Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What was before 'Big Bang'?

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 2:54:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 2:27:42 AM, frbnsn wrote:
Of course, answers would be logical and subjective.

Do you still beat your wife Mr Smith ?

The trouble with your question is that it assumes that there is a "before". If you work on the premise that time does not exist absent the universe then there is no "time" before the universe therefore there is no "before" the universe.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
frbnsn
Posts: 353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 3:28:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 2:54:24 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:27:42 AM, frbnsn wrote:
Of course, answers would be logical and subjective.

Do you still beat your wife Mr Smith ?

The trouble with your question is that it assumes that there is a "before". If you work on the premise that time does not exist absent the universe then there is no "time" before the universe therefore there is no "before" the universe.

Then, according to you, is the answer 'unknownable'? Or what?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 5:41:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 3:28:04 AM, frbnsn wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:54:24 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:27:42 AM, frbnsn wrote:
Of course, answers would be logical and subjective.

Do you still beat your wife Mr Smith ?

The trouble with your question is that it assumes that there is a "before". If you work on the premise that time does not exist absent the universe then there is no "time" before the universe therefore there is no "before" the universe.

Then, according to you, is the answer 'unknownable'? Or what?

There is no "before" the universe.

The question it's self has a false assumption that being that something does or can exist "before" the universe.

Time is required for X to have temporal relations with Y, eg X exists before Y. But in a state where X exists absent time it can not exist in temporal relations with Y, eg past/present/future.

Expanding your mind yet eh ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 2:15:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 2:27:42 AM, frbnsn wrote:
Of course, answers would be logical and subjective.

No one knows and no one ever will
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 3:25:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 5:41:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/19/2015 3:28:04 AM, frbnsn wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:54:24 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:27:42 AM, frbnsn wrote:
Of course, answers would be logical and subjective.

Do you still beat your wife Mr Smith ?

The trouble with your question is that it assumes that there is a "before". If you work on the premise that time does not exist absent the universe then there is no "time" before the universe therefore there is no "before" the universe.

Then, according to you, is the answer 'unknownable'? Or what?

There is no "before" the universe.

The question it's self has a false assumption that being that something does or can exist "before" the universe.

Time is required for X to have temporal relations with Y, eg X exists before Y. But in a state where X exists absent time it can not exist in temporal relations with Y, eg past/present/future.

Expanding your mind yet eh ?

Can't something be more fundamental, as in the case of gears turning each other? So there's no "before" the big bang, but couldn't there be something external, which is the simultaneous cause of the big bang?

Not saying this is the case, just that it seems like a possibility, and it seems like it's what the OP is asking.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 11:56:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 3:25:10 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/19/2015 5:41:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/19/2015 3:28:04 AM, frbnsn wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:54:24 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:27:42 AM, frbnsn wrote:
Of course, answers would be logical and subjective.

Do you still beat your wife Mr Smith ?

The trouble with your question is that it assumes that there is a "before". If you work on the premise that time does not exist absent the universe then there is no "time" before the universe therefore there is no "before" the universe.

Then, according to you, is the answer 'unknownable'? Or what?

There is no "before" the universe.

The question it's self has a false assumption that being that something does or can exist "before" the universe.

Time is required for X to have temporal relations with Y, eg X exists before Y. But in a state where X exists absent time it can not exist in temporal relations with Y, eg past/present/future.

Expanding your mind yet eh ?

Can't something be more fundamental, as in the case of gears turning each other? So there's no "before" the big bang, but couldn't there be something external, which is the simultaneous cause of the big bang?

Not saying this is the case, just that it seems like a possibility, and it seems like it's what the OP is asking.

He asked what was "before" the big bang. So that's how I addressed that as a question with an inbuilt faulty assumption.

As far as the proposition of a cause not existing "before" the universe because it can't but existing simultaneous as the cause of the universe well I would have an objection to that but I don't even know how to explain it.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
frbnsn
Posts: 353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 2:57:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 5:41:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/19/2015 3:28:04 AM, frbnsn wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:54:24 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:27:42 AM, frbnsn wrote:
Of course, answers would be logical and subjective.

Do you still beat your wife Mr Smith ?

The trouble with your question is that it assumes that there is a "before". If you work on the premise that time does not exist absent the universe then there is no "time" before the universe therefore there is no "before" the universe.

Then, according to you, is the answer 'unknownable'? Or what?

There is no "before" the universe.

The question it's self has a false assumption that being that something does or can exist "before" the universe.

Time is required for X to have temporal relations with Y, eg X exists before Y. But in a state where X exists absent time it can not exist in temporal relations with Y, eg past/present/future.

Expanding your mind yet eh ?

O.K. then. I'll ask in a different type:
What was that started Big Bang?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 3:04:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 2:57:50 AM, frbnsn wrote:
At 2/19/2015 5:41:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/19/2015 3:28:04 AM, frbnsn wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:54:24 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:27:42 AM, frbnsn wrote:
Of course, answers would be logical and subjective.

