Does the creation of space and time qualify as a miracle?

[ding]

I have demonstrated it to you.

You live in a logical universe governed by rules. It would be illogical if the creation of that universe were not governed by rules.

This is why the leading experts in this field believe the laws of nature were in place before the universe was created.

You literally have no basis for your belief.

You, nor those who contend what you choose to believe, ever have nor; are they likely to, demonstrate this claim.
I predicate my belief on knowledge. Not other people’s beliefs. But you’re free to base yours on anything you like. Or even nothing at all...

That’s not how I see it. Your belief that the universe was created without any rules is illogical and unsupported.

Whereas my belief and the belief of leading scientists is based upon logic and reason.

That wasn’t my claim. My claim was that the universe was created according to rules which predate the existence of space, time, and matter hasn’t been proven. I merely pointed out that this isn’t a fact, as you seem to portray it to be. But rather a belief you hold. And I can assure you that there is a very real difference between demonstrable facts. And unobservable beliefs.
But don’t get me wrong. I don’t begrudge you your beliefs. They are yours for the choosing.

The theory of relativity isn’t a fact but we operate as it is.

The theory of evolution isn’t a fact but you accept it like it is.

Neither of those statement detract from the fact that you have presented a belief in something that has never been observed. And that’s fine as a belief. But if one chooses to attempt to build upon that as though it were fact... They’d be taking a terrible gamble; as all subsequent work predicated on the unsubstantiated belief would falter.
I find it an interesting idea. I’m not even declaring it to be incorrect. I’m simply pointing out that it is nothing more than a guess. It has never been observed.
But... If one were bent on proving it... All they would have to do, is observe these “rules” in the absence of matter, space, and time. One may find that the idea was right. Then again... one may find that in the absence of matter, space, and time; the cause and effect (Rules) cease to exist as well... it’s quite thought provoking.

Those statements prove that we operate as if laws and theories are true.

Here's how I can prove it for you though. Laws of nature are not stored in matter and energy, they are apart from matter and energy.

Show me in matter or energy where these laws reside?

 

[Vastator]

You, nor those who contend what you choose to believe, ever have nor; are they likely to, demonstrate this claim.
I predicate my belief on knowledge. Not other people’s beliefs. But you’re free to base yours on anything you like. Or even nothing at all...

That’s not how I see it. Your belief that the universe was created without any rules is illogical and unsupported.

Whereas my belief and the belief of leading scientists is based upon logic and reason.

That wasn’t my claim. My claim was that the universe was created according to rules which predate the existence of space, time, and matter hasn’t been proven. I merely pointed out that this isn’t a fact, as you seem to portray it to be. But rather a belief you hold. And I can assure you that there is a very real difference between demonstrable facts. And unobservable beliefs.
But don’t get me wrong. I don’t begrudge you your beliefs. They are yours for the choosing.

The theory of relativity isn’t a fact but we operate as it is.

The theory of evolution isn’t a fact but you accept it like it is.

Neither of those statement detract from the fact that you have presented a belief in something that has never been observed. And that’s fine as a belief. But if one chooses to attempt to build upon that as though it were fact... They’d be taking a terrible gamble; as all subsequent work predicated on the unsubstantiated belief would falter.
I find it an interesting idea. I’m not even declaring it to be incorrect. I’m simply pointing out that it is nothing more than a guess. It has never been observed.
But... If one were bent on proving it... All they would have to do, is observe these “rules” in the absence of matter, space, and time. One may find that the idea was right. Then again... one may find that in the absence of matter, space, and time; the cause and effect (Rules) cease to exist as well... it’s quite thought provoking.

Those statements prove that we operate as if laws and theories are true.

Here's how I can prove it for you though. Laws of nature are not stored in matter and energy, they are apart from matter and energy.

Show me in matter or energy where these laws reside?

That was a claim; it did not prove anything. The onus is on you to prove your assertion. Not me.

