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

[ding]

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?

Clearly you are confused because you can't even cite your source.

The evidence is that the universe was created according to the same laws of nature that exist today.

 

[ding]

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

I think I will go with Alexander Vilenkin - a theoretical physicist and cosmologist - on this one. Feel free to cite an expert that disagrees with him.

 

[Chuz Life]

Clearly you are confused because you can't even cite your source.

The evidence is that the universe was created according to the same laws of nature that exist today.

Strange you believe I (or anyone else) can't have thoughts or questions of their own without citing a source.

You cannot prove the "laws of nature" existed even before the Universe began.

That claim (as I posted earlier) is a logical fallacy. "Post Hoc ergo propter hoc."

 

[Chuz Life]

I think I will go with Alexander Vilenkin - a theoretical physicist and cosmologist - on this one. Feel free to cite an expert that disagrees with him.

Appeal to authority? Popularity?

How many fallacies are we going to be dealing with here?

 

[ding]

Strange you believe I (or anyone else) can't have thoughts or questions of their own without citing a source.

You can not prove the "laws of nature" existed even before the Universe began.

That (as I posted earlier) is a logical fallacy. "Post Hoc ergo propter hoc."

I never said you couldn't or shouldn't. But you don't have to be dumb about it.

So why don't you tell me when the laws of nature came into existence.

 

[Chuz Life]

I never said you couldn't or shouldn't. But you don't have to be dumb about it.

So why don't you tell me when the laws of nature came into existence.

In my view/ observation, the laws of nature are man's explanation to interpret, understand, make predictions based upon what we see and experience.

Much of it is trial by error, which only further proves the point that we still don't have a clue about what we are looking at in most cases. . . especially if it's new and unexplored.

 

[ding]

In my view/ observation, the laws of nature are man's explanation to interpret, understand, makes predictions based upon what we see and experience.

Much of it is trial by error which only further proves the point that we still don't have a clue about what we are looking at in most cases. . . especially if it's new and unexplored.

And yet there has never been an uncaused event and the universe behaves in an orderly fashion. Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature.

So rather than dismissing the laws of nature as man's explanation to interpret, understand, makes predictions, you should be studying the laws of nature to ascertain what they are telling us about the origin of existence. Logically, if the universe was created according to the laws of nature that must mean the laws of nature existed before space and time.

 

[Chuz Life]

And yet there has never been an uncaused event and the universe behaves in an orderly fashion. Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature.

So rather than dismissing the laws of nature as man's explanation to interpret, understand, makes predictions, you should be studying the laws of nature to ascertain what they are telling us about the origin of existence. Logically, if the universe was created according to the laws of nature that must mean the laws of nature existed before space and time.

And if the origin of the universe is later discovered to have been originated by an action never seen before in our understanding of the "laws of nature?"

Then what?

My point is, the "laws of nature" are not fully understood. Because we have yet to observe and comprehend all there is to see.

I see that as dynamic. Not static.

 

[DonGlock26]

That the universe was created according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics.

The evidence is that the universe was created according to the same laws of nature that exist today.

What evidence? And, yes I did watch your video. It was a good one.

 

[zaangalewa]

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.

A very intelligent analysis and he speaks exactly about one of my "problems". When we make scientific constructs like parallel universes for example - how can we do so if we are only a result of the evolution of the universe here? We should not be able to imagine what's not part of the universe. But how came - for example - that mathematics is here? More concrete: A circle did not evolve. A circle always had been a perfect circle - but never in reality existed a really perfect circle in the universe. A perfect circle is indeed invisible - is perhaps "only" an idea. But without this mathematical structure nothing would exist in the way we know our universe. So how came it into the nothing from which everything was made? The solution of the paradox is exactly: it wasn't there as less as time and space and energy had been there. What we say when we speak about creation and/or creator then we speak about that the creator transcends every nothing and existence. But what for heavens sake could be more nothing than nothing or more existent than existence?



Hear the angels' bright songs,
ringing far across the fields,
and the mountains echoing
with heaven's song of praise.
Gloria, Gloria, Gloria, Gloria in excelsis Deo.
Gloria, Gloria, Gloria, Gloria in excelsis Deo.

Shepherds, why are you singing?
Tell us the reason for your joy!
What victory has been won?
That the choirs proclaim?
Gloria, Gloria, Gloria, Gloria in excelsis Deo.
Gloria, Gloria, Gloria, Gloria in excelsis Deo.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

 

[ding]

And if the origin of the universe is later discovered to have been originated by an action never seen before in our understanding of the "laws of nature?"

Then what?

Do you understand the mechanics of the big bang? Can you talk me through what they believe happened?

Because it seems like that that is the logical starting point.

 

[ding]

My point is, the "laws of nature" are not fully understood. Because we have yet to observe and comprehend all there is to see.

What does that have to do with the belief that the universe was created with nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter? And what does that have to do with why they believe the universe was created with nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter?

Because I think before you start looking for other causes, you ought to understand what they believe happened and why they believed it happened that way.

 

[Chuz Life]

Do you understand the mechanics of the big bang? Can you talk me through what they believe happened?

Because it seems like that that is the logical starting point.

I think the singularity and how it came into existence would be the more logical "starting point." And, no. . . I don't profess to "know" what created the singularity.

I can only cut and paste what others think happened in the Big Bang. Some of which raise as many questions as answers, for me, it does anyway.

 

[ding]

What evidence? And, yes I did watch your video. It was a good one.

The evidence is that universe was created according to the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. Which means the laws of nature were in place before space and time existed.

 

[DonGlock26]

The evidence is that universe was created according to the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. Which means the laws of nature were in place before space and time existed.

That's not evidence. It's speculation.

 

[ding]

I think the singularity and how it came into existence would be the more logical "starting point." And, no. . . I don't profess to "know" what created the singularity.

I can only cut and paste what others think happened in the Big Bang. Some of which raise as many questions as answers, for me, it does anyway.

The singularity is a mathematical artifact. It's not an event. Its literally the limit of the math.

Do you understand that the big bang is based upon the universe being created from nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter?

 

[Chuz Life]

That's not evidence. It's speculation.

That's all I have been trying to say.

 

[Chuz Life]

The singularity is a mathematical artifact. It's not an event. Its literally the limit of the math.

Do you understand that the big bang is based upon the universe being created from nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter?

Not until you can explain where the matter and anti-matter came from (and who or what created them)

No.

 

[ding]

I can only cut and paste what others think happened in the Big Bang. Some of which raise as many questions as answers, for me, it does anyway.

Great. Then do that. Because until you do that you won't understand how the universe could be created from matter that wasn't pre-existing and why they believe the universe wasn't created from pre-existing matter.

If you don't understand these things then you have no business discussing other causes.

 

[ding]

Not until you can explain where the matter and anti-matter came from (and who or what created them)

No.

• In the early universe, matter and anti-matter were being created equally out of the radiation
  
  • pair production
    • pair production is the production of matter and anti-matter in pairs
    • two photons can produce a pair
    • particle-antiparticle annihilation (the reverse process) is also possible
  • What is anti-matter (anti-particles)?
    • A type of matter which has the same mass as normal matter, but opposite charge
  • 
    
    

The Early Universe