Subj : The universe 4 To : TODD HENSON From : DAVE OLDRIDGE Date : Thu Dec 21 2000 12:08 pm TH> > TH> > TH> Nobody seems to care to comment (not that they need to) on my Zen TH> > stories TH> > TH> I TH> > TH> > TH> posted, perhaps TH> > TH> > TH> the bicker-mongers are still only interested in bickering (as has TH> > been TH> > TH> > TH> evidenced recently). So, I TH> > TH> > TH> thought I'd dig up an older topic that might be looked at afresh. TH> > TH> > TH> > TH> > TH> I'm not quite sure why people find it so meaningless to speak of TH> > "before" TH> > TH> > TH> the big bang. By the TH> > TH> > TH> > TH> > It's mathematically in the same category as "north" of the north pole. TH> > TH> > As Hawking points out, you can normalize the whole picture by treating TH> > TH> > time (as we measure it) as an imaginary quantity (in the mathematical TH> > TH> > sense). The singularity at t=0 then simply becomes a point on a TH> > TH> > hypersurface, special largely because of the coordinate system used TH> (but TH> > also TH> > TH> > TH> > because the universe expands from it). TH> > TH> > TH> > TH> The issue is not as simple as mathematics. That doesn't really answer TH> much. TH> > TH> > It does, however, define the SHAPE of the universe. And in either case TH> > there is no solution where t < 0 is true. TH> That isn't even responsive to the context of the original premise. The TH> current scope of your vision TH> simply isn't sufficient to take into account the implications of saying the TH> universe had a TH> beginning. Offering short quips like "t < 0" doesn't answer the questions. That there is a beginning does not imply a "before the beginning." Both a beginng and a before are in time. The universe's beginning is only a beginning from inside it. From outside, it is just another point in the geometry...somewhat special like the north pole because of its unique position, but not remarkable for any other reason.... [snip] TH> > TH> > This is a failure to understand the math. There is no need for there TH> > TH> > to be a t=-1 any more than there is a need for a REAL solution to TH> X^2+1=0 TH> > TH> > TH> > TH> This is a failure to understand the proper scope of the issue. TH> > TH> > No, it is not. You are trying to bend your mind around the possibility TH> Yes, it is. How so? TH> > that there is a time (t=0) before which there are no other times. This TH> > is difficult for the human mind which never really has any experience TH> > of timelessness because once IN time all things are subject to the TH> > entropy increase by which we measure time. TH> Yes, I understand that. But the fact remains that if the universe did not TH> always exist, if it came TH> into being by something else, then it is perfectly valid to speak of that TH> which came before it. Not at all. Once more you are treating time as if it were an infinite, Euclidean dimension. There is no reason to believe it is and plenty of evidence that it is not. Euclidean space is very tempting, in that it coincides well with our basic perceptions. But it is an artificial construct and its rules can only be applied to REAL space-time with a lot of cautious corrections for the differences. TH> > TH> > TH> Even science rejects that. For one, many a scientist theorize that TH> > there TH> > TH> > TH> are MANY different TH> > TH> > TH> expanses of space-time that were created in many big bangs. These TH> > TH> universes TH> > TH> > TH> are seemingly TH> > TH> > TH> separate from ours. Even though these different universes (if they TH> > even TH> > TH> > TH> exist) might not explain TH> > TH> > TH> the origin of our own, the concept of other temporal frames of TH> > reference TH> > TH> > TH> outside THIS space-time TH> > TH> > TH> continuum is a valid one. TH> > TH> > TH> > TH> > TH> So if our universe had a beginning, then something had to come TH> before TH> > it ú [ Continued In Next Message... ] --- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v3.0pr3 * Origin: FONiX Info Systems * Berkshire UK * +44 1344 641625 (2:252/171) .