Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure, the 'I' self is as what it was conditioned to be, it can hardly be blamed for its flaws, but to the extent some of us have realized sufficient security, financial and other, to have the opportunity to reflect on what and who we are in the context of the greater existence, then we naturally transcend some of our lower self-survival nature that is no longer relevant, and as a result is more trustworthy and empathetic to all life. Implied in that sentence, is the presence of a new conditioning, a 'higher' self that is sometimes running the system when the original ego self is not.

Yeah, but you and I still do that differently. And no matter how false or what not it is how I think, I can still do it differently than you.

 

[Polymath257]

I understand the 4D reality, the 4th dimension time is the continuity of the 3D space geometry,

No. No more than latitude is the continuity of longitude.

and you seem to be saying that it is not logical to ask how this 4D reality came into existence from the non-existence of 4D reality.

Yes, that is what I say. To say 'came into existence' implies time, which is part of that 4D reality.

There is no 'outside' of that 4D reality, so nothing outside to cause it.

The absence of 4D reality means absolute nothing existed.

Yes, if nothing exists, then nothing exists.

Btw, 4D reality means the BB universe must have edges.

What makes you think that?

My oh my, what a mess.

Well, it is clear your understanding is imperfect.

 

[Polymath257]

You say one or the other, and I go with the eternal, there was no beginning to the universe, only created things have beginnings, and they are made out pre-existing stuff.

Well, that is a claim. Can you prove it?

You have not proved that the universe is not eternal, you would have to prove the universe came from nothing to do so.

Again that 'came from'. You simply can't get away from time words.

You may see me as a Panetheist, all that exists, ie., the eternal Cosmos/absolute universe, is alive and aware, hence fits the concept of Deity.

OK, but I would go larger. Look at ALL that exists, throughout space and time as a single entity. THAT is the universe. And it exists with no cause. And that is true even if (maybe especially if) time (in the universe) had a beginning.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. No more than latitude is the continuity of longitude.

Yes, that is what I say. To say 'came into existence' implies time, which is part of that 4D reality.

There is no 'outside' of that 4D reality, so nothing outside to cause it.

Yes, if nothing exists, then nothing exists.

What makes you think that?

Well, it is clear your understanding is imperfect.

That is unknown. You are doing the classical rationalistic trick of it makes sense in your brain, therefore it is so independent of your brain.

In you conditional exist in the 4D, then you can't known anything about not being 4D.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, that is a claim. Can you prove it?

Again that 'came from'. You simply can't get away from time words.

OK, but I would go larger. Look at ALL that exists, throughout space and time as a single entity. THAT is the universe. And it exists with no cause. And that is true even if (maybe especially if) time (in the universe) had a beginning.

But it is not a single entity. All is one, right. Well, I just answer two, and then we are of to the funny games.
The problem is that looking requires someone looking at something else.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No. No more than latitude is the continuity of longitude.

Yes, that is what I say. To say 'came into existence' implies time, which is part of that 4D reality.

There is no 'outside' of that 4D reality, so nothing outside to cause it.

Yes, if nothing exists, then nothing exists.

What makes you think that?

Well, it is clear your understanding is imperfect.

So do you agree or disagree with Stephan Hawking that time never started at the BB, it already existed, but was just bent. Originally he had the same view as you iirc, however he must have eventually realized the error of 'no time' before the BB. Still, there is a big hole in his theory.

Time Never Became Nothing Before The Big Bang​

During the show, Hawking said that time was present in a bent state amid the nearly infinitely small quantum foam of the singularity before the Big Bang. Time was distorted along another dimension, it was always reaching closer to nothing but didn't become nothing.

Stephen Hawking Claims To Know What Happened Before The Big Bang.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

OK, but I would go larger. Look at ALL that exists, throughout space and time as a single entity. THAT is the universe. And it exists with no cause. And that is true even if (maybe especially if) time (in the universe) had a beginning.

Agreed, except that there was no beginning, period, except for any and all manifestations.

 

[Polymath257]

Physical reality has 3 dimensions of space and one has been added by human science to these 3 dimensions of space due to the fact that the 3D of space continues to exist, and this continuation of existence to exist is called time. Thus spacetime is 4D.

OK, thi sis a flawed understanding. Both space and time *measurements* are human additions. But the *geometry* of spacetime is independent of humans. It is that geometry that is spacetime.

