which came first

[show don't tell]

Im new to this board but have always loved debating people on this topic. The one question that has never been answered to my satifaction is which came first the chicken or the egg? If this been addressed please point me to the link.
Thank you

[William]

[Replying to post 49 by Bust Nak]

You need an "infinite density" as you called it to get a universe, and that's it.

Infinite density is not something I coined. It is something which was named as a possible state before the BB, related to that theory.

There is no circular reference here, as you don't need a universe to birth an infinite density.

That was not what I was eluding to, although I would not go so far as to claim that a universe was not required.
According to the theory this universe required something to exist before the BB. Otherwise it magically appeared, which presents its own problems in the same way that the chicken and egg question is philosophically addressing. The question is looking for an answer which does not require magical thinking - as in 'the egg (or the chicken) magically appeared from nothing.'

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 49 by Bust Nak]

You need an "infinite density" as you called it to get a universe, and that's it.

Infinite density is not something I coined. It is something which was named as a possible state before the BB, related to that theory.

There is no circular reference here, as you don't need a universe to birth an infinite density.

That was not what I was eluding to, although I would not go so far as to claim that a universe was not required.
According to the theory this universe required something to exist before the BB. Otherwise it magically appeared, which presents its own problems in the same way that the chicken and egg question is philosophically addressing. The question is looking for an answer which does not require magical thinking - as in 'the egg (or the chicken) magically appeared from nothing.'

Unless you go with imaginary time and the no boundary condition that Hawking proposed I guess. You get a BB without a singularity.

Anyway, the short answer is that no one knows where the universe comes from. That does not, however, imply a chicken and egg scenario, because we can't assume that the universe came from something else. We don't know that to be true. The universe is a big nothing broken into lots of pieces, a 1+1+1+1-1-1-1-1=0 scenario, but on a far grander scale. Perhaps this means it didn't come from anywhere, or anything.

What we do know, based on the data, is that spacetime is finite and the universe started out small and has been expanding ever since. How that started is the part many are currently working on.

[William]

[Replying to post 52 by Kenisaw]

Unless you go with imaginary time and the no boundary condition that Hawking proposed I guess. You get a BB without a singularity.

Which implies magically appearing from...?

Anyway, the short answer is that no one knows where the universe comes from.

And in line with that, no one knows where chickens and eggs and everything else consisting of the universe, comes from. That is the basis of the philosophy behind the chicken or egg question.

That does not, however, imply a chicken and egg scenario, because we can't assume that the universe came from something else.

Yes we can. The universe itself shows us that. Things come from things come from things. No thing in the universe shows us that some things come from nowhere/no thing.

We don't know that to be true.

We can assume it is most probably true. Especially based upon the observation that all things have a beginning and other things are involved with that process. There is a definite pattern to this, which can be assumed to derive from a source, whatever that source may be.

The universe is a big nothing broken into lots of pieces, a 1+1+1+1-1-1-1-1=0 scenario, but on a far grander scale. Perhaps this means it didn't come from anywhere, or anything.

Magical thinking then?

What we do know, based on the data, is that spacetime is finite and the universe started out small and has been expanding ever since.

So we can describe the 'chicken' but so far not the 'egg'.

How that started is the part many are currently working on.

Yes. Working on finding out about the 'egg' - if that is possible to do.

[Bust Nak]

Infinite density is not something I coined. It is something which was named as a possible state before the BB, related to that theory.

The term is singularity or colloquially just "BB." "Infinite density" isn't an entity.

That was not what I was eluding to...

And that's exactly the problem. The philosophical question speaks to the dilemma of the circular nature of causes. Some how you missed that and changed to a different question of how the universe came into existence without an apparent cause, when there is no talk of circular causes here.

According to the theory this universe required something to exist before the BB. Otherwise it magically appeared, which presents its own problems in the same way that the chicken and egg question is philosophically addressing. The question is looking for an answer which does not require magical thinking - as in 'the egg (or the chicken) magically appeared from nothing.'

Again, nothing circular here. Chick and egg dilemma does not apply - the (naive) causes of chicken and egg are known: Chicken causes eggs, eggs causes chicken; as opposed to the ?->universe non cyclic causation.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 52 by Kenisaw]

Unless you go with imaginary time and the no boundary condition that Hawking proposed I guess. You get a BB without a singularity.

Which implies magically appearing from...?

Which implies what magically appearing from? The BB? A Singularity? Barney the Purple Dinosaur? I think you accidentally left a little detail out of your question, and I find myself unable to know what you are asking as a result.

