Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

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.

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.

Yes, the continuation of space to exist is time, and thus it is called spacetime, time being the 4th dimension.

What is real is 3D space existing as spacetime. There 3D space and 1D time. The future is determined by the present events, the present was determined by past events.

I am not talking about observers of anything, just the reality of existence.

I've explained what time is to you, it is existence continuing to exist.

I am not talking about an observer of time, once again, for example, if this planet is said to be 4 billion years old, it just means it came into existence 4 billions years ago and has existed until now. It is so simple!

 

[gnostic]

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.

A) The Big Bang models have ONLY explained the "origin" & "evolution" of the OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE, beginning with Planck Epoch, starting at t=0 to t=10^43 seconds. None of the models make any assumptions of there been a "before BB".​

​

B) None of the models, make any assumption of "nothingness".​

It is simply you, you are the one who keep making WRONG assumptions about what the BB models say.

Until you get that in your head, you will keep making the same mistakes over and over again.

NONE OF THE MODELS say anything about "nothing" creating "something".

And btw, the Planck Epoch, Grand Unification Epoch, and couple of other epochs, are still quite theoretical, so nothing is "absolute" about these earliest stages of the Big Bang theory.

It is only you, who make "absolute" claims, Ben. Stop rubber-stamping these false claims.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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

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

Yet another unproven assumption.

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.

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

Eternal means no beginning, there is nothing that had a beginning in nothingness, it is illogical, please get real.

For all time means eternity, who on earth would believe there was a beginning of something from nothing, Nothing is nothing, nothing therefore can come out of nothing, except of course nothing. And you want to start time when nothing became something.

3D space continues to exist, this continuation is called time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

I gave you an example. I used a better source than you did and it showed a "limited infinity. You cannot accuse others of being dishonest if you refuse to check out links provided for you so that you can see your errors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Eternal means no beginning, there is nothing that had a beginning in nothingness, it is illogical, please get real.

For all time means eternity, who on earth would believe there was a beginning of something from nothing, Nothing is nothing, nothing therefore can come out of nothing, except of course nothing. And you want to start time when nothing became something.

3D space continues to exist, this continuation is called time.

No, eternal simply means "for all time".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

A) The Big Bang models have ONLY explained the "origin" & "evolution" of the OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE, beginning with Planck Epoch, starting at t=0 to t=10^43 seconds. None of the models make any assumptions of there been a "before BB".​

​

B) None of the models, make any assumption of "nothingness".​

It is simply you, you are the one who keep making WRONG assumptions about what the BB models say.

Until you get that in your head, you will keep making the same mistakes over and over again.

NONE OF THE MODELS say anything about "nothing" creating "something".

And btw, the Planck Epoch, Grand Unification Epoch, and couple of other epochs, are still quite theoretical, so nothing is "absolute" about these earliest stages of the Big Bang theory.

It is only you, who make "absolute" claims, Ben. Stop rubber-stamping these false claims.

Simple question, if you believe the universe had a beginning, what was it that existed which was responsible for the creation of the universe?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I gave you an example. I used a better source than you did and it showed a "limited infinity. You cannot accuse others of being dishonest if you refuse to check out links provided for you so that you can see your errors.

I can not find it, could you please provide the link to a dictionary definition of 'infinity' which says it means 'limited infinity'?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, eternal simply means "for all time".

And since the universe is eternal, time is eternal, there is no beginning, the universe has existed for all time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can not find it, could you please provide the link to a dictionary definition of 'infinity' which says it means 'limited infinity'?

We are not using dictionaries. They rank lower than sites that truly understand the topic. That may explain your ability to understand rather simple concepts. You go to the wrong sources to learn properly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And since the universe is eternal, time is eternal, there is no beginning, the universe has existed for all time.

No, that is not a justified conclusion. Time and the universe could have started simultaneously. Sort of like "Bam"

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course, there are lot more to learn and to understand the universe, no one is denying that, including the bb cosmologists and just about every astrophysicists and astronomers.

You think they don’t know that?

Why do you think think they built all those observatories, and the space observatories from NASA & ESA. There are always more to learn.

But you still harping on the same-old, same-old about causality.

People have already given answers, but you keep ignoring them.

What exactly the answers that you want people to say?

Because the answers clearly haven’t satisfy you, since you have been repeating the same question incessantly to the point of ad nauseam.

You had dismissed the answers given to you, only for you to move the goalpost, and recycle your silly question over again.

Tough...did you really expect some to give you the answer “that you want”?

It would seem that you are waiting for answers that somehow it would make you happy. Is the only answer you would satisfy you are the ones that fit your personal preferences? How pitifully shallow and tedious are that?

Given the "laws" of nature (or the universe) does not mean that there is no Creator involved.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We are not using dictionaries. They rank lower than sites that truly understand the topic. That may explain your ability to understand rather simple concepts. You go to the wrong sources to learn properly.

I will take that as a 'I made it up and there is no dictionary reference'.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, that is not a justified conclusion. Time and the universe could have started simultaneously. Sort of like "Bam"

They could not have if there was nothing existing. The fact that there is existence means that existence is eternal.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will take that as a 'I made it up and there is no dictionary reference'.

No, I provided you with a link. A dictionary link would be superfluous. The link that I provided was superior.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They could not have if there was nothing existing. The fact that there is existence means that existence is eternal.

I see that you are back to your strawman argument.

 

[We Never Know]

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.

What are youns debating about. The link SZ provided says infinite is "with out end" "not finite"

SZ post....

Let's not talk about the Big Bang

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...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, I provided you with a link. A dictionary link would be superfluous. The link that I provided was superior.

There is no link that says infinite is limited.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

So it is a subjective experience or realization independent of a brain. Okay.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What are youns debating about. The link SZ provided says infinite is "with out end" "not finite"

View attachment 75196

SZ post....

Let's not talk about the Big Bang

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...

www.religiousforums.com

Haha, it means there are an infinite number of whole numbers, not that whole numbers are infinite. . There is no limitation to infinity.

SZ says "I gave you an example. I used a better source than you did and it showed a "limited infinity." See Post # 1,384

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So it is a subjective experience or realization independent of a brain. Okay.

There is awareness independent of any brain thought process, yes.