Was there a beginning?

Michael 345 said:
Plain silly statement. Physics operated forming the Universe for billions of years before we came along

All we did / have done is give physics a label

:)
Click to expand...

This is not what Physic is.

WIkipedia said:
Physics is the natural science that studies matter,[a] its fundamental constituents, its motion and behavior through space and time, and the related entities of energy and force.[2] Physics is one of the most fundamental scientific disciplines, with its main goal being to understand how the universe behaves.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics#cite_note-4[3][4][5] A scientist who specializes in the field of physics is called a physicist.

Physics is one of the oldest academic disciplines and, through its inclusion of astronomy, perhaps the oldest.[6] Over much of the past two millennia, physics, chemistry, biology, and certain branches of mathematics were a part of natural philosophy, but during the Scientific Revolution in the 17th century these natural sciences emerged as unique research endeavors in their own right.[c] Physics intersects with many interdisciplinary areas of research, such as biophysics and quantum chemistry, and the boundaries of physics are not rigidly defined. New ideas in physics often explain the fundamental mechanisms studied by other sciences[3] and suggest new avenues of research in these and other academic disciplines such as mathematics and philosophy.

Advances in physics often enable advances in new technologies. For example, advances in the understanding of electromagnetism, solid-state physics, and nuclear physics led directly to the development of new products that have dramatically transformed modern-day society, such as television, computers, domestic appliances, and nuclear weapons;[3] advances in thermodynamics led to the development of industrialization; and advances in mechanics inspired the development of calculus.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics
 
Michael 345 said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics

From yous link

Physics is the natural science that studies matter,[a

which is a statement of what scientists do ✅



Is a statement of what physics does

:)
Click to expand...

You confuse between the discipline physics and reality (what we also call "nature").
Reality is not a discipline.
Physic is a discipline and the goal of physics is to study reality.

Now, you have see i have writen "the goal of physic".
You know we can write this sentence, and it is a correct sentence.
But you can not use this sentence to do the deduction that physic is something stand-alone who has a goal.
It is not a autonomous entity. It is not even an entity.

Same with your sentence : "Is a statement of what physics does."
You can write this sentence and normal people understand what is meant.
But you can not say: This sentence is correct (yes it is), so i can make the deduction that physics, like an entity, can do anything.

This is true with every sentence.
You can not do any deduction from a sentence.
This is what science say and therefore it is why physics is a natural science, and even if you can consider you can learn something from a sentence (like a mathematic formula) this is only a possibility, not an obligation : Within a natural science (science of reality) you have to do the real experience to confirm something.

A sentence is the result of the expression of human understanding of the real, it is not the real by itself.
Same with physics, it is the result of the expression of human understanding of the real

Now, who or what created the real ?
Thats the question (for the physics we know who created it and we know that modern physic now also include chemistry, biology etc, because it is now a fundamental discipline)

Yourself state that the real created the real ?
Or what ?
 
Dicart said:
You confuse between the discipline physics and reality (what we also call "nature").
Reality is not a discipline.
Physic is a discipline and the goal of physics is to study reality.

Now, you have see i have writen "the goal of physic".
You know we can write this sentence, and it is a correct sentence.
But you can not use this sentence to do the deduction that physic is something stand-alone who has a goal.
It is not a autonomous entity. It is not even an entity.

Same with your sentence : "Is a statement of what physics does."
You can write this sentence and normal people understand what is meant.
But you can not say: this sentence is correct, so i can deduct that physics, like an entity, can do anything.

This is true with every sentence.
You can not do any deduction from a sentence.
A sentence is the result of the expression of human understanding of the real, it is not the real by itself.
Same with physics, it is the result of the expression of human understanding of the real
Click to expand...

All I got from the above is jibber jibber jibber jibber jibber jibber

Cut down the jibber jibber and give Readers Digest version please

Dicart said:
Now, who or what created the real
Click to expand...

See you can do Readers Digest version

Not a who - physics created what you see around you (reality)

After the bit i just quoted above you slipped back into jibber jibber :(

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
Cut down the jibber jibber and give Readers Digest version please
Click to expand...

You confuse physics and reality.

It is very simple to clarify :
First we used philosophy.
Then we used science.
Within science we have physics, chemestry, geology, biology and so on.
Why dont you say : "Not a who - geology created what you see around you (reality)" ?

How could the reality exists before the physics discipline was invented ?
 
Last edited:
origin said:
What?? You literally confused reality with physics in your previous post when you said:
Click to expand...

Very funny.

It was not my claim, it was the logical conclusion every one could do, depending on Michael 345 statements.
Therefore i asked him : "How could the reality exists before the physics discipline was invented ?"
This question is intended to help him to understand his error.
And normaly he should understand that HE is doing some illogic reasoning.

Is it also clear for you now ?
 
origin said:
What?? You literally confused reality with physics in your previous post when you said:
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if this member Dicart is a troll or not

Ask weird questions. For the moment I am not putting on Iggy and also not going to answer any more stupid questions

Dueling questions is not debate

Cheers

:)
 
Asking "was there a beginning" has no meaning. The Universe has always existed in one form or another, IMO, almost by definition.

It's like asking, "have I always been here". As far as I can remember, I've always been here. From my perspective, asking what was here before me has no meaning in my world (let's assume I am the Universe).

The Big Bang phase change occurred 13 billion years ago. Before that we haven't a clue but it could have occurred due to the ending of another Universe. So does the Universe have a beginning or has it always been here? They answer could be both depending on your definitions.

The idea of a Creator is nonsense, clearly manmade, and doesn't answer the question at all as has been pointed out many times. If you can't picture something from nothing then you shouldn't be able to picture a Creator from nothing.

I don't believe in infinity and the multiple versions of yourself, somewhere, in some other world either. Time had a start at some point. In our case, 13 billion years ago. We don't know how much "time" (if any) there was before that. Again, we don't know. That's not to say that there wasn't something before that but we just don't know. Like everything, the reason there is no answer to these questions is because of the many ways you could define "time", "before", "Universe", "something", etc.

If we don't know, it's ridiculous to think that the answer was infinity of time. Infinity, and the strange conclusions you could draw from that, is just a mathematical construct that has no place in reality, IMO, in the way it has been used.
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
He was parroting Michael - i.e. proof by contradiction.
Click to expand...
I put this to Origin

I'm not sure if this member Dicart is a troll or not

Ask weird questions. For the moment I am not putting on Iggy and also not going to answer any more stupid questions

Dueling questions is not debate

:)
 
Life has always been, and life is the miracle of one infinity, like God in the endless universe of angels and people.
 
Well the big bang had to happen in something.

It's more like a Big Oven and all the matter is like a banana nut loaf.

The oven is infinite, always has been always will be.

We just aren't done yet...
 
DaveC426913 said:
No it didn't have to.

The Big Bang was not an expansion in space; it was an expansion of space.
Click to expand...

But there's no such thing as nothing, is that what they're saying was outside the singularity before the big bang?

I guess that would mean that dark matter and space itself is being created at the particle horizon?

The CMB/Particle Horizon/Big Bang problem is real.

/ it just seem more plausible that empty space (the dark matter) is infinite because we can pretty much be sure if we made it to the particle horizon that the universe beyond would look pretty much exactly how we see it now.

Makes more sense that all the matter (stuff of the universe) was bound by gravity to form a big bang inside this eternal void.

If we view the universe on our best maps we have now we can see all the galaxies are bound together by cosmic filaments of plasma.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top