[yovav (OP)]

Is our universe derived from the same details that created it?
(Even before it was formed)

[Kryptid]

Why did you post this here instead of in the physics forum?

[chris]

I'm not really sure I understand the question. Can you clarify please.

[yovav (OP)]

Why did you post this here instead of in the physics forum?

I did not write here, I was transferred here

[yovav (OP)]

'm not really sure I understand the que

Yes, is everything that is happening in our universe a result of what was before the Big bang?

[Bored chemist]

Do you understand that what you are asking is
"What does physics say about things where the laws of physics do not apply?"

And were you expecting much of an answer?

[alancalverd]

Everything that happens is either a result of everything that happened before, or magic.

I have seen no evidence of magic.

[Bored chemist]

Everything that happens is either a result of everything that happened before, or magic.

I have seen no evidence of magic.

Then you need to study quantum mechanics.

In particular, I'd expect you to recognise that a particular nucleus decaying has no direct cause.

[alancalverd]

None that is obvious to an outsider, but the fact that not all nuclei decay suggests that some have a cause that others do not, and whilst you may not be able to predict the moment of decay of any particular nucleus, we have adequate models to predict which artificial nuclides will be unstable.

Or magic, if you wish.

[yovav (OP)]

Do you understand that what you are asking is
"What does physics say about things where the laws of physics do not apply?"

And were you expecting much of an answer?

I loved the answer and at the same time a universe was created out of something to which physical laws could not be applied, so what? Is there a connection? There is no connection?
If there is no connection as you claim it is still not an absolute discount. Anyway this is an interesting question.

[yovav (OP)]

Everything that happens is either a result of everything that happened before, or magic.

I have seen no evidence of magic.

Interesting, and yet as you understand the same laws that apply to us did not exist before the formation of a place.
Still an issue that remains open to me.

[yovav (OP)]

Or magic, if you wish.

So what's the bottom line? Or its still in the fog.

[yovav (OP)]

Then you need to study quantum mechanics.

In particular, I'd expect you to recognise that a particular nucleus decaying has no direct cause.

The fact that he has no direct cause does not preclude the existence of an indirect cause

[Bored chemist]

Then you need to study quantum mechanics.

In particular, I'd expect you to recognise that a particular nucleus decaying has no direct cause.

The fact that he has no direct cause does not preclude the existence of an indirect cause

Then you need to study quantum mechanics.

[alancalverd]

Interesting, and yet as you understand the same laws that apply to us did not exist before the formation of a place.

I have no reason to think that.

[evan_au]

The fact that he has no direct cause does not preclude the existence of an indirect cause

Some interpretations of quantum theory assume that there are some "hidden variables" which account for quantum effects.
- The value of these hidden variables determine the outcome of quantum events, but it is only because we don't know the value of these hidden variables that quantum events look random.
- Some forms of hidden-variable interpretation have been shown to be invalid by Bell's experiments.
- But since there are an infinite number of potential hidden-value theories, some of them may still be valid.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_hidden-variable_theory

A more speculative idea is that many forms of nuclear decay may be triggered by the impact of solar neutrinos.
- Some nuclear decays are known to be triggered by solar neutrinos, but this goes beyond those known decays
- When the Earth is closest to the Sun (around January 4th), Solar neutrinos are slightly more intense than when Earth is farthest away on July 4th.
- This speculative idea suggested that many nuclear reactions would be slightly more frequent on Jan 4th than July 4th.
- I haven't heard much about it recently, so I assume that this has now been proven false.

[yovav (OP)]

Then you need to study quantum mechanics.

In particular, I'd expect you to recognise that a particular nucleus decaying has no direct cause.

The fact that he has no direct cause does not preclude the existence of an indirect cause

Another thing in the context of quantum physics is the aspiration that ends quantum physics begins a new field of research. A science that does not study phenomena that are outside of us. But investigates phenomena within us. Because it all depends on the receiver, the viewer and therefore if we change the attributes of the viewer, we will change the world he sees, he receives, he discovers.

[Bored chemist]

A science that does not study phenomena that are outside of us. But investigates phenomena within us.

The idea that there is a difference was called "vitalism". That idea held that there was something different about the things that made up living tissue and the things that made up inanimate objects.
This view is obviously incompatible with the observation that, for example, an oxygen atom in a rock is the same as an oxygen atom in me.
It was first  brought into serious doubt in  1828 when Wohler synthesized urea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%B6hler_synthesis

It has been comprehensively debunked by countless observations and experiments since then.

If you want to raise it on a science  web site you need to clearly explain- with evidence- why you think that this distinction

A science that does not study phenomena that are outside of us. But investigates phenomena within us.

is meaningful.

Exactly which observable phenomena do you have in mind?

[alancalverd]

A science that does not study phenomena that are outside of us. But investigates phenomena within us.

Anatomy? Physiology? Psychology? Or any of the slimy bits of medicine?

[yovav (OP)]

Anatomy? Physiology? Psychology? Or any of the slimy bits of medicine?

Is there something that was not in it?