Here's an infamous brain teaser

[thethinkertank]

What came first, matter or the origins of matter?

 

[MigL]

Doesn't matter...

[thethinkertank]

Just now, MigL said:

Doesn't matter...

That doesnt answer my question. 

Edited June 18, 2019 by thethinkertank

[MigL]

It was a play on words...

Your ill-posed question doesn't deserve an answer.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Is this actually a brain teaser / puzzle or just some ill-defined question you've come up with?

 

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, thethinkertank said:

That doesnt answer my question. 

Your original question answers your question.

[thethinkertank]

Just now, hypervalent_iodine said:

!

Moderator Note

Is this actually a brain teaser / puzzle or just some ill-defined question you've come up with?

 

It's a perennial brain teaser one that science has failed to answer yet.

Its a question of wether energy was ever created at all, but that would go against the precept that nothing can create energy. However if energy was then existent forever, it's future is also infinite which means change within its confines would be impossible for change is finite and the finite cannot merge with the infinite nor cause it to change. 

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, thethinkertank said:

It's a perennial brain teaser one that science has failed to answer yet.

Its a question of wether energy was ever created at all, but that would go against the precept that nothing can create energy. However if energy was then existent forever, it's future is also infinite which means change within its confines would be impossible for change is finite and the finite cannot merge with the infinite nor cause it to change. 

A bit of advice. Until you learn a LOT more science, you should avoid making statements about "infinity", "impossible", "cannot", "ever", "nothing", "forever", or any other absolutes. You're almost always going to be wrong because there will be things you haven't considered, mostly because you don't know them (yet).

[John Cuthber]

6 hours ago, thethinkertank said:

Its a question of wether energy

That's particularly funny if you grew up in sheep farming country.

16 hours ago, thethinkertank said:

What came first, matter or the origins of matter?

 

6 hours ago, thethinkertank said:

It's a perennial brain teaser one that science has failed to answer yet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

We have a fairly good answer to "What was the early universe like?" going back to a time where the conditions were such that matter could not exist.

 

So, the issue isn't that science has failed to answer it.

The problem is that you failed to understand (even at the pop science level) one of the most widely discussed scientific ideas in cosmology.

How hard had you tried?

 

[thethinkertank]

Just now, John Cuthber said:

That's particularly funny if you grew up in sheep farming country.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

We have a fairly good answer to "What was the early universe like?" going back to a time where the conditions were such that matter could not exist.

 

So, the issue isn't that science has failed to answer it.

The problem is that you failed to understand (even at the pop science level) one of the most widely discussed scientific ideas in cosmology.

How hard had you tried?

 

Well then you answered my question.

Matter was caused by an earlier version of its own self. (i.e The process of energy, which can neither be created or destroyed, CHANGED from early energy as we knew it back then, into modern energy, so to speak.)

Which means matter caused matter, in effect. 

 

[John Cuthber]

25 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

Matter was caused by an earlier version of its own self

That's either tautologically true (and therefore unhelpful) or made up nonsense.

[thethinkertank]

Just now, John Cuthber said:

That's either tautologically true (and therefore unhelpful) or made up nonsense.

Really? But I'm just rephrasing what (I assumed) you said earlier. That the early universe existed before the modern universe(premise 1) and there were no causal effects in between apart from the change of matter from state 1 to state 2 (except from the tendency of matter to change of its own volition) and the consequent deduction that therefore matter caused itself.

Or maybe you meant something else? If so, what? 

 

[John Cuthber]

We really don't know what was going on very early in the universe, but we do recognise that, to paraphrase it, energy condensed into matter.

Before it was matter, irt wasn't matter :so you have invented an idea of "the change of matter from state 1 to state 2".

33 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

Matter was caused by an earlier version of its own self.

Was a brick caused by an earlier version of that brick?
Or was it caused by a brick factory?

You need to think carefully about what you mean by "cause".

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

That's particularly funny if you grew up in sheep farming country.

Wether energy decreases when shorn of its motivation (but I'm sure ewe knew that). /baaaaaad puns

[John Cuthber]

Just now, Phi for All said:

Wether energy decreases when shorn of its motivation (but I'm sure ewe knew that). /baaaaaad puns

I was  wondering if anyone was going to ram the point home.

[Phi for All]

21 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I was  wondering if anyone was going to ram the point home.

I guess wool see if anyone objects and we have to go on the lamb (haven't heard a bo peep out of anyone yet). I'd hate to make anyone feel consciously embarrassed.