There was no Big Bang, Truth shall set you free!!!!

[r3wt]

[…]

I'm confused as to what you are trying to say. also, seems pretty weird how you keep placing my username in parenthesis.

Consider the following syllogism: “Acts are physical. ‘Right’ is not physical. Therefore, ‘right’ cannot be an act.”

Perhaps you should have studied how to effectively communicate  

Do you acknowledge that you can believe the hyperreal (i.e., a network of symbols that reference each other but nothing else) to be real (here, reference something else)?

belief is a choice, so you certainly can. beyond this observation, i'm hardly qualified to pontificate on this matter.

[username18333]

[…]

Do you acknowledge that you can confuse the hyperreal (here, any network of symbols that reference each other but nothing else) for the real (here, the physically extant)?

belief is a choice, so you certainly can. beyond this observation, i'm hardly qualified to pontificate on this matter.

(Red colorization mine.)

Baudrillard presents hyperreality as the terminal stage of simulation, where a sign or image has no relation to any reality whatsoever, but is “its own pure simulacrum” (Baudrillard 1994, 6). The real, he says, has become an operational effect of symbolic processes, just as images are technologically generated and coded before we actually perceive them. This means technological mediation has usurped the productive role of the Kantian subject, the locus of an original synthesis of concepts and intuitions, as well as the Marxian worker, the producer of capital though labor, and the Freudian unconscious, the mechanism of repression and desire. “From now on,” says Baudrillard, “signs are exchanged against each other rather than against the real” (Baudrillard 1993, 7), so production now means signs producing other signs. The system of symbolic exchange is therefore no longer real but “hyperreal.” Where the real is “that of which it is possible to provide an equivalent reproduction,” the hyperreal, says Baudrillard, is “that which is always already reproduced” (Baudrillard 1993, 73). The hyperreal is a system of simulation simulating itself.

(Red colorization mine.)

The truth is that the State is a conspiracy designed not only to exploit, but above all to corrupt its citizens… Henceforth, I shall never serve any government anywhere.

Tribe is hyperreal and begets possession. Possession is [hyper]real and begets money. Money is hyperreal and begets state. State is [hyper]real and begets hyperreality.

It is a (post-])modern “matter” (r3wt) that besieges even the common man.

[r3wt]

[…]

Do you acknowledge that you can confuse the hyperreal (here, any network of symbols that reference each other but nothing else) for the real (here, the physically extant)?

belief is a choice, so you certainly can. beyond this observation, i'm hardly qualified to pontificate on this matter.

(Red colorization mine.)

Baudrillard presents hyperreality as the terminal stage of simulation, where a sign or image has no relation to any reality whatsoever, but is “its own pure simulacrum” (Baudrillard 1994, 6). The real, he says, has become an operational effect of symbolic processes, just as images are technologically generated and coded before we actually perceive them. This means technological mediation has usurped the productive role of the Kantian subject, the locus of an original synthesis of concepts and intuitions, as well as the Marxian worker, the producer of capital though labor, and the Freudian unconscious, the mechanism of repression and desire. “From now on,” says Baudrillard, “signs are exchanged against each other rather than against the real” (Baudrillard 1993, 7), so production now means signs producing other signs. The system of symbolic exchange is therefore no longer real but “hyperreal.” Where the real is “that of which it is possible to provide an equivalent reproduction,” the hyperreal, says Baudrillard, is “that which is always already reproduced” (Baudrillard 1993, 73). The hyperreal is a system of simulation simulating itself.

(Red colorization mine.)

The truth is that the State is a conspiracy designed not only to exploit, but above all to corrupt its citizens… Henceforth, I shall never serve any government anywhere.

Tribe is hyperreal and begets possession. Possession is [hyper]real and begets money. Money is hyperreal and begets state. State is [hyper]real and begets hyperreality.

It is a (post-)modern “matter” (r3wt) that besieges even the common man.

in my opinion, the premise is false.

