What the singularity means in the big bang model is that all timelike curves are incomplete i.e. in a very literal sense you cannot extend time beyond the big bang. Of course this purely within the confines of the mathematical general relativistic big bang model and may not be true once you add, say, quantum gravity to the mix.
And based on our current knowledge of the universe, it makes no sense. There was no “before” our universe as time came into being with our universe.
You don’t seem to grasp science, or probability. The two events you are talking about don’t have equal probability, they don’t have any probability. Whatever happened has already happened. What we have are explanations that match up to the evidence with various degrees of success. The Big Bang matches the evidence very well; nothing else really does.
I also request that you spend a little more time composing your posts to use standard grammar and punctuation. Your posts are very difficult to read and even more difficult to understand.
There’s a problem with going backwards from the Big Bang and saying that the Big Bang occurred for a reason, and the whatever-it-was that caused the Big Bang is part of our Universe to, and the whatever-it-was that caused the cause of the Big Bang is also part of our Universe, and so on and so on.
Thing is, we can say that in our Universe events happen because of causes, and causes happen before events. But as far as we can tell, once you go back in time to the very first fractions of a second of the Big Bang, physical laws as we know them now didn’t exist. It’s perfectly possible that at that early time, 2+2 equaled purple, and God could create a burrito so hot that even he couldn’t eat it, and events happened before causes.
To some degree we understand the laws of physics and logic as they apply to the Universe as we see it today. But since the Big Bang is what created space and time and the laws of physics, we have no ability to say anything about what caused those things. They may have had no cause, and they certainly didn’t have a “before”, since the Big Bang is what created time. Yes, a universe with no time and no space and no laws of physics and no logic doesn’t make any sense to us humans. That’s because we live in a universe with time and space and laws and logic, and we’d be incapable of existing in, or even imagining, a universe without those things.
So the question of “what happened before the Big Bang, what caused the Big Bang” is answered by “We don’t know, and it seems that the laws of physics show that we will never be able to know.” It’s not just that we haven’t figured it out yet, it’s that there is no way for the infinitely hot infinitely dense singularity at the beginning of the universe to preserve any information about any state it had before then. It’s like asking why we can’t go further north when we’re standing at the North Pole, or why we can’t go closer to the center when we’re at the center of the Earth.
I hesitate to post this, because it might confuse the issue in a bad way, but at least one model has recurrent big bangs. Time ‘outside our universe’ may have existed before our big bang.
I am certainly not denying bigbang/singularity.i am just saying maybe it came from somewhere/something else and then that goes back and back and so on.
THERFORE i sited 50/50 if we dont know.
but then again if your going to say this
then i cant say that.
then again
perhaps i can
i wasnt ever talking from the point of view of a photon.
true
So they are moving to a reference frame outside of photons reference frame.
SO ARE THEY MOVING OR ARE WE MOVING TOWARDS THEM or is nothing moving but we are only able to talk as though things move
so what is the probability in your mind then 100%.or what word should i use.there,s one or the other
but you dont yet know what has happened
so that is not total proof,so you dont know what happened therefore there is a probability of something happening .
The evidence suggests that the Big Bang happened. There is little or no opposing evidence. If we follow that, time itself started with the Big Bang so talking about what happened before it is meaningless. You should say “The evidence suggests the Big Bang theory is correct. There are other theories but the evidence either contradicts them or there is no evidence to support them. I suggest we look for XXXXXXXX to flesh out my idea.” You need to supply the “XXXXXXXXX”, and that’s the tricky part.
We know the universe exists. The probability of that happening is 1. We don’t know the sequence of events that took place to make this happen. It’s impossible to assign probability to an event that already happened. Whether it came about via the Big Bang or via other means isn’t a matter of probability - it’s a matter of supplying evidence and a theory that explains that evidence.
It’s also possible the universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. What probability would you assign to that?
But cant we take the eveidence we know and asign a pro to that.of how likely it is to be correct
cos that is what i am saying
T
what you should say is this
The evidence suggests that the Big Bang happened. There is little or no opposing evidence. If we follow that, time itself probably started with the Big Bang so talking about what happened before it is probably meaningles.
also the percentage you assign to the probably as well
if it was my main idea here yes i agree.
T
very little but still a probability say 00000000000.1%
from your point of view you can not ask "It’s also possible the universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure"because you have said there is no assigning probability to the way the universe started.
But cant we take the eveidence we know and asign a probability to that.of how likely it is to be correct
cos that is what i am saying
i had to fill in probability because i could not edit
One small problem is that probabilities can’t really be applied to single events. What is the “probability” of Germany winning WWII? Zero: they didn’t. What we have to do is generalize: given a thousand worlds, in which something very similar to our own WWII happened, in how many of them would Germany have won? This is getting closer to valid.
(After all, we speak of probabilities of roulette wheels, conveniently setting aside the fact that a “perfect” or “fair” wheel cannot exist.)
And, yes, referring to an event regarding which we have ZERO information, the default “50% chance” is used, but solely as a concession. If there is no reason to favor “yes” over “no,” then 50% is the position of ultimate negation.
