time big bang

Unless one is using a different sense of "cause" than is used to describe the physical world, e.g. a "teleological cause," then one is misusing the word, and naturally this ends in nonsense. In the horizon of discourse about the physical world, the word is only meaningful in the temporal "cause-effect" relationship between two events; to use it to describe either events completely outside of the physical world, or with one "event" outside of it, is to use it wrongly.

According to cosmological theories. The big bang (BB) is either
1. a non-event,
or
2 A event with t=0.

There is a difficulty with (2). On the one hand it seems to imply: "First there was no universe, then there was a universe", but on the other hand it denies the existence of time before BB. If there was no prior time, there was never 'no universe'. Does it follow that, in some sense, the universe has 'always' existed?

Thinking about this more deeply, I wonder if a distinction can be made between 'chronological' time (in which BB happened, say, 14 billion years ago) and 'real' or 'experiencible' time (in which it happened infinitely long ago, i.e. it has always lain in the past). In other words, as one traces history back to the minus-14-billion year mark, equal chronological intervals contain a greater and greater number of events, so that no backward description of a physical sequence will ever lead all the way back to the BB itself.

I am not a scientist, and this is pure speculation on my part, but I would be interested in anyone's views on this.

Thats like saying you cant say when i started this post.Common sense tells you that even if you continually describe time as a smaller and smaller amount it does not say it never had a start.By observation the BB was the event that caused all other events.The buck starts there.

The 'start' of something implies a temporal boundary between its non-existence and its existence. No such boundary is possible if there is no prior time. How can the BB have 'happened' (as an 'event') if there was no existing timeframe for it to happen in?

If "cause" is a loaded word, then so is time. We only know time as a succession of "events" in the rubric of past-present-future. And if we confine the use of the word to appropriate horizons, we understand it, and it has meaning.

In other words, as one traces history back to the minus-14-billion year mark, equal chronological intervals contain a greater and greater number of events, so that no backward description of a physical sequence will ever lead all the way back to the BB itself.

"First there was no universe, then there was a universe", but on the other hand it denies the existence of time before BB. If there was no prior time, there was never 'no universe'. Does it follow that, in some sense, the universe has 'always' existed?

"Thinking about this more deeply, I wonder if a distinction can be made between 'chronological' time (in which BB happened, say, 14 billion years ago) and 'real' or 'experiencible' time (in which it happened infinitely long ago, i.e. it has always lain in the past). In other words, as one traces history back to the minus-14-billion year mark, equal chronological intervals contain a greater and greater number of events, so that no backward description of a physical sequence will ever lead all the way back to the BB itself.

I am not a scientist, and this is pure speculation on my part, but I would be interested in anyone's views on this.

Namely, how does one make sense of the relationship between V and BB without time. With time, there is temporal ordering. That is, events can happen "later than". There is not "later than" or "before" for V and BB.

General relativity has the concept of space time. No space, No time.
Also the notion of simultaneous and of the fixed nature of time are addressed, both depend on the frame of reference of the observer.
One has to have process, to have change, to have time. There is no meaning to the concept of time apart from a changing world.

I think we experience this every night while sleeping. No temporal order. No sense of time. No sense of space. And no beginning or end - while we are asleep. I believe this was the state of being prior to consciousness (mind) creating physical reality.

Rich

I don` t think consciousness create reality. People have some mystery thing to say about time, but i see time as ordering of events. Even events in you dream, there would be sequences of images, thus, time.

It would be interesting to hear what others experience in dreams. First, I do not feel any time passing between the time I fall asleep and the time I awake. During sleep, I do see images, but in no set order and certainly the overall experience does not have any sense of time as it does during the awake state.

The qualitative differences between the two states of being are pretty apparent - at least to me. Asleep and awake are not at all alike in my personal experiences. However, the significance of this fantastic state switch is not clear. But I think the overall experience is as close as we can get to understanding life without time or space.

If anyone experiences similar states in asleep state and awake state, I would be very interested in hearing. My experiences are that they are nothing alike. While we might wonder what it is like to be in a nothing state, I think sleep gives us plenty of clues. But maybe it is too obvious which is why there is very little discussion about it.

Rich

There is something called a stream of consciousness. At each moment, you have precisely one thought. The set of thoughts would be ordered. Thus, there is time.

There is something called a stream of consciousness. At each moment, you have precisely one thought. The set of thoughts would be ordered. Thus, there is time.

Yes, I agree. And you would need to be aware of one thought/image following another (even if in a random or illogical way) in order to experience a dream as such. Otherwise it would be like watching a still image.

In fact, even the experience of a still image implies the passing of time, because you are aware that the image has not changed from one moment to the next.

There may be time for you but there is absolutely no time for me. No sense of time whatsoever. It seems like we are having different experiences during the sleep state. I certainly do not feel any difference when I wake up between a 2 hour sleep or a 10 hour sleep, other than feeling tire or something which has nothing to do with time.

Rich

On the one hand, you might actually experience the flow of events in your dream, and when you wake up, you forgot it all except the most memoriable part of your dream. Thus, you feel shorter time.

Secondly, we usually experience the flow of events only in our consciousness, but since you do not have consciousness when are sleeping. Thus, you do not experience the flow of events.

Thirdly, what you experience might not be true. This is similar to people looking at the world, and see only one color. What you see, and experience might not be what is actually the case.

I might, since I only remember dreams when I am awake. When I am asleep, I am experiencing them. But I also leave open the possibility that there are all kinds of things going on when I am asleep that I do not remember when I am awake. Suffice to say, that the way the mind conceives of sleep and dreams is completely different than what it conceives as being awake - and that is extraordinary enough for me.



However, I certainly feel like I am conscious. Sometimes as an observer. Sometimes as a participant. Sometimes .. well all kinds of abstract stuff that has nothing to do with space/time. Yet, it is all the same mind (or as I call it consciousness) that is doing it, since at the time it seems real. It is really crazy stuff.

Absolutely, since unlike when I am awake there are no other minds/consciousness observing stuff with me and with whom I can communicate and form a consensus agreement on what we are all experiencing.

But no matter which way you cut it, it is all kind of wacky - the whole awake/sleep experiencing and going into one and then out to the other. I am just totally shocked that so little has been discussed about this incredible phenomenon. Not even Jung discussed it as far as I could determine.

Rich