Do you still beat your wife Mr Smith ?

The trouble with your question is that it assumes that there is a "before". If you work on the premise that time does not exist absent the universe then there is no "time" before the universe therefore there is no "before" the universe.

Then, according to you, is the answer 'unknownable'? Or what?

There is no "before" the universe.

The question it's self has a false assumption that being that something does or can exist "before" the universe.

Time is required for X to have temporal relations with Y, eg X exists before Y. But in a state where X exists absent time it can not exist in temporal relations with Y, eg past/present/future.

Expanding your mind yet eh ?

O.K. then. I'll ask in a different type:
What was that started Big Bang?

Did something "start" the big bang ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
frbnsn
Posts: 353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 3:06:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 2:15:52 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:27:42 AM, frbnsn wrote:
Of course, answers would be logical and subjective.

No one knows and no one ever will

I agree, it can't be proved scientifically but can be a private view.
frbnsn
Posts: 353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 3:10:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 3:04:33 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/20/2015 2:57:50 AM, frbnsn wrote:
At 2/19/2015 5:41:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/19/2015 3:28:04 AM, frbnsn wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:54:24 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:27:42 AM, frbnsn wrote:
Of course, answers would be logical and subjective.

Do you still beat your wife Mr Smith ?

The trouble with your question is that it assumes that there is a "before". If you work on the premise that time does not exist absent the universe then there is no "time" before the universe therefore there is no "before" the universe.

Then, according to you, is the answer 'unknownable'? Or what?

There is no "before" the universe.

The question it's self has a false assumption that being that something does or can exist "before" the universe.

Time is required for X to have temporal relations with Y, eg X exists before Y. But in a state where X exists absent time it can not exist in temporal relations with Y, eg past/present/future.

Expanding your mind yet eh ?

O.K. then. I'll ask in a different type:
What was that started Big Bang?

Did something "start" the big bang ?

I can't accept that this universe began by itself.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 3:21:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 3:10:08 AM, frbnsn wrote:
At 2/20/2015 3:04:33 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/20/2015 2:57:50 AM, frbnsn wrote:
At 2/19/2015 5:41:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/19/2015 3:28:04 AM, frbnsn wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:54:24 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:27:42 AM, frbnsn wrote:
Of course, answers would be logical and subjective.

Do you still beat your wife Mr Smith ?

The trouble with your question is that it assumes that there is a "before". If you work on the premise that time does not exist absent the universe then there is no "time" before the universe therefore there is no "before" the universe.

Then, according to you, is the answer 'unknownable'? Or what?

There is no "before" the universe.

The question it's self has a false assumption that being that something does or can exist "before" the universe.

Time is required for X to have temporal relations with Y, eg X exists before Y. But in a state where X exists absent time it can not exist in temporal relations with Y, eg past/present/future.

Expanding your mind yet eh ?

O.K. then. I'll ask in a different type:
What was that started Big Bang?

Did something "start" the big bang ?

I can't accept that this universe began by itself.

But that wasn't the question, you asked what started the big band. This assumed that something "started it".
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
frbnsn
Posts: 353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 3:29:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 3:21:49 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/20/2015 3:10:08 AM, frbnsn wrote:
At 2/20/2015 3:04:33 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/20/2015 2:57:50 AM, frbnsn wrote:
At 2/19/2015 5:41:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/19/2015 3:28:04 AM, frbnsn wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:54:24 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:27:42 AM, frbnsn wrote:
Of course, answers would be logical and subjective.

Do you still beat your wife Mr Smith ?

The trouble with your question is that it assumes that there is a "before". If you work on the premise that time does not exist absent the universe then there is no "time" before the universe therefore there is no "before" the universe.

Then, according to you, is the answer 'unknownable'? Or what?

There is no "before" the universe.

The question it's self has a false assumption that being that something does or can exist "before" the universe.

Time is required for X to have temporal relations with Y, eg X exists before Y. But in a state where X exists absent time it can not exist in temporal relations with Y, eg past/present/future.

Expanding your mind yet eh ?

O.K. then. I'll ask in a different type:
What was that started Big Bang?

Did something "start" the big bang ?

I can't accept that this universe began by itself.

But that wasn't the question, you asked what started the big band. This assumed that something "started it".

I assumed the very first was the 'Big Bang', because today science can't know beyond.
But according to me, the big bang is just a moment of a course.
And will you tell what you consider.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 5:45:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 5:41:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/19/2015 3:28:04 AM, frbnsn wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:54:24 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:27:42 AM, frbnsn wrote:
Of course, answers would be logical and subjective.

Do you still beat your wife Mr Smith ?

The trouble with your question is that it assumes that there is a "before". If you work on the premise that time does not exist absent the universe then there is no "time" before the universe therefore there is no "before" the universe.

Then, according to you, is the answer 'unknownable'? Or what?

There is no "before" the universe.

That's a bare assertion, and it is not a particularly well informed bare assertion.

