PhysicsQED: @ Deep Sight, I don't know if justcool is still posting or if he is on the forum anymore, but since you've stated that his position and your position are essentially equivalent, let me go through his statements and give my objections.




1. They are talking about the real time/layman's time. Scientists are trying to determine what it actually is, as opposed to what it is assumed to be.

2. There is nothing inherently irrational about concluding that it is possible for time to have existed only after this universe existed. To prove that it did exist before the universe existed would be quite a feat, which one would have to be a scientist to do convincingly. Assuming that it did exist before this particular universe, I don't think that would upset scientists too much since surprises happen all the time in science and since there are already several who theorize that there is a multiverse in which our universe is only one of several that exist. (Only that they would probably hold that time began with the multiverse, not before.)

3. Time is not defined by the speed of light. The definition of time is contained in chapter 8 and chapter 9 of this document:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/8.html

("On the Idea of Time in Physics" and "The Relativity of Simultaneity" from Albert Einstein's Relativity: The Special and General Theory)

Note that the value of the speed of light is irrelevant.




4. As I posted in an earlier link, a massive particle would need infinite energy to actually reach the speed of light and a (real) massless particle moves exactly at the speed of light and not faster. Time only stands still from the point of view/reference frame of massless particles.



5. This can't really be proven.

The idea that time must exist, even if nothing else does, is just an assumption.

If there was a "universe" that existed in such a way that everything that ever happened was to happen at once (instantaneously), and not need to appear or disappear, we wouldn't even need time. Time is relevant to a particular kind of universe where space or objects appear/form, persist, and disappear or don't disappear, i.e. a universe in which either objects or even empty space has some kind of persistence/duration - and we do happen to live in such a universe.

But just as you can conceive of time existing without the universe, I can conceive of a "universe" existing without time.

Consider an alternate universe where everything was just there - without needing to take time to appear - and within the same instant not there, without taking time to disappear. Is that hard to think of? Of course. Now let me really define this alternate "universe". Consider this alternate universe as being where the "everything" (which was there and not there instantaneously without having to appear and then disappear) was actually nothing - not objects and not space. Since there is nothing there, why must there be time? Is time even necessary for this universe? Is it required for it to "exist"? Absolutely not.

And without asserting the existence of time either directly or indirectly - that is, without employing circular logic - could it be proven that this "nothingness" has to have a duration or persist for a time period? No.

Time does not necessarily have to exist where it is not relevant.

Now the counter argument one could make is that even the nothingness of this universe has a duration or a time period over which it is persisting, but that would be based on thinking influenced by our current universe and a misconception that nothingness - a perfect void - is equivalent to what we would consider a perfect vacuum or truly empty space. Even any kind of empty space has actual physical properties and characteristics (dimensions and their relations to one another) - it's not really nothing and not really a complete negation of existence. Real nothingness is hard to conceive of because of the fact that it doesn't seem to exist within our universe, but when one starts to understand what it would entail, it becomes clear that it would not necessarily need duration.

Time may be necessary for "anything" - including existence ( physical or "spiritual" ) itself - to exist, but there is certainly no reason why time must exist in a situation where there is no such thing as existence to begin with.

6. The fact that time can be dilated by mass (gravitational time dilation has been proven repeatedly in experiments) within our universe does suggest very strongly that within our universe time is actually physically connected to space. When space is distorted by mass, time is also distorted. For example, any kind of clocks in the strong gravitational fields of planets run slower than any kind of clocks far away from them or another strong gravitational field. You and Deepsight seem to think that scientists define time by movement/motion, but when nothing is moving, mass distorts space and consequently, time, anyway.





7. As stated above, time is not defined by the speed of light.

8. There is no strong evidence of alternate universes actually existing. Of course, if one is into the idea of the existence of membranes or multiverses (a la David Deutsch), then these statements above need to actually be analyzed. As I don't subscribe to multiversalism, I'm not really interested in speculating on what the specifics of a multiverse would be and whether there would be some "ultimate multiversal time frame" that would necessarily have to be different from or greater than the timeline of the universes within it.

9. You and Deepsight believe in eternal time. You both seem to subscribe in some way or another to the credo "Time precedes existence".

As I stated above in another manner, the idea that time must precede existence is either based on the confusion of empty space with nothingness or is based on the assumption that non-existence (what I called an alternate "universe" of nothingness) must persist and endure through time - an assumption which does not seem warranted at all. If there were no time, there could still be nothing (and please don't incorrectly imagine "nothing" as blank empty space after reading this sentence, otherwise this sentence may become confusing and one may start thinking that "nothing" needs to be qualified by time or given duration). It may be hard for us to conceive of absolute and total negation - real nothingness - but when we get our heads around the concept, we understand that it doesn't have to be qualified by time.


10. For an interesting perspective on time, without unnecessary detours into issues of hypothetical multiverses, please read "The Beginning of Time" by Stephen Hawking:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Reading this may not convince you that time is an artifact of existence and not something pre-existing ( or as Deep Sight would put it "self-existing" ), but it should at least let you know that the "real time" or "lay man's time" is what scientists are talking about and it's directly connected to the space of our universe.





With all due respect, this all sounds a bit dated. It sounds like something one might read in one of Immanuel Kant's writings - a subordination of the outside world's realities to the human mind's natural or unrefined perception and conceptualization of them. Claiming - without actually stating so - that how the mind perceives and initially understands certain concepts ( such as so called "eternity" ) is how they must apply to reality, without either experimental confirmation or theoretical proof. Well, anyway, I don't want to get too much more philosophical, so I'll just say I disagree completely with virtually everything in this quote.

The second post by justcool that you quoted (responding to KAG) is essentially a restatement of, and an elaboration on, the first post that you quoted.

The third is also more or less the same except that it goes on to mention the supposed connection of time to spirituality.

Since I responded to the 1st quote and the 2nd and 3rd are quite similar to it, it will be unnecessary to respond to those two as well.

So I guess that sums up my response.

I am sorry to keep sending you to other posts, I am just trying to make certain I don't have to repeat things I have labored to write in the past all over again.

