Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[ratiocinator]

The singularity most likely existed before the big bang or our universe is possible cyclic and a previous universe possibly existed. It is possible that our singularity formed from black holes of the previous universe.

A singularity is something that happens to the equations. Hardly any cosmologists think it is a real, physical thing. It's more an indication that the theory is no longer applicable and we need a combined theory of GR and QFT.

Did The Universe Really Begin With a Singularity?

Did the universe begin with a singularity? A point in space and/or a moment in time where everything in the universe was crushed together, infinitely hot and infinitely densely packed? Doesn&#8217…

profmattstrassler.com

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A singularity is something that happens to the equations. Hardly any cosmologists think it is a real, physical thing. It's more an indication that the theory is no longer applicable and we need a combined theory of GR and QFT.

Did The Universe Really Begin With a Singularity?

Did the universe begin with a singularity? A point in space and/or a moment in time where everything in the universe was crushed together, infinitely hot and infinitely densely packed? Doesn&#8217…

profmattstrassler.com

Need is psychology. What you want, is that you want it but form that doesn't follow that you get it

 

[We Never Know]

A singularity is something that happens to the equations. Hardly any cosmologists think it is a real, physical thing. It's more an indication that the theory is no longer applicable and we need a combined theory of GR and QFT.

Did The Universe Really Begin With a Singularity?

Did the universe begin with a singularity? A point in space and/or a moment in time where everything in the universe was crushed together, infinitely hot and infinitely densely packed? Doesn&#8217…

profmattstrassler.com

What makes you think there's a beginning?

 

[Zwing]

IE: "cats" don't exist. only collections of atoms exist and "cat" is an abstract concept referring to one specific way in which such atoms are collected.

Ah, yes! This is very true, and is the reason why I find myself interested in Advaita as the philosophical basis of religion, which is partly why I appear here in the first place. What you speak of is a different category of error. It involves a misperception of certain substantial things which exist, based upon the limitations of the physiology of human sense-perception. Both an apparently solid human being and a collection of atoms which are/is 99.9999996% empty space are real things having substance. The consideration of abstractions as being real, on the other hand, involves not a misperception, but rather a logical error which attributes reality to something merely conceived within the mind.

 

[ratiocinator]

Need is psychology.

Words can have more than one meaning.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Words can have more than one meaning.

Yeah, and I do get that. It also applies to these words "the truth". But you know that, don't you?

 

[ratiocinator]

What makes you think there's a beginning?

As I said before (and several other people too) it's a model we can't rule out. It just happens to be a model you seem to be finding impossible to understand, which is why we keep having to correct you about it.

 

[Zwing]

Not sure why the above double post happened. Sorry.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yeah, and I do get that. It also applies to these words "the truth". But you know that, don't you?

Boring.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As I said before (and several other people too) it's a model we can't rule out. It just happens to be a model you seem to be finding impossible to understand, which is why we keep having to correct you about it.

:Winner:

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Boring.

Yeah, I know. The standard for you is not the same as me and sometimes you make for great laughs. I do get it works in the other direction too.

 

[Zwing]

A thing is an an utterly abstract entity, because you can't point to a thing.

An abstraction is a type of thing; it is an unreal thing.

 

[We Never Know]

Nope. There was no point at which it didn't exist.

Nope. Whenever anything existed, there was expansion.

"Nope. There was no point at which it didn't exist"

So it never began, never started right?

 

[We Never Know]

As I said before (and several other people too) it's a model we can't rule out. It just happens to be a model you seem to be finding impossible to understand, which is why we keep having to correct you about it.

What model makes you think there's a beginning?

 

[Zwing]

A thing is an an utterly abstract entity, because you can't point to a thing. Nor can you point to existence. The same with existence of its own, that is the problem of "das Ding an sich". You are playing with different abstract concepts and declaring some relevant and other not so much. BTW I do that, I am just aware of it. Not that that makes it better.

My point is epistemological.

Fair enough. Attributing reality to an abstraction is an epistemologically based error. Attributing reality to a thing essentially real is not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What model makes you think there's a beginning?

Well, thinking won't settle it and that is how it is different models.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Fair enough. Attributing reality to an abstraction is an epistemologically based error. Attributing reality to a thing essentially real is not.

Well, that depends on the epistemology in question. Personally I have never observed real, but you might be different, but then I am different, so is that real?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

An abstraction is a type of thing; it is an unreal thing.

Yeah and a thing is an abstraction itself. So is real. At least in my epistemology.

 

[Zwing]

Yeah and a thing is an abstraction itself.

I don’t think so; not of necessity.

 

[ratiocinator]

What model makes you think there's a beginning?

It's what GR by itself implies. However, we know that time isn't the unchanging Newtonian version, so a start of time is quite possible in other models. There are also hypotheses that have time going forward in both directions from the BB, so there still wouldn't really be a 'before' because if you try to track time backwards, you'd end up going forwards again.

You just need to let go of intuition and Newton.