As an analogy, humans invented latitude and longitude to help us describe the geometry of a sphere (the Earth). Those are human constructs, but the geometry itself is not. The curvature of the Earth is not a human fabrication.

In the same way, we have space and time as ways to measure and describe the spacetime geometry that exists independent of us.

And, just like there is no 'south of the south pole', there may well be no 'before the BB'. it may literally be nonsense to talk about it.

So you actually believe it is possible for universal existence to have its beginning in non-existence?

You seem to think that time exists in non-existence. And that is a mistake. It is possible for time to begin. And it is possible that there simply was no 'before that time'.

Not a guess, existence can not come from non-existence! If you think it can, please explain how the absence of existence can produce existence?

It doesn't. That is a time bound view of things that is in error.

The universe exists, that is proof, it is a given, anyone who claims it has not always existed needs to explain how it came from nothing. Science can't do that because the concept of absolute nothing has no reality behind it, thus it is proof that the universe can not have had a beginning, nor can it have an ending for the same reason, there is no nothing into which to put the universe.

You are assuming that time extends infinitely far in both directions. That may or may not be the case (we don't know). But it is certainly NOT automatic that it does.

'We'.... you imagine all human beings are equal? There are very advanced humans and very primitive people on this planet, some understand what and who they are in the context of universal existence and some don't even ask the question.

?

So do you agree or disagree with Stephan Hawking that time never started at the BB, it already existed, but was just bent. Originally he had the same view as you iirc, however he must have eventually realized the error of 'no time' before the BB. Still, there is a big hole in his theory.


Stephen Hawking Claims To Know What Happened Before The Big Bang.

Hawking had a number of different views of this during his life. None of them has been substantiated by observation as yet.

 

[Polymath257]

Agreed, except that there was no beginning, period, except for any and all manifestations.

Again, an assumption that has not been verified. it is certainly *possible* to have had a beginning. Just like it is possible for there to be no south of the south pole.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yeah, but you and I still do that differently. And no matter how false or what not it is how I think, I can still do it differently than you.

Sure, you are a different unique expression of the universe than myself, but our source is the same.

 

[gnostic]

Sure, you are a different unique expression of the universe than myself, but our source is the same.

What “source” is that?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No. No more than latitude is the continuity of longitude.

Yes, that is what I say. To say 'came into existence' implies time, which is part of that 4D reality.

There is no 'outside' of that 4D reality, so nothing outside to cause it.

Yes, if nothing exists, then nothing exists.

What makes you think that?

Well, it is clear your understanding is imperfect.

So you are saying that the time in the context of our 3D universe is not related to its ongoing existence?

See my post #1,346 on Hawking implying time being eternal in nature, it is never nothing!

3D of space and one of time being the continuation of the 3D means being infinite if there is nothing outside of it, and that's reasonable.

Yes.

Because there is no nothing, but an infinite 3D means there is no outside.

And yours' is?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

OK, thi sis a flawed understanding. Both space and time *measurements* are human additions. But the *geometry* of spacetime is independent of humans. It is that geometry that is spacetime.

As an analogy, humans invented latitude and longitude to help us describe the geometry of a sphere (the Earth). Those are human constructs, but the geometry itself is not. The curvature of the Earth is not a human fabrication.
In the same way, we have space and time as ways to measure and describe the spacetime geometry that exists independent of us.
And, just like there is no 'south of the south pole', there may well be no 'before the BB'. it may literally be nonsense to talk about it.

You seem to think that time exists in non-existence. And that is a mistake. It is possible for time to begin. And it is possible that there simply was no 'before that time'.

It doesn't. That is a time bound view of things that is in error.

You are assuming that time extends infinitely far in both directions. That may or may not be the case (we don't know). But it is certainly NOT automatic that it does.

?


Hawking had a number of different views of this during his life. None of them has been substantiated by observation as yet.

Says you! Space is not necessarily a measurement, one can see space in every direction, not so with time, one can sense it be looking at space and being aware that it continues to exist, bingo, this continuation we call time.

Good grief, how could I think that time exists in non-existence when non-existence is an impossible concept. Existence is eternal, and science can not prove objectively that non-existence is possible (no, electron positron annihilation does not produce non-existence, the law of conservation of charge is in play.).

Word play, time is eternal, existence can not come from non-existence.