 

[Vastator]

You, nor those who contend what you choose to believe, ever have nor; are they likely to, demonstrate this claim.
I predicate my belief on knowledge. Not other people’s beliefs. But you’re free to base yours on anything you like. Or even nothing at all...

That’s not how I see it. Your belief that the universe was created without any rules is illogical and unsupported.

Whereas my belief and the belief of leading scientists is based upon logic and reason.

That wasn’t my claim. My claim was that the universe was created according to rules which predate the existence of space, time, and matter hasn’t been proven. I merely pointed out that this isn’t a fact, as you seem to portray it to be. But rather a belief you hold. And I can assure you that there is a very real difference between demonstrable facts. And unobservable beliefs.
But don’t get me wrong. I don’t begrudge you your beliefs. They are yours for the choosing.

The theory of relativity isn’t a fact but we operate as it is.

The theory of evolution isn’t a fact but you accept it like it is.

Neither of those statement detract from the fact that you have presented a belief in something that has never been observed. And that’s fine as a belief. But if one chooses to attempt to build upon that as though it were fact... They’d be taking a terrible gamble; as all subsequent work predicated on the unsubstantiated belief would falter.
I find it an interesting idea. I’m not even declaring it to be incorrect. I’m simply pointing out that it is nothing more than a guess. It has never been observed.
But... If one were bent on proving it... All they would have to do, is observe these “rules” in the absence of matter, space, and time. One may find that the idea was right. Then again... one may find that in the absence of matter, space, and time; the cause and effect (Rules) cease to exist as well... it’s quite thought provoking.

Those statements prove that we operate as if laws and theories are true.

Here's how I can prove it for you though. Laws of nature are not stored in matter and energy, they are apart from matter and energy.

Show me in matter or energy where these laws reside?

Show these laws in effect; absent space, matter and time. If you could do that... Then at least you’d have taken a step toward proving that it is plausible that cause and effect “can” exist absent space, matter, and time. Then... you would have to go the next step, and demonstrate that cause and effect did in fact, exist prior to the appearance of matter, space, and time.
Just making a claim demonstrates nothing.

 

[ding]

That’s not how I see it. Your belief that the universe was created without any rules is illogical and unsupported.

Whereas my belief and the belief of leading scientists is based upon logic and reason.

That wasn’t my claim. My claim was that the universe was created according to rules which predate the existence of space, time, and matter hasn’t been proven. I merely pointed out that this isn’t a fact, as you seem to portray it to be. But rather a belief you hold. And I can assure you that there is a very real difference between demonstrable facts. And unobservable beliefs.
But don’t get me wrong. I don’t begrudge you your beliefs. They are yours for the choosing.

The theory of relativity isn’t a fact but we operate as it is.

The theory of evolution isn’t a fact but you accept it like it is.

Neither of those statement detract from the fact that you have presented a belief in something that has never been observed. And that’s fine as a belief. But if one chooses to attempt to build upon that as though it were fact... They’d be taking a terrible gamble; as all subsequent work predicated on the unsubstantiated belief would falter.
I find it an interesting idea. I’m not even declaring it to be incorrect. I’m simply pointing out that it is nothing more than a guess. It has never been observed.
But... If one were bent on proving it... All they would have to do, is observe these “rules” in the absence of matter, space, and time. One may find that the idea was right. Then again... one may find that in the absence of matter, space, and time; the cause and effect (Rules) cease to exist as well... it’s quite thought provoking.

Those statements prove that we operate as if laws and theories are true.

Here's how I can prove it for you though. Laws of nature are not stored in matter and energy, they are apart from matter and energy.

Show me in matter or energy where these laws reside?

That was a claim; it did not prove anything. The onus is on you to prove your assertion. Not me.

If you believe the laws are attached / embedded in the physical, that they are one in the same, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

I have already proven that the laws of nature were in place before space and time existed because space and time was created according to those laws; specifically the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation. That is my proof. Where is yours?