The assertion that there is no "before" the universe is simply not addressed by current Big Bang theory. Science does not know and Big Bang theory does not address whether or not the universe is contained within some other structure, it is simply impossible to know either way and there are in fact, multiple scientific theories that postulate another dimension in which this, and possibly other universes exist.

Current Big Bang theory begins with inflation, which requires a theory of initial conditions, which would necessarily be prior to the Big Bang event. Inflation theory also dictates that temperature and density fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) should be uniform if in fact there was no prior to the Big Bang, but current observational data regarding the CMB is that it is not homogenous in all directions throughout the universe, which leads us to necessarily consider that there was indeed something prior to the singularity, perhaps multiple expansions and collapses, maybe something else is explanatory of the data, but the data clearly refutes your premise that there was no "before" the universe. It's practically consensus opinion that the most likely explanation for the "lop-sided CMB" findings is that these fluctuations represent a structure left over from some kind of prior existence that produced our universe.

The question it's self has a false assumption that being that something does or can exist "before" the universe.

Nope, it's a valid question; your answer is what is based on a false assumption.

In general, there are two ways to think of time, one that it is an epistemological construct, a temporal distance between two events that is defined as something our clocks measure, it's purely conceptual, an idea without any physical referent. With time as an epistemological construct, if there was a time corresponding to 13.7 billion years ago in which the universe came into existence, then it's logical to question what was on the conceptual time line 13.8 billion years ago.

The other general conception of time is one which postulates that time has an ontological status independent of human existence, which would be the literalization of the spacetime coordinate systems of Einstein"s relativity theory as some kind of independently existing "fabric of the universe". If you take this substantivalist view of time, then current theory says the "fabric of the universe" is something that emerged 13.7 billion years ago in the Big Bang, which logically leads to the question, "emerged from what?" Either way, it is both scientifically and logically valid to enquire about the "before", which happens to be what most of the leading scientific research in cosmology is focused on today.

Time is required for X to have temporal relations with Y, eg X exists before Y. But in a state where X exists absent time it can not exist in temporal relations with Y, eg past/present/future.

Well there you go, you are actually acknowledging the validity of the question when you say "a state where X exists absent time", which would be an example of what was before.

While the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) is certainly controversial, it is in fact, a necessary methodological presupposition of science in the pursuit of intelligibility, and it stipulates that everything must have a reason or cause. The PSR actually necessitates the scientific inquiry as to what came before when you postulate an event's occurrence at a point in time (such as a Big Bang happening 13.7 billion years ago), causality requires a temporal ordering of events, it necessitates a "before", and the very acknowledgment that the Big Bang event occurred makes inquiry of the state from which this event arose the correct response both logically and scientifically.

Expanding your mind yet eh ?

I would have to say that closed minded and uninformed "pat answers" aren't really all that mind expanding.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 5:50:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 3:25:10 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/19/2015 5:41:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/19/2015 3:28:04 AM, frbnsn wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:54:24 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:27:42 AM, frbnsn wrote:
Of course, answers would be logical and subjective.

Do you still beat your wife Mr Smith ?

The trouble with your question is that it assumes that there is a "before". If you work on the premise that time does not exist absent the universe then there is no "time" before the universe therefore there is no "before" the universe.

Then, according to you, is the answer 'unknownable'? Or what?

There is no "before" the universe.

The question it's self has a false assumption that being that something does or can exist "before" the universe.

Time is required for X to have temporal relations with Y, eg X exists before Y. But in a state where X exists absent time it can not exist in temporal relations with Y, eg past/present/future.

Expanding your mind yet eh ?

Can't something be more fundamental, as in the case of gears turning each other? So there's no "before" the big bang, but couldn't there be something external, which is the simultaneous cause of the big bang?

Yes, and the Principal of Sufficient Reason says there must be.

Not saying this is the case, just that it seems like a possibility, and it seems like it's what the OP is asking.

The line of questioning of the OP is similar to the line of questioning that most of the prominent physicists working in cosmology are asking today and in fact, the pursuit of answers to this very question characterizes the largest portion of the today's leading edge cosmological theoretical research in terms of effort and funding, which of course are one and the same thing.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 5:52:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 2:15:52 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:27:42 AM, frbnsn wrote:
Of course, answers would be logical and subjective.

No one knows and no one ever will

I know, but I'm not telling.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
PolyCarp
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 6:02:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 5:52:32 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/19/2015 2:15:52 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:27:42 AM, frbnsn wrote:
Of course, answers would be logical and subjective.

No one knows and no one ever will

I know, but I'm not telling.

Come on, tell us your Masonic secrets. My tinfoil and I want to know.
"Perhaps the atheist cannot find God for the same reason the thief cannot find a policeman"

--G.K Chesterton
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 6:05:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 5:45:39 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/19/2015 5:41:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/19/2015 3:28:04 AM, frbnsn wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:54:24 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:27:42 AM, frbnsn wrote:
Of course, answers would be logical and subjective.

Do you still beat your wife Mr Smith ?

