, /sci/, but at least they've identified the problem properly, whether or not you comprehend or agree with their theories, the fact is that whichever hard science shapes your understanding the most, it comes to some paradoxical point where things stop making ontological sense and form has to arise from a lack there of, or kinetic forces have to come from potential forces, or something that shows that we don't entirely understand the dynamics at play. And we have an ever increasing need to expand our understanding to include and measure physics that are currently considered "Meta"

Consciousness seems like a good place to look. Considering the above.

>> No.6653057

>>6653055
Forward*

there goes my credibility.

>> No.6653059

>>6653055
>I think that if you look at the double slit experiment, you'll see enough evidence that consciousness, whatever it's mechanics, accounts for physical phenomena
Please leave woo at the door.
http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/

>> No.6653065

>>6653059
I didn't say that the outer fringes of causality must be indeterminate, but that there must be a way to quantify consciousness and no longer consider it's discussion "Metaphysics"

Because it clearly has a potentially deterministic effect at deciding whether or not a particle or wave acts as such.

>> No.6653070

>>6653065
It's apparent you haven't read the article.

Also, just so I'm being clear here. Consciousness doesn't affect reality by virtue of existing or even by observation.

Stop asserting that it does. It most certainly does NOT "clearly have a deterministic effect..."

You have become woo, destroyer of sanity.

>> No.6653076

>>6653070
"Potentially deterministic"
Quote me properly.

>> No.6653077

>>6653059
>Implying the behaviors of water and oil are the same as waves that aren't subject to the restrictions that matter is.

>> No.6653080
File: 8 KB, 300x227, 1401880947800.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6653080

>read the OP
>start thinking
>mfw after a few minutes
It's dangerous thinking.

>> No.6653084

>>6653070
>Here's another possibility, therefore the one you put foreword is wrong. I know because article.

>> No.6653085

>>6653084
Forward. Fucking MacBooks man.

>> No.6653090

>>6652963
Perhaps the question is flawed and it didn't come from anywhere. Like have we really seen any evidence that stuff can be created or destroyed?
Sure we have our calculations with virtual particles but like really, everything we normally view as creation and destruction is just transformation from one state into another.
Perhaps it always existed and always will. Perhaps there really isn't any time either and infinity is now.

But ideas and interpretations aside 'I don't know' is the correct answer to the question.

>> No.6653094

>>6653076
No, not even potentially.

>> No.6653098

I do not know enough about it to explain it well or give it credibility, but I have heard some things saying that the universe is just in a constant cycle of expanding and contracting. And that what we would call the Big Bang was just the end/beginning of a cycle. If you're interested I suggest you look into for yourself because I might be wrong, but it's a thought o entertain none the less.

>> No.6653099

Hawking says that under certain conditions, cause and effect break down and it's possible for things to travel back in time and cause themselves.

>> No.6653100

>>6653055
>I think that if you look at the double slit experiment, you'll see enough evidence that consciousness, whatever it's mechanics, accounts for physical phenomena.
An electron detector is conscious?
Because that's what causes the interference pattern to change.

>> No.6653101

>>6653100
It's measurement. When you measure something, you take some small amount of energy from it. But it's only noticeable or important on very tiny scales.

>> No.6653103

>>6653100
Don't even bother bringing up common sense in this thread. They've already decided not to use any of it. They want their woo and mind over matter fantasy.

>> No.6653106

Science dudes say something like "collapse of false vacuum into the lower energy state that spread at dazzling speeds". That's just an untested hypothesis, but still a possibility. Oh, and "brane collision" in string theory. But yeah, science dudes don't really know. It's beyond our understanding and technological level to conclusively answer this question.

>> No.6653113

>>6653103
>Different views of quantum mechanics
>No common sense

Fuck off man. Go pleasure yourself somewhere else.

>> No.6653115

>>6653113
Some views of quantum mechanics are nonsensical. Those should not be given room to germinate, so that the truth may flourish.

>> No.6653118

>>6653103
All i'm saying is that there are more inclusive and accountable levels of organization than we currently comprehend. So the direction of the flow of causality can't quite be determined for sure. Maybe consciousness doesn't have an effect over quantum phenomena. Maybe your article-citing doesn't imply as much as you think it does. Either way, you're still a pretentious cocksucker.

>> No.6653127

>>6653118
You're just wading in philosophy more than science, so I'm mocking you accordingly. I don't think you really think about the implications of your arguments, you just use the surface meanings of words to propose silly ideas. If you get training in actual experimentation and more exposure to a wide array of scientific subjects, you will find your silly ideas fall to the wayside. It's a mournful process that leaves you with little more than a mantle of pretentiousness.

