Ryujin wrote:@altonhare:
address the issue that if every bit of mater has always existed and it never came from anything and if it did not have a beginning how is this still any differentthen saying it came from fundamentally nothing.
X exists.
X began to exist from nothing.
The two statements are different.
X was never "created".
X was created.
The two statements are different.
Ryujin wrote:
... we have a universe where all the matter and so on in it always existed ... still came from nothing ... it just was here and that's that's so ...it didn't come from anything which ... means it came pretty much outta of nothing.
First off, I don't mean to be a typing nazi, but you need to proofread your posts a little and make a reasonable effort to keep your sentences in a consistent tense, without typos, and avoid run-ons. Those mistakes make your posts confusing and hard to read.
Second, you start from the premise that everything has always existed. Then state that it still came from nothing. So, you conclude, that it all came outta nothing, contra hyp.
Is your argument compelling?
-------------------------------------
By the way, remember that "constants tuned to just such a value" and "laws" and etc. are all man-made. Nature doesn't look and say,"Wow that constant is so perfectly balanced!" Nature just is the way it is. Only humans are surprised by magnitudes and precision.
How many "significant digits" does Nature have? Does an atom look at itself and say,"Wow! My g factor is measurable to the 11th decimal place!" Does it look at itself and say,"Wow, if planck's constant were just .00001 mypersonalunits different, I wouldn't exist!" Why would .00001, or any other particular amount, be considered "too tiny" to be a coincidence? Maybe .00001 is huge. Maybe 10
-99999999999999 is too small to be a coincidence. Maybe 10
-9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999?
Whether humans think it's "too small to be a coincidence" is just based on their personal experience. In one person's life the smallest momentum change they have ever observed is 10kg-m/s. Another person has observed momentum changes as small as .001 kg-m/s. The latter person thinks that planck's constant could be "a lot" different than what it is. S/he thinks the value is flexible and, so, isn't suprised. The former person thinks wow, even the "tiniest" change (tiny to him, meaning less than 10) would prevent life as we know it!
Ryujin wrote:
Yeah I know, somehting coming outta nothing "doesn't make sense" and might as well be majick but to me having a fully functioning universe preboxed with everything governed so tightly, so balanced for it to continuously go on like this doesn't make a lick more sense to me, I mean if matter can not be crated then why is there even anything here at all?
Firstly, "preboxed"? In steady-state there is no "pre". The universe wasn't boxed up by some intelligence and then set into motion.
Second "governed so tightly" implies a governor, i.e. an external intelligence. This is not an essential assumption or part of a steady-state U.
Third, asking "Why is there anything" already implies a certain kind of answer. Asking why something exists implies purpose, origination, etc. These are contrary to steady-state.
Ryujin wrote:
In short, all of your questions involve implicit assumptions that are contrary to steady-state. So, it's no wonder you have trouble with steady-state. You can't draw a conclusion that basically requires the opposite of the assumptions you started with.