The trouble with your question is that it assumes that there is a "before". If you work on the premise that time does not exist absent the universe then there is no "time" before the universe therefore there is no "before" the universe.

Then, according to you, is the answer 'unknownable'? Or what?

There is no "before" the universe.

That's a bare assertion, and it is not a particularly well informed bare assertion.

The assertion that there is no "before" the universe is simply not addressed by current Big Bang theory. Science does not know and Big Bang theory does not address whether or not the universe is contained within some other structure, it is simply impossible to know either way and there are in fact, multiple scientific theories that postulate another dimension in which this, and possibly other universes exist.

Current Big Bang theory begins with inflation, which requires a theory of initial conditions, which would necessarily be prior to the Big Bang event. Inflation theory also dictates that temperature and density fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) should be uniform if in fact there was no prior to the Big Bang, but current observational data regarding the CMB is that it is not homogenous in all directions throughout the universe, which leads us to necessarily consider that there was indeed something prior to the singularity, perhaps multiple expansions and collapses, maybe something else is explanatory of the data, but the data clearly refutes your premise that there was no "before" the universe. It's practically consensus opinion that the most likely explanation for the "lop-sided CMB" findings is that these fluctuations represent a structure left over from some kind of prior existence that produced our universe.

The question it's self has a false assumption that being that something does or can exist "before" the universe.

Nope, it's a valid question; your answer is what is based on a false assumption.

In general, there are two ways to think of time, one that it is an epistemological construct, a temporal distance between two events that is defined as something our clocks measure, it's purely conceptual, an idea without any physical referent. With time as an epistemological construct, if there was a time corresponding to 13.7 billion years ago in which the universe came into existence, then it's logical to question what was on the conceptual time line 13.8 billion years ago.

You can question what is on the time line, but you can't ask about temporal relations "before" the time line.

No time, no temporal relations, no "before".


The other general conception of time is one which postulates that time has an ontological status independent of human existence, which would be the literalization of the spacetime coordinate systems of Einstein"s relativity theory as some kind of independently existing "fabric of the universe". If you take this substantivalist view of time, then current theory says the "fabric of the universe" is something that emerged 13.7 billion years ago in the Big Bang, which logically leads to the question, "emerged from what?" Either way, it is both scientifically and logically valid to enquire about the "before", which happens to be what most of the leading scientific research in cosmology is focused on today.

It's not logically valid to ask about a "before" in a state where time does not exist.


Time is required for X to have temporal relations with Y, eg X exists before Y. But in a state where X exists absent time it can not exist in temporal relations with Y, eg past/present/future.

Well there you go, you are actually acknowledging the validity of the question when you say "a state where X exists absent time", which would be an example of what was before.

I have being quite clear here. Every time I speak about a "before" I am speaking about temporal relations. And guess what if you don't have time you can't have temporal relations.

To claim that X exists absent time and has temporal relations with anything is a contradiction in terms.


While the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) is certainly controversial, it is in fact, a necessary methodological presupposition of science in the pursuit of intelligibility, and it stipulates that everything must have a reason or cause. The PSR actually necessitates the scientific inquiry as to what came before when you postulate an event's occurrence at a point in time (such as a Big Bang happening 13.7 billion years ago), causality requires a temporal ordering of events, it necessitates a "before", and the very acknowledgment that the Big Bang event occurred makes inquiry of the state from which this event arose the correct response both logically and scientifically.

Expanding your mind yet eh ?

I would have to say that closed minded and uninformed "pat answers" aren't really all that mind expanding.

Nothing you say can change the logical contradiction of X existing absent time yet having temporal relations with something.

Things absent weight don't have weight.

Things absent color don't have color

Thing absent time don't have past/present/future

Problem ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
PolyCarp
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 6:07:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 2:27:42 AM, frbnsn wrote:
Of course, answers would be logical and subjective.

This video is quite informative about a very promising new theory, which Hawking and a lot of other physicists have been basing their investigations of the beginning of the known universe on http://youtu.be..., which helps explain what might have happened before the Big Bang inflation of the universe.
"Perhaps the atheist cannot find God for the same reason the thief cannot find a policeman"

--G.K Chesterton
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 6:22:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 6:02:13 AM, PolyCarp wrote:
At 2/21/2015 5:52:32 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/19/2015 2:15:52 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:27:42 AM, frbnsn wrote:
Of course, answers would be logical and subjective.

No one knows and no one ever will

I know, but I'm not telling.

Come on, tell us your Masonic secrets. My tinfoil and I want to know.

No way, if I told you then I'd just have to use the mind control rays to erase it, so there would be no point.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 8:22:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 6:05:05 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/21/2015 5:45:39 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/19/2015 5:41:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/19/2015 3:28:04 AM, frbnsn wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:54:24 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:27:42 AM, frbnsn wrote:


There is no "before" the universe.

That's a bare assertion, and it is not a particularly well informed bare assertion.

