Hey /Sci. So before the Big Bang, "everything" was

>So before the Big Bang
we don't even know if this is a thing; time apparently began with the big bang

>After the end of the universe, everything that exists will all decay into photons and the universe will then return back into the state of nothing and non-existence.
[citation needed]

>So is the point of existence to return to the state of not existing?
there is no point to existence whatsoever

>Was the Big Bang and creation of time an anomaly, and the state of everything was to be nothing?
nigga are you high?

>we don't even know if this is a thing; time apparently began with the big bang
I'll give you that one

>[citation needed]
You don't really belong on this board if you don't know what the Big Rip is.

>there is no point to existence whatsoever
You're gonna have to back that up with evidence or an explanation.

>nigga are you high?
Really starting to question if you belong on this board.

>>7767283
>time apparently began with the big bang
where is the evidence

>there is no point to existence whatsoever
you have made another claim without evidence

please don't confuse physics with philosophy

thanks

>>7767280
>So is the point of existence to return to the state of not existing?
Lets stop and think about this for a second. If you could boil *everything* down that simply, why would there be so many intermediate steps before non-existence?

How was entropy so low in the beginning?

File: OH NO COW.jpg (37KB, 350x236px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 350x236px

>>7767283
Please Lurk a bit moar if your gonna try to answer questions here

>>7767291
I wouldn't say time its self began with the Big Bang, but if definitely wager time as we knew it had a definitive beginning and the Big Bang is the conception of our modern understanding of time.

>>7767291
Concur 100% on the do not confuse philosophy with physics though.

>>7767280
I'm really against using language in that way; "nothing" "existence" "everything"

these words are vague as words are with something like nothing being something and whatnot it just doesn't work

you just can't use signifiers in any sort of meaningful way, and I realize the irony of me saying meaningful

>>7767292
I do see what you are saying, as in why would those intermediate steps exist in the first place, and why would *everything* not just immediately transition back into nothing.

But what I really meant was, Is the fate of existence to return to the state of non-existence?

>>7767301
I'm sorry, I did realize these were very vague terms and they aren't very good for the transfer of ideas due to their lack in specificity but I did not know of any other way to transfer my thoughts to words, as I myself struggled to put this to type.

I hope you can cut me a wee bit of slack as it is pretty hard to add specificity to something that either encompasses no properties at all or all properties total. Cheers.

I'm totally open to personal beliefs (not in a religion sort of way), since it's impossible to tell what happened before and after the universe. Just as long as they use sound logic. Feel free to incorporate other ideas into this as well.

>>7767301
Agree.

OP. Photons "wizzing around" imply the existenze of space-time (which they need to propagate). This terminology is inadequate.