Why talking or thinking about the BIG BANG is pointless

[FBW737 511]

When is SU10 being released?

 

[enright 496]

20 minutes ago, FBW737 said:

When is SU10 being released?

SU10 was released on 22nd of December, 2020:

https://flight.fandom.com/wiki/Microsoft_Flight_Simulator_(2020)/Patch_notes/Sim_Update_II_(SU2)

Or, more accurately, the 10110 of December, 11111100100.

Edited August 31, 2022 by enright

[enright 496]

1 hour ago, bofhlusr said:

There's a passage by a Jesuit priest (Fr. Spitzer) that say the same thing. He proposed:

---

"If the rate of expansion of the universe is greater than zero --something virtually all physicists agree on --at the end of the day we will reach an absolute beginning point prior to which the universe and multiverse (a combination of universes) were nothing. Physical reality itself was nothing, and the one thing we know about nothing is that it's... nothing.

The second thing we know about nothing is that nothing can only do nothing, and if the only thing nothing can do is nothing, then the whole of physical reality, configured as universe or multiverse, was nothing. It could never have moved itself to something by itself, because the only thing that it could do when it was nothing is nothing.

There is something else, and that something else has to transcend the universe and be powerful enough to create it… "

---
 

I'll see your Jesuit Priest quote, and raise you a Judas Priest quote:

"Your future lies within my eyes, what I predict will terrify, I can't control what comes to be, from the past to the present to eternity"

Song: Prophecy

Album:Nostradamus (2008)

I'm ashamed to admit I spent a good 10 minutes searching for a Judas Priest quote that was anywhere near relevant to this thread. 

[qqwertz 781]

Well, two comments 🙂  First of all, 1+2+3+4+ .... = -1/12 , see https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/roots-of-unity/does-123-really-equal-112/

As the value of 1+1 is concerned, there is disagreement:

A mathematician, a physicist, an engineer, a lawyer, and an accountant are all asked “What is 1+1?”

The mathematician says "2"

The physicists gets his calculator out and says 2.00000001

The engineer looks in his handbook and says "2, but let's make it 3, just to be safe"

The lawyer says "2, but I am not sure we can get away with that in court"

The accountant stands up, closes the blinds, turns off the light, closes the door, gets really close and whispers “What do you want it to be?”

 

[Fielder 3,663]

Apparently some people do have enough faith to believe that something came from nothing. No matter, no energy, no velocity, no spacial probability, nothing. And then they, seem to think something came from this void. I am not prepared to take such an absolute gigantic leap of faith like that.

[bofhlusr 453]

31 minutes ago, qqwertzde said:

The engineer looks in his handbook and says "2, but let's make it 3, just to be safe"

 

Reminds me of a joke about Germans. German engineering aims for perfection, so how come they don't develop great software? Answer: because by the time they perfected the software, Microsoft upgraded Windows again and their software is now obsolete. Lol.

[jymp 168]

We're not meant to understand.

[overspeed3 410]

There are those out who are faith-based and believe that the entire Universe was part of Creation.

Then there are those who believe it was created by a cataclysmic event, of course better known as the Big Bang. 

The sticking point here is that perhaps the true origin of the Universe will forever remain a mystery.

But ponder we will... 

[martin-w 3,235]

10 hours ago, Fielder said:

 

I don't have enough faith (it would require a staggering amount) to believe that the universe came from nothing. Impossible.

We can be certain that only nothing can come from nothing. Something cannot come from absolutely nothing. What we name things does not change anything. I name the something which always was: "God". 

 

 

The way you define nothing isn't how physics defines nothing.

You would define nothing as a completely empty void, the absence of everything, nothingness. 

However the above still isn't truly nothing. It still isn't truly nothing because empty space is still replete with quantum fields and teeming with quantum fluctuations, virtual particles popping in and out of existence. We know these virtual particles are real because they have observable effects and physicists have found ways to measure them

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle tells us that something can come from what you would call nothing. The universe could really be a vacuum fluctuation. 

If god always was, and inflation turns out to be a valid theory, then the inflaton field could be something that always was too, eternal and infinite. But lets not get into religion or the thread will be locked. 

 

[martin-w 3,235]

 

[martin-w 3,235]

6 hours ago, jymp said:

We're not meant to understand.

 

Evolution gave us brains equipped with 86 billion neurons, and 100 trillion connections, the most complex arrangement of matter we know of and we are still evolving. There is no "meant". 

[Fielder 3,663]

"You would define nothing as a completely empty void, the absence of everything, nothingness. 

However the above still isn't truly nothing. It still isn't truly nothing because empty space is still replete with quantum fields and teeming with quantum fluctuations, virtual particles popping in and out of existence. "

OK so now we're playing word games. So then, I hereby define 'nothing' as an empty void with no quantum fields, no fluctuations because there is nothing to fluctuate. And no virtual particles.  No matter, no forces, no physical laws, no attractions, no probabilities, no thing at all in any sense of the word 'thing'.

"We know these virtual particles are real because they have observable effects and physicists have found ways to measure them"

Sure they are real, and their very existence shows they do not exist in an empty environment of only nothingness.

If  someone posits that in my revised 'nothing' there are still things, then I just redefine my nothing to not exclude all those new things. Eventually we drill down to a complete nothingness in every conceivable sense of the word. From 'that' redefined nothingness, something cannot come into being. Because there is no thing that can cause this or anything else to happen.

When I awake each morning I see the sun and the sky and my family, and house etc. Something exists I'll wager. and did not come from nothing, was not created by nothing. I can't prove what I see and hear and feel is really there, I can't prove it really exists. But I believe it does exist. And just as sure as it exists, however true that surety may be,  then just as surely as that, it did not come from a total nothingness. 

What should seem to surely be true by reason (if we had no way  to test things, no way to observe anything) would be that nothing should exist. There should not be any physics, nor any mathematics. Or anything. But there is reality seeming to stare at me in the face each morning. So improbable as it is for anything at all to exist, I believe some things do exist. 

All I have proven here is that if some things do now exist, then at least something has always existed. If anything at all is true, that is true. 

 

 

 

Edited August 31, 2022 by Fielder

[jymp 168]

2 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

Evolution gave us brains equipped with 86 billion neurons, and 100 trillion connections, the most complex arrangement of matter we know of and we are still evolving. There is no "meant". 

Keep believing that

[martin-w 3,235]

2 hours ago, jymp said:

Keep believing that

 

Tell me why I shouldn't? 

[dmwalker 603]

5 hours ago, martin-w said:

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle tells us that something can come from what you would call nothing.

Was he certain about that?