Please review this thread and we will take up the issues from there, thanks.

https://www.nairaland.com/577313/thehomer-now-lets-discuss-big

Sorry for the trouble: really just don't want to repeat myself extensively.

aletheia:
^
How about "The Infinite Improbability Drive"?


Just joking: Readers of HHGTTG will recognize the allusion.

Cant get enough of the series.

I have no problem with the references to past posts.

I went through the thread and it seems the responders on the opposing side pursued a different line of argument than I intend to, so instead of responding to all of your comments there (most of which are responses to other people's arguments that I am not necessarily making) I will start from the beginning and we can discuss your premises.

Deep Sight:
Premise 1

If time was created by or at the moment of the big slam, then it is not possible to speak about a period "prior to " or "before" the big slam. Accordingly it is not possible to speak of anything existing prior to that instant - and this includes the pre-slam singularity that you spoke about.

Just to be clear, the singularity is the only object under discussion. The "big b.ang" is not a thing, but a descriptive term used to label a series of events. Spacetime originated with the singularity. The singularity expanded, then underwent inflation, and that process is described as the big ba[i]n[/i]g. It would be better not to use obfuscating term "pre-b.ang singularity" as if the singularity is not the starting point of the big b[i]a[/i]ng or as if they are really separate from one another when one is actually subsumed within the other.

The connection between the singularity - an object of zero size in all spatial dimensions, infinite temperature, and infinite density - and the beginning of time, is that spacetime began with the singularity.

Premise 2

Physical things exist in space and time. You stated that the pre slam singularity was physical. You then stated that there was no space or time at the point of the existence of the pre-slam singularity. How is it possible for a physical thing or state to exist without space and time.

Premises 1 & 2 evince the contradiction between (x) and (y).

Your reasoning here is faulty.

First you define physical things as those that "exist in space and time."

Then you use your definition of physical to preclude the singularity from existing by defining the singularity as something that has to exist in space and time, in order to create an apparent contradiction.

But space and time only came with the singularity to begin with so there is not a question of some sort of pre-existing space and time here in which the singularity emerged.

Premise 3 - the problem with statement (x)

The problem with statement (x) is that if space was created by the big slam, please tell me what space is expanding into?

In premise 3, you make an assertion - namely that the universe cannot be self contained.
Essentially you are asking that we accept your assertion that the universe cannot be self contained over the assertion that the universe can be self contained. There is no proof for either assumption, but there is no particular reason to accept your assumption over the other one.

Premise 4 - the problem with statement (y)

The problem with statement (y) is that it presumes a physical singularity to be self-existent. Aside from the fact that you have yet to properly articulate what that singularity is, the fundamental problem is that it is an illogicality to define any physical thing as self-existent because physical things are changeable whereas self-existence connotes immutability.

Well "self-existence" may "connote" immutability to you (this seems to be an assertion, but I don't think there would be a point arguing about this as it probably won't be relevant), but I don't think one can prove that a "self-existent" thing cannot be physical just because of how you have decided to define physical things.

Caveats & Personal Definitions:

I state it clearly that i subscribe to the idea of the occurence of the initial expansion that is called the big slam. What I dispute herein is the averrment that time and space were thereby created.

I see time as an intangible constant that cannot be created. The experience of time may however differ from place to place and from state to state. This is my view of time.

I see space as the infinite continuum of void into which things may be endlessly interpolated. This is different from the space which is merely an energized bubble in which our universe exists. This energized bubble, is in my view interpolated in the infinite continuum of void into which things may be interpolated. This space is not creatable in my view. It is self-existent. This is my view of space.

Well,

1) there really is no evidence that the "energized bubble" (the universe) exists in an "infinite void".

2) there is no explanation given for why this infinite void described above would have to be "self existent".

3) The arguments for why a "self-existent" thing "can not but exist" that were made earlier are either circular or just a series of tautologies.

4) the infinite void described here is the kind of blank empty space I was advising in my previous post to avoid when trying to imagine real nothingness/non-existence. This infinite void in your example has qualities and specifically it has spatial characteristics - it can contain things and you've even given it a specific size - which means it's quite a different thing from real nothingness.

5) why do you limit it to one void? Why not construct an infinite number of voids containing other voids? Since there are degrees of infinity, different voids could have a different extent from one another. But if one were to accept that this infinite void containing an energized bubble existed, what justification could you give to rule out an unending series of other infinite continua containing smaller infinite voids? I think maybe you might have avoided this for purely aesthetic reasons.

6) Time cannot be defined without reference to some thing because of the relativity of simultaneity:

"Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event." - A. Einstein, Ch. 9: "The Relativity of Simultaneity" from Relativity: The Special and General Theory

Thus one cannot really speak of the time of an event without there being something there - whether it's an "infinite void" (which is definitely something and not real nothingness, as I pointed out in #4) or a singularity (t=0) or a galaxy or a solar system or an ant. If there is truly nothing, time cannot be indicated. There is only spacetime, not the Newtonian time that you are constructing theories around.

The part in bold is the most important thing and once you understand it, you'll understand that the kind of time you and justcool are trying to impose onto reality is not real.

PhysicsQED: I have no problem with the references to past posts.

Many thanks for that. I genuinely appreciate your patience and deliberation in going through the posts and setting out your responses clearly.

Just to be clear, the singularity is the only object under discussion. The "big b.ang" is not a thing, but a descriptive term used to label a series of events.

This is not in dispute.

Spacetime originated with the singularity.

Please tell me what exactly this statement means, for I don not understand it.

Does it mean -

1. The singularity is itself spacetime - and such expanded in the initial expansion called the big b.ang.

2. Spacetime is the inflation that took place originating from the singularity but not synonymous with the singularity.

3. Spacetime is an incorporeal element tangential to the expansion of the singularity.

In answering these questions i would like you to bear these further questions at the back of your mind -

[x] Does Time (as distinct from OR the same as the universe - you tell me) expand in any way whatsoever

[y] Does space (as distinct from OR the same as the universe - you tell me) expand in anyway whatsoever

2. The singularity expanded, then underwent inflation, and that process is described as the big ba[i]n[/i]g. It would be better not to use obfuscating term "pre-b.ang singularity" as if the singularity is not the starting point of the big b[i]a[/i]ng or as if they are really separate from one another when one is actually subsumed within the other.

