Subj : The universe            4
To   : DAVE OLDRIDGE
From : TODD HENSON
Date : Mon Dec 18 2000 06:53 pm

> TH> > TH> Nobody seems to care to comment (not that they need to) on my Zen
> stories
> TH> I
> TH> > TH> posted, perhaps
> TH> > TH> the bicker-mongers are still only interested in bickering (as has
> been
> TH> > TH> evidenced recently). So, I
> TH> > TH> thought I'd dig up an older topic that might be looked at afresh.
> TH> >
> TH> > TH> I'm not quite sure why people find it so meaningless to speak of
> "before"
> TH> > TH> the big bang. By the
> TH> >
> TH> > It's mathematically in the same category as "north" of the north pole.
> TH> > As Hawking points out, you can normalize the whole picture by treating
> TH> > time (as we measure it) as an imaginary quantity (in the mathematical
> TH> > sense).  The singularity at t=0 then simply becomes a point on a
> TH> > hypersurface, special largely because of the coordinate system used 
(but
> also
> 
> TH> > because the universe expands from it).
> 
> 
> TH> The issue is not as simple as mathematics. That doesn't really answer 
much.
> 
> It does, however, define the SHAPE of the universe.  And in either case 
> there is no solution where t < 0 is true.


That isn't even responsive to the context of the original premise. The
current scope of your vision 
simply isn't sufficient to take into account the implications of saying the
universe had a 
beginning. Offering short quips like "t < 0" doesn't answer the questions.


> TH> > TH> very fact that they say the universe had a *beginning*, it 
introduces
> the
> TH> > TH> question of "before" the
> TH> > TH> big bang, because there was SOMETHING before it which gave it
> existencem,
> TH> > TH> whether it be a
> TH> > TH> quantum fluctuation, God, moldy cheese, or whatever. They seem to
> assume
> TH> > TH> that the only
> TH> > TH> temporal reality in existence is the one that was created along 
with
> our
> TH> > TH> space.
> TH> >
> TH> > This is a failure to understand the math.  There is no need for there
> TH> > to be a t=-1 any more than there is a need for a REAL solution to 
X^2+1=0
> 
> 
> TH> This is a failure to understand the proper scope of the issue.
> 
> No, it is not.  You are trying to bend your mind around the possibility 


Yes, it is.


> that there is a time (t=0) before which there are no other times.  This 
> is difficult for the human mind which never really has any experience 
> of timelessness because once IN time all things are subject to the 
> entropy increase by which we measure time.


Yes, I understand that. But the fact remains that if the universe did not
always exist, if it came 
into being by something else, then it is perfectly valid to speak of that
which came before it.


> TH> > TH> Even science rejects that. For one, many a scientist theorize that
> there
> TH> > TH> are MANY different
> TH> > TH> expanses of space-time that were created in many big bangs. These
> TH> universes
> TH> > TH> are seemingly
> TH> > TH> separate from ours. Even though these different universes (if they
> even
> TH> > TH> exist) might not explain
> TH> > TH> the origin of our own, the concept of other temporal frames of
> reference
> TH> > TH> outside THIS space-time
> TH> > TH> continuum is a valid one.
> TH> >
> TH> > TH> So if our universe had a beginning, then something had to come 
before
> it
> TH> to
> TH> > TH> initiate the action
> TH> > TH> which made the universe. Now perhaps that primordial temporal 
context
> TH> might
> TH> >
> TH> > Perhaps, but not necessarily.  Something may will produce it from
> TH> > altogether outside and be effecting it now as well as at the beginning
> (and I
> 
> TH> > did not misspell the verb back there).
> 
> TH> Yes, necessarily. By definition. A thing cannot create itself, therefore
> TH> something had to exist in
> TH> order to cause the universe's creation. I don't understand how your 
outside
> TH> source comment
> TH> disagrees with that.
> 
> No, something HAS (not had) to exist.  But not IN time (or at least not 
> in our timelike dimension or subject to its entropy).


So your saying that whatever the Origin of the universe is (was, whatever),
then it doesn't 
necessarily exist in a linear temporal mode like our universe does. Fine.
That sounds great. I 
even hinted at that earlier at some point. And that agrees with what I have
been saying, that the 
Origin of the universe has always existed, will always exist, and it came
BEFORE our universe. 
It may exist in a temporal state altogether different from our own, but it
still can be said to come 
BEFORE our universe, because our space-time continuum has not always
existed, yet the 
Origin HAS. Rather than saying the Origin always existed and always will,
you could simply 
say "It exists". Yes, I understand.


> TH> > TH> not operate the
> TH> > TH> same way that ours does. Maybe it's even non-linear. But it seems
> awful
> TH> > TH> contradictory for a
> TH> > TH> person to speak of a created universe yet deny any discussion as to
> what
> TH> > TH> brought it into
> TH> > TH> existence BEFORE it existed.
> TH> >
> TH> > Gen 1
> TH> > In the beginning the God is creating the world.  Present tense!
> 
> 
> TH> I don't know why you're bringing the Bible into this. It's not necessary.
> TH> At least quote it properly
> TH> if you do.
> 
> I am.  Quoting it properly.  The passage is habitually mistranslated 
> from the original Hebrew.


You are not quoting it properly.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-5016 (1:10/345)

.