Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Subduction Zone]

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.

The problem is that your source has a self contradicting definition. If time began with the Big Bang then the universe has always existed. "For all time" is a better definition since that definition does not have that self contradiction.

Did you go dictionary shopping? Because that is not the only definition of eternal. Other sources do not have the failing that yours did:

Definition of ETERNAL

having infinite duration : everlasting; of or relating to eternity; characterized by abiding fellowship with God… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The problem is that your source has a self contradicting definition. If time began with the Big Bang then the universe has always existed. "For all time" is a better definition since that definition does not have that self contradiction.

Did you go dictionary shopping? Because that is not the only definition of eternal. Other sources do not have the failing that yours did:

Definition of ETERNAL

having infinite duration : everlasting; of or relating to eternity; characterized by abiding fellowship with God… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/

The problem right now, is that you and Ben Dhyan are both doing rationalism in the end and not empiricism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem right now, is that you and Ben Dhyan are both doing rationalism in the end and not empiricism.

I am only refuting his poor reasoning. I am not trying to prove any idea right. I do not know how to do that at the level of the Big Bang. But I can show some ideas to be wrong.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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

That is my way of teasing SZ, me and Stephan! Actually I think Stephen's concept of time is nonsense, 'bent time'. But having said that, there are things independent of brains that I know to be true or real, and I will say so despite knowing that it is impossible to convey a subjective experience or realization to someone who has not had the same or similar experience or realization.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The problem is that your source has a self contradicting definition. If time began with the Big Bang then the universe has always existed. "For all time" is a better definition since that definition does not have that self contradiction.

Did you go dictionary shopping? Because that is not the only definition of eternal. Other sources do not have the failing that yours did:

Definition of ETERNAL

having infinite duration : everlasting; of or relating to eternity; characterized by abiding fellowship with God… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/

Ok, it is the same meaning, your source dictionary says eternal means infinite which means without limits, so that means 'everlasting' means infinite and eternal.

And besides, a beginning of time means there is also end of time, the rules of reciprocity mean that everything that has a beginning, has an ending,

Do you even know what time really is, please tell me in your own words what you think time is, no copy and paste?

 

[gnostic]

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.

And that's your problem, Ben, thinking sciences are about knowing things "absolute".

All scientific theories and untested hypotheses are "provisional" models, none of them are absolute.

Each models are subjected to review, updates (eg expansion, correction, modification, etc), and if necessary replaced by alternative model, or remove it altogether, etc, ALL DEPENDENT ON THE EVIDENCE & DATA.

Theoretical models and hypotheses are only "proposed" theories; they are not scientific theories until they have been tested, and that mean having sufficient evidence & data these new models.

The reasons why the Big Bang theory have survived this long, because they include a number of predictions that have been tested, and the theory have rooms for expansion or modifications.

That's more then can be said for the popular Multiverse and the Cyclical Universe model (known informally as the Big Bounce), the 2 different theoretical cosmologies of the "eternal" universe.

What I find strange, is that you can easily reject the evidence that support the expanding universe model, but at the same time accept an eternal universe like the Multiverse model that have little to no evidence supporting it - that may ultimately be untestable.

You are making positive claims about the universe being eternal, but have no way of testing that, nor can you prove it theoretical. Isn’t that the same as having “faith” in an invisible and most likely nonexistent god?

Your claim in regards to accepting that has no evidence, is sort of like believing in angels pulling the sun through the sky, or the sun god Helios or Surya driving a chariot through the sky, or something similar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, it is the same meaning, your source dictionary says eternal means infinite which means without limits, so that means 'everlasting' means infinite and eternal.

And besides, a beginning of time means there is also end of time, the rules of reciprocity mean that everything that has a beginning, has an ending,

Do you even know what time really is, please tell me in your own words what you think time is, no copy and paste?

Infinite does not mean without limits. there are all sorts of infinites with one sort of limit or another. The one limit for time would be the start of it. If there was no "before time" then time is eternal.

 

[Polymath257]

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

Sure, in the same way that latitude is the continuing existence of longitude, but more north or south.

You are focused on the 3D aspect when the reality is 4D. Time is part of the geometry, and spacetime 'simply exists'. To talk about 'ongoing existence' is to look at different time slices in that 4D geometry, sort of like taking different latitudes.

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

hawking changed his mind on this many times.

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.

Why does it mean that? Even if there is nothing outside, why does that mean it is infinite?

Yes.

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

OK, except for different times, of course. This location now is different than this location an hour from now, so in that sense, this location an hour from now is 'outside' of this time slice.

Again, you are too focused in the 3D aspects that you miss the 4D totality.

And yours' is?

I certainly understand what hawking was saying much better than you do. I certainly understand the BB theory better than you do. I certainly understand looking at cosmology from a 4D viewpoint better than you do.

I am not claiming perfect understanding of the universe (nobody does), but I certainly understand the current discussions in science better than you.

