time big bang

Your refusal to accept that no given laws are adequate to describe the bb is the big problem. You will not answer my questions but continue to say they are silly. Ive been trying to tell you we cant have nothing, its the only way i can try to explain, if you have an event without a visible cause, what does that infer? I will ask again when do we ever see an event without a cause? Chains of causal events are never witnessed and this universe shows no sign of given birth to an equal in size universe.

Your refusal to accept that no given laws are adequate to describe the bb is the big problem.

You will not answer my questions but continue to say they are silly.

Ive been trying to tell you we can`t have nothing, its the only way i can try to explain,

if you have an event without a visible cause, what does that infer?

I will ask again when do we ever see an event without a cause?

Chains of causal events are never witnessed and this universe shows no sign of given birth to an equal in size universe.

Im ready for anyone to make a proposal that would discount my thinking but none seem to be available for scrutiny. I have asked for the best proposal but got a meek reply about energy that spontaneously appears from nowhere, it appeared to support my thinking.

I would assume that this science demands that you can not loose energy, it only changes its expression. If that is the case you could not inherit part of one universe and leave a bit behind or it would be visible. Bits of universes left behind for us to observe?

Can you give me your views on why there is nothing observable before this universe, any idea would be good.

Im ready for anyone to make a proposal that would discount my thinking but none seem to be available for scrutiny. I have asked for the best proposal but got a meek reply about energy that spontaneously appears from nowhere, it appeared to support my thinking.

.

I would assume that this science demands that you can not loose energy, it only changes its expression. If that is the case you could not inherit part of one universe and leave a bit behind or it would be visible. Bits of universes left behind for us to observe?

Can you give me your views on why there is nothing observable before this universe, any idea would be good

Im ready for anyone to make a proposal that would discount my thinking but none seem to be available for scrutiny. I have asked for the best proposal but got a meek reply about energy that spontaneously appears from nowhere, it appeared to support my thinking.

I would assume that this science demands that you can not loose energy, it only changes its expression. If that is the case you could not inherit part of one universe and leave a bit behind or it would be visible. Bits of universes left behind for us to observe?

Can you give me your views on why there is nothing observable before this universe, any idea would be good.

Laws of physics began at the Planck time? How did that happen?

Answer: They are applicable at time intervals greater than the Planck time and they can explain events after 10 to the minus 43 seconds. They are not applicable at time intervals shorter than the Planck time. The laws of physics break down and can't be used beyond 10 to the minus 43 seconds. There is no minus 44 seconds -what happens is the singularity.

Are you sure it is infinite? Really? Do we use transfinite numbers or what?

Answer: There are a few books I'd recommend: John Gribbins "In Search of the Big Bang," Stephen Hawkings "A Brief History of Time," and there's another book which I've just let a friend borrow and I've forgotten the author's name but "A Natural History of the Universe," all speak about the singularity as a zero condition of spacetime with infinite density ... and it comes out of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. I'm not a cosmologist of physicist, but I'll give them credit for knowing what they're talking about.

Sorry, but i did not call anyone stupid. I called an idea stupid. And yes, in philosophy, intuition is very important, and certain intuition is more important than anything.

Answer: The intuition that compels the deduction that all things have begun from a state approximating (not equaling) a total void is the intuition that begs the question regarding origin. There is no condition other beginning that does not beg the question.

I haven't presented my 'causal argument' which is a valid solution to Immanuel Kant, but it will be intended for members of this forum who show respect for the ideas of other members.

You say: Second off. No, you are not allow to move all the way back in the deduction because our physical theory breaks down. Get it?

I say: This is a philosophy forum. This thread is 'metaphysics.' Metaphysics can move all the way back. We're not in a physics forum here. Get it?


You say: Why? maybe because you never study anything beyond basic physics, but as you study more physics, you notice that even basic theories have their domain of applicability. I can have an equation that describes how the forces relates to the distence between masses, but the equation tell you to divide by zero onces you have the two mass touch. Our theory is beautiful, and predictive, but it is wrong, because in reality, nothing goes to infinity or else we all die.

I say: I thought you we're opposed to anyone using such big terms as 'infinity.' Now how do you get off? You have some 'infinity' credentials conferred on to you by some hairbrained physics professor?