Anyway, the short answer is that no one knows where the universe comes from.

And in line with that, no one knows where chickens and eggs and everything else consisting of the universe, comes from. That is the basis of the philosophy behind the chicken or egg question.

And the reason it is a silly question is that it assumes that chickens and eggs and everything else in the universe came from somewhere. Except we don't know that it came from anything.

That does not, however, imply a chicken and egg scenario, because we can't assume that the universe came from something else.

Yes we can. The universe itself shows us that. Things come from things come from things. No thing in the universe shows us that some things come from nowhere/no thing.

No, we can't. What the universe shows us is that, from everything we've been able to measure and test and study, it adds up to a great big fat zero. The net spin is zero, the net charge is zero, the net energy is zero. It doesn't appear to come from anything at all. All the "things" when added together equal "nothing".

Don't take my word for it, go to a physics forum and ask around.

We don't know that to be true.

We can assume it is most probably true. Especially based upon the observation that all things have a beginning and other things are involved with that process. There is a definite pattern to this, which can be assumed to derive from a source, whatever that source may be.

Right, in your observations you are seeing all the parts of the nothing interacting with each other, and in a balanced way, so that conservation laws aren't broken. That doesn't make the nothing actually something however. Nothing doesn't need a source, does it...

The universe is a big nothing broken into lots of pieces, a 1+1+1+1-1-1-1-1=0 scenario, but on a far grander scale. Perhaps this means it didn't come from anywhere, or anything.

Magical thinking then?

If you mean magic = net of all observed and tested data points ever collected by humans to this point, then sure. But why you would want to redefine magic that way is beyond me...

What we do know, based on the data, is that spacetime is finite and the universe started out small and has been expanding ever since.

So we can describe the 'chicken' but so far not the 'egg'.

We can define the chicken and the egg, and everything else, as nothing broken up into a lot of little parts that completely cancel out.

How that started is the part many are currently working on.

Yes. Working on finding out about the 'egg' - if that is possible to do.

Working on finding out about the nothing to be more accurate - if that is possible to do.

[William]

[Replying to post 55 by Kenisaw]

Which implies what magically appearing from? The BB? A Singularity? Barney the Purple Dinosaur? I think you accidentally left a little detail out of your question, and I find myself unable to know what you are asking as a result.

No. You mentioned Hawking;

Unless you go with imaginary time and the no boundary condition that Hawking proposed I guess. You get a BB without a singularity.

'Imaginary time and the no boundary condition' don't make any sense. Do these make sense to you? They appear to do so as you argue for these things existing as the cause of the BB.

Can you explain why it is not magical thinking?

And the reason it is a silly question is that it assumes that chickens and eggs and everything else in the universe came from somewhere. Except we don't know that it came from anything.

The assumption is not silly at all. To assume the universe came from nowhere/nothing is magical thinking. That we don't know that it came from anything, does not mean we assume it spontaneously happened from nothing, else scientists and those who fund them, would not be interested in trying to find out.

No, we can't. What the universe shows us is that, from everything we've been able to measure and test and study, it adds up to a great big fat zero. The net spin is zero, the net charge is zero, the net energy is zero. It doesn't appear to come from anything at all. All the "things" when added together equal "nothing".

Don't take my word for it, go to a physics forum and ask around.

Unless you are saying that the universe and everything to do with it, does not actually exist, what are you arguing here? That it doesn't exist and therefore can come from nothing because it isn't anything anyway??

Right, in your observations you are seeing all the parts of the nothing interacting with each other, and in a balanced way, so that conservation laws aren't broken. That doesn't make the nothing actually something however. Nothing doesn't need a source, does it...

You are arguing that! Your argument means nothing!

If you mean magic = net of all observed and tested data points ever collected by humans to this point, then sure. But why you would want to redefine magic that way is beyond me...

On your belief that the universe is nothing, then magic would = "net of all observed and tested data points ever collected by humans to this point", as that is a lot of data about nothing, collected by nothing, tested by nothing but magically appearing to be something.

We can define the chicken and the egg, and everything else, as nothing broken up into a lot of little parts that completely cancel out.

'Completely cancel out' what?

Working on finding out about the nothing to be more accurate - if that is possible to do.

'The' nothing? That is to imply it is something!

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 55 by Kenisaw]

Unless you go with imaginary time and the no boundary condition that Hawking proposed I guess. You get a BB without a singularity.

