beginning of time.... (a proof for eternity?)

Originally posted by knightmeister
Ok , in your view , nothing can exist or occur unless it occurs at a point in time right?

So how did time come to exist then? How did the beginning of time itself occur? Your logic dictates that there could not have been any pre-existing time in which the beginning of time could occur.

Do you have any thoughts on this?

… nothing can exist or occur unless it occurs at a point in time right?..…

Except space and time itself -yes -that what I have been repeatedly saying and you ignore.

-why can you not have the decency of at least acknowledging what I am actually saying?
-do you deny what I am saying what I am saying?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]… nothing can exist or occur unless it occurs at a point in time right?..…

Except space and time itself -yes -that what I have been repeatedly saying and you ignore.[/b]

I don't remember you saying this , but fair enough.

Ok , so you admit then that the idea that nothing can exist or occur unless it does so at a point in time is actually flawed because there is one exception to this rule (namely what I call event B)? You agree it's not a hard and fast rule with no exceptions?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I don't remember you saying this , but fair enough.

Ok , so you admit then that the idea that nothing can exist or occur unless it does so at a point in time is actually flawed because there is one exception to this rule (namely what I call event B)? You agree it's not a hard and fast rule with no exceptions?

… Ok , so you admit then that the idea that nothing can exist or occur unless it does so at a point in time is actually FLAWED because there is one exception to this rule (namely what I call event B)?
..…

If the exception is stated as part of the rule then the stated exception is not a FLAW because it is PART of the rule -yes? -therefore the answer to your question is “no” -it is not flawed.

… You agree it's not a hard and fast rule with no exceptions?.…

If you are referring to the rule:

“with the exception of time and space itself, nothing can exist nor begin without doing so in space and time”

The answer is no. I have already explained this to you on a number of previous posts.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]… Ok , so you admit then that the idea that nothing can exist or occur unless it does so at a point in time is actually FLAWED because there is one exception to this rule (namely what I call event B)?
..…

If the exception is stated as part of the rule then the stated exception is not a FLAW because it is PART of the rule -yes? -therefore ...[text shortened]... time”

The answer is no. I have already explained this to you on a number of previous posts.[/b]

You seem quite angry that I missed something , but I honestly don't remember you being this explicit about this issue.

So this rule (R) then only applies to things within the space time of the universe , yes? It is also not a constant rule in the sense that it doesn't apply to all things/events.

Now we are getting somewhere.One step at a time though.

So you agree then that if I am making statements about the origin of space/time or the universe itself the it's not really valid to invoke this rule because by your own words it doesn't apply to space/time?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Ok , 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?)

The way the Big Bnag is described (all that release of energy and rapid expansion , heat etc) one could certainly be forgiven for thinking that it was an event.

It was certainly quite an eventful non- event (LOL).

Now you are trying to set up a strawman.
What the scientists are referring to is the period after the initial point of the time dimension, and as there is massive changes to the amount of energy at any given point in spacetime, it clearly fulfills my definition of an event, or rather a large number of events.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Now you are trying to set up a strawman.
What the scientists are referring to is the period after the initial point of the time dimension, and as there is massive changes to the amount of energy at any given point in spacetime, it clearly fulfills my definition of an event, or rather a large number of events.

Ok , so the millisecond into the Big Bang was an event then?

To you the initial point in time was not an event? So how did t=0 go to t=0.000000000000000000000000000000001?

Did it happen "in time" or not in time in your opinion? Was there an eternal t=0 singularity that was in a frozen timeless state?

Originally posted by knightmeister
You seem quite angry that I missed something , but I honestly don't remember you being this explicit about this issue.

So this rule (R) then only applies to things within the space time of the universe , yes? It is also not a constant rule in the sense that it doesn't apply to all things/events.

Now we are getting somewhere.One step at a time t t really valid to invoke this rule because by your own words it doesn't apply to space/time?

…So you agree then that if I am making statements about the origin of space/time OR the universe itself the it's not really valid to invoke this rule because by your own words it doesn't apply to space/time?. …. (my emphasis)

You are deliberately tying to confuse the issue here because you are using the word “OR” in the above as if somehow you must either apply the same rule to BOTH space/time as to everything else that exists or NEITHER space/time as to everything else that exists -but, as this rule itself clearly states (reminder: “with the exception of time and space itself, nothing can exist nor begin without doing so in space and time” ) the rule is not supposed to apply to BOTH nor NEITHER but one and not the other. -obviously, it is NOT logically valid to invoke this rule to space/time but IS logically valid to invoke this rule to everything else that exists in the universe thus the “OR” in your above statement should be dropped.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Ok , so the millisecond into the Big Bang was an event then?

To you the initial point in time was not an event? So how did t=0 go to t=0.000000000000000000000000000000001?

Did it happen "in time" or not in time in your opinion? Was there an eternal t=0 singularity that was in a frozen timeless state?

…To you the initial point in time was not an event? So how did t=0 go to t=0.000000000000000000000000000000001? ….

-in the same way t=0.000000000000000000000000000000001 was followed by:
t=0.000000000000000000000000000000002

-that doesn’t change the fact that t=0 is NOT an event because, by definition of “event”, an “event” is some change that occurs in space/time and if there was no space/time before the universe because there was no “before” then in no sense there was a “change” because, by definition, a “change” must happen in space/time because "change" occurs over time and at a place.