[r3wt]

[…]

Baudrillard presents hyperreality as the terminal stage of simulation, where a sign or image has no relation to any reality whatsoever, but is “its own pure simulacrum” (Baudrillard 1994, 6). The real, he says, has become an operational effect of symbolic processes, just as images are technologically generated and coded before we actually perceive them. This means technological mediation has usurped the productive role of the Kantian subject, the locus of an original synthesis of concepts and intuitions, as well as the Marxian worker, the producer of capital though labor, and the Freudian unconscious, the mechanism of repression and desire. “From now on,” says Baudrillard, “signs are exchanged against each other rather than against the real” (Baudrillard 1993, 7), so production now means signs producing other signs. The system of symbolic exchange is therefore no longer real but “hyperreal.” Where the real is “that of which it is possible to provide an equivalent reproduction,” the hyperreal, says Baudrillard, is “that which is always already reproduced” (Baudrillard 1993, 73). The hyperreal is a system of simulation simulating itself.

(Red colorization mine.)

The truth is that the State is a conspiracy designed not only to exploit, but above all to corrupt its citizens… Henceforth, I shall never serve any government anywhere.

Tribe is hyperreal and begets possession. Possession is [hyper]real and begets money. Money is hyperreal and begets state. State is [hyper]real and begets hyperreality.

It is a (post-)modern “matter” (r3wt) that besieges even the common man.

in my opinion, the premise is false.

How so?

Tribe is hyperreal and begets possession. Possession is [hyper]real and begets money. Money is hyperreal and begets state. State is [hyper]real and begets hyperreality.

each step in the chain doesn't seem to be related. I'm also not sold on the existence of this hyperreality.

[username18333]

[…]

[E]ach step in the chain doesn't seem to be related. I'm also not sold on the existence of this hyperreality.

1.  “[E]ach step in the chain” (r3wt) strips a subconscious pattern of behavior of its primitivism. (E.g., nations “close the border” whereas [chimp] colonies “improve[] a male chimp’s access to resources”.)

2.

[Rmcdermott927]

I personally don't believe in god.   However saying "there was no big bang, so god must exist" is a logical fallacy.  Thousands of "gods" have "existed" and thousands have gone out of existence.    Several thousands of years from now, something else will be worshiped and people will look at the Judeo-Christian god just as we do the Egyptian, Greek, Roman, and Norse gods.

I just hope that what they choose to worship in the future is a cute blonde or something so it will be slightly more tolerable when brought up in conversation.

[sdp]

I personally don't believe in god.   However saying "there was no big bang, so god must exist" is a logical fallacy.  Thousands of "gods" have "existed" and thousands have gone out of existence.    Several thousands of years from now, something else will be worshiped and people will look at the Judeo-Christian god just as we do the Egyptian, Greek, Roman, and Norse gods.

I just hope that what they choose to worship in the future is a cute blonde or something so it will be slightly more tolerable when brought up in conversation.

You can do this today.  Convert to Asatru, which is odinism.  The mother is "Frigg".  This is where we got the name for "Friday'.  She is a Norse god and definitely would be blonde. 

Or just google 'blonde goddess' you'll find some. 

I think you should note the case in "god" in "there was no big bang, so god must exist".  Since the chance of the big bang creating a universe today is something like: 10^-10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 it is fair to throw it out as a theory.  Given these odds, it seems more reasonable that there is some kind of consciousness directing the Universe's evolution or was part of its creation.    Whether the men who wrote books about god, got everything right is something many would dispute.

The scientific method, if it starts with a some theory even a bad one, leaves us with going back to the old theory if the tests do not prove the new hypothesis.  This is why some say, the big bang is impossible, therefore god.

sdp

[Mikestang]

At the end of the day both science and religion tell the same story: one moment there was no universe, then *POOF* big bang/god created everything in an instant.

Personally, I think both theories are equally improbable.

[xmaxbit]

At the end of the day both science and religion tell the same story: one moment there was no universe, then *POOF* big bang/god created everything in an instant.

Personally, I think both theories are equally improbable.

If this is true then tell me the probable story . Think of who we are and where we came from ? And for a moment forget about the Big Bang theory . Look at the universe and tell me how vast is this universe ? What is outside ? There will be questions and puzzles all the way . The end of the day always happens with no gain . Even a small star is millions of billions of light years far from earth . How can anyone even think of a photon returning to earth telling about the distance it measured . I dont believe in god . If there were god it had some proof . And why god would choose earth specifically ?