The assertion that there is no "before" the universe is simply not addressed by current Big Bang theory. Science does not know and Big Bang theory does not address whether or not the universe is contained within some other structure, it is simply impossible to know either way and there are in fact, multiple scientific theories that postulate another dimension in which this, and possibly other universes exist.

Current Big Bang theory begins with inflation, which requires a theory of initial conditions, which would necessarily be prior to the Big Bang event. Inflation theory also dictates that temperature and density fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) should be uniform if in fact there was no prior to the Big Bang, but current observational data regarding the CMB is that it is not homogenous in all directions throughout the universe, which leads us to necessarily consider that there was indeed something prior to the singularity, perhaps multiple expansions and collapses, maybe something else is explanatory of the data, but the data clearly refutes your premise that there was no "before" the universe. It's practically consensus opinion that the most likely explanation for the "lop-sided CMB" findings is that these fluctuations represent a structure left over from some kind of prior existence that produced our universe.

The question it's self has a false assumption that being that something does or can exist "before" the universe.

Nope, it's a valid question; your answer is what is based on a false assumption.

In general, there are two ways to think of time, one that it is an epistemological construct, a temporal distance between two events that is defined as something our clocks measure, it's purely conceptual, an idea without any physical referent. With time as an epistemological construct, if there was a time corresponding to 13.7 billion years ago in which the universe came into existence, then it's logical to question what was on the conceptual time line 13.8 billion years ago.

You can question what is on the time line, but you can't ask about temporal relations "before" the time line.

Neither philosophy or science are based on semantics games.

No time, no temporal relations, no "before".

There was a time we refer to as 13.7 billion years ago, and the time we refer to as 13.8 billion years ago would be before that.

The other general conception of time is one which postulates that time has an ontological status independent of human existence, which would be the literalization of the spacetime coordinate systems of Einstein"s relativity theory as some kind of independently existing "fabric of the universe". If you take this substantivalist view of time, then current theory says the "fabric of the universe" is something that emerged 13.7 billion years ago in the Big Bang, which logically leads to the question, "emerged from what?" Either way, it is both scientifically and logically valid to enquire about the "before", which happens to be what most of the leading scientific research in cosmology is focused on today.

It's not logically valid to ask about a "before" in a state where time does not exist.

It's not logically valid to refer to non-existence as a state either, you are talking about semantics rather than time or the universe, it's nothing but a pseudo- intellectual dodge of the question.

Time is required for X to have temporal relations with Y, eg X exists before Y. But in a state where X exists absent time it can not exist in temporal relations with Y, eg past/present/future.

Well there you go, you are actually acknowledging the validity of the question when you say "a state where X exists absent time", which would be an example of what was before.

I have being quite clear here. Every time I speak about a "before" I am speaking about temporal relations. And guess what if you don't have time you can't have temporal relations.

Guess what?

OK, my guess is "Word Games"...unfortunately, the games we were playing were more like "Science", "Philosophy", Logic", and "Comprehension".

To claim that X exists absent time and has temporal relations with anything is a contradiction in terms.

To claim that non-existence is a state with qualities is a contradiction in terms.

While the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) is certainly controversial, it is in fact, a necessary methodological presupposition of science in the pursuit of intelligibility, and it stipulates that everything must have a reason or cause. The PSR actually necessitates the scientific inquiry as to what came before when you postulate an event's occurrence at a point in time (such as a Big Bang happening 13.7 billion years ago), causality requires a temporal ordering of events, it necessitates a "before", and the very acknowledgment that the Big Bang event occurred makes inquiry of the state from which this event arose the correct response both logically and scientifically.

Expanding your mind yet eh ?

I would have to say that closed minded and uninformed "pat answers" aren't really all that mind expanding.

Nothing you say can change the logical contradiction of X existing absent time yet having temporal relations with something.

No pseudoscientific word game can change the fact that the temporal relationship between 13.7 billion years ago and 13.8 billion years ago can logically be referred to with the words "before" and "after".

Things absent weight don't have weight.

Things absent color don't have color

Thing absent time don't have past/present/future

Problem ?

The main problem is you aren't paying attention.

The problem I already explained is that you are literalizing the spacetime construct of the General Theory into an independently existing entity in a way that directly contradicts the very theory it is based on. Let's recognize what spacetime is in the General Theory, it's a geometric coordinate system, a mathematical abstraction, and the most novel feature of the General Theory is its general covariance, which means you are free to use arbitrary spacetime coordinate systems. Within the theory time is arbitrary, and the real world implications of the theory are that time is subjective, contingent upon the frame of reference of the observer.

You have the tail on the wrong end of the dog, theories and formulas are idealized abstractions from reality, as such, they are contingent upon reality; reality is not contingent on them. The theory must conform to reality to be true, reality doesn't have to conform to the theory to be true. It's only time as a variable in Einstein's formula that came into existence 13.7 billion years ago, we can still question what temporally came before that. As Kurt Godel said, "The concept of existence cannot be relativized without destroying its meaning completely."

