I've come...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-03-2014, 01:10 AM
I've come...
... to the conclusion that we have made a mistake.

It's to do with terminology.

Three examples:

1. Note this from one of our members:
Quote:...
"there is a considerable amount of observable evidence that suggests the universe is not eternal...that it had a beginning."

It is true we are not certain that the universe had a beginning but it seems that it did. The foundation of the claim that universe could itself be eternal, exists only in the small shadow of uncertainty. It is a claim which makes a weak basis for a refutation of that theistic argument.
...

I'd change the word theistic to deistic but otherwise, fair enough... given the wording of that premise i.e. "...that it had a beginning."

2. I recently re-watched this debate between Jay Richards and Hitch and the same point was made at 1:06:30 (Mr. Richards, btw, came across as honest and had an admirable determination to stay on topic, imho).

3. And lastly, there's this old chestnut which has been debunked so many times on here: Kalām cosmological argument

To the point...

Our mistake is that we offer a free pass to the deist (not theist) with our use of the word 'beginning'.

Hubble's law and the cosmic background radiation tell us that the universe used to be rather small and dense but why must time be zero?

Isn't time merely a measurement of a dimension? A scale/metric that we overlay onto an axis?

Why can't we visualise this as:

---l-------------------l--------------------l---
t = -x ............... t = 0 ................. t = x

... with the big bang occurring a tad after t = 0.

Before this moment, we have some hypotheses but no definitive answers other than "I don't know".

We cannot prove it was not a deity wot dunnit nor can we prove it was... yet.

Would it not make more sense to use terminology like:

"At the earliest discernible point of measurable dimensions..."

This has been nagging away at me for a while now.

I would like to go further and say that at t = 0, no timescale (scale of the time axis) had been established and that all timescales were potentially possible i.e. that the universe was spaceless and timefull, but leaving that aside, can you guys help with an accurate replacement for "In the beginning..."

Appreciated. Thanks.

ps, wouldn't it be great to go to church and hear this...

Vicar: "In the beginning..."
Audience: "Erm, can I just stop you there...I have a question?"

Smile

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
01-03-2014, 01:31 AM
RE: I've come...
(01-03-2014 01:10 AM)DLJ Wrote:  ... to the conclusion that we have made a mistake.

It's to do with terminology.

Three examples:

1. Note this from one of our members:
Quote:...
"there is a considerable amount of observable evidence that suggests the universe is not eternal...that it had a beginning."

It is true we are not certain that the universe had a beginning but it seems that it did. The foundation of the claim that universe could itself be eternal, exists only in the small shadow of uncertainty. It is a claim which makes a weak basis for a refutation of that theistic argument.
...

I'd change the word theistic to deistic but otherwise, fair enough... given the wording of that premise i.e. "...that it had a beginning."

2. I recently re-watched this debate between Jay Richards and Hitch and the same point was made at 1:06:30 (Mr. Richards, btw, came across as honest and had an admirable determination to stay on topic, imho).

3. And lastly, there's this old chestnut which has been debunked so many times on here: Kalām cosmological argument

To the point...

Our mistake is that we offer a free pass to the deist (not theist) with our use of the word 'beginning'.

Hubble's law and the cosmic background radiation tell us that the universe used to be rather small and dense but why must time be zero?

Isn't time merely a measurement of a dimension? A scale/metric that we overlay onto an axis?

Why can't we visualise this as:

---l-------------------l--------------------l---
t = -x ............... t = 0 ................. t = x

... with the big bang occurring a tad after t = 0.

Before this moment, we have some hypotheses but no definitive answers other than "I don't know".

We cannot prove it was not a deity wot dunnit nor can we prove it was... yet.

Would it not make more sense to use terminology like:

"At the earliest discernible point of measurable dimensions..."

This has been nagging away at me for a while now.

I would like to go further and say that at t = 0, no timescale (scale of the time axis) had been established and that all timescales were potentially possible i.e. that the universe was spaceless and timefull, but leaving that aside, can you guys help with an accurate replacement for "In the beginning..."

Appreciated. Thanks.

ps, wouldn't it be great to go to church and hear this...

Vicar: "In the beginning..."
Audience: "Erm, can I just stop you there...I have a question?"

Smile
I think that we'll eventually discover that time is elliptical and that asking what happened before time t=0 is like asking what's south of the south pole or what's beneath the center of the earth.