 

[ding]

That’s not how I see it. Your belief that the universe was created without any rules is illogical and unsupported.

Whereas my belief and the belief of leading scientists is based upon logic and reason.

That wasn’t my claim. My claim was that the universe was created according to rules which predate the existence of space, time, and matter hasn’t been proven. I merely pointed out that this isn’t a fact, as you seem to portray it to be. But rather a belief you hold. And I can assure you that there is a very real difference between demonstrable facts. And unobservable beliefs.
But don’t get me wrong. I don’t begrudge you your beliefs. They are yours for the choosing.

The theory of relativity isn’t a fact but we operate as it is.

The theory of evolution isn’t a fact but you accept it like it is.

Neither of those statement detract from the fact that you have presented a belief in something that has never been observed. And that’s fine as a belief. But if one chooses to attempt to build upon that as though it were fact... They’d be taking a terrible gamble; as all subsequent work predicated on the unsubstantiated belief would falter.
I find it an interesting idea. I’m not even declaring it to be incorrect. I’m simply pointing out that it is nothing more than a guess. It has never been observed.
But... If one were bent on proving it... All they would have to do, is observe these “rules” in the absence of matter, space, and time. One may find that the idea was right. Then again... one may find that in the absence of matter, space, and time; the cause and effect (Rules) cease to exist as well... it’s quite thought provoking.

Those statements prove that we operate as if laws and theories are true.

Here's how I can prove it for you though. Laws of nature are not stored in matter and energy, they are apart from matter and energy.

Show me in matter or energy where these laws reside?

Show these laws in effect; absent space, matter and time. If you could do that... Then at least you’d have taken a step toward proving that it is plausible that cause and effect “can” exist absent space, matter, and time. Then... you would have to go the next step, and demonstrate that cause and effect did in fact, exist prior to the appearance of matter, space, and time.
Just making a claim demonstrates nothing.

According to Dr. Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate and Director Emeritus of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory:

"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential."

 

[Taz]

That wasn’t my claim. My claim was that the universe was created according to rules which predate the existence of space, time, and matter hasn’t been proven. I merely pointed out that this isn’t a fact, as you seem to portray it to be. But rather a belief you hold. And I can assure you that there is a very real difference between demonstrable facts. And unobservable beliefs.
But don’t get me wrong. I don’t begrudge you your beliefs. They are yours for the choosing.

The theory of relativity isn’t a fact but we operate as it is.

The theory of evolution isn’t a fact but you accept it like it is.

Neither of those statement detract from the fact that you have presented a belief in something that has never been observed. And that’s fine as a belief. But if one chooses to attempt to build upon that as though it were fact... They’d be taking a terrible gamble; as all subsequent work predicated on the unsubstantiated belief would falter.
I find it an interesting idea. I’m not even declaring it to be incorrect. I’m simply pointing out that it is nothing more than a guess. It has never been observed.
But... If one were bent on proving it... All they would have to do, is observe these “rules” in the absence of matter, space, and time. One may find that the idea was right. Then again... one may find that in the absence of matter, space, and time; the cause and effect (Rules) cease to exist as well... it’s quite thought provoking.

Those statements prove that we operate as if laws and theories are true.

Here's how I can prove it for you though. Laws of nature are not stored in matter and energy, they are apart from matter and energy.

Show me in matter or energy where these laws reside?

That was a claim; it did not prove anything. The onus is on you to prove your assertion. Not me.

If you believe the laws are attached / embedded in the physical, that they are one in the same, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

I have already proven that the laws of nature were in place before space and time existed because space and time was created according to those laws; specifically the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation. That is my proof. Where is yours?

Just because you say that it’s proof doesn’t make it so. Because in this case, it’s not proof. You can’t possibly know what was before the BB. Link?

 

[ding]

The theory of relativity isn’t a fact but we operate as it is.

The theory of evolution isn’t a fact but you accept it like it is.

