Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:57:03 UTC No. 16083140

>>16083139
Big bang.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 16:02:43 UTC No. 16083147

>>16083140
The current view is that some field dumped a shitton of energy into the void to cause the big bang. Which begs the question, how did this field have all this energy to begin with? So we are at least 2 steps before the big bang.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:33:13 UTC No. 16083509

>>16083147
Yeah whatever triggered the big bang singularity to blow up pretty much had all of the energy in the entire universe in it already from the beginning. The inflation period happened so early and so quickly that if energy was being kind of fed into the universe over some longer period then we wouldn't see matter as spread out across the universe as it currently is. So the energy was either always there or it just appeared somehow all at once

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:34:15 UTC No. 16083511

>>16083139
Big bung.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:28:30 UTC No. 16083856

>>16083139
Bout three fiddy

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:29:39 UTC No. 16083857

>>16083147
*The current view of atomistic materialist reductionists (i.e. morons)

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 06:33:19 UTC No. 16084322

>>16083147
>So we are at least 2 steps before the big bang.
No, the math breaks down before you even get to the big bang which is why some people like to claim that it took a picosecond after the big bang before the laws of spacetime actually formed.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 08:01:05 UTC No. 16084434

>>16084322
Look it’s one thing to admit that current theories break down there. It’s quite another to insist nothing happened before because current theories (that already have holes in them) break down.

Most agree the big bang was not the start of the causal chain.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 08:08:32 UTC No. 16084443

>>16084434
OP asked when it breaks down, not how much further we can guess after actual calculation breaks down and it breaks down before you even get to the bang itself which is why you have to speculate instead of apply the theory for the first picosecond of expansion and before.

If they are being honest, they agree that the model breaks down instead of coherently predicting any start of the chain.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 08:16:13 UTC No. 16084450

>>16084443
You’re right. I just want some spitball ideas of what could’ve happened.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 08:19:11 UTC No. 16084453

>>16084434
>Most agree
that matters exactly zero. there is virtually no difference between nobody agreeing and everybody agreeing on any fact, as far as what was/is

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 08:25:38 UTC No. 16084465

>>16084450
It will just be guesswork and which of the five modes of Agrippa is personally most satisfying to you once you go past the point the calculations breaks down which is what OP actually asked about rather than nonsensical speculation.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:27:47 UTC No. 16085196

>>16083139
it doesn't, there's an infinite future and an infinite past

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:57:24 UTC No. 16085252

>>16083139
Well, as we live in superdeterministic universe, we can go as deep as our capability of understanding with our present intelligence allows us. Someday we might be able to remodel the whole history just by hard math. Imagine that you could live the times of past, not by timetravelling, but by tracking causalities, calculating and then adding that information to a full sense virtual reality machine.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:49:26 UTC No. 16085376

If a person went back in time to ancient Egypt and created the reality they thought was there and that was our past. And what he thought was there in ancient Egypt was based on what he knew here. What's here would be from what was there in ancient Egypt when he went back, and what was there would be our past based on what was here in the present before he left.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 21:32:31 UTC No. 16085436

>>16085376
>If a person went back in time

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 21:41:51 UTC No. 16085464

>>16085436
And they said he was delusional so he had no credibility

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 21:48:10 UTC No. 16085480

>>16083139
It never breaks down, think in terms of cycles. Circles and not straight lines.

Anonymous at Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:59:08 UTC No. 16086250

>>16085480
So it breaks down when any linearity is introduced?