… Did it happen "in time" or not in time in your opinion? …

Like me, he clearly doesn’t think that time exists "in" some other time -it just exists.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…So you agree then that if I am making statements about the origin of space/time OR the universe itself the it's not really valid to invoke this rule because by your own words it doesn't apply to space/time?. …. (my emphasis)

You are deliberately tying to confuse the issue here because you are using the word “OR” in the above as if somehow ...[text shortened]... hing else that exists in the universe thus the “OR” in your above statement should be dropped.[/b]

Ok fine , I think you are satlling for time here , but consider the "or" dropped. Now can we move on.......here's the question re-phrased in the way you wanted it.


So you agree then that if I am making statements about the origin of space/time itself then it's not really valid to invoke this rule because by your own words it doesn't apply to space/time?.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Ok fine , I think you are satlling for time here , but consider the "or" dropped. Now can we move on.......here's the question re-phrased in the way you wanted it.


So you agree then that if I am making statements about the origin of space/time itself then it's not really valid to invoke this rule because by your own words it doesn't apply to space/time?.

…So you agree then that if I am making statements about the origin of space/time itself then it's not really valid to invoke this rule because by your own words it doesn't apply to space/time?.
….

Correct.

Now what?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…To you the initial point in time was not an event? So how did t=0 go to t=0.000000000000000000000000000000001? ….

-in the same way t=0.000000000000000000000000000000001 was followed by:
t=0.000000000000000000000000000000002

-that doesn’t change the fact that t=0 is NOT an event because, by definition of “event”, an “event” is some cha ...[text shortened]...
Like me, he clearly doesn’t think that time exists "in" some other time -it just exists.[/b]

if there was no space/time before the universe because there was no “before” then in no sense there was a “change” because, by definition, a “change” must happen in space/time.

----------hammy-------------------------------

But there must have been a change because time began. If there was no change from t=0 to t=0.0000000000000001 then time would not have started. But time DID start in your opinion.

So in what point in time did time start?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…So you agree then that if I am making statements about the origin of space/time itself then it's not really valid to invoke this rule because by your own words it doesn't apply to space/time?.
….

Correct.

Now what?[/b]

Ok , so it's valid to say that space/time began from nothing for no reason.

Intially you said it was meaningless to talk about a "before" the Big Bang because there can be no "before" , you then implied that because there is no before (and therefore no time ) then nothing could exist or not exist because everything needs a point of time to exist in.

However , in doing this you invoked rule (R) as a hard and fast rule.

If we accept the rule (R) cannot logically be watertight without exception then we can also accept that asking what came "before" the Big Bang could actually be meaningful.

I'm basically hoisting you by your own petard. I am expecting much wriggling. Then again , you could just be honest and admit I have some sort of point.

Originally posted by knightmeister
if there was no space/time before the universe because there was no “before” then in no sense there was a “change” because, by definition, a “change” must happen in space/time.

----------hammy-------------------------------

But there must have been a change because time began. If there was no change from t=0 to t=0.0000000000000001 then time wou ...[text shortened]... ot have started. But time DID start in your opinion.

So in what point in time did time start?

…But there must have been a change because time began. ….

No -it “began” in the narrow sense that there exists a “beginning” of time but, because it did not “begin” in some “other time”, the mere existence of a “beginning” of time does not constitute some sort of “change” in condition.

… If there was NO change from t=0 to t=0.0000000000000001 then
…

Who suggested there was “NO change” from t=0 to t=0.0000000000000001 ?
-things change with time and within a given frame of reference, t=0 is a different point in time from t=0.0000000000000001 .

…So in what point in time did time start?.. …

-about 14 billion years ago -but that is not what you mean is it! What you mean is when did time begin within some other kind of time and I keep stating the fact that there is no evidence for “some other kind of time” that time is “in” thus you imply something in your question that has no premise.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…But there must have been a change because time began. ….

No -it “began” in the narrow sense that there exists a “beginning” of time but, because it did not “begin” in some “other time”, the mere existence of a “beginning” of time does not constitute some sort of “change” in condition.

… If there was NO change from t=0 to t=0.0000000 ...[text shortened]... r kind of time” that time is “in” thus you imply something in your question that has no premise.

But the point is that at the point in time t=0 there is no time , so how does time begin ? How does the beginning of time occur if there is not time for it to begin in?

Sure , time exists between points t=0 and t=0.00000000000001 but by then time has already begun. My point is - how does t=0 get to t=0.00001 in the first place?

If change can only occur in time then how did that change come about since t=0?

Originally posted by knightmeister
But there must have been a change because time began. If there was no change from t=0 to t=0.0000000000000001 then time would not have started. But time DID start in your opinion.

So in what point in time did time start?

There you go again, using a word (began in this case) then using the definition of the word to make a claim about something. Sorry, but that is just bad logic.
If 'began' means 'a special type of event' then no, time never 'began'.

From t=0 to t=0.0000000000000001 is a change in time with an accompanying change in energy, so that is an event. t=0 when taken in isolation is not an event, nor is there any t=-0.0000000000000001

But all this is merely your attempts at using wordplay to imply that there was a t=-0.0000000000000001. You will have to do better than word play. Come up with some logical argument or physical evidence or something more meaningful than attempting to prove something based on a label you have given it.