The laws of nature existed before space and time

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The proof is in the evidence.

False. This is a philosophical argument. You often mistake assertions for evidence.

 

[ding]

False. This is a philosophical argument. You often mistake assertions for evidence.

The evidence is the same laws that describe the evolution of space and time also describe the creation of space and time. What EVIDENCE do you have that says they don't?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The evidence is the same laws that describe the evolution of space and time also describe the creation of space and time.

Which could mean all of it started at the same time, at the beginning of our spacetime.

What he describes is a possible explanation for the evidence.

There is still much work to do to rule out other explanations.

So this is stuck at the philosophical stage.

 

[ding]

Which could mean all of it started at the same time, at the beginning of our spacetime.

What he describes is a possible explanation for the evidence.

There is still much work to do to rule out other explanations.

So this is stuck at the philosophical stage.

None of that is EVIDENCE.

Proof requires evidence, but not all evidence constitutes proof. Proof is a fact that demonstrates something to be real or true. Evidence is information that might lead one to believe something to be real or true.

For example the CMB is evidence of a massive paired particle production chain event that proves the universe was created from matter that was not pre-existing.

Another example would be the evidence of the laws that describe the evolution of space and time (conservation, relativity and quantum mechanics) also describing the creation of the universe is proof that the laws of nature existed before space and time.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

None of that is EVIDENCE.

I didn't even attempt to describe any evidence.

I said what you are calling evidence is not good evidence, as it can very easily be explained in other ways.

Much work to be done. Like multiverse theory. Though multiverse theory is much more roclbust, mathematically.

This hypothesis comes with little to no such rigor and is more of a philosophical idea, from the start.

It could be true. But I would keep the champagne on ice.

 

[ding]

I didn't even attempt to describ3 any ecid3nc3.

I said what you are calling evidence is not good evidence, as it can very easily be explained in other ways.

Much work to be done. Like multiverse theory. Though multiversity theory is much more roclbust, mathematically.

This hypothesis comes with little to no such rigor.

It could be true. But I would keep the champagne on ice.

What's your evidence that the laws of nature did not exist before space and time?

For example the CMB is evidence of a massive paired particle production chain event that proves the universe was created from matter that was not pre-existing.

Another example would be the evidence of the laws that describe the evolution of space and time (conservation, relativity and quantum mechanics) also describing the creation of the universe is proof that the laws of nature existed before space and time.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What's your evidence?

Normally this is where I would say, "Of what?" Then, we would go in circles for 3 pages, consisting of dismissing your strawman and personal comments.

But I don't have time for your time wasting trolling today.

Maybe later.

 

[ding]

Normally this is where I would say, "Of what?" Then, we would go in circles for 3 pages, consisting of dismissing your strawman and personal comments.

But I don't have time for your time wasting trolling today.

Maybe later.

You have no evidence that the laws of nature did not exist before space and time. None, nada, zip, zilch, zero.

 

[Donald H]

False. This is a philosophical argument. You often mistake assertions for evidence.

It's Vilenkin's theory, you're debating, but he made it unambiguously clear that he excluded any influences by a god.

See the link I posted in which he is harangued at by a Christian trying to credit their god. He just doesn't buy it!

 

[ding]

It's Vilenkin's theory, you're debating, but he made it unambiguously clear that he excluded any influences by a god.

See the link I posted in which he is harangued at by a Christian trying to credit their god. He just doesn't buy it!

He doesn't need to. All that matters to me is he testified to the evidence which proves the laws of nature existed before space and time.