existence isnt logical. it had to be created by something which

>>9112956
It's only illogical if you assume it had to be created. There's no restriction on causality pre big bang.

>>9112959
>pre big bang
>pre
>big bang
Lel

>>9112959
>no such thing as causality
>"*"*"*pre-big bang*"*"*"
If there is no such thing as causality before the big bang, then how can it be "pre"? In order for it to come "before" the big bang, a causal framework must already be in place.
Causality is literally just change, nothing more, nothing less. Without causality, things can't "happen", because the notion of time is meaningless. Ergo, the big bang could not have "happened", much less at a specific point in "time", without causality.
I know I sound like I'm spewing philosophical pseudoscientific bullshit, but that's only because of the esoteric scenario we're discussing.

>>9113414
Singularities are where the rules break down. Here's an analogy:
You're required by law to drive on a particular side of the road. Before that law was put in place, you weren't unable to drive on that particular side of the road. You just weren't compelled to do so.
Before causality emerged, things weren't unable to behave in causal ways. They just weren't compelled to do so. A lack of rules contains more possibilities than a presence of rules. You don't gain something by laws emerging, you constrain something.

>>9113433
If the rules dictate reality itself, then yes, they can increase the number of possible things that can happen. For example, if tomorrow, a new type of subatomic particle appeared, one that provably did not exist yesterday, would that increase or decrease the number of things that could possibly happen in this universe?

>>9113444
>if tomorrow, a new type of subatomic particle appeared, one that provably did not exist yesterday, would that increase or decrease the number of things that could possibly happen in this universe?
It wouldn't increase the number of things that could possibly happen. If it happens tomorrow then it already could possibly happen.

>>9113455
You missed the point. Creating a law "Particle X now exists" didn't decrease the possible things that could happen, it increased it. Now, a whole new branch of physics is born, revolving around that particle and it's potential interactions with other particles. It was meant to refute your claim that rules only reduce possibilities. Of course, if you have a rule that says "all rules can change, except for this one", then the possibilities will always be endless, and never increase nor decrease, because there is always a chance that the rules will change to make a given thing happen, but that's a moot point.

>>9113483
>You missed the point.
I didn't miss it, I disagreed with it.
>Creating a law "Particle X now exists" didn't decrease the possible things that could happen, it increased it.
No. Particle X could still exist before any law emerged relating to its existence. A lack of laws always contains more possibilities than the presence of laws because laws are constraints on possibility. A law can't create a new possibility. It can only limit possibilities that already existed.
>if you have a rule that says "all rules can change
You don't need a rule that says that. The state of no rules already means that. If you have no rules anything can happen.

faggots

>>9112964
>>9113414
Under the current model, time started shortly after the big bang. This doesn't mean nothing happened before it though. It's just that talking about our universe, the only things that affect it happend when time began.

>>9113556
>time started 'shortly after' the big bang
Interesting. So what was going on after the big bang, but before time? I mean, obviously, everything was frozen in space, because time didn't exist yet. But then what caused them to start moving? It obviously couldn't be the big bang, because then time would have started at the same time as the universe. And also, at what point did space fuse with time? Obviously, the big bang created space, since otherwise there would be no place for all the particles to exist, but then time came after. Isn't that right? And also, how do we know it came shortly after? Does the word shortly even apply? After all, you're trying to measure that he amount of time it took for time to appear after the big bang. Isn't that nonsensical?

But yeah, in case you couldn't tell, I think you're spouting nonsensical bullshit. I'd appreciate it if you could source your 'current model', thanks.