As you yourself pointed out, the singularity was a concentrated point of unified mass and energy: the ba.ng was an event - the expansion of said singularity. It is important to maintain this distinction because of the very nature of the questions being asked here: to wit: [x] Why the expansion? [y]Why the expansion at that point and not prior of after? [z] Wherefore the singularity in the first place? [zz] Why did it not eternally remain in its primordial singular state? What was the impetus for expansion?

Asking these questions go to the root of the matter and show exactly why we must make the subtle distinction between the state of the singularity, and the initiations of the (or it's) expansion.

The connection between the singularity - an object of zero size in all spatial dimensions, infinite temperature, and infinite density - and the beginning of time, is that spacetime began with the singularity.

Please sir, I am not sure that this statement has any cognitive meaning.

If indeed space "began" with the singularity, I ask the eternal question yet again - into what is space expanding?

Is space something that can "begin?"

And in light of the foregoing, how can it be said with any measure of coherence that time either, "expands" - or much less expands from matter?

If neither of the foregoing is coherent, how is it coherent to say that spacetime commenced - at all - much less with matter.

In all of this I need to yet point out the central fact that so long as you say that the singularity existed prior to the event of its expansion, then you cannot also say that there was no time prior to the big bang

For if there wasn't then in what state did the singularity exist - for, as conceived by those discussants, nothing could exist outside a timeline.

Your reasoning here is faulty.

First you define physical things as those that "exist in space and time."

Then you use your definition of physical to preclude the singularity from existing by defining the singularity as something that has to exist in space and time, in order to create an apparent contradiction.

If you read the thread in reference you will see that it is not me who made this insistence or created this contradiction.

But space and time only came with the singularity to begin with so there is not a question of some sort of pre-existing space and time here in which the singularity emerged.

If space and time did not already exist with the so called singularity, then in what context could it have existed ab initio
? As such it is and remains wrong for you to say that space and time only came with the singularity - for if this is the case you will have to answer the eternal question - into WHAT is the said spacetime expanding?

Be right back.

In premise 3, you make an assertion - namely that the universe cannot be self contained.
Essentially you are asking that we accept your assertion that the universe cannot be self contained over the assertion that the universe can be self contained. There is no proof for either assumption, but there is no particular reason to accept your assumption over the other one.

I don't recalled ever using the term "self-contained". I have rather always said that the universe being material/ physical cannot be self existent: as such would defy basic logically on mutable things being self-existent. Any thing mutable cannot be self existent.

Well "self-existence" may "connote" immutability to you (this seems to be an assertion, but I don't think there would be a point arguing about this as it probably won't be relevant), but I don't think one can prove that a "self-existent" thing cannot be physical just because of how you have decided to define physical things.

It is not based on my definition alone: it is a self evident fact of reality. What do you understand by something that is said to be self-existent?

Well,

1) there really is no evidence that the "energized bubble" (the universe) exists in an "infinite void".

Can you tell me in that case into WHAT it is expanding?

2) there is no explanation given for why this infinite void described above would have to be "self existent".

What would exist, into which the material expanding from the big ba.ng would expand into?

If I may even say, how can such a space be understood to be finite, divided or limited?

The arguments for why a "self-existent" thing "can not but exist" that were made earlier are either circular or just a series of tautologies.

This would apply also to a self-existent universe, or a self existent singularity.

In case you doubt this, please attempt this question -

Wherefore, why and how, did the singularity exist in the first place?

You see, once you attempt this question, you will recognize immediately the philosophical conundrum THAT FOR ANYTHING TO EXIST AT ALL: SOMETHING OR THE OTHER MUST BE SELF-EXISTENT.

I reject matter as self-existent because of it's obvious mutability.

This would only mean that that which must be self-existent can only be immaterial.

4) the infinite void described here is the kind of blank empty space I was advising in my previous post to avoid when trying to imagine real nothingness/non-existence. This infinite void in your example has qualities and specifically it has spatial characteristics - it can contain things and you've even given it a specific size - which means it's quite a different thing from real nothingness.

Real nothingness, by its very definition, does not exist.
Yes, the infinite void is NOT nothing, but please note that at no point did I ascribe a size to such a void.

5) why do you limit it to one void? Why not construct an infinite number of voids containing other voids? Since there are degrees of infinity, different voids could have a different extent from one another. But if one were to accept that this infinite void containing an energized bubble existed, what justification could you give to rule out an unending series of other infinite continua containing smaller infinite voids? I think maybe you might have avoided this for purely aesthetic reasons.

Are voids divisible?

Are intangible things divisible?

6) Time cannot be defined without reference to some thing because of the relativity of simultaneity:

You mean to say events and not time per se.

"Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event." - A. Einstein, Ch. 9: "The Relativity of Simultaneity" from Relativity: The Special and General Theory

I hope you realize that this knocks off both your position and that of thehomer completely.
It simply implies that every reference body must have its own timeline: and as such we cannot claim that there was no time prior to the big ban.g, given that we refer to a body existing prior: the self same singularity.

The part in bold is the most important thing and once you understand it, you'll understand that the kind of time you and justcool are trying to impose onto reality is not real.

As a matter of fact, the sort of time being propounded by yourself and current scientific notions, has nothing whatever to do with time.
And this is obvious from the unshakeable contradictions inherent therein.

Bump

Hmmm. . .

I'll respond to this in a short while from now. There are some interpretations and statements I need to make clearer.

@ Deep Sight. I'll respond in pieces to your response.

Deepsight: Please tell me what exactly this statement means, for I do not understand it.

