You're viewing a single thread.
Because when there's nothing there is literally no meaning. Prior to the Big Bang there was no Entropy, no Time, no Matter or Energy. You cannot really discuss what happened then because it would be nonsense. You can't even ask 'how long before the BB did the nothing exist?' because there was no time, so the answer is like dividing by zero. The BB brought all that into existence so by necessity anything must exist for your question to even have meaning.
To answer your question more directly: because nature abhors a vacuum (even though there was no vacuum before the BB because that would have been a 'something').
Prior to the Big Bang there was no Entropy, no Time, no Matter or Energy
Is there a consensus on this or you are just simplifying for the sake of simplifying?
As much consensus as there can be. The BB is defined as being the event that brought everything into existence and so there's no point in debating something that cannot be tested.
That's what you did. We can't know is very different from "there was no this and this and this prior".
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.
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.
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.
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...
"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.
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.
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!
Tell that to the philosophers.
I don’t even think there is a consensus on the Big Bang but if there was, then that’s when time began so “before” that is meaningless.