GOD IS DEAD

No, Ned is not making up his own definitions. He is using "no boundary" in the same sense as Hawking. The Beginning of Time(NB. Hawking uses "real" and "imaginary" in the sense of "real" and "imaginary" numbers and the concept is briefly explained in the lecture).

quote:

---

When I say Ned I mean "anyone' that would take the simple word/s and change its meaning to apply to something that clearly does have a starting point as the super amazing guy in the wheelchair...points out about the universe. The universe no matter how you would like to describe or imagine it, had a beginning.

---

This seems to be a rather weird way of admitting that your charge against Ned was false and Ned was right all along. And you are missing the most important part of the "no boundary" proposal - that the universe is completely self-contained and nothing outside is needed to explain the "beginning".

quote:

---

I read the whole article and I did not pick out of it only what supports my position. However, the following comments, out of the article itself, should make it painfully clear that these are not theories that can be tested, they are speculative at best.

---

Even reading the quotes that you provide it is painfully clear that you did not read it well enough. I have bolded the relevant portion for emphasis. Clearly Hawking does not think that it is untestable.As for your understanding of imaginary time:

quote:

---

This would be like saying that the water in the top of the glass is somehow different in character and nature than the water in the bottom of the glass. The simple principle is that its just time if you are here on earth or in deep space. Relative perhaps, but time nonetheless. Time would only have menaing from the standpoint of the universes starting point, correct.

---

I can only describe it as painfully wrong. The whole point of the part you quoted is that imaginary time is orthogonal to real time. It is a whole different way of looking at time, not an assertion that time is different somewhere else.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

This statement makes no sense, since even hawkins admits it had a beginning. Self-contained would mean it was eternal and did not have a beginnig. That which is contengent on something else, in this case an admited beginning cannot be described as self-supporting. The Purposal address no real solution to anything, except to ignore obvious facts.

---

No, it simply contradicts your opinions. Hawking does not accept that the universe had a beginning in the sense that you mean.

quote:

---

Testable does not mean the same as an actual observation of the limits of space and its entire properties, as he clearly indicates. Read the article again.

---

Ah yes, a typical example of "moving the goalposts". Rather than rereading the lecture, those interested in the truth should read my Message 216 (Message 216)< !--UE--> again.As is quite clear, the issue was your statement: (my bolding for emphasis)As I pointed out, your assertion was untrue, since Hawking in fact DID talk about testing the hypothesis, with no hint that it was impossible.As we note there is no mention of "actual observation of the limits of space" - that is just a red herring that you have presumably invented jut now in an attempt to obscure your obvious error.

quote:

---

Fair enough. Then state in simple readable english and a couple of simple sentences the sense in which he does believe the universe had a beginning. In other words explain how the universe can be Finite or had a start some 15 billion years ago. Was it (our universe)there before it started?

---

If you follow only the real time axis, tracing events back leads to a singularity. And that is it so far as there is a beginning. If you include the imaginary time axis there is no singularity and there is NO time "before" the universe started.

quote:

---

Your assuming that I was saying no tests were conducted, I did not.

---

No, I am not. You said that the hypothesis COULD NOT be tested, and you asserted that the quotes from Hawking showed that. Yet in fact the quotes show Hawking talking about how the hypothesis could be tested.Please don't waste even more time trying to deny your obvious error.

quote:

---

My "error" is obvious in your mind only.

---

It's obvious to anyone following the thread. In Message 215 (Message 215)< !--UE--> (Message 215)< !--UE--> you state: And you quoted Hawking as stating: (bolding mine, in both quotes)Your error is quite obvious.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.