There is the recursive question - everything has a cause but what about the first cause? Was it causeless? If that’s the case, the original premise is invalid. If the creator is without cause then then everything doesnt need a cause.
Which brings me to the question: why is linear creation necessary when describing reality? And if it is necessary, why assert descriptions of human attributes? Why cant the universe itself be without a creator?
People always talk about how matter and energy can’t be created or destroyed but that’s as things are now. if there was a time where there was truly nothing, no time, space, etc. Then its possible that matter and energy could be created from nothing.
If time is just a human construct, then there never was a beginning.
Reality is most likely just a simulation.
Just as likely that it’s a multiverse. Both are hypotheses that just highlight the “we don’t know” roadblock that every line of thought regarding existence ends at.
A question I’ve often asked. Why the added layer of abstraction?
Theres a good YouTube vid called science of emptiness from world science festival. One of the guys frank wilczek talks how quantum fields give rise to particles and anti particles. But generally, the concept of “nothing” doesnt really exist in modern physics. Emptiness isnt “empty” as fields permeate and theres a sort of aether/vacuum in quantum fields
It’s unknown if the laws of physics even apply for a singularity.
I really have no idea. I tried watching some doc on the no boundary principle and didnt understand any of it
I was listening to a debate where Laurence Krause was talking about it.
I’ve watched this about 4 or 5 times I have moments if ahhhh but mostly “wat” moments…that whole series is awesome
This below is a really good watch too
A time without time?
If you look at time as a means of measuring distance. A singularity would negate the necessity of time.
That’s one of the hardest concepts to wrap my head around. There was no “before” the singularity because time had not yet existed. Yet there was a “before” time, but there actually wasnt. Crazy paradox
Like I said, think of time as a means of measuring distance, like “light years away.” I think of it as the invention of physics. And yes, that leads me to an omnipresent God.
Time is relative to the speed of light according to Einstein’s relativity so in that sense, yes, distance and time are almost synonymous
Why would you look at time as a means of measuring distance? You mention “light years” but that is just a distance defined by a velocity. Velocity is still dx/dt so the variables, distance and time, remain distinct.
Good point, although I wouldn’t agree with “almost synonymous” but there is some relation.
I’m not a physicist. Just a dude with thoughts.
It’s cool. I’m no physicist either. Imright did show me that my thinking was too constrained so you are right that there is a retail shop between distance and time. Weird.