You have shown a persistent 3D viewpoint that misses a great deal of the modern, 4D viewpoint.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Time is NOT simply our sense of continuation. If it were that, it would be meaningless to talk about time intervals less than we can experience. But, we can talk meaningfully about time intervals of far less than a nanosecond while our experiences are always at least milliseconds if not hundreds of milliseconds.

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.).

You keep saying existence is eternal as if that is a given. It is not. It is possible that time simply isn't meaningful before a certain point in the same way that south is not meaningful at the south pole.

When you use words like 'arises' or 'comes about' or 'comes from', you are assuming that there is a time before. And *that* is the point at issue.

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

It does not 'come from' non-existence. There is simply no 'before' at all.

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

Why not? If eternity means 'for all time', what requires time to be infinite? What requires it to have no beginning?

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.

And he changed it back and forth several times.

 

[Polymath257]

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?

I don't even know what 'absolute existence' means. It certainly never shows up in any scientific discussion.

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.

His position *at that time* was that time is *likely* to be eternal. But that was NOT his final viewpoint. He modified that viewpoint after. He did so multiple times.

No, I do NOT believe in a 'state of absolute nothing' that 'creates' anything.

But, whenever you ask a question suggesting a time before the BB, you run into the issue that such a question may be like asking what is south of the south pole. The question assumes something not demonstrated.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And that's your problem, Ben, thinking sciences are about knowing things "absolute".

All scientific theories and untested hypotheses are "provisional" models, none of them are absolute.

Each models are subjected to review, updates (eg expansion, correction, modification, etc), and if necessary replaced by alternative model, or remove it altogether, etc, ALL DEPENDENT ON THE EVIDENCE & DATA.

Theoretical models and hypotheses are only "proposed" theories; they are not scientific theories until they have been tested, and that mean having sufficient evidence & data these new models.

The reasons why the Big Bang theory have survived this long, because they include a number of predictions that have been tested, and the theory have rooms for expansion or modifications.

That's more then can be said for the popular Multiverse and the Cyclical Universe model (known informally as the Big Bounce), the 2 different theoretical cosmologies of the "eternal" universe.

What I find strange, is that you can easily reject the evidence that support the expanding universe model, but at the same time accept an eternal universe like the Multiverse model that have little to no evidence supporting it - that may ultimately be untestable.

You are making positive claims about the universe being eternal, but have no way of testing that, nor can you prove it theoretical. Isn’t that the same as having “faith” in an invisible and most likely nonexistent god?

Your claim in regards to accepting that has no evidence, is sort of like believing in angels pulling the sun through the sky, or the sun god Helios or Surya driving a chariot through the sky, or something similar.

I used the word absolute as an adjective to make the distinction between relative nothing, eg., "there nothing in the box", and the 'total absence of anything' nothing out of which the BB arose.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Infinite does not mean without limits. there are all sorts of infinites with one sort of limit or another. The one limit for time would be the start of it. If there was no "before time" then time is eternal.

If infinity had limits, it is not infinite.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Time is NOT simply our sense of continuation. If it were that, it would be meaningless to talk about time intervals less than we can experience. But, we can talk meaningfully about time intervals of far less than a nanosecond while our experiences are always at least milliseconds if not hundreds of milliseconds.

You keep saying existence is eternal as if that is a given. It is not. It is possible that time simply isn't meaningful before a certain point in the same way that south is not meaningful at the south pole.

When you use words like 'arises' or 'comes about' or 'comes from', you are assuming that there is a time before. And *that* is the point at issue.

It does not 'come from' non-existence. There is simply no 'before' at all.

Why not? If eternity means 'for all time', what requires time to be infinite? What requires it to have no beginning?


And he changed it back and forth several times.

Ok, pay attention and learn what 'time' actually is.
Look at the wall (or object of choice) in front of you, have no thought whatsoever, just observe the wall and note that is continues to exist as you observe it. Now what the wall was doing while you were observing it was to continue to exist in time, Now that is what time is, existence continuing to exist. Realizing time is not the same thing as any belief or theory of time.

Now to measure time, all you need to do is find an appropriate proxy such as a pendulum, hour glass, etc., that has been calibrated into an seconds, minutes, hours, etc., and you can observe the wall existing and know how long you watched the wall existing for.

The BB universe is said to be 15 billion odd years old, that just means that the universe has continued to exist that amount of time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If infinity had limits, it is not infinite.

Sorry but cackling and running away only makes you look like a chicken. Let's just add "infinite" to the long list of concepts that you do not understand.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Time is NOT simply our sense of continuation. If it were that, it would be meaningless to talk about time intervals less than we can experience. But, we can talk meaningfully about time intervals of far less than a nanosecond while our experiences are always at least milliseconds if not hundreds of milliseconds.

You keep saying existence is eternal as if that is a given. It is not. It is possible that time simply isn't meaningful before a certain point in the same way that south is not meaningful at the south pole.