'Imaginary time and the no boundary condition' don't make any sense. Do these make sense to you? They appear to do so as you argue for these things existing as the cause of the BB.

Can you explain why it is not magical thinking?

It does make sense to me. Here is an article from Hawking about it.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

And the reason it is a silly question is that it assumes that chickens and eggs and everything else in the universe came from somewhere. Except we don't know that it came from anything.

The assumption is not silly at all. To assume the universe came from nowhere/nothing is magical thinking. That we don't know that it came from anything, does not mean we assume it spontaneously happened from nothing, else scientists and those who fund them, would not be interested in trying to find out.

The assumption of "something" is silly because we don't know either way. Causality breaks down at the quantum level. To think that everything comes from somewhere or something isn't a given. It isn't guaranteed to be true. No one is assuming it came from nothing, but rather that it is a possibility that has to be considered. Since we can't determine at this time, talking about chickens and eggs as it relates to the start of the universe is ignoring all the possibilities.

No, we can't. What the universe shows us is that, from everything we've been able to measure and test and study, it adds up to a great big fat zero. The net spin is zero, the net charge is zero, the net energy is zero. It doesn't appear to come from anything at all. All the "things" when added together equal "nothing".

Don't take my word for it, go to a physics forum and ask around.

Unless you are saying that the universe and everything to do with it, does not actually exist, what are you arguing here? That it doesn't exist and therefore can come from nothing because it isn't anything anyway??

To be accurate, I'm not arguing anything. I'm explaining to you a hypothesis of science. The entire universe cancels itself out. This concept is supported by the fact that everything in the universe nets to zero. There is no charge, all the positives and negatives cancel out. There is no spin, all those cancel out as well. All the positive energy (light, thermal, kinetic, etc) equal the negative energy (gravity).

It's not that the universe does not exist, it does. But the universe is because of nothing breaking up into lots of components, like a zero becoming 1+1+1+1-1-1-1-1. Still zero, but in a different form.

Right, in your observations you are seeing all the parts of the nothing interacting with each other, and in a balanced way, so that conservation laws aren't broken. That doesn't make the nothing actually something however. Nothing doesn't need a source, does it...

You are arguing that! Your argument means nothing!

My failure to adequately explain it in a manner that makes sense to you doesn't invalidate the concept. If you have interest in learning more, read up on zero-energy universe or the universe being a free lunch. Krauss and Hawking do a good job of explaining these things, I'd recommend starting with them

If you mean magic = net of all observed and tested data points ever collected by humans to this point, then sure. But why you would want to redefine magic that way is beyond me...

On your belief that the universe is nothing, then magic would = "net of all observed and tested data points ever collected by humans to this point", as that is a lot of data about nothing, collected by nothing, tested by nothing but magically appearing to be something.

A belief is something considered true without empirical or factual support. This is not a belief. The net spin of the universe IS zero. The net charge of the universe IS zero. The net energy of the universe IS zero. This is repeatedly validated in study after study. Don't take my word for it, look it up. This empirical information clearly shows (along with the conservation laws) that the universe in total has no characteristics, except that everything in it adds up to a bunch of zeros.

We can define the chicken and the egg, and everything else, as nothing broken up into a lot of little parts that completely cancel out.

'Completely cancel out' what?

All the parts cancel each other out. A positive 1 and a negative 1 cancel each other out in an equation. The universe is a lot of opposite components, that when all added up together, cancel each other out.

Working on finding out about the nothing to be more accurate - if that is possible to do.

'The' nothing? That is to imply it is something!

It's a bunch of pieces of nothing to be more accurate.

[William]

[Replying to post 57 by Kenisaw]

It does make sense to me. Here is an article from Hawking about it.

I C&P'ed the article and searched for the word 'nothing' within it. Turns out the word 'nothing' is used in the article exactly zero times.

So okay, it makes sense to you. How do you translate what Hawking is writing about in a way which would make it easier for a layperson to understand? Can you at least quote from the article when you assert that what you are saying is also what Hawking is saying?

The assumption of "something" is silly because we don't know either way.

The point is, there is no 'either way' because 'nothing' is not known to exist, whereas something is.

Therefore it isn't silly at all to presume that something always comes from something.
If you can point me to one thing in this universe which is evidently 'nothing', then perhaps we can speak to that.

Since we can't determine at this time, talking about chickens and eggs as it relates to the start of the universe is ignoring all the possibilities.

