Well, clearly that's possible. What is it with people on HN coming up with "gotchas" regarding topics they know nothing about?

He didn't say there could not ever be equations that show "nothingness turning into somethingness", all he says is that we have no way of showing it with what we know, what we can deduce, and much less what we can prove. If there are equations that satisfy the constraints, we're not aware of them yet (the same way we don't know yet how to combine general relativity and quantum mechanics). According to our current understanding, "the universe did not spring into existence, it has always existed, though perhaps not in its current form".

If you want to suggest random ideas, maybe you want to back them up with more than just "but what if they do exist?"

Being a good scientist doesn’t mean you’re a good philosopher.

We don't know that.

> Time was created along with the space, matter, and energy when the thing "sprang into existence."

These are just speculations. Some theories indeed mention that, but they are not part of our standard models.

For now, we just don't know.

> it's difficult for most people to grasp.

Oh come on…

Yes we do: https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time

> it's difficult for most people to grasp.

"Oh come on…"

Q.E.D.

We have an accepted standard model. 2 in fact. QM and Lambda CDM say very little about how things were working very close the t=0, and say absolutely nothing about how the conditions were a t=0 or "before".

As I said in my comment, people suggest ideas of how things could be. But nothing tangible, nothing ever included in ΛCDM, nothing predicted by QM… we are missing data, solid math, and solid physic to postulate anything about t<=0. I mean … we don't even know how gravity works in these conditions. How could we even say anything about time!

> Q.E.D.

I would classify your previous comment as pseudo science, and saying "it's difficult for most people to grasp" as lack of humility.

If you do understand how space and time were structured "before the existence of our universe", you should go claim a Nobel price.

I don’t see anything in that article mentioning that time did not exist before the universe existed. Did I miss it?

Despite "sprang" being a fantastical word to use in this context, it at least carries with it one thing for sure: a temporal component. "Springing" on its own indicates some sort of motion, which can only take place in time. Furthermore, "sprang" indicates a past tense, so that this "springing" took place at some (primordial) moment in time. According to your account, time presupposes itself.

You're applying the terms of experience to non-experience. The error is in a sophism of figure of speech.

Unfortunately you haven't explained anything at all. All you've demonstrated is that Kant was justified in writing the Antinomy.

> Before the existence of our universe, there was no time.

This is just a logical error. Unless you're using "before" in some novel way that needs clarifying.

To be clear: The author is saying that the universe has no beginning in time (and no outer bound of space). Once you remove your logical error of presupposing time before time, you are saying that the universe has a beginning in time (and presumably is enclosed within spatial bounds).

Is this not what you're saying?

The esteemed author, in saying confidently that there is no "before" the universe because the universe has no beginning, falls into the same trap that you do but lands on the other side of Kant's Antinomy: the author takes the empiricist stance in the dialectic, and you take the dogmatic stance. But even so, at least the author's stance is amenable to the infinite empirical regression of scientific practice; your stance just "puts speculative reason to slumber."

And yet, you've managed to do just that!

> This is a concept that I've tried to explain to others for years, but it's difficult for most people to grasp.

Not surprising since not all people experience the same reality.

How?

It seems almost impossible to avoid this sort of thing (~omniscience), at least when discussing certain topics, but it can be a lot of fun to try. Noticing it in others when reading comments is much easier, and a good form of practice.

In physics maths always go haywire durnig phase changes, as gas laws don't apply to liquids, and such.

Maybe I'm missing something?

Suppose you have a "working theory" about how birds fly, but no theory about other things might hypothetically fly. Does that afford you to claim "Nothing other than birds can fly"?

I find it far more useful to think about boundary cases like "first time" or "farthest distance" in terms of observable causal structure: what can currently know about the cause and effect relationship between things, what could we possibly know, and what could we never know? Outside of that it seems to be not only a slippery but also a steep slope into sloppy analogy to human experience.