Which evolved first --- FRUIT BEARING TREES or FRUIT EATING CREATURES?

[Sapiens]

Pray tell, what scientific observation data exists for the cause of the big bang?

I am neither a cosmologist nor an astrophysicist, so I really can't tell you much about the cause, but the data for its result and the trails back to a singularity are pretty clear.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So far not very much, for the simple reason that as it was the start of our universe you can't directly observe anything "before" the start (I use quotes as time started as well so the concept of "before" is meaningless).

I did not ask about before, but the cause?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am neither a cosmologist nor an astrophysicist, so I really can't tell you much about the cause, but the data for its result and the trails back to a singularity are pretty clear.

Fine....then it seems to me you accept the theory that the Cosmos came into existence from non-existence on faith...no questions asked..

 

[David M]

I did not ask about before, but the cause?

And I answered, with a reason why the answer is currently "Not much". If an event has a cause then that would be "prior" to or "at the same time as" the event. As I explained both concepts have little meaning as the relate to a point where both space and time started to exist in their current form.

Fine....then it seems to me you accept the theory that the Cosmos came into existence from non-existence on faith...no questions asked..

That is not what he said. It is accepted because it is based on strong evidence that the universe of space and time that we currently occupy had a beginning.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And I answered, with a reason why the answer is currently "Not much". If an event has a cause then that would be "prior" to or "at the same time as" the event. As I explained both concepts have little meaning as the relate to a point where both space and time started to exist in their current form.

'
So tell me about the "not much" scientific data that is known about the cause? If you do not know of anything, just say so... the stuff about no 'prior to' existence is just silly...unless of course you can provide scientific evidence the the Cosmos came in existence from non-existence?

 

[McBell]

'.unless of course you can provide scientific evidence the the Cosmos came in existence from non-existence?

Sad that so many people have to cling to this strawman argument.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sad that so many people have to cling to this strawman argument.

No strawman sir...tell me then what was the cause of the BB...and please do no obfuscation about no before sillyness?

 

[Ouroboros]

I did not ask about before, but the cause?

Causality is how we, finite human beings interpret the world. To put the forces that make this world possible into a context of "cause and effect" is pretty much putting it into a box in which it won't fit. Can you put 100 balloons in a shoebox? No, if they're filled with air. But if you deflate them, so they're not filled balloons anymore, then they fit. Putting the "cause" of Big Bang into cause/effect is to deflate it into something which is less than what it really is.

 

[David M]

'
So tell me about the "not much" scientific data that is known about the cause? If you do not know of anything, just say so... the stuff about no 'prior to' existence is just silly...unless of course you can provide scientific evidence the the Cosmos came in existence from non-existence?

As I said, there are varied hypotheses about possible causes, Branes are one as suggested by Steinhardt and Turok. But evidence is lacking at the moment so work is ongoing. The truth is that we may never know.

The Universe, which includes space and time originated at the Big Bang. This is supported by the evidence from the Red Shift and the CMB (among other things). The scientific evidence is there to show that the Universe started to exist in its current for which means that there was non-existence. This however was not what yopu asked for, you asked for evidence of the cause.

The point about "prior to" is not silly, it is vital to understand some of the concepts that you realise that as time itself is part of our universe a lot of human concepts relating to that area become meaningless once we approach the very start of or universe.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Causality is how we, finite human beings interpret the world. To put the forces that make this world possible into a context of "cause and effect" is pretty much putting it into a box in which it won't fit. Can you put 100 balloons in a shoebox? No, if they're filled with air. But if you deflate them, so they're not filled balloons anymore, then they fit. Putting the "cause" of Big Bang into cause/effect is to deflate it into something which is less than what it really is.

That's the point...I am well aware that all physical scientific theory is a result of how finite human beings interpret the world....but there may be some who are able to see my point.

If you are up to it...let us start with the concept of time itself...it does not exist outside the mathematical conceptual mind...the present now is existence existing as it must..,it is timeless...relative observation of movement of aspects of the eternal one ocean are abstract measurements made by the finite human mind. Do you follow?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

As I said, there are varied hypotheses about possible causes, Branes are one as suggested by Steinhardt and Turok. But evidence is lacking at the moment so work is ongoing. The truth is that we may never know.

The Universe, which includes space and time originated at the Big Bang. This is supported by the evidence from the Red Shift and the CMB (among other things). The scientific evidence is there to show that the Universe started to exist in its current for which means that there was non-existence. This however was not what yopu asked for, you asked for evidence of the cause.