Does it mean -

1. The singularity is itself spacetime - and such expanded in the initial expansion called the big b.ang.

2. Spacetime is the inflation that took place originating from the singularity but not synonymous with the singularity.

3. Spacetime is an incorporeal element tangential to the expansion of the singularity.

In answering these questions i would like you to bear these further questions at the back of your mind -

[x] Does Time (as distinct from OR the same as the universe - you tell me) expand in any way whatsoever

[y] Does space (as distinct from OR the same as the universe - you tell me) expand in anyway whatsoever

1. If one wants to say that what we are in right now (the universe) is causally connected to the singularity, then I guess that's fine.

But it is incorrect to say that "spacetime" expanded. Space expanded over time.

2. Spacetime is the universe, which is causally connected to the singularity, but no it's not synonymous with the singularity. By inflation, I was referring to an actual phase of the big b.ang during which spatial expansion became more rapid and more significant.

3. No I am not saying spacetime is incorporeal. Spacetime is definitely corporeal - we're in it, in fact.

[x] Does time "expand"? No.

The three dimensions (assuming three spatial dimensions, rather than say, ten) of spacetime are varying relative to the fourth dimension (time) of spacetime, and we know that they are expanding over time.

There really is only spacetime - a certain number of spatial dimensions and one time dimension. Now the question of whether time expands is not coherent because the word expand has spatial meaning and for something to have expanded (relative to its original spatial extent) also implies the passage of time. It would be like asking whether time changes spatially with respect to time as you vary space or asking "as you vary space does time change with respect to time"?. It's merely playing around with words and has no real logical meaning.

[y]Yes space does expand. Space is expanding over time.

Deep Sight: As you yourself pointed out, the singularity was a concentrated point of unified mass and energy: the ba.ng was an event - the expansion of said singularity. It is important to maintain this distinction because of the very nature of the questions being asked here: to wit: [x] Why the expansion? [y]Why the expansion at that point and not prior of after? [z] Wherefore the singularity in the first place? [zz] Why did it not eternally remain in its primordial singular state? What was the impetus for expansion?

Asking these questions go to the root of the matter and show exactly why we must make the subtle distinction between the state of the singularity, and the initiations of the (or it's) expansion.

[x] This question is honestly a bit beyond my understanding of cosmology at this point in time (that's really not even my area of interest in physics, though I do have an interest in it), but my understanding is basically this:

Gravity would cause an extremely massive object to collapse in on itself to an extremely compact volume of high mass/energy. However, the four forces were originally one force at the extremely high temperatures that existed originally, and so there was no gravity.

Now note that no space or volume of the expanding singularity was actually empty (just as space is not empty today in the universe) but was instead filled with matter and radiation and that this matter and radiation were initially coupled (always interacting), forming a kind of "cosmological fluid". The density of this cosmological fluid decreasing is equivalent to the expansion of space. Now since the mass of this cosmological fluid would have been propelled outwards due to the strength of the initial expansion, the inertia of this matter would have ensured that it kept on going outwards without stopping unless acted on by an external force, making the cosmological fluid decrease in density (which is the expansion). As it expanded, it would naturally cool. As this cooling occurred, the decrease in temperature allowed for the first separation of forces to occur and gravity emerged as the first unique/distinct force from the original force. Gravity should have then quickly compressed the universe back into a point due to mutual attraction of matter, but gravity was too weak.

Basically we can see the expansion as a mere consequence of the attractive force (gravitation) that diverged from the original force being far weaker than the other forces that diverged from the original force and not strong enough to compress the expanding "cosmological fluid" back onto itself to an infinitesimally small point. While the other forces can be attractive or repulsive, gravity is always attractive. Presumably, if it had been the other way around (if gravity were the strongest force), there would have been little to no expansion.

Additionally, the later divergence of the strong nuclear force from the electroweak (electromagnetic + weak) force as the universe cooled even more is held to have triggered an even more rapid period of expansion, called cosmic inflation.

So cosmologists hold that the separation of the forces with gravity coming out as the weakest force is the reason for the expansion, as far as I can tell. The first separation (of gravity) of a force would have been during the Planck epoch, and the exact reasons for why this separation occurred and how it occurred are obscure at present because no successful quantum theory of gravity has been developed.

The period where there was only one force is the most mysterious period of the big b.ang, and the exact mechanisms for what happened cannot be known until there is a successful "theory of everything".

[y]You say "why the expansion at that point and not prior or after"?

This is a bit like asking why the earth is the third planet from the sun or why we don't have two moons - that's just how things turned out to be from chance - unless you have the exact equations that determined the probabilities of how each event in a series of events would turn out, you can't say for sure why one event would happen and not another event.

Also by saying "prior" or "after", I think you are muddying up the waters a little because the question presupposes that the expansion did happen "after" or "prior" to something along a fixed absolute universal Newtonian timeline.

It could have indeed happened "after" or "prior" to anything else that has ever happened depending on how one is viewing it. From the perspective of the expanding universe, the singularity may be something that happened "after" the expanding universe's current time when one goes in a certain direction (which we would 'arbitrarily' designate as 'backward') through time. From the point of view of the singularity, the expanding universe happened "after" the expanding singularity when one goes in a certain direction (which we would 'arbitrarily' call 'forward') through time. Both points of view would be correct. I hope that makes things clearer.

[z]I don't think this is really a physics question as of right now, but more of a philosophical question. This is like asking "why could it exist in the first place?" or "why is there existence?", because as things currently stand, the only thing we can answer is whether it should have existed according to calculations on what the universe should have been like when going "backward" in time - and the answer would be yes.

[zz] See my answer to [x] above.

(edited)

Deep Sight: Please sir, I am not sure that this statement has any cognitive meaning.

If indeed space "began" with the singularity, I ask the eternal question yet again - into what is space expanding?

Who says it has to expand into something? If objects within space are getting further and further apart more than can be explained simply by the actual momentum of both objects, then the space they are in is itself expanding. The idea that space is expanding is not based on any assumption about it expanding into something because that is totally unnecessary to support the idea.

You keep asserting that there is something that has to contain the universe without giving any evidence for why it would have to be contained within something else.

We see containment everywhere in our universe so we assume everything has to be contained, but I don't see why that's the case at all.

Even if the universe were expanding into some kind of alternate universe or some kind of different structure I don't see how we could confirm/prove that it was actually doing so without experimental evidence, so the question of what - if anything - that it's expanding into seems pointless right now.