You say: Sorry, but saying it is the "void" , "non-condition", or the "ultimate" does not make it less stupid. What you mean might be "there is no state of affair for time=0". Perhaps, you want to make it profound by giving it a fancy name, and by making it completely absurd to wow me. If so, then you really impress me with the absurd part.

I say: It's amazing you can be impressed by anything.

You say: Curious, but where does this coming out of "chaos" mean? What theory, equation do you use? Where did this idea come from?

I say: If the bb was not a chaotic state of materials moving at great speeds within a highly compressed ball of fire, then what was it? Ordered? I suppose to an extent, yes, it could be ordered.

You say: but an argument needs to be 1) valid, and 2) the premise need to be true.

You don` t have a deductive struture, so you don` t have 1 as far as i can tell.

You don ` t have 2, because all your premises are falses.

I say: I haven't presented my whole argument, so no need to tear it apart before you know anything.

You say: The universe started in planct time? No

I say: No, I didn't say it did.

You say: The bb is when things get to infinity? No

I say, No, I didn't say this either.

You say: The laws of physics began at some point ? no.

I say: Yes they did ... at the Planck time they begin to be applicable. Prior to the Planck time, they break down ... they're useless. Get it?

You say: The universe started in chaos? very "mystical", but no.

I say: There's a thing called 'chaos theory.' The people who hold to it would disagree with you better than I can.

You say: You are not even doing philosophy. You know why?

I say: Yes Great Master Teacher of Philosophy and All Things Good and Noble. Tell me Great Sir. Let me know. I'm so stupid and you're so Supremely Wise. Do tell Master.

You say: I read academic philosophy papers, and the style and rigor that is being put in is impressive. The modern era is dominated by philosophy in the analytic tradition, and focus on clear by precise thinking. I don` t see the rigor , or attention to detail reflected in your writing. In fact, you write like you know nothing about modern philosophy.

you are a joke at times, the uncertain reasons for atomic decay gives you authority to answer my question, oh my..

Its not known, its also not known why the bb appears from knowhere, it does not prove your view.

For the ummmmfteen time just tell me why we can have a certain nothing and we dont see a progressive causal event such as the bb.

Your waffling again and refusing to answer my questions. Just speak up and give me your best proposal for the BB having a cause.

They are applicable at time intervals greater than the Planck time and they can explain events after 10 to the minus 43 seconds. They are not applicable at time intervals shorter than the Planck time. The laws of physics break down and can't be used beyond 10 to the minus 43 seconds. There is no minus 44 seconds -what happens is the singularity.

Answer: There are a few books I'd recommend: John Gribbins "In Search of the Big Bang," Stephen Hawkings "A Brief History of Time," and there's another book which I've just let a friend borrow and I've forgotten the author's name but "A Natural History of the Universe," all speak about the singularity as a zero condition of spacetime with infinite density ... and it comes out of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. I'm not a cosmologist of physicist, but I'll give them credit for knowing what they're talking about.

Answer: The intuition that compels the deduction that all things have begun from a state approximating (not equaling) a total void is the intuition that begs the question regarding origin. There is no condition other beginning that does not beg the question.

I haven't presented my 'causal argument' which is a valid solution to Immanuel Kant, but it will be intended for members of this forum who show respect for the ideas of other members.

This is a philosophy forum. This thread is 'metaphysics.' Metaphysics can move all the way back. We're not in a physics forum here. Get it?

I thought you we're opposed to anyone using such big terms as 'infinity.' Now how do you get off? You have some 'infinity' credentials conferred on to you by some hairbrained physics professor?

I say: If the bb was not a chaotic state of materials moving at great speeds within a highly compressed ball of fire, then what was it? Ordered? I suppose to an extent, yes, it could be ordered.

I say: Yes they did ... at the Planck time they begin to be applicable. Prior to the Planck time, they break down ... they're useless. Get it?

There's a thing called 'chaos theory.' The people who hold to it would disagree with you better than I can.

I say: Analytic philosophy sucks.

And: The modern era of philosophy has no use for metaphysics, and so I have no use for the modern tradition of philosophy which has abandoned speculative philosophy and metaphysics.

Never mind the bloody universe. Why the hell are you here?

Nothing could escape no time no space, so if no space nor time could escape, it was nothing. I then ask what is nothing? everything could be nothing if it became everything. .