So here you are talking about 'ignoring all the possibilities' when it appears to me that one possibility you and Hawking both would rather ignore - as indeed this hypothesis of something coming from an imagined possible 'nothing' was spawned from - is the idea that an intelligent creative entity is the source.

Why are you so eager to not ignore the possibility that this universe came from 'nothing' when you are eager to ignore the possibility that something came from an intelligent creative entity?

Surely you can appreciate that a double standard is observable in your stance here?

An hypothesis generated through the need to argue against an intelligent creative entity being the cause of the universe cannot be endorsed on the grounds that 'it is possible and should not be ignored as a possibility' when in accepting it as such, one has to reject the possibility of the hypothesis that an intelligent creative entity is responsible.

The one cancels out the other, and visa versa - but which is the more logical?

"Something comes from something"

or

"Something comes from nothing."

Which is less magical thinking?

Talking about chickens and eggs as it relates to the start of the universe is ignoring the something comes from nothing 'possibility' because nothing is absent, in that it does not actually exist. Chickens, eggs and the universe, however, do exist.

To be accurate, I'm not arguing anything. I'm explaining to you a hypothesis of science.

To be sure, the particular hypothesis you are arguing in favor of is a product of a type zero species science, which of itself is demonstrably inadequate as a means of support and encouragement for establishing a type 1 species. So no. Also, you are not 'explaining' anything. You are appearing to be parroting an hypothesis which lacks any explanation which the layperson can understand with clarity.

The entire universe cancels itself out.

If this were the case. the entire universe would not exist.

My failure to adequately explain it in a manner that makes sense to you doesn't invalidate the concept.

What invalidates the concept is that 'nothing' is an idea which is imagined to exist but cannot be shown to exist. What invalidates the concept is that it forces one to ignore the possibility that an intelligent creative entity is responsible for the universe existing. What invalidates the concept is that it was created specifically for the purpose of being able to ignore the possibility that an intelligent creative entity is responsible for the universe existing.

Now, in stating the possibility that an intelligent creative entity is responsible for the universe existing I am not endorsing any of the common organised religion's ideas of who and what that intelligent creative entity may be, and acknowledge that these popular scientists you speak of are influenced by their contempt for such GOD-ideas in creating hypothesis which argue for the notion of the universe coming from 'nothing' as a better alternative than having to accept such ideas. However, I myself do not support such ideas (as to character attributes assigned) as having to be attached to the hypothesis of an intelligent creative entity being responsible for the universe existing. I am approaching the idea logically.

A belief is something considered true without empirical or factual support. This is not a belief. The net spin of the universe IS zero. The net charge of the universe IS zero. The net energy of the universe IS zero. This is repeatedly validated in study after study. Don't take my word for it, look it up. This empirical information clearly shows (along with the conservation laws) that the universe in total has no characteristics, except that everything in it adds up to a bunch of zeros.

Even so, you are speaking about math. "Zero" does not mean "nothing" because zero is something. It is the neutral position between positive and negative numbers.

That position sustains the stable interaction between the extremes and the extremes are what allow for things to form and forms are not created from 'nothing' but something (theory of quantum physics) so 'Zero' is the sustainer and stabilizer, not to be confused with 'nothing'.

It's a bunch of pieces of nothing to be more accurate.

Not accurate at all, except of course in relation to the 'theory of nothing'. These are something, otherwise we would not be able to discuss these things from within this thing. They are things, not no things.

[Danmark]

For evolutionists, the egg came first. Through some sort of genetic mutation, the parents produced a completely different animal called a chicken (in the form of an egg). Somehow, also the parents would've known how to raise a chicken, in addition to raising it's own offspring. Furthermore, it would have not only raised one chicken, but at least one male and one female.

Oliver, I liked your post about the chicken coming first, but I disagree with your statement about evolutionists. As an evolutionist, I also say the chicken came first for the same reason you gave. Your claim ignores the extremely small changes that occur from generation to generation. This is a common error creationists make. The changes are so gradual that there is no single moment in time when a chicken suddenly appears. You are correct only in regard to the fact that each new generation, the egg, represents the earliest form of that new iteration.

Creationists like to build their straw men that in the extreme suggest that evolutionary theory says that one day, for example a T-Rex laid a modern chicken egg.
https://blogs.lt.vt.edu/chickens/2013/0 ... her-birds/

[wiploc]

which came first the chicken or the egg?

I've always assumed that the egg came first. Some proto-chicken laid an egg, and the first chicken hatched out of it. Since a chicken hatched out of it, it must have been a chicken egg, right?