Why you think the space has to be expanding into something I don't know but I suspect this confusion may be based on the notion that the idea that the universe is expanding is based on claims about there being something external to it that we can't see or experience. This isn't the case. The claim about the expansion of space is simply based on the fact that the objects within it are getting pulled further and further apart over time more than can be explained by their actual motion.

Now if space were contracting over time rather than expanding, objects getting further and further apart over time would be perceived as going "backward" in time and designated as such. Since time is not reversible for macroscopic physical objects (for entropic reasons), and they move "forward" through time but cannot go "backward" through time, we can conclude that the macroscopic objects in space that are getting further and further apart more than can be explained by their motion are not going "backward" through time in a contracting universe, but going "forward" through time in an expanding universe.

Is space something that can "begin?"

Why does space have to exist?

It simply does not. As I said before, try and really imagine the concept of nothingness and you'll understand that space is corporeal and definitely something that need not necessarily exist.

And in light of the foregoing, how can it be said with any measure of coherence that time either, "expands" - or much less expands from matter?

If neither of the foregoing is coherent, how is it coherent to say that spacetime commenced - at all - much less with matter.

In all of this I need to yet point out the central fact that so long as you say that the singularity existed prior to the event of its expansion, then you cannot also say that there was no time prior to the big slam

For if there wasn't then in what state did the singularity exist - for, as conceived by those discussants, nothing could exist outside a timeline.

To say that time expands makes no sense because as I said earlier, it's like asking "does time vary spatially with respect to time"? To see why that makes no sense, ask yourself a question like does height vary temporally with respect to height? Does [non-spatial dimension x] vary spatially with respect to [non-spatial dimension x]? These are clearly nonsensical questions.

Spacetime originated with the singularity, space expanded relative to time, and time does not expand.

Deep Sight: If you read the thread in reference you will see that it is not me who made this insistence or created this contradiction.

Certainly, it's not from you. But their idea is not correct or logically consistent and I don't intend to argue along their lines. You are attacking their idea, and using it to construct your arguments, but as I said earlier, I am not necessarily making their claims when countering your arguments.

If space and time did not already exist with the so called singularity, then in what context could it have existed ab initio?

As such it is and remains wrong for you to say that space and time only came with the singularity - for if this is the case you will have to answer the eternal question - into WHAT is the said spacetime expanding?

There was no time "before" the singularity. That question automatically asserts the pre-existence of time without the singularity by asking "what happened before the singularity"? If you look at it carefully, you see that the question contains an unproven assertion - that there was time without the singularity. That's not an assertion that I would be inclined to accept without strong evidence.

And again, no it does not logically follow that because something is said to be expanding it has to necessarily be expanding into something else. That is just incorrect.

Deep Sight: I don't recalled ever using the term "self-contained". I have rather always said that the universe being material/ physical cannot be self existent: as such would defy basic logically on mutable things being self-existent. Any thing mutable cannot be self existent.

Well, I am using the term self-contained to describe what you keep asserting - that the universe cannot be self-contained, an assumption nobody has any reason at the moment to favor over other assumptions.

As far as physical vs. non-physical, as much as I want for there to be something other than the physical, I honestly have to ask, what strong proof do you have that there is anything "non-physical"? Given that those things that we call "physical" seem to be self-evident, while those that would be considered "non-physical" do not seem to be self-evident, what evidence is there for asserting the existence of this dichotomy of physical and non-physical?

Some people would tell you that concepts only exist in our brains (which are physical objects) and nowhere else. Some others might even claim that only mathematical concepts exist and that everything is just a series of mathematical interactions.

For me, I'm not sure that there is anything "non-physical" with no proof, but I also have seen no convincing disproof of the existence of some sort of higher physical entity setting things in motion or setting the "guidelines/rules" for existence.

It is not based on my definition alone: it is a self evident fact of reality. What do you understand by something that is said to be self-existent?

I don't agree with the definition of physical as something "existing in space and time" because as far as I am concerned, space and time are themselves physical.

I don't see how it's "self-evident" that a physical thing cannot be self-existent. It just seems to be the case that in our universe energy creation is not violated (energy conservation is enforced, so energy is not created or destroyed) in places where the regular laws of physics hold true.

Can you tell me in that case into WHAT it is expanding?

No. As stated above, it is totally unnecessary to posit that the universe is expanding into something else to establish that it is expanding.

What would exist, into which the material expanding from the big ba.ng would expand into?

If I may even say, how can such a space be understood to be finite, divided or limited?

First, as stated previously, this question requires the existence of something else which the universe is expanding into, which is totally unnecessary.

Second, I am not making any claims about the space being finite, divided, or limited. That's not relevant to my objection to the arbitrary nature of asserting that the hypothetical void would have to be self-existent while the universe contained in it would not be.

This would apply also to a self-existent universe, or a self existent singularity.

In case you doubt this, please attempt this question -

Wherefore, why and how, did the singularity exist in the first place?

You see, once you attempt this question, you will recognize immediately the philosophical conundrum THAT FOR ANYTHING TO EXIST AT ALL: SOMETHING OR THE OTHER MUST BE SELF-EXISTENT.

I reject matter as self-existent because of it's obvious mutability.

This would only mean that that which must be self-existent can only be immaterial.

First, there's nothing I've posted that has really objected to things just existing from nothing (after all, basically every atheist (which I am not) scientist believes in something existing independently of an external or previous cause if they believe in the Big B.ang). Rather, I was pointing out that your arguments earlier were unconvincing because of their circular or tautological character and also pointing out that existence doesn't necessarily have to be. There can be nothingness.

Second, this argument seems to be based on the premise that the singularity - not an ordinary physical object by the way - would be subject to the same constraints at all times as ordinary objects, which may or may not be the case.

An interesting incidental fact is that the big b.ang theory was proposed by a Belgian Catholic priest and physicist, Georges Lemaitre, and he saw it as a vindication of the idea that the universe was created which is popular with some religions. Then of course, being a Catholic, he made the reasonable assumption that anything that is created has a Creator and does not self-create - but that assumption is of course, influenced by thinking based on our current experience/reality in this universe after the fact. We don't know under what exact conditions the ordinary laws of physics can be bypassed or what would make something self-create.