The Arkleseizure analogy already fails this criterion: the question itself already contains a fair amount of information. The name, the nose, the sneeze, etc. The phrasing of the concept already entails several overlapping Venn-diagram circles.
(What is the probability of John Venn?)
to be clear i said you should of written it this way because of this
T
if there is some evidence then there is probability
why because you know what has happened therefore theres no probability
but you stated “we don’t know the sequence of events that took place to make this happen”
therefore we have evidence that it probably happened this way
we have evidence and we can assign a probability to that on how likely it is against all other eveidence.that is why i can say this or that evidence is probably more likely to be right.cos it out weighs other evidence.
This is because we know they didnt. What happens if we didnt know.
we only have evidence of who might of one. We compile the different evidence together and assign different probabilitys to which one is most likely.to win
I can’t make heads or tails (pardon the pun) of your arguments. The lack of grammar and punctuation makes it hard enough. You don’t seem to have a basic understanding of science or the principles of logic and probability so it’s pretty difficult to have a meaningful conversation with you.
Perhaps you can attempt to restate your premise? Take the time to proofread and punctuate so your idea can be understood. Limit yourself to a single idea and develop it enough that we can discuss it without dragging lots of random concepts into the picture.
The problem is how to limit ourselves to ZERO knowledge.
Let’s ask, “Who is more likely to win the Hizzinian/Phocebian war?” Now, I’m pretty sure you have zero information on the two sides, because I just made up those two names! So: fine, it’s a toss-up. Fifty-fifty. We can’t make a better assessment than that. We don’t know the relative strengths, the relative assets, the logistical comparison, anything! Maybe the Phocebians have a huge military advantage…but their harvest just failed, so they can’t feed their troops. Nobody knows.
But “WWII,” for us, carries a huge amount of information. Even if we spin it all the way back to September of 1939, we know who the Axis is, we know how well equipped the Poles, French, and British are, etc. We have much more than “zero” information.
Your notion of “It’s all just a toss-up” only works in the context of zero information. It also only works if we concede a kind of looseness to the concept of probability.
What is the probability that I’ll be in jail a year from today? Is it 50-50 because you have zero information about me? But you don’t! You have a fair amount of information. The very fact that I’m a member of the SDMB gives you information.
Context is vital!
(Spelling is also really, really important!)
no because it also works if the inforamtion we have adds up to the same
and in my mind the information for and against stacks up to 50/50
REALLY we will see how it turns out i,ve got this far and i,m still going just
i tell you what
Trinopus
you answer my last post which is the last post in this thread(below underlined) and i will bow to your logic.all about heads and tails.
Is Everything Inevitable if Time is Infinite?
That was me, not Trinopus, calling out your lack of knowledge of science. And there’s no link to the other thread, you just posted the title.
Here is your post in that thread in its entirety:
I can’t comment on it because it makes no sense. It doesn’t present a coherent argument for anything. Can you restate your case in clear, concise sentences with proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation?
Sorry about that mistake .
i will try.
The heads and tails are representing 2 branches that the universe can take at a given moment.
If heads comes up, then tails cant and that branch/possibltiys of the universe is no longer possible.
therefore the assumption from that is
the trouble here is a coin flip is predictable with the right equipment.each movement of the flip has a cause.
therefore the assumption that it showed there were 2 possibltiys at a given moment,is simply in the head of Mijin.He thinks this because he doesnt know the result himself.that is not the same way the universe is changing THE UNIVERSE MAY WELL NOT know ITSELF BUT THE DIFFERENCE IS IT STICKS to laws.
There’s a lot of very wrong here.
The probabilistic “coin flip” has little to do with an actual physical coin. A probabilistic coin flip is just a short way of saying “we can’t predict the actual outcome but we know it’ll be one of these two things and they are both equally likely to occur”. It doesn’t even have to be a coin. It just has to be a situation where two events are equally likely and you can’t predict the outcome.
Pointing out that you can measure the physical setup of an actual coin and predict it’s landing is irrelevant. That’s no longer a random experiment but a deterministic (vs probabilistic) one.
And that’s really the problem here. You use the word “probability” and its associated forms but then turn right back around and argue they are actually all deterministic.
But, and this is the truly baffling part, though you argue these events are actually deterministic, you want to assign probabilities anyway. Either these events are deterministic (you can determine the outcome ahead of time) or they are probabilistic (you can’t determine the outcome ahead of time but can determine likelihoods). You are trying to have it both ways - deterministic outcomes but with assigned probabilities, and that makes absolutely no sense.
I will reiterate that you should perhaps learn any probability theory at all vs trying to argue based on whatever incorrect and personal version you are currently using. It certainly does not match probability theory as understood by the general scientific public.
i know thats what i am saying.it never was a random experiment only from a point of view of someone who doesnt know all the facts.
thats ok but you cant then apply that to the universe which is deterministic.we can apply it to help us.but the universe is not changing in that way.
no i never muddle the 2.others do though.i think people think that because there are probabilitys about this and that .That that is the way the universe changes.the forget that it is just them not knowing the facts.
again no i havent .point out the sentence where i have done this.