A test of logic - "before time began" and "after time ends"

Quantum Quack said:
well If we hold to that conclusion as an absolute in that absolutely nothing can predate the beginning of time, how does that effect the approach to isues such as the Big Bang and other similar "linea" time line type theories of universal creation?
.
Click to expand...
Yes, I would stick to your pop guns on this one. I am quite certain that scientists including many physicists have spoken and written about

time beginning along with space in the BiG Bang

and that there was nothing and nowhen before, that in fact the idea of before is illusory because time started then.

While Superluminal may be correct that this is wrong, I am quite certain he is incorrect about scientists on this issue. In fact I have seen threads here where the issue was discussed and those who poo pooed the idea along logical lines met with quite tasty condescension from the physicists.
 
Quantum Quack said:
To me it means that the universe must have always existed, with out any doubt.
Which I would think alters many ways of looking at the universe in general.
For example we often refer to evolution in billions of years yet the time available for evolution to occur is eternal or infinite [ the universe has always existed]
This poses even more conflicts of logic I would tend to thiink...hmmmmm unless we assume catastrophic cycling of the universes existance humanity would have probably evolved countelss times and suffered exitinction likewise. This seems to be incredibly unlikely though...
Click to expand...
Not at all! I think that in an eternal and spatially infinite universe, cyclic or not, everything that can happen, happens an infinity of times! It has to! Ther is good science and probability theory to back this up too. There was a SA article that calculated how close your nearest "doppleganger" would be in an infinite universe, based solely on the probability mathematics of the arrangements of all particles in a given Hubble Volume.
 
Doreen said:
In fact I have seen threads here where the issue was discussed and those who poo pooed the idea along logical lines met with quite tasty condescension from the physicists.
Click to expand...

Not real physicists, I guarantee it. A sure way to tell if a physicist is for real or not is to get him or her to say anything conclusive about what happened re space-time-energy-matter at t=0.

No real scientist will. Trust me on this. Ask James or BenTheMan, etc. Real physicists.
 
superluminal said:
Not real physicists, I guarantee it. A sure way to tell if a physicist is for real or not is to get him or her to say anything conclusive about what happened re space-time-energy-matter at t=0.

No real scientist will. Trust me on this. Ask James or BenTheMan, etc. Real physicists.
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure they did in fact say Time Began in the Big Bang, here. And or that it could have begun. However many physicists have said that time began in the Big Bang. I don't have time right now to find more references but here are a couple
Stephen Hawking in particular has addressed a connection between time and the Big Bang. In A Brief History of Time and elsewhere, Hawking says that even if time did not begin with the Big Bang and there were another time frame before the Big Bang, no information from events then would be accessible to us, and nothing that happened then would have any effect upon the present time-frame.[36] Upon occasion, Hawking has stated that time actually began with the Big Bang, and that questions about what happened before the Big Bang are meaningless.[37][38][39] This less-nuanced, but commonly repeated formulation has received criticisms from philosophers such as Aristotelian philosopher Mortimer J. Adler.[40][41]
Click to expand...

Notice sometimes that the question is irrelevent, sometimes that time began there.

Don't ask me what came before the big bang,says physicist Paul Davies.Time and space only popped into existence at that instant,so the question doesn't apply.
Click to expand...

Notice the chapter about why do many physicists....

http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/7393.html

Again Paul Davies....

http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html

here he fleshes this out and directly says that the universe always having been here is wrong.

If you google 'physicist' and 'time began' you find quite a bit. Also look at theories of the Big Bang and you will often find explanations of how time itself arose. And I am not talking about works by non-physicists. I am talking about physicists. I will come back later and see if I can find the archived discussions here, but I noted then that it specifically was the physicists telling someone who thought time beginning was illogical that he was incorrect.
 
superluminal said:
Not at all! I think that in an eternal and spatially infinite universe, cyclic or not, everything that can happen, happens an infinity of times! It has to! Ther is good science and probability theory to back this up too. There was a SA article that calculated how close your nearest "doppleganger" would be in an infinite universe, based solely on the probability mathematics of the arrangements of all particles in a given Hubble Volume.
Click to expand...
The reason why I said unlikely was because humanity would have found a way to stop the re-cycling process as they learned to master the universes physics and structures. If not humanity any E.T. evolved race could do the same...and this is obviously not the case.
As of this moment no one race in the entire universe has mastered it sufficiently to stop the re-cycling [ "Big Crunch" or catastrophic entropy] if that is a real phenonema as all evidence I believe seem to point to a continuation towards these events. Therefore one can conclude that no E.T has the technology to stop entropy in a way that allows universal sustainability with out the Big Crunch so to speak thus evolution has been limited and not infinite or eternal.

"A sci fi fictional novel I read ages ago talks of a race that developed technology to survive, endure and go on after a "big crunch" which I must admit was a facinating read."
 