Scientists do, in my opinion, subscribe to the classic "prime mover" or "first cause" argument of philosophers and theologians, just usually (with the exception of people like Lemaitre) not in the way that religious people would like since they don't go further than can be proven and assert the existence of a person-like entity or God that is the prime mover.

For more on the prime mover/first cause/self-existence problem, this wikipedia page actually gives a pretty good summary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#Objections_and_counterarguments

Deep Sight: Real nothingness, by its very definition, does not exist.

I don't think that is in doubt, but if you are attempting here to use the definition of nothingness to rule it out as a legitimate concept I would strongly advise against that. Similar faulty lines of thinking are what led mathematicians to reject the legitimacy or correctness of the number 0 for centuries until one brilliant Indian guy figured out that zero was definitely a legitimate number.

Nothingness is an absolutely valid concept, however the non-existence of nothingness in our reality was part of why I emphasized repeatedly in my earlier posts that it would be somewhat difficult to imagine real nothingness and what nothingness would imply, but that one would have to conceive of it in order to understand why time is not something that absolutely has to exist.

Yes, the infinite void is NOT nothing, but please note that at no point did I ascribe a size to such a void.

As for ascribing a size to it, you definitely did. You called it infinite and claimed it can contain things - it therefore has a size.

Are voids divisible?

Are intangible things divisible?

The issue here is that you haven't said exactly what this void is in clear terms or now seem to be contradicting your description of it by describing it with terms that contradict the original description of it.

As far as I can tell, this void that you mentioned is "space" (and you even used the word space in describing it above), and is therefore corporeal - in fact you've given it a size and claimed it contains physical things within it.

How then it can possibly be "intangible" to you I don't know. Your description of it clearly makes it corporeal, but you're now claiming it's intangible and implying that it's indivisible. It is spatial and therefore necessarily corporeal.

Deep Sight: You mean to say events and not time per se.

No. I definitely mean to say time. Time needs to be measured in a direction relative to some thing or event, after all. Like Einstein said, if there is nothing being referenced, there is no meaning in the time of an event.

I hope you realize that this knocks off both your position and that of thehomer completely.
It simply implies that every reference body must have its own timeline: and as such we cannot claim that there was no time prior to the big ban.g, given that we refer to a body existing prior: the self same singularity.

Well I don't know what thehomer's position is exactly, although I gleamed some of it from that thread you posted a link to.

But the quote doesn't conflict with my position at all.

The quote states in different terms that there is no Newtonian time ever. There is not some real larger "time continuum" of existence into which events fall along a line. Our spatio-temporal positions within the universe are only defined relative to some actual thing, not within some sort of Newtonian external absolute time frame. We can define our time relative to the singularity's expansion but we can also define the singularity's expansion relative to our particular time. I could claim that time = 0 begins when I eat a sandwich tomorrow, and that the singularity is an event that occurred at a set time from when I ate the sandwich.

The apparent irreversibility of time on a macroscopic scale does not change the fact that the time at which something happens is still relative to something. The time at which the singularity expands can still be defined for me as relative to the day that I decide to eat my sandwich and the time at which I eat my sandwich can still be defined for me as relative to the singularity's expansion. I might say that I ate my sandwich 14 billion years in time from when the singularity expanded, but I might also say that the singularity expanded 14 billion years in time from when I ate my sandwich. Since time is not reversible for me and for everyone else, I and everyone else will always prefer to say that I ate my sandwich 14 billion years from when the singularity expanded. That I would prefer to state that this is how things are repeatedly and constantly is not the same as that actually being an absolutely correct statement about the real situation. It is a preference that is adhered to in order to make things more intelligible, not to be absolutely correct.

In the last part you make the same mistake that I advised against earlier of referring to the singularity and the big b.ang as separate.

The big b.ang is merely a descriptive term. As I have already stated, the singularity is the source of spacetime.

I suppose my careless use of the unfortunate phrases "when time began" or "the beginning of time" could be a source of confusion. Additionally, I should not have designated the singularity as "t=0" earlier as if to imply that this was really set or fixed or something.. That was a mistake from old habits and it gives the possible wrong impression that there is an absolute time frame. I think this is why you believe my position was contradicted by that quote.

Certainly my position is that there was no time "prior to" the singularity - using ourselves and our time as a reference when extrapolating "backward" through time - because the question of a "time prior to the existence of time" makes no sense since it presupposes the existence of an pre-existing absolute time frame to begin with (the part in bold). One cannot talk of a time that "existed in time" prior to the existence of time.

We would be speaking of the expansion of the universe as something that happened after the death of the universe (if the universe does end), if, as macroscopic objects for which time is irreversible, we could only experience going "backward" in time and never "forward". Since our bias is toward "forward" movement through time, we naturally speak of the big b.ang as though it were really an event in the "past" when it would equally be an event in the "future" for objects that would experience time running "backward" (some physicists believe that anti-particles are just particles moving "backward" through time, so for these antiparticles, "future" and "past" would be switched if that held true).

As a matter of fact, the sort of time being propounded by yourself and current scientific notions, has nothing whatever to do with time.
And this is obvious from the unshakeable contradictions inherent therein.

I think the problem here is that you repeatedly make certain assumptions/assertions, and insist upon their actual correspondence to reality without strong justifications.

I want to remind you that trying to figure out how the world works using only ordinary language is an inherently weak approach. Mathematics and visual representation are used for a reason. These are indispensable tools. There are some things which come out of mathematics so clearly and unambiguously that allow us to describe the natural world that we can't get as easily using plain language like we have been doing in this thread.

Please read these two articles from two different geniuses ("The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" by Eugene Wigner and "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics" by R.W. Hamming) and try to see why people describe the universe mathematically:

http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March02/Wigner/Wigner.html

http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March02/Hamming/Hamming.html

After reading these articles you might see why I said you should become a physicist in order to express your ideas about the world's behavior more concretely.

