Subj : The universe            4
To   : DAVE OLDRIDGE
From : TODD HENSON
Date : Wed Jan 03 2001 09:05 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....


I don't altogether disagree. I actually like the way you've described the
"Origin" (that which is the 
reason for the universe's existence). I would agree that the Origin is
something (or someone) 
that is not bound by linear time as we are. 

But that doesn't make it improper to speak of "before" the universe.
Regardless of the nature of 
the Origin, the fact is that our universe did not always exist, and that it
did not create itself, and 
that there was "something" which is the reason for it's existence. And it's
perfectly fine for a 
person to recognize that along with the fact that the Origin need not be
bound by linear time as 
we are.


> [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.


That still doesn't erase the fact that the universe has not always existed,
that it's timeline is not 
infinite. To speak of a "before" doesn't necessarily project the linear
limitations of our 
space-time onto the Origin. It appears as if you are assuming it does. Not
really.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-5016 (1:10/345)

.