[Mikestang]

There's no god, the answer is something way way way bigger than our brains could ever hope to understand.  There are infinite reasons why infinite universes exist, have existed, and will exist.  Trying to look for a simple answer is human nature; there is no answer.

[the joint]

There's no god, the answer is something way way way bigger than our brains could ever hope to understand.  There are infinite reasons why infinite universes exist, have existed, and will exist.  Trying to look for a simple answer is human nature; there is no answer.

Logic is a predicate for truth.  Truth takes the form of sound, rational statements (note: root word of 'rationale' is 'ratio').  Truth, as it is relevant to us, does not exist outside of these rational statements.  Accordingly, truth should be modeled in terms of the mind as it relates to the rest of reality.

The best model one can theoretically come up with to explain something must meet a few criteria:  It must 1) Be internally consistent, 2) Comprehensively and soundly explain all information it attempts to do so, and 3) Introduce the fewest number of assumptions, ideally zero.  Falsification of the model can happen on two levels.  At a lower level, the model can be rendered internally invalid if new information is introduced which should be explained by it, but isn't.  At a higher level, the model can be rendered externally invalid if another model, which is broader in its scope, not only explains all information in the original model, but synthesizes this knowledge with other information unexplained by the original model (the result being a deeper understanding which predicates any topological understanding).

[BADecker]

There's no god, the answer is something way way way bigger than our brains could ever hope to understand.  There are infinite reasons why infinite universes exist, have existed, and will exist.  Trying to look for a simple answer is human nature; there is no answer.

Logic is a predicate for truth.  Truth takes the form of sound, rational statements (note: root word of 'rationale' is 'ratio').  Truth, as it is relevant to us, does not exist outside of these rational statements.  Accordingly, truth should be modeled in terms of the mind as it relates to the rest of reality.

The best model one can theoretically come up with to explain something must meet a few criteria:  It must 1) Be internally consistent, 2) Comprehensively and soundly explain all information it attempts to do so, and 3) Introduce the fewest number of assumptions, ideally zero.  Falsification of the model can happen on two levels.  At a lower level, the model can be rendered internally invalid if new information is introduced which should be explained by it, but isn't.  At a higher level, the model can be rendered externally invalid if another model, which is broader in its scope, not only explains all information in the original model, but synthesizes this knowledge with other information unexplained by the original model (the result being a deeper understanding which predicates any topological understanding).

In the universe, we are aware of two great opposing things. One of them is the exact opposite of the thing that entropy produces. The other is entropy and the things that it produces.

We see entropy at work tearing down the things that are exactly opposite of what it produces. We don't see any cause that could have caused the opposite of what entropy produces to exist. There is nothing at all that we can see that could have built the great marvels of the universe that entropy is destroying.

Mankind is part of the universe. The mind of man may be the greatest thing of and in the universe. The mind of man is the only thing that we see that has abounding intelligence and reasoning abilities. It is the only thing that can produce highly advanced "things" of intelligent design.

Because mankind has been around for a long time, and because we don't see anything other than entropy working for at least as long as mankind has been around, mankind and his mind have been deteriorating due to entropy, just like everything else.

As we extrapolate back in time, we move toward a place and time when either there wasn't any entropy, or else entropy and the exact opposite of entropy (whatever it is) were completely balanced. What would the mind of mankind have been like back then?

Whatever it is that could design the intelligent mind of mankind way back before it had deteriorated due to the addition of entropy, is God. Whatever this God is, He/She/It is still God... by the dictionary definitions.

[the joint]

There's no god, the answer is something way way way bigger than our brains could ever hope to understand.  There are infinite reasons why infinite universes exist, have existed, and will exist.  Trying to look for a simple answer is human nature; there is no answer.

Logic is a predicate for truth.  Truth takes the form of sound, rational statements (note: root word of 'rationale' is 'ratio').  Truth, as it is relevant to us, does not exist outside of these rational statements.  Accordingly, truth should be modeled in terms of the mind as it relates to the rest of reality.

The best model one can theoretically come up with to explain something must meet a few criteria:  It must 1) Be internally consistent, 2) Comprehensively and soundly explain all information it attempts to do so, and 3) Introduce the fewest number of assumptions, ideally zero.  Falsification of the model can happen on two levels.  At a lower level, the model can be rendered internally invalid if new information is introduced which should be explained by it, but isn't.  At a higher level, the model can be rendered externally invalid if another model, which is broader in its scope, not only explains all information in the original model, but synthesizes this knowledge with other information unexplained by the original model (the result being a deeper understanding which predicates any topological understanding).