>> No.6653138

>>6653127
Good job, and now that you're done pleasuring yourself, let's go back to the crux of what I originally said, that we don't account for all of the factors at play, and that there's got to be some realm of dynamics outside our current comprehension, or at least some theory that's been dismissed as "Metaphysics" that should be re-looked into. Because hard science at this point ends in a lot of paradoxes.

If you'd like to offer something constructive on the matter, it'd be nice to see that article citing and masturbation aren't the only tricks you can do.

>> No.6653159

>>6653138
>there's got to be some realm of dynamics outside our current comprehension
This will always exist, there will always be something that we don't know.
>hard science at this point ends in a lot of paradoxes
not really

What the fuck do you actually expect to get from this line of thinking? SOMETHING exists outside what we know about!!! Holy shit!! Let me think real hard, and then I'll have the answer!

Sounds like philosophy to me. And if it isn't Natural Philosophy (which it isn't) it's useless.

I love how you ask for something "constructive," just so you can blast away any criticism of your thought process which might be leading you down the stupid path. Well, I got news for you, Bud. Criticism is more useful than constructivism in science.

>> No.6653164

>>6653055
Abandon thread!

>> No.6653166

>>6653159
You already did those tricks. Do a new one. I admitted that I could be wrong. Criticism did what it was supposed to. But without constructive thinking, no progress will be made.

So what you're saying is that you have nothing to offer the conversation then other than masturbation and article citing?

And yes, at the moment, i'm pretty sure all causal reasoning is pretty inherently paradoxical.

>> No.6653169

>>6653164
Yeah, things you don't understand are pretty scary huh.

>> No.6653177

>>6653166
My trick was I asked you what you actually wanted out of this thread. You still haven't answered.

There's really nothing more to do, because there are no easy answers.

What do you have against articles?

>> No.6653178

>>6653169
So you are afraid of quantum mechanics?

>> No.6653182

>>6653177
Constructive thinking. New ideas. Old ideas that I haven't heard. New perspectives on ideas that i have heard. Educated guesses. Personal speculations. That's what I want out of any thread or any conversation. I've made that abundantly clear by asking for it over and over again.
You've got one last chance to show me that you've got brain power beyond linking me to other people's thoughts. Watching you jerk off is getting boring.

>> No.6653195
File: 45 KB, 529x362, 09383784649.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6653195

>>6653182
If you think I'd just spout out any original ideas I had in a public forum where they can be stolen, you've got another thing coming.

What gives you the right to demand that we share our ideas with you? What makes you entitled to our ideas? Where are your ideas? I'm not seeing anything brilliant being poured out here.

I'm speculating that not only are you in the wrong fucking board, you don't understand enough about the words you're using to ask a pertinent question. Take it to /lit/.

>> No.6653200

Just to recap:

this thread just went
Me: "Here's a potential line of reasoning"
You: "You're stupid. I'm smart"
Me: How?
you: "Because article"
Me: Okay, I may be wrong in that one aspect of the things I said.
you: "Yeah you're stupid"
Me: "Do you do anything else?"
you: "I'm smart"
Me: "No i mean something else other than those two things"
you: "No i mean you're like really stupid."

>> No.6653205

>>6652963
>Report submitted! This window will close in 3 seconds...

>> No.6653207

>>6653200
Nice strawman.

Also, you're too stupid to realize that you really weren't doing any reasoning at all, but asking a question that we have no way of knowing with our current technology, and insisting that we find an answer while simultaneously asking for hate and then complaining when you get it. You even went so far as to disparage the use of articles, when your own ground breaking ideas happen to be based on two other individuals' work.

You also seem to equate typing with masturbation.

>> No.6653215

>>6652963
Time and space began with the big bang. There is no 'before' the big bang.

>> No.6653216

>>6653207
Dude, come on. I did literally none of those things. I pointed out that OP's question might be better answered by focusing on other theories than one of linear time and a progression from nothingness to somethingness, by suggesting a reshaping of causality. Then asked for terms to work with in progressing on that line of thinking.
I didn't disparage the use of articles, only question the critical thinking abilities of someone who did nothing other than cite an article and then call me stupid for an hour.

Also, your compulsive need to put people below you intellectually is what I compared to masturbation. It's a solid and not uncommon metaphor. Again, one aspect of what I said was

Please for the love of god, will you stop relentlessly sucking your own cock and say something that restores my faith in enjoying a conversation that I have tonight?

>> No.6653219

>>6653216
*One aspect of what I said was based on someone else's work, and I intend to look further into the potentiality of it being invalid.

laptop problems.