To my knowledge, we also have zero evidence that they didn’t exist. Nor have we ever observed matter/energy appearing out of
thin airvaccuum, so it seems unlikely to me.And to my knowledge there can’t be a before time.
Oh yeah? Then where did they film The Land Before Time? Checkmat
I like how there are at least three things that are immediately recognizable as wrong with this question.
those are some egregious claims to not have a source.
Can time really exist if there was no frame of reference to measure it? We can only detect it by motion or entropy. It’s the only way of “time”. So if there was some point where there was nothing that moved, then time wouldn’t exist.
For that matter, there’s no way of measuring if time is even consistent. If it were constantly speeding way up, or slowing way down, we’d have no way of knowing.
Time is just a figment of our imagination so we can keep track of movement. Just like magenta isn’t a real color.
Yeah, I suspect that the universe may expand and contract, so likely all the matter in the big bang came from it all being compressed from the previous cycle.
I also think all total matter gets distributed the same way each cycle, so I guess I think all matter that exists now is the same matter that has existed always.
I also think each cycle, everything happens the same way deterministically, even though it would be exciting to see if maybe events happen differently each cycle.
My crackpot theory is that there’s a universe inside each black hole and we’re currently inside a black hole. All of the matter that a black hole ingests feeds into a big bang on a separate timeline.
The big bang was a singularity where our understanding of time and space breaks down. Well a black hole is the same thing.
“Before” the Big Bang is nonsense. It’s equivalent to saying “head north from the North Pole.”
It’s not so much that we know there was nothing before it, but that we can’t figure out what was before it.
No, in our current best-supported model of the universe (Lambda-CDM) the concept of “before” the Big Bang is meaningless. It is the apex of the spacetime “bell” from which everything emerged.
But something must have triggered the big bang. The model might not support this, but this only means the model is insufficient to describe what goes beyond our known universe.
But something must have triggered the big bang.
That’s a separate claim you’d have to prove. We have no evidence of something triggering it, we don’t even know that it would need to be triggered. All of our observations occur inside this universe, therefore we have no idea at all if cause-and-effect even applies to the universe as a whole. The short answer is: we don’t know and have no reason to posit the need for something else.
What does it mean for something to be “beyond” everywhere or before time?
I wish we could see beyond our universe, I want to know so much.
It is incoherent that sonething could suddenly exist out of nothingness.
Clearly the universe does not exist, this is all an elaborate statistical artifact.
I think the inability to destroy or create matter counts as Evidence but not necesarily Proof.
It doesn’t as the laws of physics as we currently know them break down at the scale and pressures involved in the very early universe.
Alright but until you can create or destroy energy/matter then you have no evidence to back your claims or dispute mine.
But that doesn’t make your claim provable
I literally said that.
A claim doesn’t need evidence to the contrary to be disputed, so no thats not what you said
I said it wasn’t proof, but that it was evidence. You can dispute a claim that has evidence but if you don’t have any evidence yourself you’re going to look like an idiot who ignores the most likely truth and instead clings to their faith.