Exactly the point i have made on several occassions Alan . The view of that singularity in real terms was that it was nothing. Nothing could escape no time no space, so if no space nor time could escape, it was nothing. I then ask what is nothing? everything could be nothing if it became everything. As you ask again, why did it appear at that moment ? if time commenced at that moment, then it has nothing to relate its time to, so its not a relevant question.

When we see something why can we not believe it? Every objection to my proposal is just as wild just as mysterious but because it takes its logic from observation it appears some how stupid.

The question is a metaphysical one, though some might argue. I think where physics leaves off (the singularity) is where metaphysics begins (if we speak of a regression of events ... before the big bang). It may seem illogical to speak of an event before the big bang ... thought to be the beginning of time; but here is where I think critical thinking and philosophy are left as our only tools. There is no science, because science deals with observed, concrete realities. The singularity, or the condition/noncondition from which the bb was triggered, was a zero condition of spacetime, with infinite density. This begs the question: From where this infinite density?

Something else to think about: Evolution regresses to ever simpler and simpler forms, regressing backwards in time. The universe decreases to an ever smaller volume the further back in time we go.

So my best shot is this: The infinite density contained in zero spacetime regresses priori to the big bang to a less dense/intense mass through a series of expanding and contracting stages, all the way back to a point approximating most closely, nothing at all.

At least this falls in line with what we know: That is, that all things regress backwards to ever greater simplicity; so why not take this direction ... as pointed out by the evidence ... as far back as our reasoning allows and postulate that alll things began from a state approximating most closely, nothing at all.

This then begs the question: Is this state truly equivalent to a 'nothing' from which only 'nothing' follows?

I'd say no. It must amount to something more from which the series followed forward in time, towards greater and greater complexity.

What I think is lacking in so much of the argument back and forth in this thread is one noteworthy feature of our universe ... even evolutionary theory depends upon it ... and it is that this regression back in time towards greater simplicity is the most telling feature of all, and it needs to be taken into account when speaking of an ultimate beginning to the universe, for this regression to further and further simplicity points back to just that: an ultimate beginning ... in which space, time, mass, and everything else is condensed/regressed back to some ultimate indivisible, unified state.

One other factor to consider: Isn't it our own innate tendency to press the question of origin as far as possible? If we begin with some condition, concrete or otherwise, can we beg the question as to the origin of that condition? If so, then isn't this innate need to press the question further an indication that we haven't really begun at an ultimate beginning? Our need to press the question points us back to the same conclusion: That the universe began from some state that, were we to come to terms with it in our understanding, would not leave us begging the question.

It appears then that the most logical point from which the universe must have begun, is nothing, for nothing does not leave us begging the question: From where this nothing?

The question then becomes: How do we define nothing?

Immanuel Kant dismisses here, any appeal to what he calls 'the magic wand of so-called common sense.'

He calls for a critical exercise of reason.

So is it possible to give nothing a critical definition that goes beyond the ordinary/practical definition of nothing?

I think it is, because if we take away all that exists, we are left with a condition that can rationally be defined as an infinite, indivisible, boundless state, and hence, as an Absolute state.

It is not nothing ... but it is an Absolute ... that we must come to terms with in our thinking.

This incidentally, is exactly where Hegel begins in his philosophy and his attempt to answer Kant. I know of no other philosopher other than Hegel who begins with the Absolute, and at least, attempts to give it further definition.

I believe Hegel was on the right track here. I think it must be the Absolute that somehow gives rise to everything that now exists.

What we lack, is the understanding of that process.

Any arguments?

at the time of the big bang and the singularity gravity was infinite.

What are you smoking? Strong stuff.

All is one. everything is nothing, and nohing is everything! Now i got it. The truth of the universe is 2+2=67!

hippie power to you!

So my dear pith taker, you tell me if all the mass that we see in the universe was to be condensed into what might be called a massive black hole, where no matter remained on the outside, what would you see? and if its going to be any number its 69..

So the bb is now a black hole? That sucks. :brickwall:

Did i say it was? I'm asking you question that it appears you are avoiding.

Most of what you write are sort of incoherent. You want me to answer you? You just need to ask a coherent question. I always have this feeling that you are completely emotional when you reply to me. What is that for? Calm your mind, and the words flow easily out.