The point about "prior to" is not silly, it is vital to understand some of the concepts that you realise that as time itself is part of our universe a lot of human concepts relating to that area become meaningless once we approach the very start of or universe.

I see you want to put your head in the sand when it comes to my question about cause...try following my post to Ouroboros to see my point..

 

[McBell]

No strawman sir...tell me then what was the cause of the BB...and please do not obfuscation about no before sillyness?

Please site a credible scientist that claims existence from non-existence.
The only ones I have ever heard it from, in it's many different forms, are those who are either ignorant of what is actually stated or those who are being deliberately dishonest.

So I guess it boils down to which one you are, ignorant or dishonest?

Either way, it is in fact a strawman.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Please site a credible scientist that claims existence from non-existence.
The only ones I have ever heard it from, in it's many different forms, are those who are either ignorant of what is actually stated or those who are being deliberately dishonest.

So I guess it boils down to which one you are, ignorant or dishonest?

Either way, it is in fact a strawman.

It is the implication silly....if there was no preexisting existence, relative to our 'known' universe, then the known universe would logically have to have had it genesis in non-existence, nothingness, void, timelessness, etc...

 

[Ouroboros]

That's the point...I am well aware that all physical scientific theory is a result of how finite human beings interpret the world....but there may be some who are able to see my point.

If there's a hole in a window. What was the cause? The baseball? The force of the baseball? The bat that hit it? The kid that hit the ball with his bat? The other kid throwing the ball in a certain curve that resulted in the other kid hitting the ball to fly through the window? And so on. There are many causes to an event. And those causes are in themselves results of other causes. Why should it all go back to just a single cause?

If you are up to it...let us start with the concept of time itself...it does not exist outside the mathematical conceptual mind...the present now is existence existing as it must..,it is timeless...relative observation of movement of aspects of the eternal one ocean are abstract measurements made by the finite human mind. Do you follow?

Time is only experience by individual observations. If we think of time as an infinite number of vectors in all directions and of different magnitudes, the "before" Big Bang is just one vector of an infinite number of other time vectors.

 

[Ouroboros]

It is the implication silly....if there was no preexisting existence, relative to our 'known' universe, then the known universe would logically have to have had it genesis in non-existence, nothingness, void, timelessness, etc...

The pre-existing existence is just one out of an infinite of existences.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If there's a hole in a window. What was the cause? The baseball? The force of the baseball? The bat that hit it? The kid that hit the ball with his bat? The other kid throwing the ball in a certain curve that resulted in the other kid hitting the ball to fly through the window? And so on. There are many causes to an event. And those causes are in themselves results of other causes. Why should it all go back to just a single cause?


Time is only experience by individual observations. If we think of time as an infinite number of vectors in all directions and of different magnitudes, the "before" Big Bang is just one vector of an infinite number of other time vectors.

Right....so it appears we agree that time is merely a human finite observation of any of an infinite number of vectors in all directions and of different magnitudes, and thus is a dualistic perspective. So please understand, thoughts about time is not what I'm interested in....

This....so as to avoid misunderstanding, one step at a time......do you believe there was a cause or was there no cause of the theoretical big bang?

 

[Ouroboros]

This....so as to avoid misunderstanding, one step at a time......do you believe there was a cause or was there no cause of the theoretical big bang?

A cause or no cause? What about many causes? The only options are 0 or 1, not n? Besides, as I said, "cause" is how we interpret the world.

When I push down a door handle, do you know that you never even touch the handle? What's happening is that that electrostatic field and the forces on the atomic scale make it that we never touch anything. And also, its an interaction of billions of particles when it happens. It's not just one atom "touching" the handle and pushing it down.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The pre-existing existence is just one out of an infinite of existences.

So where is the scientific data describing the relevant preexistent state?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

A cause or no cause? What about many causes? The only options are 0 or 1, not n? Besides, as I said, "cause" is how we interpret the world.

So please provide the scientific data describing the many causes of the big bang?

 

[Ouroboros]

So where is the scientific data describing the relevant preexistent state?

We can't (at least not yet), simply because science is something we call "natural science". Nature, as we know it, is this state of affairs. This world. How to deal with things outside our box of view can only at best be mathematical constructs. And even then, they're only our best guesses.

A wave hit the shores. What caused it?