The Big Bang and the visible past.

Okay, now that you have situated yourself inside a box, you don't think you can employ your mind to go outside the box to think on what is outside the box?Is that an intelligent attitude in the use of your mind or in the treatment of your mind?Of course you are entitled as a living thing endowed with free choice to use your mind to describe anything that might if at all exist outside the box as crap.And go way feeling so intelligent.Which is not any constructive use of your mind but an abuse.And anyone with an open mind will see you as not thinking intelligently at all.Yrreg

Who you talkin' to buddy?You talkin' to me?You talkin' to ME?Go away. You're making my little baby neurons cry.Edited by Omnivorous, : AbE: With a tip o' the hat to ringo.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

I'll say it again so that it's clear:We do not restrict ourselves from not exploring "before" the Big Bang. We are restricted from exploring "before" the Big Bang by definition of what it is.And, also the fact that there was no "before" the Big Bang; there is no way to extrapolate data beyond the apparent singularity because no such data exists to use. As somebody earlier mentioned, people do try it. But they recognise that it is just speculation with little or no basis in reality.It is not an atheist failing any more than it is a Christian or Buddhist or Daoist failing. Religion has nothing to do with it. It is a simple fact of our universe. No. Anyone with an "open mind" would acknowledge that there is simply no way for us to currently do it, because of the universe we exist in and the very nature of the phenomenon itself that we are trying to study.But if your outside-the-box intelligence has figured a way of getting around this blockage, we would very much like to know what it is. After all, science is about learning new things and sharing them with everyone. Not pretending you have something and snobbing anybody who can't find it on their own.

Isn't that cute, the layman thinking the scientific method is not good enough.In what other field do you trade empirical evidence, rigorous testing and objective results for the ability of your imagination? How do you imagine we cure cancer? Or AIDS? Or diabetes?If you can solve the origin of the universe then these minor issues should be very easy for you.- Oni

We don't even know if there is such a thing as "outside the box". Yes. We could speculate about if there is an outside, and if there is, what that is like, but without a way of showing any of that to be actually the case, it's pretty useless to do so. Again, we don't even know if there is such a thing as "outside the box". It's all pure speculation, and should be treated as such, not as some grand insight into anything at all. It's not constructive to just speculate, investigate, on the other hand... I've often found people that claim to have an open mind to believe in all sorts of woowoo, while people with actual open minds, didn't.

We look at models of the Universe where there is no concept of "before" the Big Bang.We also look at models of the Universe where there is a concept of "before" the Big Bang.I'm not sure what it is that you think we are missing

Could you go into a bit more detail about before the BB?

Sure - any of the extended comsological theories, such as those inspired by M-Theory, the ekpyrotic scenario, eternal inflation, etc. All highly theoretical, which is why the Standard Model of cosmology still sticks with the classical Big Bang cosmology, with the singularity and no "before".

Here's what you are missing: Whereas you consider the above, science you reject/miss that the eternal intelligent designer model of the universe should also be considered a possible/viable/debatable science model.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

As should the purple pooping hippo with three horns on its head model. If you'll help me with that one, I'll help you with yours. Ok?

What does "ethernal" mean? What does "intelligent" mean? What is a "designer"?How would I model such a thing?

Colliding Branes and that kind of thing?

Apart from a 'just so' story for why there is anything at all, what models could derive from 'goddidit'?The whole point is to understand 'how'. Even if a god did poof it out of nothing scientists would still want to know how (I know I would).But either way you get infinite regression: where did the creator come from? Which in turn regressess to 'it created it's self', and if something can create itself somthing does not need a creator.And last time I looked this was a science thread. Superstitions from the bronze age are hardly appropriate.Edited by Larni, : punctuation

Yep, that sort of thing

We can speculate that our collective intelligence is not the only source of wisdom and knowledge, but we cant use any other tool to prove it. We can only work with what we have.