Neither of those statement detract from the fact that you have presented a belief in something that has never been observed. And that’s fine as a belief. But if one chooses to attempt to build upon that as though it were fact... They’d be taking a terrible gamble; as all subsequent work predicated on the unsubstantiated belief would falter.
I find it an interesting idea. I’m not even declaring it to be incorrect. I’m simply pointing out that it is nothing more than a guess. It has never been observed.
But... If one were bent on proving it... All they would have to do, is observe these “rules” in the absence of matter, space, and time. One may find that the idea was right. Then again... one may find that in the absence of matter, space, and time; the cause and effect (Rules) cease to exist as well... it’s quite thought provoking.

Those statements prove that we operate as if laws and theories are true.

Here's how I can prove it for you though. Laws of nature are not stored in matter and energy, they are apart from matter and energy.

Show me in matter or energy where these laws reside?

That was a claim; it did not prove anything. The onus is on you to prove your assertion. Not me.

If you believe the laws are attached / embedded in the physical, that they are one in the same, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

I have already proven that the laws of nature were in place before space and time existed because space and time was created according to those laws; specifically the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation. That is my proof. Where is yours?

Just because you say that it’s proof doesn’t make it so. Because in this case, it’s not proof. You can’t possibly know what was before the BB. Link?

You mean besides the laws of nature?

 

[Montrovant]

Neither of those statement detract from the fact that you have presented a belief in something that has never been observed. And that’s fine as a belief. But if one chooses to attempt to build upon that as though it were fact... They’d be taking a terrible gamble; as all subsequent work predicated on the unsubstantiated belief would falter.
I find it an interesting idea. I’m not even declaring it to be incorrect. I’m simply pointing out that it is nothing more than a guess. It has never been observed.
But... If one were bent on proving it... All they would have to do, is observe these “rules” in the absence of matter, space, and time. One may find that the idea was right. Then again... one may find that in the absence of matter, space, and time; the cause and effect (Rules) cease to exist as well... it’s quite thought provoking.

Those statements prove that we operate as if laws and theories are true.

Here's how I can prove it for you though. Laws of nature are not stored in matter and energy, they are apart from matter and energy.

Show me in matter or energy where these laws reside?

That was a claim; it did not prove anything. The onus is on you to prove your assertion. Not me.

If you believe the laws are attached / embedded in the physical, that they are one in the same, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

I have already proven that the laws of nature were in place before space and time existed because space and time was created according to those laws; specifically the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation. That is my proof. Where is yours?

Just because you say that it’s proof doesn’t make it so. Because in this case, it’s not proof. You can’t possibly know what was before the BB. Link?

You mean besides the laws of nature?

I'm pretty sure he's including the laws of nature in what you cannot know existed before the Big Bang.

 

[ding]

Those statements prove that we operate as if laws and theories are true.

Here's how I can prove it for you though. Laws of nature are not stored in matter and energy, they are apart from matter and energy.

Show me in matter or energy where these laws reside?

That was a claim; it did not prove anything. The onus is on you to prove your assertion. Not me.

If you believe the laws are attached / embedded in the physical, that they are one in the same, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

I have already proven that the laws of nature were in place before space and time existed because space and time was created according to those laws; specifically the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation. That is my proof. Where is yours?

Just because you say that it’s proof doesn’t make it so. Because in this case, it’s not proof. You can’t possibly know what was before the BB. Link?

You mean besides the laws of nature?

I'm pretty sure he's including the laws of nature in what you cannot know existed before the Big Bang.

How else do you think it could have happened? Magic?

 

[Vastator]

That wasn’t my claim. My claim was that the universe was created according to rules which predate the existence of space, time, and matter hasn’t been proven. I merely pointed out that this isn’t a fact, as you seem to portray it to be. But rather a belief you hold. And I can assure you that there is a very real difference between demonstrable facts. And unobservable beliefs.
But don’t get me wrong. I don’t begrudge you your beliefs. They are yours for the choosing.