Last edited:
Doreen said:
I am pretty sure they did in fact say Time Began in the Big Bang, here. And or that it could have begun. However many physicists have said that time began in the Big Bang
Click to expand...
Well, since no one knows what they even mean when they talk about time, it seems a bit strange to make conclusive statements about it. Physicists aren't all necessarily good scientists. My claim is that there is zero evidence for time being anything other than a human qualia (like the experience of color or sound) for state changes in the universe.

Again, no scientist (physics or not) worth their salt will make a conclusive claim about time beginning or ending. I've heard numerous physicists weigh in on subjects outside their field of expertise and come off even less educated than a well versed layman.

It is logically absurd to have ever thought that time came to be at t=0 (see there, time had to exist already for an event to transpire in the first place!).

Just because an equation can't handle a certain set of extreme conditions (like 'singularities' at the center of black holes or space-time at t=0) does not imply that the equation is telling you anything true about the actual universe under those conditions. There really is NOT a zero dimensional point of INFINITE density at the center of a black hole for example. And any physicist that suggests anything other than that the equations contain mathematical singularities under these conditions is a quack.
 
superluminal said:
Well, since no one knows what they even mean when they talk about time, it seems a bit strange to make conclusive statements about it. Physicists aren't all necessarily good scientists. My claim is that there is zero evidence for time being anything other than a human qualia (like the experience of color or sound) for state changes in the universe.

Again, no scientist (physics or not) worth their salt will make a conclusive claim about time beginning or ending. I've heard numerous physicists weigh in on subjects outside their field of expertise and come off even less educated than a well versed layman.

It is logically absurd to have ever thought that time came to be at t=0 (see there, time had to exist already for an event to transpire in the first place!).

Just because an equation can't handle a certain set of extreme conditions (like 'singularities' at the center of black holes or space-time at t=0) does not imply that the equation is telling you anything true about the actual universe under those conditions. There really is NOT a zero dimensional point of INFINITE density at the center of a black hole for example. And any physicist that suggests anything other than that the equations contain mathematical singularities under these conditions is a quack.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you on this. Scientists who make such statements about black hole singularities or time not existing prior to the big bang are being careless. That's not to say that they're wrong. But in making such assertions they must recognize that the burden of proof lies with them, and not those who raise doubts.

So I simply ask, why must we accept that there was no time before the Big Bang? What scientific evidence (as opposed to theory) supports this view?
 
Quantum Quack said:
Just wishing to hear of thoughts concerning the logical validity of these two commonly used statements and concepts and their variations.

"Before time began"
"when time began"
"when time ends"
"after all of time"
etc

Is it correct logically correct to say such things given that there can be no time before time begins and no time after time ends?

That is to say, that ultimately in absolute terms time can have no begining nor can it have an end.
or somethng to that effect...
Relating more specifically to the concept "creatio exnihilo"

~ wiki


care to discuss?
Click to expand...
What is time? What is its nature? Time is not a perceived object. But it can be infered by motion/change. Motion cannot ever have stopped. Zero motion at point means that it could have started, thanks to inertia.

Time bagan is an illogical concept.
 
Quantum Quack said:
Just wishing to hear of thoughts concerning the logical validity of these two commonly used statements and concepts and their variations.

"Before time began"
"when time began"
"when time ends"
"after all of time"
etc

Is it correct logically correct to say such things given that there can be no time before time begins and no time after time ends?

That is to say, that ultimately in absolute terms time can have no begining nor can it have an end.
or somethng to that effect...
Relating more specifically to the concept "creatio exnihilo"

~ wiki


care to discuss?
Click to expand...

Well it raises the question "What is time?". In context with your statements, I believe you're referring to the motion of matter in which case "Before time began" may refer to as what some would consider "Before the big bang".


A little more literal...who's to say time hasn't stopped? "Before time began" can refer to a period of existence between events. For all we know, time could have periodically stopped/started a gazatrillion times while I've been writing this post. "Before time began" can literally refer to all of the past. When you think about it, you can even put a spin on it and say "Before time began" can refer to the future (that can be another discussion though).

Also bear in mind that reality is not necessarily time-dependent. What comes to mind is Einstein's relativity. *Edit* With this is mind, "Before time began" doesn't mean "Before reality was".
 
Last edited:
All becomes be much simpler in the informational conception.
See arXiv paper "The information as Absolute" (I cannot to point here the URL, but the paper can be found by Google if one put the title into Google query line)

Cheers
 
Here, watch this episode from Mr. Diety.


It's a pretty amusing comedy about god and his tech support, and research and development up in heaven trying to manage the humans on Earth. Oh and he's married to Lucy (Lucifer).

Watch the episode, the dialog in particular.

It somewhat addresses your question.



Well, in order to create time, time already has to exist. See we first have to have a moment where there is no time, at which point we create time, and then there is time. But to have that first moment requires an already existing fabric of time.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Kernl Sandrs said:
Here, watch this episode from Mr. Diety.


It's a pretty amusing comedy about god and his tech support, and research and development up in heaven trying to manage the humans on Earth. Oh and he's married to Lucy (Lucifer).

Watch the episode, the dialog in particular.

It somewhat addresses your question.
Click to expand...

loved it....thanks...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top