Your argument is nothing but bad science, equivocation, and a semantics game.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 9:16:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Before the Big Bang, God was preparing Hell for people who asked such questions as these...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 3:01:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The big bang was a supernova in a 4-dimensional universe and our own observable universe exists inside the event horizon of that 4-dimensional blackhole. The big-bang is not so big anymore because it's not the beginning of time. Time likely has no beginning.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 2:20:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 5:45:39 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/19/2015 5:41:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/19/2015 3:28:04 AM, frbnsn wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:54:24 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:27:42 AM, frbnsn wrote:
Of course, answers would be logical and subjective.

Do you still beat your wife Mr Smith ?

The trouble with your question is that it assumes that there is a "before". If you work on the premise that time does not exist absent the universe then there is no "time" before the universe therefore there is no "before" the universe.

Then, according to you, is the answer 'unknownable'? Or what?

There is no "before" the universe.

That's a bare assertion, and it is not a particularly well informed bare assertion.

The assertion that there is no "before" the universe is simply not addressed by current Big Bang theory. Science does not know and Big Bang theory does not address whether or not the universe is contained within some other structure, it is simply impossible to know either way and there are in fact, multiple scientific theories that postulate another dimension in which this, and possibly other universes exist.

Current Big Bang theory begins with inflation, which requires a theory of initial conditions, which would necessarily be prior to the Big Bang event. Inflation theory also dictates that temperature and density fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) should be uniform if in fact there was no prior to the Big Bang, but current observational data regarding the CMB is that it is not homogenous in all directions throughout the universe, which leads us to necessarily consider that there was indeed something prior to the singularity, perhaps multiple expansions and collapses, maybe something else is explanatory of the data, but the data clearly refutes your premise that there was no "before" the universe. It's practically consensus opinion that the most likely explanation for the "lop-sided CMB" findings is that these fluctuations represent a structure left over from some kind of prior existence that produced our universe.

The question it's self has a false assumption that being that something does or can exist "before" the universe.

Nope, it's a valid question; your answer is what is based on a false assumption.

In general, there are two ways to think of time, one that it is an epistemological construct, a temporal distance between two events that is defined as something our clocks measure, it's purely conceptual, an idea without any physical referent. With time as an epistemological construct, if there was a time corresponding to 13.7 billion years ago in which the universe came into existence, then it's logical to question what was on the conceptual time line 13.8 billion years ago.

The other general conception of time is one which postulates that time has an ontological status independent of human existence, which would be the literalization of the spacetime coordinate systems of Einstein"s relativity theory as some kind of independently existing "fabric of the universe". If you take this substantivalist view of time, then current theory says the "fabric of the universe" is something that emerged 13.7 billion years ago in the Big Bang, which logically leads to the question, "emerged from what?" Either way, it is both scientifically and logically valid to enquire about the "before", which happens to be what most of the leading scientific research in cosmology is focused on today.

Time is required for X to have temporal relations with Y, eg X exists before Y. But in a state where X exists absent time it can not exist in temporal relations with Y, eg past/present/future.

Well there you go, you are actually acknowledging the validity of the question when you say "a state where X exists absent time", which would be an example of what was before.

While the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) is certainly controversial, it is in fact, a necessary methodological presupposition of science in the pursuit of intelligibility, and it stipulates that everything must have a reason or cause. The PSR actually necessitates the scientific inquiry as to what came before when you postulate an event's occurrence at a point in time (such as a Big Bang happening 13.7 billion years ago), causality requires a temporal ordering of events, it necessitates a "before", and the very acknowledgment that the Big Bang event occurred makes inquiry of the state from which this event arose the correct response both logically and scientifically.

Expanding your mind yet eh ?

I would have to say that closed minded and uninformed "pat answers" aren't really all that mind expanding.

I would recommend you both read Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos"
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 8:55:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 2:54:24 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:27:42 AM, frbnsn wrote:
Of course, answers would be logical and subjective.

Do you still beat your wife Mr Smith ?

The trouble with your question is that it assumes that there is a "before". If you work on the premise that time does not exist absent the universe then there is no "time" before the universe therefore there is no "before" the universe.
You also have a problematic assumption. That the BB is the beginning of the universe. What if the BB is the beginning of our local region of the universe, but not the beginning of a much larger universe?
Also, time is an emergent property. Time is measured through repetition. Time flows due to entropy. If we remove both, time doesn't exist. If we imagine an infinite vacuum with no entropy and no repetition, time doesn't exist in this state. Yet the state exists. From this view, asking what was before the BB is a valid question. There was most certainly a before. What state existed before the present state of our local region of the universe? Probably a better way to phrase the question.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 9:41:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 8:55:12 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:54:24 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:27:42 AM, frbnsn wrote:
Of course, answers would be logical and subjective.

Do you still beat your wife Mr Smith ?