Humans arrived on Earth on 22 October 4004 B.C. A few of us are still trying to repair the ship.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 01:49 AM
RE: I've come...
(01-03-2014 01:10 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Would it not make more sense to use terminology like:

"At the earliest discernible point of measurable dimensions..."

The problem with using terminology like that is many in the audience would start to get glassy eyed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Heywood Jahblome's post
01-03-2014, 02:01 AM
RE: I've come...
(01-03-2014 01:49 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(01-03-2014 01:10 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Would it not make more sense to use terminology like:

"At the earliest discernible point of measurable dimensions..."

The problem with using terminology like that is many in the audience would start to get glassy eyed.

If I had thought it perfect, I would not have asked for suggestions.

See how that works?

So, what have you got that's more 'poppy'?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 02:04 AM
RE: I've come...
(01-03-2014 01:31 AM)f stop Wrote:  ...
I think that we'll eventually discover that time is elliptical and that asking what happened before time t=0 is like asking what's south of the south pole or what's beneath the center of the earth.

I wouldn't be at all surprised. It is one of the possibilities for space, so why not for time too.

So, given that, should we be talking about latitudes and longitudes of time, rather than beginnings and ends?

Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 02:30 AM
RE: I've come...
(01-03-2014 01:10 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Our mistake is that we offer a free pass to the deist (not theist) with our use of the word 'beginning'.

The fundamental problem with big bang theory, is that our models of physics don't work at the singularity. So we can't know that there was a singularity at all. If we had absolute faith in those models, the inconsistencies at the singularity would tell us there was no singularity...as it's impossible.

Since the singularity does not follow in either case, why do people presume it? It just doesn't follow....and without the singularity, we can't really talk about a beginning either. All we can say, is that things make sense up until Planck time, and then they don't, so the concept of a beginning is undefined.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes toadaly's post
01-03-2014, 03:06 AM
RE: I've come...
(01-03-2014 02:30 AM)toadaly Wrote:  The fundamental problem with big bang theory, is that our models of physics don't work at the singularity. So we can't know that there was a singularity at all. If we had absolute faith in those models, the inconsistencies at the singularity would tell us there was no singularity...as it's impossible.

Since the singularity does not follow in either case, why do people presume it? It just doesn't follow....and without the singularity, we can't really talk about a beginning either. All we can say, is that things make sense up until Planck time, and then they don't, so the concept of a beginning is undefined.

What you say is correct. We really don't have a physics which takes all the way back to the beginning. But we do have a physics which takes us back to the Planck time and on that trip it really seems we are headed toward something that looks like a beginning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 04:46 AM
RE: I've come...
(01-03-2014 03:06 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  ...
What you say is correct. We really don't have a physics which takes all the way back to the beginning. But we do have a physics which takes us back to the Planck time and on that trip it really seems we are headed toward something that looks like a beginning.

And it also 'seems' and ' looks like' the sun revolves around the earth.

I see no evidence for a 'beginning' so for the sake of integrity, what should we call pre-Planck time?

Anyone?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 05:44 AM
Re: I've come...
I am not an expert in the subject so please point out if I am wrong. But in my opinion "before the big bang, at the big bang and after the big bang" works. That would be scientifically correct and it would not advocate that there was a beginning. Isn't it? And it would also give us a chance to say I don't know when appropriate.

Also, I would suggest reading this to anyone interested in the subject. I am sure many must have read it already but still giving a link here for quick reference.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-...verse.html
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes lamexcuses's post
01-03-2014, 06:29 AM
RE: I've come...
(01-03-2014 05:44 AM)lamexcuses Wrote:  I am not an expert in the subject so please point out if I am wrong. But in my opinion "before the big bang, at the big bang and after the big bang" works. That would be scientifically correct and it would not advocate that there was a beginning. Isn't it? And it would also give us a chance to say I don't know when appropriate.

Also, I would suggest reading this to anyone interested in the subject. I am sure many must have read it already but still giving a link here for quick reference.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-...verse.html

First line from the link:
Quote:This lecture is the intellectual property of Professor S.W.Hawking. You may not reproduce, edit, translate, distribute, publish or host this document in any way with out the permission of Professor Hawking.

So I assume you got permission and thank you in advance of reading it.

Thanks for the suggestion and yes, 'at' and 'after' the big bang work for me but 'before' is too vague, for me. Is that Planck time or before Planck time? If time started at that moment, there is no 'before'. If there is negative time i.e. t = 0 is a place-holder, then it works.

Cheers

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: