Freethought & Rationalism Archive

thomaq · 06-09-2003, 03:44 PM

can we speak of "before" the big bang. or is stephen hawking, quentin smith and a million other philosopher/physicists the only people who are allowed to? is it possible to use the word "before" or "prior" or "preceed" and not be talking about temporal relationships? it seems like this forum, here on infidels.org is the only place where such things are forbidden. what are your thoughts?

PS. this might seem like it belongs in science and skepticism, but i believe it should be here in philosophy as it deals with philosophy of time and language.

Mageth · 06-09-2003, 03:54 PM

Have you actually read Hawking?

Here's a quote, from here:

"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier....

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. "

Wyrdsmyth · 06-09-2003, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by thomaq
can we speak of "before" the big bang. or is stephen hawking, quentin smith and a million other philosopher/physicists the only people who are allowed to? is it possible to use the word "before" or "prior" or "preceed" and not be talking about temporal relationships? it seems like this forum, here on infidels.org is the only place where such things are forbidden.

Who said it was forbidden? It isn't forbidden at all... it is just that every time you do it, it is very likely that someone will point out that you are invoking a higher order time, or absolute time, or metatime, or whatever you want to call it. Because, really, you are asking what temporally preceded time.

Jet Grind · 06-09-2003, 04:03 PM

Cosmologists almost unanimously agree that time began at some point after the big bang when the symmetry was broken between the dimensions during the inflationary period, so speculating about whatever happened before the big bang is simply useless.

thomaq · 06-09-2003, 04:42 PM

does hawking not also say that prior to the big bang, existed the singularity which was infinitely dense and infinitely hot? what is it that exploded in the big bang? did the universe "bang" from nothingness? so he might say that you could cut it out of the theory, but does he not imply otherwise?

and what about quentin smith, who says time was created by a timeless point?

Mageth · 06-09-2003, 04:44 PM

Read for yourself what Hawking says on the link I posted above.

thomaq · 06-09-2003, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyrdsmyth
Who said it was forbidden? It isn't forbidden at all... it is just that every time you do it, it is very likely that someone will point out that you are invoking a higher order time, or absolute time, or metatime, or whatever you want to call it. Because, really, you are asking what temporally preceded time.

i am not asking what temporally preceded time. i am asking what must have "logically" preceded time. the logical order of it. the best example i can think of is the relationship between an existent, and its identity. there is no temporal relationship between the two, however, existence "logically precedes" identity. an existent does not rely on identity, however for there to be an identity there must first be an existent. but they are temporally simultaneous. and so if time began, then it is "logically preceded" by non-time.

ex-xian · 06-09-2003, 05:30 PM

It's useful, IMHO, to define time. According to some more sophisticated creationists, time is the dimension of time/space in which cause-effect phenomona happen. This is pretty good, I think, except they use to define a "higher" diimension of time wherein God dwells. This dimension is eternal, since time doesn't progress, rather than a time line, there is a time plane. So God dwells in this Augustinian "Eternal Now."

I prefer Einstien's definiton of time. He said that length is what we measure with a ruler, and time is what we measure with a clock. Before t=0, real time, time that is measurable with a clock, didn't exist, only a mathematical "imaginary time" that isn't really time in the sense that we use the word.

Mageth · 06-09-2003, 05:41 PM

I think Hawking expounds on imaginary time in the link I posted.

ex-xian · 06-09-2003, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
I think Hawking expounds on imaginary time in the link I posted.

So? Why would you want the info straight from the source when you can get it from a pseudo-intellectual, sub-reliable person like me?

06-09-2003, 03:44 PM	#1
thomaq Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: california Posts: 154	Can we speak of "before" the Big Bang? can we speak of "before" the big bang. or is stephen hawking, quentin smith and a million other philosopher/physicists the only people who are allowed to? is it possible to use the word "before" or "prior" or "preceed" and not be talking about temporal relationships? it seems like this forum, here on infidels.org is the only place where such things are forbidden. what are your thoughts? PS. this might seem like it belongs in science and skepticism, but i believe it should be here in philosophy as it deals with philosophy of time and language.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-09-2003, 03:54 PM	#2
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Have you actually read Hawking? Here's a quote, from here: "Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier.... The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. "

06-09-2003, 04:03 PM	#4
Jet Grind Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Southern Maine, USA Posts: 220	Cosmologists almost unanimously agree that time began at some point after the big bang when the symmetry was broken between the dimensions during the inflationary period, so speculating about whatever happened before the big bang is simply useless.

06-09-2003, 04:42 PM	#5
thomaq Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: california Posts: 154	does hawking not also say that prior to the big bang, existed the singularity which was infinitely dense and infinitely hot? what is it that exploded in the big bang? did the universe "bang" from nothingness? so he might say that you could cut it out of the theory, but does he not imply otherwise? and what about quentin smith, who says time was created by a timeless point?

06-09-2003, 04:44 PM	#6
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Read for yourself what Hawking says on the link I posted above.

06-09-2003, 05:30 PM	#8
ex-xian Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: :noitacoL Posts: 4,679	It's useful, IMHO, to define time. According to some more sophisticated creationists, time is the dimension of time/space in which cause-effect phenomona happen. This is pretty good, I think, except they use to define a "higher" diimension of time wherein God dwells. This dimension is eternal, since time doesn't progress, rather than a time line, there is a time plane. So God dwells in this Augustinian "Eternal Now." I prefer Einstien's definiton of time. He said that length is what we measure with a ruler, and time is what we measure with a clock. Before t=0, real time, time that is measurable with a clock, didn't exist, only a mathematical "imaginary time" that isn't really time in the sense that we use the word.

06-09-2003, 05:41 PM	#9
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I think Hawking expounds on imaginary time in the link I posted.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.