Zone1 “If the universe had a beginning, then we cannot avoid the question of creation.”

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Daffuq button needed here.

What does any of that have to do with the "primordial soup" that preceded the "Big Bang?"

Sorry, I took primordial soup to mean the "soup" here on Earth that enabled abiogenesis.

 

[ding]

In, for example, the ways I described in the post. Any definition of that would be arbitrary and for convenience.

There's nothing arbitrary about the differences between living things and inanimate objects. It's pretty easy to see how everything but living things came to be. That's much harder to understand. With respect to the evolution of space and time, inanimate objects preceded living things, so there was a beginning of life. Just as there was a beginning to inanimate objects.

 

[ding]

That if you go backwards in time, you wont ever reach a boundary?


That's a mathematical proof that assumes observably infinite density at the beginning.

It's akin to traveling to infinity. You never get there. The same applies in reverse: traveling into our future.

Remember, this is as measured from our perspective. An observer in higher spacetime dimensions would be able to see the beginning and end of our local universe, meaning the big bang and the big rip.

Luckily for us the solutions to Einstein field equations aren't about travelers but space itself. So if you run those equations in reverse space does reach a boundary. If memory serves me it's at the size of 1 billionth of a proton.

 

[ding]

BREAKING NEWS UPDATE!

We still don't know who (or most likely what) made the "primordial soup."

But we can infer that the laws of nature existed before space and time and we can infer the attributes of what existed before space and time.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There's nothing arbitrary about the differences between living things and inanimate objects.

Yes, you like to say that. And then I like to watch as you refine the defintion repeatedly, proving yourself incorrect.

 

[ding]

Uh, yes we do.

The elements heavier than helium were produced in the cores of stars and by overpressure from novae.

A cloud of dust with an abundance of these heavier elements was formed by prior star deaths. This cloud began to collapse and rotate, leading to our solar system's protoplanetary disk.

As our planet coalesced, the heaviest elements fell toward the core, and the lighter elements and molecules did not. These materials were also then supplemented on and near the surface by matter infalling from the solar system., nearly all of which was also part of the protoplanetary disk.

I'm pretty sure the primordial soup Chuz Life is talking about was the radiation era.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Obviously we can see a difference between a squirrel and a rock.

But there was no "first life" outside of an arbitrarily chosen definition.

 

[ding]

Daffuq button needed here.

What does any of that have to do with the "primordial soup" that preceded the "Big Bang?"

When I think of primordial soup, I think of when radiation and matter were coupled together during the quantum firestorm of paired particle production with matter and anti-matter pairs popping into existence, annihilating each other, releasing radiation and producing more pairs of matter and anti-matter. I don't think of what existed before the big bang as being a primordial soup. Why do you believe it was?

 

[ding]

Yes, you like to say that. And then I like to watch as you refine the defintion repeatedly, proving yourself incorrect.

No. That's what science is saying. I have absolutely no idea what you think I have redefined.

It is obvious that there are differences between living things and inanimate objects. What is it that you find confusing when deciding if something is living or an inanimate object?

 

[ding]

Obviously we can see a difference between a squirrel and a rock.

But there was no "first life" outside of an arbitrarily chosen definition.

Can you see the difference between a rock and a single cell organism that is alive?

 

[ding]

there was no "first life" outside of an arbitrarily chosen definition.

Incorrect. There's nothing arbitrary about the definition of life. It's pretty easy to see the differences between inanimate objects and living things.

Inanimate objects preceded life. Both life and inanimate objects had a beginning.

 

[Chuz Life]

But we can infer that the laws of nature existed before space and time and we can infer the attributes of what existed before space and time.

I need an example of this, how it breaks down and differs from an example of projection or outright fabrication. . . errr... Theorectical guessing.

 

[Chuz Life]

When I think of primordial soup, I think of when radiation and matter were coupled together during the quantum firestorm of paired particle production with matter and anti-matter pairs popping into existence, annihilating each other, releasing radiation and producing more pairs of matter and anti-matter. I don't think of what existed before the big bang as being a primordial soup. Why do you believe it was?

That's what I understand it was called. I can't recall when or where I first read it. Most likely a Popular Science magazine.

 

[ding]

I need an example of this, how it breaks down and differs from an example of projection or outright fabrication. . . errr... Theorectical guessing.

The universe was created according to the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. Which means these laws had to be in place prior to space and time.

 

[ding]

That's what I understand it was called. I can't recall when or where I first read it. Most likely a Popular Science magazine.

I think maybe you confused it for the early universe. The early universe was a quantum soup. What existed before the universe is undefined. The best we can do is list the attributes that it had to have had.

 

[midcan5]

It always amazes me how this question goes on and on. There are scientific explanations for life given the proper soup. Living forever would be interesting but ain't gonna happen, folks enjoy yourself but be good and do good. You ain't gonna know you are dead so enjoy this brief moment.

 

[Chuz Life]

The universe was created according to the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. Which means these laws had to be in place prior to space and time.

What is the evidence that these "laws" existed prior to the events?

 

[ding]

What is the evidence that these "laws" existed prior to the events?

That the universe was created according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics. That the same laws that control how the universe evolves also controlled how the universe was created.

 

[Chuz Life]

I think maybe you confused it for the early universe. The early universe was a quantum soup. What existed before the universe is undefined. The best we can do is list the attributes that it had to have had.

I am not confused at all.

And I defer to my post just prior to this one.

Where is the proof or evidence that any of these "laws" existed prior to the origin of the Universe?

 

[Chuz Life]

That the universe was created according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics. That the same laws that control how the universe evolves also controlled how the universe was created.

The Latin phrase for "after the fact therefore because of the fact" is "post hoc ergo propter hoc." This translates literally to "after this, therefore because of this," and is commonly used to describe a logical fallacy where one assumes that because one event follows another, it must be caused by it.

https://x.com/i/grok/share/PvuhFB6mqNjqICyL900mxq7ye