But isn't Webb calling the BBT into question?
Even if we answer how it began there is still:
1) Why?
2) What was there before that?
3) And before that?
4( And before that? And so on.
It's the rabbit hole only hallucinogens can fill.
Even if we answer how it began there is still:
1) Why?
2) What was there before that?
3) And before that?
4( And before that? And so on.
It's the rabbit hole only hallucinogens can fill.
I really love Grant Morrisons theory. Treat yourself, especially if you dont want to take that amount of drugs yourself.
https://youtu.be/KTMFBYXmvMk?t=282
edit: Alternatively the transcript starting at
>The universe we live in is designed to grow larvae.
till
> There’s not one adult on this planet.
http://dedroidify.blogspot.com/2013/09/grant-morrisons-must-...
And the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not absolute and can be broken.
For example look at particle interactions. The vast majority of them you can play them forward and backwards and they look exactly the same. You wouldn't be able to tell which way the video is running. The only way we can tell there is an arrow of time is because at some point a field asymmetry occurred. In a universe where all fields are symmetrical the idea of time simply breaks down and has no meaning.
The history of the Universe channel touches on this in their latest video.
Linked the wrong video, this is the one I meant to link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9m0sz2sUfU
These thoughts are driving me crazy. There must be a piece of the puzzle we're missing.
There must be something about time that isn't or wasn't always linear. Otherwise there's no end to the "who created it" question.
It's similar to asking what contains the universe. And what contains the thing that contains the universe.
Not that I'm saying this is true (just an example), but is the Big Bang simply (?) the introduction of time into the then time-less universe? It just doesn't make sense to say "The universe started with the Big Bang" when what that was prior was the universe but in a different form (or so we guess).
So it seems that something else had to be introduced to change the nature of the old universe into the new universe. Else the "start" is more like a "transformation" and even that opens a ton of questions.
My head hurts.
Your pet theory is the view of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and the Roman Catholic Church. The mistake that people make (you can even see it in this thread), is that they start with some preconceived conception of God, with all it's baggage, and then they attempt argue for, or against, this concept.
The more productive approach is to recognize and acknowledge the necessary existence of a base reality. Then you simply assign the English word 'God' as a reference pointer to this base reality.
const God = (the one base reality that exists necessarily)
You can, but I'm not sure how "then" onwards is going to help — the people I've seen conflating these things before will still conflate them after doing this.
Bob: "Yup."
Christine: "Sure. And because this base reality exists, that proves I was right all along about Jesus: he did die for our sins."
Dhvan: "You mean it proves me right about Brahma."
Eris: "…the horned god."
Freya: "…Ragnarök."
and so on.
The key idea though is that if you make a dispassionate analysis of what this base reality must be, you find that it has certain 'attributes'. So for example, anything that has horns would not be good candidate for base reality since the contingent concept of 'horn' would need to be explained by, and derive its very existence from something much more simple. So that simpler thing would be the less bad candidate. Etc.
I am stealing this.
Only in newspaper headlines. Gell-Mann amnesia effect applies.