When you use words like 'arises' or 'comes about' or 'comes from', you are assuming that there is a time before. And *that* is the point at issue.

It does not 'come from' non-existence. There is simply no 'before' at all.

Why not? If eternity means 'for all time', what requires time to be infinite? What requires it to have no beginning?


And he changed it back and forth several times.

Eternity means no beginning and no endng, there are many similes used for eternal, "for all time", "timeless", etc..

So eternity means no beginning. Besides, anything that has a beginning has an ending, ie, reciprocity, so no, you don't get your something from nothing and then claim that it is only one way, from nothing to something, but not something to nothing.

Your BB universe theory is full of holes.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sorry but cackling and running away only makes you look like a chicken. Let's just add "infinite" to the long list of concepts that you do not understand.

Please do not be dishonest, here is the dictionary meaning of finite it means limited, add the prefix 'in' which means 'not'. Infinity means unlimited, not limited.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please do not be dishonest, here is the dictionary meaning of finite it means limited, add the prefix 'in' which means 'not'. Infinity means unlimited, not limited.

Oh my! You do not use dictionaries for technical debates. Are you trying to lose the debate? And watch the dishonest claims. That is both against the rules of the forum and appears to be very hypocritical.

This might be more at your level. Please take note of the first example used:

Infinite Definition (Illustrated Mathematics Dictionary)

Illustrated definition of Infinite: Without an end. Not finite. Example: There are infinite whole numbers 0, 1, 2, 3,...

www.mathsisfun.com

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, pay attention and learn what 'time' actually is.
Look at the wall (or object of choice) in front of you, have no thought whatsoever, just observe the wall and note that is continues to exist as you observe it. Now what the wall was doing while you were observing it was to continue to exist in time, Now that is what time is, existence continuing to exist. Realizing time is not the same thing as any belief or theory of time.

Yes, in your '3D only' view, it looks like that. But that is a limited view that has little to do with reality. Existence simply exists. Spacetime does not 'continue to exist' because all 'continuing' is within it.

Also, you are talking only about the human experience of time. That is primarily due to entropy effects that mean we remember the past an not the future. But the future 'exists' in the same way as the past 'exists'. Both, together with the present and all of space during all times is what spacetime is.

Also, you seem to not understand how time can differ based on observer. That things like gravity and velocity can affect relative measurements of time.

The point is that time is part of physical reality. It isn't something different. It is an aspect of the geometry of existence in the form of spacetime.

Now to measure time, all you need to do is find an appropriate proxy such as a pendulum, hour glass, etc., that has been calibrated into an seconds, minutes, hours, etc., and you can observe the wall existing and know how long you watched the wall existing for.

Just like to measure space you need a stick calibrated to meters or feet or whatever unit of distance. So?

I cannot 'watch' a time interval of a millisecond. It is physically impossible for humans to detect such time intervals. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. And such time intervals represent 'continuing to exist' just as much as seconds or hours.

Don't get confused between the psychological experience of time and what time is.

The BB universe is said to be 15 billion odd years old, that just means that the universe has continued to exist that amount of time.

No, it is actually much more subtle than that. It means that if you look at the universe from a 'comoving frame', then the number of cycles of certain wavelengths of light will be a certain amount. That is all it means.

 

[Polymath257]

Eternity means no beginning and no endng, there are many similes used for eternal, "for all time", "timeless", etc..

For all time may be different than 'for an infinite amount of time' if time itself is finite in duration.

So eternity means no beginning.

Why? You just said it means 'for all time'. Why does that imply no beginning?

Besides, anything that has a beginning has an ending, ie, reciprocity

Yet another unproven assumption.

, so no, you don't get your something from nothing and then claim that it is only one way, from nothing to something, but not something to nothing.

I never said that 'nothing' exists in order to 'give rise' to what exists. The universe of spacetime simply exists. It doesn't 'continue to exist' because 'continuing' is within it. There is no 'outside of spacetime': it is all that exists. But it may still be the case that space and time are finite in extent and duration.

Your BB universe theory is full of holes.

The holes are in your understanding and intuitions. You have a LOT to learn.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Oh my! You do not use dictionaries for technical debates. Are you trying to lose the debate? And watch the dishonest claims. That is both against the rules of the forum and appears to be very hypocritical.

This might be more at your level. Please take note of the first example used:

Infinite Definition (Illustrated Mathematics Dictionary)

Illustrated definition of Infinite: Without an end. Not finite. Example: There are infinite whole numbers 0, 1, 2, 3,...

www.mathsisfun.com

You say that infinite means limited, and I say it does not, that's not a technical debate, it is about the English meaning of the word 'infinite'.

SZ, if you really are serious, please provide us an example of a limited infinity?

If there is anyone reading this and is willing to help resolve this difference of opinion, please explain to SZ that the concept 'infinite' means not limited.