The theory of relativity isn’t a fact but we operate as it is.

The theory of evolution isn’t a fact but you accept it like it is.

Neither of those statement detract from the fact that you have presented a belief in something that has never been observed. And that’s fine as a belief. But if one chooses to attempt to build upon that as though it were fact... They’d be taking a terrible gamble; as all subsequent work predicated on the unsubstantiated belief would falter.
I find it an interesting idea. I’m not even declaring it to be incorrect. I’m simply pointing out that it is nothing more than a guess. It has never been observed.
But... If one were bent on proving it... All they would have to do, is observe these “rules” in the absence of matter, space, and time. One may find that the idea was right. Then again... one may find that in the absence of matter, space, and time; the cause and effect (Rules) cease to exist as well... it’s quite thought provoking.

Those statements prove that we operate as if laws and theories are true.

Here's how I can prove it for you though. Laws of nature are not stored in matter and energy, they are apart from matter and energy.

Show me in matter or energy where these laws reside?

That was a claim; it did not prove anything. The onus is on you to prove your assertion. Not me.

If you believe the laws are attached / embedded in the physical, that they are one in the same, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

I have already proven that the laws of nature were in place before space and time existed because space and time was created according to those laws; specifically the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation. That is my proof. Where is yours?

No you didn’t. Repetition lends no weight to the claim. You seem to be trying to avoid demonstrating, or otherwise proving your supposition. I made none.

 

[ding]

The theory of relativity isn’t a fact but we operate as it is.

The theory of evolution isn’t a fact but you accept it like it is.

Neither of those statement detract from the fact that you have presented a belief in something that has never been observed. And that’s fine as a belief. But if one chooses to attempt to build upon that as though it were fact... They’d be taking a terrible gamble; as all subsequent work predicated on the unsubstantiated belief would falter.
I find it an interesting idea. I’m not even declaring it to be incorrect. I’m simply pointing out that it is nothing more than a guess. It has never been observed.
But... If one were bent on proving it... All they would have to do, is observe these “rules” in the absence of matter, space, and time. One may find that the idea was right. Then again... one may find that in the absence of matter, space, and time; the cause and effect (Rules) cease to exist as well... it’s quite thought provoking.

Those statements prove that we operate as if laws and theories are true.

Here's how I can prove it for you though. Laws of nature are not stored in matter and energy, they are apart from matter and energy.

Show me in matter or energy where these laws reside?

That was a claim; it did not prove anything. The onus is on you to prove your assertion. Not me.

If you believe the laws are attached / embedded in the physical, that they are one in the same, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

I have already proven that the laws of nature were in place before space and time existed because space and time was created according to those laws; specifically the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation. That is my proof. Where is yours?

No you didn’t. Repetition lends no weight to the claim. You seem to be trying to avoid your supposition. I made none.

Yes, I did. How else do you think space and time was created? Magic?

 

[Vastator]

Neither of those statement detract from the fact that you have presented a belief in something that has never been observed. And that’s fine as a belief. But if one chooses to attempt to build upon that as though it were fact... They’d be taking a terrible gamble; as all subsequent work predicated on the unsubstantiated belief would falter.
I find it an interesting idea. I’m not even declaring it to be incorrect. I’m simply pointing out that it is nothing more than a guess. It has never been observed.
But... If one were bent on proving it... All they would have to do, is observe these “rules” in the absence of matter, space, and time. One may find that the idea was right. Then again... one may find that in the absence of matter, space, and time; the cause and effect (Rules) cease to exist as well... it’s quite thought provoking.

Those statements prove that we operate as if laws and theories are true.

Here's how I can prove it for you though. Laws of nature are not stored in matter and energy, they are apart from matter and energy.

Show me in matter or energy where these laws reside?

That was a claim; it did not prove anything. The onus is on you to prove your assertion. Not me.