There was no beginning to time since there was no beginning to eternal existence

Human beings are not equal in their evolutionary state, some are more advance, some less.

I agree Hawking changed his view on time, he changed his view on time to believe it was eternal.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What “source” is that?

The universe.

 

[gnostic]

Good grief, how could I think that time exists in non-existence when non-existence is an impossible concept. Existence is eternal, and science can not prove objectively that non-existence is possible

A) Science is not in the business of “proving” things.

Scientists formulate the explanatory & predictive models (eg new hypothesis or, expand or modify existing theory), then TEST the models through OBSERVATIONS (eg EXPERIMENTS, EVIDENCE & DATA).

The words “proving” and “proof” are mathematical logic constructs, like what you see in formulas and equations, with constants, variables, numbers, etc.

The term “proof” is linked to any equation, whereas “proving” and “disproving” are about finding the solutions in mathematical methods, eg solving equations, expanding or simplifying equations, etc.

The mathematical “proofs” are merely statements, not evidence. I will repeat that proofs are statements that are used in parts of the explanations or parts of the predictions in a model. The explanation/prediction which would include the equations or formula, are not true or false until they have been rigorously “tested” (“tests” as in experiments or evidence or both).

The mathematical explanations such as the equations, that you would find in the models of hypothesis or theory, are the “THEORETICAL” side in a model of hypothesis or theory. I will say more about “theoretical” later.

Scientists and mathematicians agreed that proofs and proving are maths, not evidence.

People who lack the education in natural/physical sciences or maths, often used evidence and proof synonymously, especially non-scientist & non-mathematician journalists/reporters, police, judges, lawyers, religious people with no background in either science or maths.

If you want to discuss or argue about sciences, you should know that proof and proving are not evidence.

B) Sciences cannot prove or disprove the universe being eternal or not, but neither can you or anyone.

The more honest & accurate answers would be “we don’t know”.

And btw, about Stephen Hawking:

So do you agree or disagree with Stephan Hawking that time never started at the BB, it already existed, but was just bent. Originally he had the same view as you iirc, however he must have eventually realized the error of 'no time' before the BB. Still, there is a big hole in his theory.


Stephen Hawking Claims To Know What Happened Before The Big Bang.

Hawking is a theoretical physicist, who spent more time with equations...hence a large parts of work are theoretical, meaning maths-intensive concept. He doesn’t do experiments or finding evidence, which means a lot of his views are not science UNTIL THEY HAVE RIGOROUSLY TESTED WITH EVIDENCE.

So a lot of his concepts are untested, therefore they are not scientifically true, and therefore not “science”. Possibly theoretical true, but not scientifically true.

Real science deal with tests and evidence (which is a requirement of Scientific Method), so it concern with what are probable or improbable, where as theoretical science relied on maths and equations, so what they assume are either possible or impossible.

So until theoretical physicists can one day test his theoretical model, such models are not yet science.

You should know that General Relativity, Quantum mechanics, particle physics, the Big Bang theory, all started off theoretically, but parts of them were tested, but some of them remain purely theoretical.

For instance, Peter Higgs’ Higgs field & boson started out only as theoretical concept, but in 2012 or 2013, it was finally tested and verified in one of LHC experiments at CERN.

Likewise, Einstein’s GR on gravitational lensing was theoretically sound, but only experiments tested this concept to be true. However, something like his concept on “wormhole” in General Relativity remained purely theoretical & hypothetical, because it is untested.

A lot of things Hawking say are only theoretically possible, using maths that are beyond my grasp, but if they untested then his concepts are not (yet) science.

Multiverse is one of those purely theoretical models, as are String Theory, quantum gravity, etc. However, the last one, quantum gravity, given time, may be more scientifically plausible than Multiverse.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

A) Science is not in the business of “proving” things.

Scientists formulate the explanatory & predictive models (eg new hypothesis or, expand or modify existing theory), then TEST the models through OBSERVATIONS (eg EXPERIMENTS, EVIDENCE & DATA).

The words “proving” and “proof” are mathematical logic constructs, like what you see in formulas and equations, with constants, variables, numbers, etc.

The term “proof” is linked to any equation, whereas “proving” and “disproving” are about finding the solutions in mathematical methods, eg solving equations, expanding or simplifying equations, etc.