The trouble with your question is that it assumes that there is a "before". If you work on the premise that time does not exist absent the universe then there is no "time" before the universe therefore there is no "before" the universe.
You also have a problematic assumption. That the BB is the beginning of the universe. What if the BB is the beginning of our local region of the universe, but not the beginning of a much larger universe?
Also, time is an emergent property. Time is measured through repetition. Time flows due to entropy. If we remove both, time doesn't exist. If we imagine an infinite vacuum with no entropy and no repetition, time doesn't exist in this state. Yet the state exists. From this view, asking what was before the BB is a valid question. There was most certainly a before. What state existed before the present state of our local region of the universe? Probably a better way to phrase the question.

You can put forth a timeless state if you want, but you can't say that timeless state is "before" the universe, since being timeless it has no temporal relations.

So no I don't think asking what is before the BB (assuming we are addressing a timeless state) is a valid question, it's an irrational question.

Mr smith, please do tell us if you have stopped beating your wife.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 10:15:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 9:41:31 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/22/2015 8:55:12 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:54:24 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:27:42 AM, frbnsn wrote:
Of course, answers would be logical and subjective.

Do you still beat your wife Mr Smith ?

The trouble with your question is that it assumes that there is a "before". If you work on the premise that time does not exist absent the universe then there is no "time" before the universe therefore there is no "before" the universe.
You also have a problematic assumption. That the BB is the beginning of the universe. What if the BB is the beginning of our local region of the universe, but not the beginning of a much larger universe?
Also, time is an emergent property. Time is measured through repetition. Time flows due to entropy. If we remove both, time doesn't exist. If we imagine an infinite vacuum with no entropy and no repetition, time doesn't exist in this state. Yet the state exists. From this view, asking what was before the BB is a valid question. There was most certainly a before. What state existed before the present state of our local region of the universe? Probably a better way to phrase the question.

You can put forth a timeless state if you want, but you can't say that timeless state is "before" the universe, since being timeless it has no temporal relations.

So no I don't think asking what is before the BB (assuming we are addressing a timeless state) is a valid question, it's an irrational question.

Mr smith, please do tell us if you have stopped beating your wife.
Let's say for the sake of argument, the BB wasn't the beginning of a much larger universe. Let's just say the BB relates to our region of the universe. If the BB is only related to our region, would it then be a valid question? Or maybe this, some theoretical models of the universe have a bouncing universe. The BB in this theoretical model is one of many bounces. Would it be a valid question if this was the case?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 10:28:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 10:15:09 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 2/22/2015 9:41:31 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/22/2015 8:55:12 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:54:24 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:27:42 AM, frbnsn wrote:
Of course, answers would be logical and subjective.

Do you still beat your wife Mr Smith ?

The trouble with your question is that it assumes that there is a "before". If you work on the premise that time does not exist absent the universe then there is no "time" before the universe therefore there is no "before" the universe.
You also have a problematic assumption. That the BB is the beginning of the universe. What if the BB is the beginning of our local region of the universe, but not the beginning of a much larger universe?
Also, time is an emergent property. Time is measured through repetition. Time flows due to entropy. If we remove both, time doesn't exist. If we imagine an infinite vacuum with no entropy and no repetition, time doesn't exist in this state. Yet the state exists. From this view, asking what was before the BB is a valid question. There was most certainly a before. What state existed before the present state of our local region of the universe? Probably a better way to phrase the question.

You can put forth a timeless state if you want, but you can't say that timeless state is "before" the universe, since being timeless it has no temporal relations.

So no I don't think asking what is before the BB (assuming we are addressing a timeless state) is a valid question, it's an irrational question.

Mr smith, please do tell us if you have stopped beating your wife.
Let's say for the sake of argument, the BB wasn't the beginning of a much larger universe. Let's just say the BB relates to our region of the universe. If the BB is only related to our region, would it then be a valid question? Or maybe this, some theoretical models of the universe have a bouncing universe. The BB in this theoretical model is one of many bounces. Would it be a valid question if this was the case?

It would only makes sense if those other regions had temporal relations with our region.

But that isn't what people have in mind when they talk about the "before" our universe. They have the universe as the totality of all matter & energy and then ask........well what about "before" that ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 10:56:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 10:28:31 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/22/2015 10:15:09 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 2/22/2015 9:41:31 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/22/2015 8:55:12 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:54:24 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:27:42 AM, frbnsn wrote:
Of course, answers would be logical and subjective.

Do you still beat your wife Mr Smith ?

The trouble with your question is that it assumes that there is a "before". If you work on the premise that time does not exist absent the universe then there is no "time" before the universe therefore there is no "before" the universe.
You also have a problematic assumption. That the BB is the beginning of the universe. What if the BB is the beginning of our local region of the universe, but not the beginning of a much larger universe?
Also, time is an emergent property. Time is measured through repetition. Time flows due to entropy. If we remove both, time doesn't exist. If we imagine an infinite vacuum with no entropy and no repetition, time doesn't exist in this state. Yet the state exists. From this view, asking what was before the BB is a valid question. There was most certainly a before. What state existed before the present state of our local region of the universe? Probably a better way to phrase the question.