In the universe, we are aware of two great opposing things. One of them is the exact opposite of the thing that entropy produces. The other is entropy and the things that it produces.

We see entropy at work tearing down the things that are exactly opposite of what it produces. We don't see any cause that could have caused the opposite of what entropy produces to exist. There is nothing at all that we can see that could have built the great marvels of the universe that entropy is destroying.

Mankind is part of the universe. The mind of man may be the greatest thing of and in the universe. The mind of man is the only thing that we see that has abounding intelligence and reasoning abilities. It is the only thing that can produce highly advanced "things" of intelligent design.

Because mankind has been around for a long time, and because we don't see anything other than entropy working for at least as long as mankind has been around, mankind and his mind have been deteriorating due to entropy, just like everything else.

As we extrapolate back in time, we move toward a place and time when either there wasn't any entropy, or else entropy and the exact opposite of entropy (whatever it is) were completely balanced. What would the mind of mankind have been like back then?

Whatever it is that could design the intelligent mind of mankind way back before it had deteriorated due to the addition of entropy, is God. Whatever this God is, He/She/It is still God... by the dictionary definitions.

Ok, so you are proposing your own theoretical model. Let's look at it.

Responding in paragraphical order:

1)  While it is true we become aware of entropy because we identify it as separate from its inverse, i.e. non-entropy, this dichotomy doesn't serve as a great basis for formulating a model of reality.  Entropy itself is an abstract model of patterns which are directly observable in physical systems.  This has deep implications for your model; I'll get to those as I go on.

2)  Slight correction -- we observe that systems break down which both enables us to form an entropic model of closed systems, and also reinforces this model through continued observation.  But yes, you are correct that we do not observe any direct cause of the processes we have modeled as entropy.

3)  Although it's irrelevant, animals can make/build tools, homes/dens/nests, etc. which can be described as either extremely complex or extremely simple, based upon your perspective.  But again, all of this is really irrelevant, anyway. The point is that we have no choice but to rationalize with logic and form the best theoretical models that we can, inasmuch as our human minds allow us to do so.

4)  This is where the implications I mentioned in point #1 become important and relevant to your model.  You cannot infer from entropy that the human mind is also moving towards disorder.  This is because entropy, as I explained in #1, is an abstract (i.e. of mind) model of physical systems.  Based on this information, you cannot conclude that the abstract mind necessarily deteriorates as it does not fall within the scope of the model.

5)  Here, you start going all over the place.  First, you're not going to get a fundamental understanding of anything through extrapolation.  The process of extrapolating removes the ability to conclude at a 100% level of confidence.  

Second, you make contradictory statements with regards to time.  "Time" is better modeled in terms of "spacetime" where space and time are inseparable and synthesized in a unity of understanding, which thus provides broader scope than a discussion of "time" alone.  Because of its physical components, "spacetime" can be modeled as a physical system, and thus one to which entropy applies.  If you try to extrapolate back in time, you'll find that you can't assume any type of physical reality in which entropy didn't apply (and, therefore, can't assume any "time" at which entropy didn't apply).

Third, Einstein modeled via the Theory of Relativity that time is a relative function.  The model itself could be described as a superpositional explanation of time as it relates to space.  In contrast, you are describing/modeling time in a purely linear fashion. which falls short in scope to the Einsteinian model.  The result is that a correct answer to your question, "What would the mind of mankind have been like back then?" would only provide a topological understanding of mind.  Put simply, better models lending to more comprehensive conclusions must necessarily exist.

6)  Here, your premise that something existed to create the human mind which "deteriorated due to the addition of entropy" is invalid for the aforementioned reasons (e.g. we can't conclude the human mind is necessarily subject to entropy based upon laws of thermodynamics, etc.).  

What you can say is something like, "There is some unknown cause, 'x', and for practicality I'm going to say x=God.  And so, therefore, because the unknown cause exists, God exists."