If you believe the laws are attached / embedded in the physical, that they are one in the same, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

I have already proven that the laws of nature were in place before space and time existed because space and time was created according to those laws; specifically the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation. That is my proof. Where is yours?

No you didn’t. Repetition lends no weight to the claim. You seem to be trying to avoid your supposition. I made none.

Yes, I did. How else do you think space and time was created? Magic?

Additional questions as to what I think, don’t reinforce your belief.

 

[Montrovant]

That was a claim; it did not prove anything. The onus is on you to prove your assertion. Not me.

If you believe the laws are attached / embedded in the physical, that they are one in the same, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

I have already proven that the laws of nature were in place before space and time existed because space and time was created according to those laws; specifically the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation. That is my proof. Where is yours?

Just because you say that it’s proof doesn’t make it so. Because in this case, it’s not proof. You can’t possibly know what was before the BB. Link?

You mean besides the laws of nature?

I'm pretty sure he's including the laws of nature in what you cannot know existed before the Big Bang.

How else do you think it could have happened? Magic?

I was only commenting on Taz's post. However, I have no idea what might have existed before the Big Bang. Unlike you, I don't feel any sort of surety about my knowledge of such things. It's possible that what existed prior to the Big Bang is something beyond human comprehension; it's possible the laws of nature you keep speaking about did exist. I have no problem with accepting my ignorance. I haven't yet figured out why you are so certain that you have the answer.

 

[Montrovant]

Neither of those statement detract from the fact that you have presented a belief in something that has never been observed. And that’s fine as a belief. But if one chooses to attempt to build upon that as though it were fact... They’d be taking a terrible gamble; as all subsequent work predicated on the unsubstantiated belief would falter.
I find it an interesting idea. I’m not even declaring it to be incorrect. I’m simply pointing out that it is nothing more than a guess. It has never been observed.
But... If one were bent on proving it... All they would have to do, is observe these “rules” in the absence of matter, space, and time. One may find that the idea was right. Then again... one may find that in the absence of matter, space, and time; the cause and effect (Rules) cease to exist as well... it’s quite thought provoking.

Those statements prove that we operate as if laws and theories are true.

Here's how I can prove it for you though. Laws of nature are not stored in matter and energy, they are apart from matter and energy.

Show me in matter or energy where these laws reside?

That was a claim; it did not prove anything. The onus is on you to prove your assertion. Not me.

If you believe the laws are attached / embedded in the physical, that they are one in the same, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

I have already proven that the laws of nature were in place before space and time existed because space and time was created according to those laws; specifically the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation. That is my proof. Where is yours?

No you didn’t. Repetition lends no weight to the claim. You seem to be trying to avoid your supposition. I made none.

Yes, I did. How else do you think space and time was created? Magic?

Not knowing how space and time were created does not prove how space and time were created.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Does the creation of space and time qualify as a miracle?
※→ Montrovant, et al,

I think your (Montrovant) observation is very insightful.

Not knowing how space and time were created does not prove how space and time were created.

(COMMENT)

At the heart of the original question → there is a bifurcated implication that either:

• There is a supernatural power that can force an event outside the laws of the universe.
........................................................ OR
• While we may not know today, what laws of universe explain the creation of "space and time,"
if, indeed, they are within the realm of our understanding, → there is an answer out there in the physics
of the universe.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ding]

If you believe the laws are attached / embedded in the physical, that they are one in the same, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

I have already proven that the laws of nature were in place before space and time existed because space and time was created according to those laws; specifically the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation. That is my proof. Where is yours?

Just because you say that it’s proof doesn’t make it so. Because in this case, it’s not proof. You can’t possibly know what was before the BB. Link?

You mean besides the laws of nature?

I'm pretty sure he's including the laws of nature in what you cannot know existed before the Big Bang.

How else do you think it could have happened? Magic?