You can put forth a timeless state if you want, but you can't say that timeless state is "before" the universe, since being timeless it has no temporal relations.

So no I don't think asking what is before the BB (assuming we are addressing a timeless state) is a valid question, it's an irrational question.

Mr smith, please do tell us if you have stopped beating your wife.
Let's say for the sake of argument, the BB wasn't the beginning of a much larger universe. Let's just say the BB relates to our region of the universe. If the BB is only related to our region, would it then be a valid question? Or maybe this, some theoretical models of the universe have a bouncing universe. The BB in this theoretical model is one of many bounces. Would it be a valid question if this was the case?

It would only makes sense if those other regions had temporal relations with our region.

But that isn't what people have in mind when they talk about the "before" our universe. They have the universe as the totality of all matter & energy and then ask........well what about "before" that ?
I think there is a fair amount of confusion when people use the word universe. The word really means everything that exists. However, we also use the word in a way that implies everything we can see that does exist. In the second way, we are making an assumption that our region of the universe is everything that exist. We have no right to make this assumption. When we say "time began at the BB" we are making an assumption that the BB includes everything. We aren't justified in this assumption as well. Since we have no right to assume the BB includes all of reality, that the BB includes the entire universe, we can ask what came before. Some universe model, eternal inflation, if true, predicts many universe. Eternal inflation states that universes (in this context they are referring to local universes, more confusion with the term) can splinter off from one another. If this were to be found true, our BB could be a event that marks the detachment from another localized universe. Again, if this is the case, then asking what came before our BB would be a valid question. The answer would be another universe. The question of before the BB is a valid question. The problem is we have been very loose with the word universe. Me personally, when I speak of the universe with friends or co-workers, I always say, "our universe." Assuming our region is the only region or the entire universe is an unjustified assumption.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 11:48:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 10:56:12 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 2/22/2015 10:28:31 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/22/2015 10:15:09 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 2/22/2015 9:41:31 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/22/2015 8:55:12 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:54:24 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:27:42 AM, frbnsn wrote:
Of course, answers would be logical and subjective.

Do you still beat your wife Mr Smith ?

The trouble with your question is that it assumes that there is a "before". If you work on the premise that time does not exist absent the universe then there is no "time" before the universe therefore there is no "before" the universe.
You also have a problematic assumption. That the BB is the beginning of the universe. What if the BB is the beginning of our local region of the universe, but not the beginning of a much larger universe?
Also, time is an emergent property. Time is measured through repetition. Time flows due to entropy. If we remove both, time doesn't exist. If we imagine an infinite vacuum with no entropy and no repetition, time doesn't exist in this state. Yet the state exists. From this view, asking what was before the BB is a valid question. There was most certainly a before. What state existed before the present state of our local region of the universe? Probably a better way to phrase the question.

You can put forth a timeless state if you want, but you can't say that timeless state is "before" the universe, since being timeless it has no temporal relations.

So no I don't think asking what is before the BB (assuming we are addressing a timeless state) is a valid question, it's an irrational question.

Mr smith, please do tell us if you have stopped beating your wife.
Let's say for the sake of argument, the BB wasn't the beginning of a much larger universe. Let's just say the BB relates to our region of the universe. If the BB is only related to our region, would it then be a valid question? Or maybe this, some theoretical models of the universe have a bouncing universe. The BB in this theoretical model is one of many bounces. Would it be a valid question if this was the case?

It would only makes sense if those other regions had temporal relations with our region.

But that isn't what people have in mind when they talk about the "before" our universe. They have the universe as the totality of all matter & energy and then ask........well what about "before" that ?
I think there is a fair amount of confusion when people use the word universe. The word really means everything that exists. However, we also use the word in a way that implies everything we can see that does exist. In the second way, we are making an assumption that our region of the universe is everything that exist. We have no right to make this assumption. When we say "time began at the BB" we are making an assumption that the BB includes everything. We aren't justified in this assumption as well. Since we have no right to assume the BB includes all of reality, that the BB includes the entire universe, we can ask what came before. Some universe model, eternal inflation, if true, predicts many universe. Eternal inflation states that universes (in this context they are referring to local universes, more confusion with the term) can splinter off from one another. If this were to be found true, our BB could be a event that marks the detachment from another localized universe. Again, if this is the case, then asking what came before our BB would be a valid question. The answer would be another universe. The question of before the BB is a valid question. The problem is we have been very loose with the word universe. Me personally, when I speak of the universe with friends or co-workers, I always say, "our universe." Assuming our region is the only region or the entire universe is an unjustified assumption.

Maybe a clarification would help.

When I say there is no "before" (temporally speaking) the universe that is not the same as saying that the universe is all that exists.

Two different questions..........

1) What existed before the universe (irrational question)

2) What exists other than the universe

Also I don't think I would agree that time "began". You can have a first moment of but once again, once you start talking about beyond that point as "before"............same problem.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12