My gut feeling is that they do not know this, but, I would like to see what they do believe, if there is some sort of survey. Hawking, apparently, did not believe in the big bang https://www.quantamagazine.org/phys...-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/
I'm not positive I know what you are getting at here. Are you saying that maybe God did it? One can always say "God did it" as an answer to EVERY QUESTION ever asked. That's the answer that kills exploration dead. If God did it, why look further? Plus, that answer doesn't really answer anything regarding the nature of this universe. So, at best it is a dead end to understanding our universe. If we want to know, we have to keep looking - whether there is a God or not. And, science has to assume that experiments aren't being diddled by some God - there is no other choice. So, it's still necessary to continue - to decide what "creation" means, look for mechanisms, etc.. Clearly, this universe came into being. But, we know that mass = energy (Einstein makes that clear), that particles can be observed coming into existence from totally empty vacuum, that space does have energy which is demonstrated by the fact that the energy density of the universe is not changing due to its expansion (that is, as this universe gets bigger, there is more energy), etc. I don't believe it is reasonable to assume that the only energy is that which is inside our universe. Surely something happened and that something involved a stupendous amount of energy. There are a number of ideas from theoretical physics concerning how this universe might have come into existence, but getting evidence is really hard, given that we're stuck here inside this universe with no significant way to look outside of it. At any rate - that's kind of a summary of my view.
sigh. I am not going to spend time defining terms you keep rejecting. The LID around the earth is the atmosphere. I am finished now when you say the atmosphere is inside the earth and the environment is outside the earth. Are you actually saying that earth's environment is OUTSIDE the atmosphere??? I'll drop out now. I really can't carry on since the thread is not about global warming but about what existed pre-BB. I am sure you can find other climate change conspiracy theorists you can agree with, somewhere else.
I can when someone turns it into something else. I do however continue to watch the posts that are relevant to the subject. I did mean I would drop out of the conversation concerning global warming. Can anyone explain why, if infinity cannot exist, that it works in mathematical equations?
Why is the atmosphere called EARTH'S atmosphere?? Would it have anything to do with the atmosphere being A PART OF EARTH by any chance???
The atmosphere IS Earth (in part). It is not Earth's environment. Earth's environment is that which is OUTSIDE Earth, and the atmosphere is INSIDE Earth (it is part of Earth). OK. Next time NASA designs a space vehicle th at flies outside the atmosphere, tell them to bring a couple of shovels. sigh.
You need to understand that "time" is a construct of our universe. Time is speeding up. Time was very slow early in our universe and at the beginning it was infinitely slow --essentially stopped. There was no before because there was no time for anything to happen before. There was no cause to the effect of our universe. The creation was not observable in our universe & there's no way that anyone's aware of that we can "jump" outside our universe into a different space/time. Is this comprehensible?
I started a thread on this, 'is time fundamental' see what you think http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/is-time-fundamental.596372/
As I understand it: Math and physics are two different disciplines. Physics treats math as a language useful in describing the physical reality. Math is not constrained by physics.
Because math exists in the abstract domain and by that fact, is not constrained by the concrete world though it can affect it in concrete ways.
I meant in the sense that it is used as a tool to predict, control, etc., aspects of the physical world.
Math doesn't control anything in the physical world. It IS used in predictions, but that is a matter of math being used as a descriptive language. If the language is improperly used, the prediction will undoubtedly be wrong. That's true whether one uses a natural language or math.
And with what matters did God concern Himself with for that eternity before he spoke the universe into existence?
He tho't of all of history , beginning to end and all the possible variations fo teh timeline due to free will.. I am both armenian and calvinist.
So He knew how this would all turn out, and went and did it anyways? I guess He's a glutton for punishment. “The story so far: In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.” — Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
I'm a layman, whatever the articulative expression should have been, just insert it. Math does something to the physical world, just insert the correct term
Well up to now, yes. However if I understand it, theoretical mathemeticians are having a hard time using traditional maths to explain quantum behaviour. Maybe this is where a "new maths" might develop and a whole new world appear?
This post is just for fun, but given that we are discussing maths as a description of what we know...(and what we know may well be bounded by our understanding of maths) I wonder why in all religious texts I have come across do they say "God SAID" and refer to "the word" and "breathed" and NOT to "God ciphered" and "God calculated" . Maybe some mistranslation or a lack of understanding as to how to describe something so abstract, but as someone interested in language, I consider that language is much underrated as a driver for creation.