PhysicsQED:

We see containment everywhere in our universe so we assume everything has to be contained, but I don't see why that's the case at all.

Thats because you arent properly acquainted with my friend who thinks the compositional fallacy a good argument makes.

PhysicsQED:

I don't see how it's "self-evident" that a physical thing cannot be self-existent. It just seems to be the case that in our universe energy creation is not violated in places where the regular laws of physics hold true.

PhysicsQED:

First, there's nothing I've posted that has really objected to things just existing from nothing (after all, basically every atheist (which I am not) scientist believes in something existing independently of an external or previous cause if they believe in the Big B.ang). Rather, I was pointing out that your arguments earlier were unconvincing because of their circular or tautological character and also pointing out that existence doesn't necessarily have to be. There can be nothingness.

Second, this argument seems to be based on the premise that the singularity - not an ordinary physical object by the way - would be subject to the same constraints at all times as ordinary objects, which may or may not be the case.

An interesting incidental fact is that the big b.ang theory was proposed by a Belgian Catholic priest and physicist, Georges Lemaitre, and he saw it as a vindication of the idea that the universe was created which is popular with some religions. Then of course, being a Catholic, he made the reasonable assumption that anything that is created has a Creator and does not self-create - but that assumption is of course, influenced by thinking based on our current experience/reality in this universe after the fact. We don't know under what exact conditions the ordinary laws of physics can be bypassed or what would make something self-create.

Scientists do, in my opinion, subscribe to the classic "prime mover" or "first cause" argument of philosophers and theologians, just usually (with the exception of people like Lemaitre) not in the way that religious people would like since they don't go further than can be proven and assert the existence of a person-like entity or God that is the prime mover.

For more on the prime mover/first cause/self-existence problem, this wikipedia page actually gives a pretty good summary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#Objections_and_counterarguments

PhysicsQED:

I think the problem here is that you repeatedly make certain assumptions/assertions, and insist upon their actual correspondence to reality without strong justifications.

Unfortunately, my guy no go gree. Poster boy of dogmatism.

jayriginal:
Thats because you arent properly acquainted with my friend who thinks the compositional fallacy a good argument makes.

Unfortunately, my guy no go gree. Poster boy of dogmatism.

Frankly, I don't think your discourses or positions are within the scope of this discussion. I also don't think your arguments in the past demonstrate a capacity to discuss anything here.

@ Physics - just saw your responses. Have to jet off to make money now. Will revert exhaustively later in the day.

Thanks and cheers for the time.

^^^
Likewise my friend. Shake off your dogma and think. Assumptions do not make for strong arguments.

jayriginal: ^^^
Likewise my friend. Shake off your dogma and think.

And think of things like uncaused motion for a physical universe? No thanks. I'll pass.

Assumptions do not make for strong arguments.

Assumptions like the law of cause and effect? O, if that's an assumption, its certainly an assumption I don't mind living with, thanks.

PhysicsQED: And again, no it does not logically follow that because something is said to be expanding it has to necessarily be expanding into something else. That is just incorrect.

Really? So its expanding into nothingness? Does nothingness exist?

Can you kindly summarize your position into one line or at best a paragraph?

Deep Sight:

Really? So its expanding into nothingness? Does nothingness exist?

Can you kindly summarize your position into one line or at best a paragraph?

This idea implied by this argument is fallacious. It implies that there is something spatial about nothingness and that therefore nothingness is something that can be expanded into. Once again it is totally unnecessary to posit the existence of something external to the universe to talk about its expansion.

To summarize, what I'm saying is that there is no evidence (actual experimental evidence) that there is anything outside of the universe. Basically the universe is all that there is, though I am not making claims about whether there are or are not any special/extraordinary attributes to it beyond what we can observe, such as an entity or guiding principle of the universe that influences the rules/guidelines for how the universe is to exist.

PhysicsQED:

This idea implied by this argument is fallacious. It implies that there is something spatial about nothingness and that therefore nothingness is something that can be expanded into. Once again it is totally unnecessary to posit the existence of something external to the universe to talk about its expansion.

To summarize, what I'm saying is that there is no evidence (actual experimental evidence) that there is anything outside of the universe. Basically the universe is all that there is, though I am not making claims about whether there are or are not any special/extraordinary attributes to it beyond what we can observe, such as an entity or guiding principle of the universe that influences the rules/guidelines for how the universe is to exist.

Come on man, I must say, you are too 'scientific' to the point of hogwash. Deepsight is making more sense here. Don't tell me that there is no evidence that there is anything outside the universe. This is simple logic; we don't need evidence for this. Because if there isn't anything outside the Universe (as we rightly don't know), what then is there - nothing? Fair enough. Was this 'nothing' there before the Big Bang? Obviously. Well, did this 'nothing' negate the existence of Time. This is where definitions of Time get ridiculous.
Let's not get scientific to the point we don't make simple sense. You have been arguing that Time couldn't have existed before the Big Bang - Claptrap. This is like the 'If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear it, does it make a sound?' riddle.
Because the Universe didn't exist then, doesn't mean that that metaphysical entity in which events unfold at some point (Time) didn't exist. Because Light, matter or scientists were not there to observe or measure it doesn't negate its existence. That, I think is Deepsight's idea of Layman's time.
So, no. There obviously was either Something or Nothing before the Big Bang..common sense and logic tells us that. If there was something, what was it? If there was nothing? From whence did all the matter in that singularity spring from? These are the valid points to debate and not the 'no Time before the big bang' hogwash.

comnsense:

Come on man, I must say, you are too 'scientific' to the point of hogwash. Deepsight is making more sense here. Don't tell me that there is no evidence that there is anything outside the universe. This is simple logic; we don't need evidence for this. Because if there isn't anything outside the Universe (as we rightly don't know), what then is there - nothing? Fair enough. Was this 'nothing' there before the Big Bang? Obviously. Well, did this 'nothing' negate the existence of Time. This is where definitions of Time get ridiculous.
Let's not get scientific to the point we don't make simple sense. You have been arguing that Time couldn't have existed before the Big Bang - Claptrap. This is like the 'If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear it, does it make a sound?' riddle.
Because the Universe didn't exist then, doesn't mean that that metaphysical entity in which events unfold at some point (Time) didn't exist. Because Light, matter or scientists were not there to observe or measure it doesn't negate its existence. That, I think is Deepsight's idea of Layman's time.
So, no. There obviously was either Something or Nothing before the Big Bang..common sense and logic tells us that. If there was something, what was it? If there was nothing? From whence did all the matter in that singularity spring from? These are the valid points to debate and not the 'no Time before the big bang' hogwash.

