this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2024
59 points (90.4% liked)

Ask Lemmy

27240 readers
2210 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No, you're confusing testability with reasonable interpretation via interpolation of data. I did simplify to answer the OP's question. Prior to the Big Bang we can't know what 'exactly' was going on, but at that point, by definition, Time and Entropy begins. It's like arguing absolute zero doesn't have consensus because it is physically impossible to attain that temperature, or that there are actually distances smaller than the Planck length.

The salient point is that Something HAS to exist because the opposite is literal meaninglessness and that has scientific consensus.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It’s like arguing absolute zero doesn’t have consensus as if I was part of the specialists that push forward our collective knowledge on the matter while at best knowing 0 is a small number.

The salient point is that Something HAS to exist because the opposite is literal meaninglessness and that has scientific consensus.

That's literally opposite to the scientific consensus. People are in fact looking for models that justify why there is something rather than nothing, and it's not because "the opposite is literal meaninglessness".

Please, please, please think of all the people that infer knowledge from an autoritatve language heard online.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

By consensus, I'm referring to the fact that scientists, when asked, say "the universe started ~14bya". Any attempt to discuss earlier than that is wild conjecture so the only responsible way to deal with it is to accept that it is currently unknowable. Fact is we already see 'something from nothing' constantly. This phenomenon is readily proven. For example, spontaneous generation of quantum particle pairs are well established so the aforementioned conjecture is an attempt to be rigorous, but not an invalidation of consensus.

What is more dangerous for 'people that infer knowledge from authoritative language' is to believe that 'consensus = matter settled, the end'. Nothing in science is absolute except, perhaps, the mathematical fundamentals. Are there still concepts or proposals that will get you laughed at by respectable scientists? Of course. That is what is meant by 'consensus' when it comes to Science.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Any attempt to discuss earlier than that is wild conjecture so the only responsible way to deal with it is to accept that it is currently unknowable.

Holy fuckity fuck.

Stop using those words. Stop saying "ANY ATTEMPT" or "THE ONLY RESPONSIBLE". Stop laying out matter of factly that when you ask scientists they answer in a certain way.

Are you a scientist? Did you ask a theoretical astrophysicist? Are you quoting a paper on the subject?

This is your respectable clearly limited opinion. Portay it as such.

I never said consensus settles a matter, I'm just saying that pulling stuff out your ass and pretending they come from a position of consensus is harmful.

Also you clearly read "The Theory of Everything" or something to that extent by Hawkings and he quite literally mention that he's going to study what happens before the Big Bang...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"Study". Even his best guess is that the singularity self-perpetuated until its stability gave out for unknown reason. Again, one dude, no supporting evidence, coming up with ideas because science is rigorous. Is his idea the consensus? No. Does it even address before the singularity itself existed? No. Why? because there is nothing to go on.

You are literally talking about something the Bible is as relevant an authority on as anyone else. That is why scientists don't bother with it because it is meaningless to do so.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Edit: Here is one of the better inferences of what happened before the BB and even it boils down to a spec of energy to get the whole thing started.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

This is all irrelevant to my point, at the same time it kinda makes my point about the limit of your positions so...

My job here is done.

Have a day!