I was only commenting on Taz's post. However, I have no idea what might have existed before the Big Bang. Unlike you, I don't feel any sort of surety about my knowledge of such things. It's possible that what existed prior to the Big Bang is something beyond human comprehension; it's possible the laws of nature you keep speaking about did exist. I have no problem with accepting my ignorance. I haven't yet figured out why you are so certain that you have the answer.

Because logic requires it and because leading experts believe it.

 

[ding]

RE: Does the creation of space and time qualify as a miracle?
※→ Montrovant, et al,

I think your (Montrovant) observation is very insightful.

Not knowing how space and time were created does not prove how space and time were created.

(COMMENT)

At the heart of the original question → there is a bifurcated implication that either:

• There is a supernatural power that can force an event outside the laws of the universe.
........................................................ OR
• While we may not know today, what laws of universe explain the creation of "space and time,"
if, indeed, they are within the realm of our understanding, → there is an answer out there in the physics
of the universe.​

Most Respectfully,
R

The best explanation for how space and time were created is inflation theory. So to say we don't know is incorrect because that implies we have no idea.

 

[ding]

Those statements prove that we operate as if laws and theories are true.

Here's how I can prove it for you though. Laws of nature are not stored in matter and energy, they are apart from matter and energy.

Show me in matter or energy where these laws reside?

That was a claim; it did not prove anything. The onus is on you to prove your assertion. Not me.

If you believe the laws are attached / embedded in the physical, that they are one in the same, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

I have already proven that the laws of nature were in place before space and time existed because space and time was created according to those laws; specifically the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation. That is my proof. Where is yours?

No you didn’t. Repetition lends no weight to the claim. You seem to be trying to avoid your supposition. I made none.

Yes, I did. How else do you think space and time was created? Magic?

Not knowing how space and time were created does not prove how space and time were created.

The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

 

[Taz]

Neither of those statement detract from the fact that you have presented a belief in something that has never been observed. And that’s fine as a belief. But if one chooses to attempt to build upon that as though it were fact... They’d be taking a terrible gamble; as all subsequent work predicated on the unsubstantiated belief would falter.
I find it an interesting idea. I’m not even declaring it to be incorrect. I’m simply pointing out that it is nothing more than a guess. It has never been observed.
But... If one were bent on proving it... All they would have to do, is observe these “rules” in the absence of matter, space, and time. One may find that the idea was right. Then again... one may find that in the absence of matter, space, and time; the cause and effect (Rules) cease to exist as well... it’s quite thought provoking.

Those statements prove that we operate as if laws and theories are true.

Here's how I can prove it for you though. Laws of nature are not stored in matter and energy, they are apart from matter and energy.

Show me in matter or energy where these laws reside?

That was a claim; it did not prove anything. The onus is on you to prove your assertion. Not me.

If you believe the laws are attached / embedded in the physical, that they are one in the same, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

I have already proven that the laws of nature were in place before space and time existed because space and time was created according to those laws; specifically the laws of quantum mechanics and the law of conservation. That is my proof. Where is yours?

Just because you say that it’s proof doesn’t make it so. Because in this case, it’s not proof. You can’t possibly know what was before the BB. Link?

You mean besides the laws of nature?

Link?

 

[Taz]

Just because you say that it’s proof doesn’t make it so. Because in this case, it’s not proof. You can’t possibly know what was before the BB. Link?

You mean besides the laws of nature?

I'm pretty sure he's including the laws of nature in what you cannot know existed before the Big Bang.

How else do you think it could have happened? Magic?

I was only commenting on Taz's post. However, I have no idea what might have existed before the Big Bang. Unlike you, I don't feel any sort of surety about my knowledge of such things. It's possible that what existed prior to the Big Bang is something beyond human comprehension; it's possible the laws of nature you keep speaking about did exist. I have no problem with accepting my ignorance. I haven't yet figured out why you are so certain that you have the answer.

Because logic requires it and because leading experts believe it.

Link?