What you can't do is reach this conclusion that God exists, and then say that because God exists it embodies all the characteristics you think it does based upon your Biblical understanding of it, or any other preconceived notion of God that you might have. This precludes your ability to make any other statements about God, unless you can form a sound, theoretical model for it.

[goldkey0070]

We are in a black hole inside out ! What holds the space from collapsing in from gravity is dark matter expanding "space" dark energy is the gravity against it. there will be 3 things that can occur in the end !
#1 The universe keeps expanding and stars and galaxies drift further apart until all the stars burn out and there is total darkness and cold.
#2 Dark matter "space" will sling shot back at some point and we will die in a crack or splat
#3 The universe will keep expanding and growing in velocity until the fabric of space will be ripped and in a blink we will all die in an explosion of energy like the beginning of this universe began  , Thank You  for reading.

[username18333]

At the end of the day both science and religion tell the same story: one moment there was no universe, then *POOF* big bang/god created everything in an instant.

In summary, we have shown here that as for the QRE, the second order Friedmann equation derived from the QRE also contains two quantum correction terms. These terms are generic and unavoidable and follow naturally in a quantum mechanical description of our universe. Of these, the first can be interpreted as cosmological constant or dark energy of the correct (observed) magnitude and a small mass of the graviton (or axion). The second quantum correction term pushes back the time singularity indefinitely, and predicts an everlasting universe.

(Red colorization mine.)

[the joint]

Logic is a predicate for truth.  Truth takes the form of sound, rational statements (note: root word of 'rationale' is 'ratio').  Truth, as it is relevant to us, does not exist outside of these rational statements.  Accordingly, truth should be modeled in terms of the mind as it relates to the rest of reality.

The best model one can theoretically come up with to explain something must meet a few criteria:  It must 1) Be internally consistent, 2) Comprehensively and soundly explain all information it attempts to do so, and 3) Introduce the fewest number of assumptions, ideally zero.  Falsification of the model can happen on two levels.  At a lower level, the model can be rendered internally invalid if new information is introduced which should be explained by it, but isn't.  At a higher level, the model can be rendered externally invalid if another model, which is broader in its scope, not only explains all information in the original model, but synthesizes this knowledge with other information unexplained by the original model (the result being a deeper understanding which predicates any topological understanding).

the exact principles of scientific proof for many things

(Red colorization mine.)

So certainly physics has not proven, and can never prove, that its theory of atomic decay is true.  The logical process is that if atoms decay randomly, then Poisson statistics will result.  Experiments show that Poisson statistics do indeed result, but logically this does not mean that atoms decay randomly.  Nevertheless, the way of science is that we do postulate that atoms decay randomly, until a new experiment calls this into question.  But no experiment ever has.  If this sounds like a reverse use of logic, then consider the same ideas for mechanics.  Ideas of gravity, mass and acceleration were originally produced by Newton through the same process: because they predicted planetary orbital periods that could be verified experimentally.  Because of this great success, expressions such as F = ma and F = GMm/r2 came to be canonical in physics.  The logic was indeed being used in reverse; but no one was surprised when, three centuries later, one of the moon astronauts dropped a feather and a hammer together in the moon's vacuum, and found that they both fell at the same rate (although it was still beautiful and dramatic to watch!).  That reverse logic had, after all, allowed him to get to the moon in the first place.  So this way of conducting science works very well.

(Red colorization mine.)

In (conventional) mathematics, a “statement” (e.g., 𝑎² + 𝑏² ≟ 𝑐²) can be either proven or disproven. In (conventional) science, a hypothesis (e.g., “Every object in the Universe attracts…”) can only be disproven.

I understand and agree with all of this.  Was this simply an addition rather than a point of correction or clarification?

[username18333]

Was this simply an addition rather than a point of correction or clarification?

Neither/nor. (I.e., of the interpretation and interpreter, the interpreter “is.”)

[Astargath]

Well even tho a good amount of scientists accept the big bang theory, theres also another part of them that dont, there are different theories, the big bang theory its a good one but no one knows what happened exactly not even these scientists.

[CyberSuzy]

I also agree. before big bang there was a premine

[the joint]

Was this simply an addition rather than a point of correction or clarification?

Neither/nor. (I.e., of the interpretation and interpreter, the interpreter “is.”)

Self-apparently, yes.