The implications for the lack of time is that we are deprived of a past prior to the Big Ban.g. Seeking a Cause for the Big Ban.g ignores the lack of a timeline. The tree analogy doesn't fit here, the focus here isn't on human observation.

I believe matter is in an ever flux, constant change of form, but the substance remains the same. The singularity was basically the Universe in a nutshell, the singularity explains the Universe.

comnsense:

Come on man, I must say, you are too 'scientific' to the point of hogwash. Deepsight is making more sense here. Don't tell me that there is no evidence that there is anything outside the universe. This is simple logic; we don't need evidence for this. Because if there isn't anything outside the Universe (as we rightly don't know), what then is there - nothing? Fair enough. Was this 'nothing' there before the Big Bang? Obviously. Well, did this 'nothing' negate the existence of Time. This is where definitions of Time get ridiculous.
Let's not get scientific to the point we don't make simple sense. You have been arguing that Time couldn't have existed before the Big Bang - Claptrap. This is like the 'If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear it, does it make a sound?' riddle.
Because the Universe didn't exist then, doesn't mean that that metaphysical entity in which events unfold at some point (Time) didn't exist. Because Light, matter or scientists were not there to observe or measure it doesn't negate its existence. That, I think is Deepsight's idea of Layman's time.
So, no. There obviously was either Something or Nothing before the Big Bang..common sense and logic tells us that. If there was something, what was it? If there was nothing? From whence did all the matter in that singularity spring from? These are the valid points to debate and not the 'no Time before the big bang' hogwash.

Excellent! However, do not accept everything you read here as scientific or real science. Most of what people say concerning this topic are mere speculations.
However Deepsight's position is based on known and observerble ideas. Even if one calls his position mere speculation, it is speculation based on the reality we have observed around us. The reality that unfolds before us everyday.
What bits me is how people disregard this reality in their speculation about the origin of time and the universe, and yet maintain that the laws of physics are immutable.
Its funny how this basic cornerstone of science is quickly disregarded when it points to the possibility of something beyond the universe, or that something may have exsisted before the universe.
Hence I stayed away from this thread.

Kay 17:

The implications for the lack of time is that we are deprived of a past prior to the Big Ban.g. Seeking a Cause for the Big Ban.g ignores the lack of a timeline. The tree analogy doesn't fit here, the focus here isn't on human observation.

I believe matter is in an ever flux, constant change of form, but the substance remains the same. The singularity was basically the Universe in a nutshell, the singularity explains the Universe.

By the same token, the implication of what you wrote here is that the universe have always exsisted in one form or another. It exsisted in a different form before the big bang and hence the big bang is only a stage in the development or unfolding of the universe and not the beginning. If so, why do you guys always try to find the beginning or birth of any component of the universe in the big bang? Who do you guys use the big bang to challenge creationists? In reality the big bang has nothing to do with the origin of the universe or anything in the universe!

justcool:

By the same token, the implication of what you wrote here is that the universe have always exsisted in one form or another. It exsisted in a different form before the big bang and hence the big bang is only a stage in the development or unfolding of the universe and not the beginning. If so, why do you guys always try to find the beginning or birth of any component of the universe in the big bang? Who do you guys use the big bang to challenge creationists? In reality the big bang has nothing to do with the origin of the universe or anything in the universe!

That's if we see zero difference btw the singularity and the Universe in its present state.

Kay 17:

That's if we see zero difference btw the singularity and the Universe in its present state.

It doesn't matter. The bottom line is that a change of state doesn't imply the birth of the object or system that changed state. Otherwise one can say that ice melting to liquid implies the beginning or coming into existence of water.

^^^

True. The universe can be broken down to matter

comnsense:

Come on man, I must say, you are too 'scientific' to the point of hogwash. Deepsight is making more sense here. Don't tell me that there is no evidence that there is anything outside the universe. This is simple logic; we don't need evidence for this. Because if there isn't anything outside the Universe (as we rightly don't know), what then is there - nothing? Fair enough. Was this 'nothing' there before the Big Bang? Obviously. Well, did this 'nothing' negate the existence of Time. This is where definitions of Time get ridiculous.
Let's not get scientific to the point we don't make simple sense. You have been arguing that Time couldn't have existed before the Big Bang - Claptrap. This is like the 'If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear it, does it make a sound?' riddle.
Because the Universe didn't exist then, doesn't mean that that metaphysical entity in which events unfold at some point (Time) didn't exist. Because Light, matter or scientists were not there to observe or measure it doesn't negate its existence. That, I think is Deepsight's idea of Layman's time.
So, no. There obviously was either Something or Nothing before the Big Bang..common sense and logic tells us that. If there was something, what was it? If there was nothing? From whence did all the matter in that singularity spring from? These are the valid points to debate and not the 'no Time before the big bang' hogwash.

Everything you wrote here has already been addressed by me. I do not intend to repeat myself on a thread where my positions on this issue are already there to be read just a few posts above. It would be a waste of time. Clearly what I wrote went way over your head. Anyway, a discussion on the origin of the universe and the nature of time is not a mere "ordinary common sense" discussion but one of the most significant questions about existence that a person can ponder over. A person might have to do some actual hard thinking and discard some unsupported assumptions when discussing that issue instead of just relying on naive assumptions. Later.

Hmmm. PhysicsQED. Justcool. KAG. Plaetton.
Are you guys still on these boards. I only know Plaetton still is. The rest of you?
Quite a discussion we had here.

I dey here o.

Where's everyone ?