Before Big Bang God or Singularity

Hawking. And, I see no reason to leave it unexplored. Agreed. Not necessarily. It could simply exist. Whatever is true about reality, I'm sure that there is some entity which simply exists. That we both probably agree upon. Eventually? If there was no time before it (which is what T=0 implies) then there was no time passing before that moment. There would be no 'eventually'. I'm not sure that saying the energy was in a singular state - or even what you mean by state for that matter- is necessarily true. T=0 is part of the universe, just like any other point. Nothing was built on top of T=0 any more than it is built on T=3,156,728Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Let me reword it for you.Not necessarily. Spacetime could simply exist. Whatever is true about reality, I'm sure that there is some entity which simply exists. That we both probably agree upon. Yes before is a relative word. It means 'a point in time that occurred previously'. Since there was no points in time occurring prior to T=0, by definition, then you can't describe anything happening before it. T=0 is a rare point in the universe for which there is no before - it would be absurd to tell ask an explorer what he can see happening north of where he is if he is standing at the point defined as diversion from north=0 (ie., the North Pole). Erm, I'm not sure we entirely agree.Why can it only mean 'singular'? What does 'singular' mean? The simple answer is, T=0 is a mystery. Some solutions to the problem have T=0 as a point in the universe where there are four spatial dimensions and no time dimension, at a slightly different space nearby, one of the four dimensions becomes more timelike. As we move our frame of reference we find this spacelike dimension becoming more and more timelike until it is what we now call time. I believe this is what is proposed to happen between T=0 and Planck Time, but I might be getting that last point wrong.

I also included a time coordinate. That was important to the point.The point 5 inches from your nose 5 seconds ago 'came from' exactly the same place the point described as T=0. They are both equally valid coordinates of spacetime. Yes, you believe the self-existing entity is God (requires no creator). I think the self-existing entity is not likely to be God and that we might as well just say it is spacetime (or whatever braneworld type place that it exists within) that self exists. If you start to add entities at whim, you can do so forever. After all, God could itself be created by a self-existing megaGod and God could just be an assistant to it. Or maybe the megaGod is subservient to the actual self-existing entity that created it. And so on.I choose to cut off the chain of self-existent entities at those for which there exists evidence (braneworld or this universe). You choose to allow the chain to go into the unevidenced realm by one step and arbitrarily stop there because of the tenets of your faith.Which one is better? By definition my answer is more parsimonious (it proposes no more entities than are required). Whether or not it being parsimonious makes it better is a philosophical argument we can safely ignore here. Maybe. Possibly. It is a terribly exciting area of research, I look forward to seeing what other answers hard-working under-paid wizards of the natural world can plumb from the anti-intuitive universe.

OK. Why does it mean that? What does that mean? Research into those mysteries continues to this day. Let's hope the governments of the world don't do silly things like close Observatories down in favour of funding twenty minutes worth of war.

But it isn't the same spacetime coordinate. 5 seconds ago and 10billion years ago have different time coordinates. I'm talking about space time coordinates. The difference is that we know that spacetime exists. We have emerging evidence that megaspacetime might exist. We have no existence that God, megaGod or supermegaGod exists. I stop appealing to entities when evidence of their existence runs out. It maybe the case that megaspacetime is not self-existent. I don't know, maybe we'll never know.The point is that I know of two entities for which there is evidence of their existence that are possible candidates for self-existing. You have no reason to reject either of these as inherently impossible, and they have the bonus of being something we can examine. Thus we are in the following position:Me: That which self-exists is at least the last megaspacetime we have evidence for.You: That which self-exists is at least one further step beyond the entity for which there is evidence.Either could be true, but my version is more parsimonious.

That doesn't make any sense. There can exist a T=1 that occurs after T=0, by definition. How can time be irrelevant when we are discussing the universe at a particular time coordinate when there is no before and there is only after? (like there is only south at the north pole) Laws are not a rock, they are quicksand. They are only local descriptions of the universe and they may have many exceptions. The only way to know those exceptions is by developing a sound theory that can explain why the law is the way it is and what problems it has. T=0 is a coordinate. It is no more a law than 45 degrees north is a law. You cannot understand what happened at T=0 by defining what happened at T=0. Laws simply define relationships between things based on observation. There are certain 'laws' and 'principles' that come into play in the understanding of the universe - but we don't have a complete enough picture to be sure beyond that.

God is an entity that is meant to have created the universe. That means it refers to an extra entity. I have no aversion to the word God. I just think we should use it how it is meant. If you want to suggest you are a pantheist you can just say so.

If spacetime existed then time dilation effects would occur when gravity distorted space. That is the case. Indeed, many predictions of what would happen if spacetime were a valid concept have been tested and verified to a significantly high degree of accuracy.

As I previously said, we don't know - there are some ideas but nothing is certain. Not what I am saying. I am saying that laws only formalise knowledge we already have about the world. Theories give us predictions about things we don't know and hopefully can test to see if they are true. Theories kick ass over laws every day of the week, and beyond.If you build all of your scientific knowledge on Newton's laws of motion, you will not be able to create GPS satellites (though you will get to the moon). They have to be built on the back of theory. Do it based on law, quicksand. On highly confirmed theory: reinforced concrete. Depends who you ask. Some would say energy=0, just like it is today. Others would say different. Others might say that T=0 doesn't really exist in the sense most people think of it.

Yes, when we reach areas which are beyond the knowledge of man, I should just make absolute claims up about what is happening. There are some ideas. But essentially nobody knows. We'll need a good robust theory to help explain it to the physicists who can then ring up Hawking and Greene and Cox and cavediver etc and get them to try and explain it to us.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Right. As I said, we need a theory that can adequately explain what is going on at T=0. There are some ideas, but nothing is certain. So we should continue exploring, developing theory and testing theories by acquiring new data.

How does saying: "If you want to suggest you are a pantheist you can just say so.", ignore what you said? Why not just say you are a pantheist?

Either God and the universe are the same thing or they are different things. Which one is it?.abe: I understand that you are a panentheist - which would mean that you are proposing an additional entity.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Otherwise known as panentheism.

quote:

---

While pantheism says that God and the universe are coextensive, panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe and that the universe is contained within God.

---

So as I said, you propose an extra entity, making it less parsimonious. You are suggesting that the universe is a subset of a greater entity for which there is no evidence.

There are Christian panentheists that accept the existence of evil. Whether or not you agree with some particular members of a named philosophy is not really the point, though. My point remains quite firmly in place - your idea is less parsimonious. It would have been easier for you to just have accepted this and said that you are not interested in parsimony. It would be nice if you could get this over with in what remains of this thread since it would conclude it nicely.Which is a better idea? Well that depends on what you look for in an idea. Personally I think an idea should reign in its unparsimonious entities because once you have one, there is no philosophical reason to stop adding more. I think we should stick with what we know and explore the mysteries we can 'see' as opposed to creating new mysteries that cannot, by their very description, be solved.You think that because God seems to solve one problem that is all that matters: it makes the idea much better. My main issue is that it doesn't solve the mystery at all. I don't know who killed this man, it is a mystery, therefore a Djinn killed this man. That hypothesis completely solves the mystery. Therefore it is a good hypothesis. Better than the hypothesis that his brother killed him, which has some contradictory evidence for it which is hard to entangle. Forget hard problems, Djinn are much easier and completely solve the murder case.