06 Oct '08 17:57>
Originally posted by knightmeisterBut it was your conclusion. You appear to be confusing even yourself.
Event B cannot preceed itself as that would be paradoxical.
Originally posted by FabianFnasIt is within the domain of science until proven otherwise. In other words the fact that we currently do not know, does not rule out the possibility of knowing.
Is this science at all? Or is it outside the domain of science? Is it possible ever to get an answer of this question, of these kinds of questions?
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis was what I said........
But it was your conclusion. You appear to be confusing even yourself.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy not? If the beginning of time is an event then it must have logically not occurred in time.
No
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou clearly misunderstood my question.
This was what I said........
If we say that nothing can happen outside of time or there is no such thing as a timeless state then its the same as saying that event B has to occur before event B can occur --which is of course a logical paradox
.....why is that not consistent with my other remarks? I don't think event B can precede event B any more than you do.
Originally posted by knightmeister… Therefore , the event B (the beginning of time) did not occur in time but in some timeless STATE? ..…
“Been around” at what time? There is no evidence that time exists in some other kind of time.----hammy------------
Therefore , the event B (the beginning of time) did not occur in time but in some timeless state? Time itself must exist without the need of time to "exist in" . However , you have claimed in the past that nothing can exist or occur ou ...[text shortened]... it not? But event B must be an exception to this rule otherwise time would have never begun.
Originally posted by knightmeisterThis is why I have repeatedly asked you to define what you mean by 'event'. If you mean 'a variation in the energy or matter content at a specific point in space over time', then the beginning of the universe was not an event. If you are using it more loosely as in 'the point in spacetime that we are talking about' then your argument fails.
Why not? If the beginning of time is an event then it must have logically not occurred in time.
The only way out of this is to say that event B is not an event as such.
If so what exactly is the beginning of time? What do we mean if we say that time has a beginning?
Originally posted by knightmeister… And did this beginning occur at a point in time?..…
.................but there certainly was no fraction of a Planks time after the big bang. -either way, the universe had a “beginning”.
-------hammy--------------
And did this beginning occur at a point in time?
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton2, Why would “time” need some other “time to begin? -that would imply that time must exists in some other kind of time and there is no evidence for that.-----------hammy-----
[b]… Therefore , the event B (the beginning of time) did not occur in time but in some timeless STATE? ..…
1, when did this “STATE” exist?
2, Why would “time” need some other “time to begin? -that would imply that time must exists in some other kind of time and there is no evidence for that.
… Time itself must exist without the ne ...[text shortened]... to as “event B” is the beginning of time -yes -that is what I have been saying all the long.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI am using your logic here not mine. I don't think time is needed for anything NOR do I think it exists in reality.
[b]… And did this beginning occur at a point in time?..…
When you say “beginning” are you referring to the beginning of time or the beginning of the universe?
-if you mean the beginning of time then because, as you yourself said, “Time itself must exist without the need of time to "exist in". ” , it did not began at a point in some other ...[text shortened]... this universe or are you referring to an existence of a “point in time” outside this universe?[/b]
Originally posted by knightmeister… Are you NOW saying that only some things need a point in time to exist in and others can exist (or begin) without any need of time?..…
2, Why would “time” need some other “time to begin? -that would imply that time must exists in some other kind of time and there is no evidence for that.-----------hammy-----
But it was you was it not who claimed that to talk about what came before the universe had no meaning because nothing can exist outside of time.
But if time can exist (or b ...[text shortened]... hings need a point in time to exist in and others can exist (or begin) without any need of time?
Originally posted by knightmeisterno
I am using your logic here not mine. I don't think time is needed for anything NOR do I think it exists in reality.
It's you that has always seemed obseesed with time as a way of disputing any posiiton I put forward. You seemed to be saying that nothing can exist or occurr unless it occurs at a point in time , are you going back on this now?
Originally posted by twhiteheadOk , so what else could the beginning of time be? (and why do many scientists seem to refer to the Big bang as an event , are they wrong?)
This is why I have repeatedly asked you to define what you mean by 'event'. If you mean 'a variation in the energy or matter content at a specific point in space over time', then the beginning of the universe was not an event. If you are using it more loosely as in 'the point in spacetime that we are talking about' then your argument fails.
So lets just say that it was not an event. What now?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonOk , in your view , nothing can exist or occur unless it occurs at a point in time right?
no