The mathematical “proofs” are merely statements, not evidence. I will repeat that proofs are statements that are used in parts of the explanations or parts of the predictions in a model. The explanation/prediction which would include the equations or formula, are not true or false until they have been rigorously “tested” (“tests” as in experiments or evidence or both).

The mathematical explanations such as the equations, that you would find in the models of hypothesis or theory, are the “THEORETICAL” side in a model of hypothesis or theory. I will say more about “theoretical” later.

Scientists and mathematicians agreed that proofs and proving are maths, not evidence.

People who lack the education in natural/physical sciences or maths, often used evidence and proof synonymously, especially non-scientist & non-mathematician journalists/reporters, police, judges, lawyers, religious people with no background in either science or maths.

If you want to discuss or argue about sciences, you should know that proof and proving are not evidence.

B) Sciences cannot prove or disprove the universe being eternal or not, but neither can you or anyone.

The more honest & accurate answers would be “we don’t know”.

And btw, about Stephen Hawking:



Hawking is a theoretical physicist, who spent more time with equations...hence a large parts of work are theoretical, meaning maths-intensive concept. He doesn’t do experiments or finding evidence, which means a lot of his views are not science UNTIL THEY HAVE RIGOROUSLY TESTED WITH EVIDENCE.

So a lot of his concepts are untested, therefore they are not scientifically true, and therefore not “science”. Possibly theoretical true, but not scientifically true.

Real science deal with tests and evidence (which is a requirement of Scientific Method), so it concern with what are probable or improbable, where as theoretical science relied on maths and equations, so what they assume are either possible or impossible.

So until theoretical physicists can one day test his theoretical model, such models are not yet science.

You should know that General Relativity, Quantum mechanics, particle physics, the Big Bang theory, all started off theoretically, but parts of them were tested, but some of them remain purely theoretical.

For instance, Peter Higgs’ Higgs field & boson started out only as theoretical concept, but in 2012 or 2013, it was finally tested and verified in one of LHC experiments at CERN.

Likewise, Einstein’s GR on gravitational lensing was theoretically sound, but only experiments tested this concept to be true. However, something like his concept on “wormhole” in General Relativity remained purely theoretical & hypothetical, because it is untested.

A lot of things Hawking say are only theoretically possible, using maths that are beyond my grasp, but if they untested then his concepts are not (yet) science.

Multiverse is one of those purely theoretical models, as are String Theory, quantum gravity, etc. However, the last one, quantum gravity, given time, may be more scientifically plausible than Multiverse.

If a scientist claims, or anyone for that matter claims that absolute non-existence is possible, and that because there is no time when there is nothing, nothing can be said about how or why it created existence, do you believe it?

So Hawking is a scientist whose position is that time is eternal, that is all. He is not saying that time had a beginning like Polymath who believes in the state of absolute nothing, that somehow created existence through a BB, and that you are not allowed to ask how or why it happened because the absolute nothing that may have had the answer had no time and in any event no longer exists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If a scientist claims, or anyone for that matter claims that absolute non-existence is possible, and that because there is no time when there is nothing, nothing can be said about how or why it created existence, do you believe it?

So Hawking is a scientist whose position is that time is eternal, that is all. He is not saying that time had a beginning like Polymath who believes in the state of absolute nothing, that somehow created existence through a BB, and that you are not allowed to ask how or why it happened because the absolute nothing that may have had the answer had no time and in any event no longer exists.

It seems that you still cannot grasp that if time began with the BB then the universe is eternal. And time for that matter is eternal too.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It seems that you still cannot grasp that if time began with the BB then the universe is eternal. And time for that matter is eternal too.

The problem is in effect Agrippa's Trilemma for justification.
All arguments about that ends as one of the 3.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It seems that you still cannot grasp that if time began with the BB then the universe is eternal. And time for that matter is eternal too.

Except time did not begin with the BB, Stephen Hawking and myself say so! And fyi, eternal means without beginning or end, and you think time had a beginning, great schooling you had.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Except time did not begin with the BB, Stephen Hawking and myself say so! And fyi, eternal means without beginning or end, and you think time had a beginning, great schooling you had.

Don't you understand that saying something doesn't make it so, if that which is talked about is independent of brains.

So I now say that you are ontologically evil and that is therefore a fact. You know that is not the case. Now learn to spot when you confuse dependent on brains and not dependent on brains