Yet it's done and as I understand it the present majority favors the single event ending in dismal ballooning accelerating dispersion forever
this is only because we have a finite amount of time to look at, and extrapolate from. to us, it seems everything is expanding, and only random theories suggest it will ever stop, so let us just assume it will keep going infinitely.
this is the only problem with infinite. mathematically it is sound, but when you try and look at reality and say, oh well we have billions of years of evidence, let us just assume it will keep going to infinite...THAT is where the inaccuracy arises, in my opinion.
if something caused matter and time to exist, can it be said to happen 'at a time'? the mind can't conceive of it.
Mine can but as I intimate, it's pretty primitive
no, it can't, that is just the same as me, trying to imagine nothingness, and then something appearing in it, and of course, it seems to happen at a certain point in time, in imagination.
but, what i meant by the mind can't conceive it is that what we experience as 'mind' is a stream of thoughts, appearing sequentially in time. the experience of mind is already a product of the existence of space/time. so whatever you try and conceive with your mind, it cannot possibly be an understanding of the lack of existence of time, because a 'mind' would have to be non-existent also if time were non-existent.
see, time being non existent simply means eternal time. that is all it can mean. if a certain time period is finite, then you can call it time. if it is infinite, it is beyond time now, time doesn't exist anymore.
If we can speculate it as a kind of nothingness--zero diameter but infinite mss etc-- then we can assert it has zero duration, thereby comprising only a point in the infinite flow of time. Yes I know, it's full of all sorts of contradiction and paradox. But as to whether it's a "normal point"…..
again, my point above is relevant. if you accept infinite time, then time doesn't exist anymore. if you have an infinite field, then there is no possibility of a 'point' in that field being localised. you can only localise it with reference to another finite part of the field, but you cannot properly localise it with reference to the entire field, if the field is indeed infinite.
similarly, the big bang point represents the entirety of all possible existence, eternal time, infinite space, infinite mass.
To the contrary Car, it's my understand that it almost has to be finite. Otherwise how can we have a Big Bang or a Big Crunch
no. it seems to be finite according to what we have observed of it, but again as i said there is no hard evidence to prove it is not infinite. and again, if you accept my theory that the big bang point represents the entirety of potential existence, then it is certainly not a normal, single point in time, it is the eternal background of eternal time.
Do you suppose that "something beyond" to be God
there is no need to suppose this. god is another word, if we choose to define it as the ultimate thing, then yes, we can define it like that. or we can just call it ultimate reality, or ultimate truth, or 'nothingness/everythingness'. all these are just words, pointing to something beyond what we can imagine.
I can easily posit (though not view in minds' eye) a growing or shrinking mass constituting all there is or can be, again with nothing outside 'cause there simply isn't any outside
you say you can posit this, but your logic doesn't seem to follow it. if the shrinking mass is truly all there is or can be, and there is nothing outside it. now if it completely disappears. so now there is no more shrinking mass. and there is also no 'outside it', as you say you can easily posit. and yet, you still maintain that time would be going on in this scenario still, because you decide that if another 'repeat big bang' happened, you label it as a repeat, happening as another event in time.
again, we can all use words like nothingness, timeless, eternal, blah blah, but when i said the mind can't conceive it, i just mean these things are beyond what the mind is itself.
no two such "visible collections" are even remotely similar
…..a suggestion nobody has yet attempted to address
there is no maths which suggests that 2 visible collections of matter should be near identical due to chance, because the finite time scales we are able to observe are far too small.
now, in infinite time there would be infinite repeats and near repeats. but none of these repeats are happening in the same 'space'. because a single time line itself has infinite space. for example, if you take one particle, and give it infinite time, and the particle is moving, then you are guaranteed to use up infinite space also. therefore, repeat big bang's/universes can never happen within the same dimension.
i know you want to just imagine it all in one dimension, and its fine to do so, but it is not mathematically sound, in my opinion. i know it sounds like i am just using 'other dimensions' to explain it all away, but i'm not, i'm saying if you really look at the maths and science, you cannot say we have evidence to say that a repeat big bang and universe is possible within this space time continuum. therefore, if not possible, it is another dimension we are talking about.