What Came Before The Big Bang? Interpreting Asymmetry In Early Universe

[Diddi]

If space/time began at the Big Bang, then a “before” is not possible?

You started your statement with an “If”. That gives two possibilities, if time did start at the Big Bang then the universe is eternal - there is no time at which the universe does not exist. If time did not start at the Big Bang then we can develop theories about what happened before it. The OP refers to just one such effort.

if time did start at the big bang, that does not make the universe eternal, it means that time itself is not eternal, as in ‘always existing’ so the universe by the same token, could not be always existing and therefore not eternal. the idea of ‘eternal’ is not linked to a time continuum.

How do you define “always existing” in the absence of time? If there is no time when the universe did not exist then the universe is eternal since the universe exists for all time. At every possible time from the beginning of time onwards, the universe exists.

from the definition of ‘eternal’ i just gave. always existing. time is a dimension of this universe interior to this system as far as we know

time would seem to be contingent on the universe, not the other way around

time didnt start until the expansion did, thus it would seem time is interior to this system. its a good measuring stick in here but it would be senseless elsewhere.

i like the word ‘infinite’, or the definition ‘always existing’

as the definition of eternal is ‘always existing’ you dont, thats why the universe cannot be eternal, it had a beginning, and it looks like it will end.

Please define “always” in the absence of time. In my definition “always” means “for every possible value of time” - the definition depends on time. So, “always existing” becomes “existing for every possible value of time”, which is true of a universe which starts at the same instant as time - at time zero. The universe exists at time zero and for all subsequent values of time. The universe is eternal.

Hence my point about using time-dependent words like “eternal” outside time. You cannot use a word where its definition does not apply. To use your own analogy, the measuring sticks you are trying to use for before the Big Bang are not valid there.

What is non-infinite about time? The positive integers on their own form exactly the same infinity as the positive and negative integers combined. Elementary Cantor set theory tells us that.

Please specify a value of time at which the universe did not exist. If the universe exists for all of time then that universe is eternal in my book.

The Big Bang Theory was first hinted at by mathematician Alexander Friedman in 1922 and first proposed by a Catholic priest, Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître in 1927. Both based their calculations on Einstein’s equations of the General Theory of Relativity and both were ridiculed by secular scientists, including Einstein, who believed in a static universe. Friedman and Lemaître were both quasi-outsiders to the main physics camp which, of course, led to “who are you to dare propose a theory” condescension. When Edwin Hubble (a member of the inside camp) published his velocity-distance relation now known as “Hubble’s Law” in 1929, Lemaître (who had already derived the law in his paper) was given a discrete honorary membership in the inside club and allowed to work with the big boys. Friedman died in 1925.

The argument on this thread seems to be mostly a question of semantics. You both choose the definitions of “infinite” and “time” and “eternal” and “always” that will support your conclusion and this gets us nowhere. There are three possibilities as far as Catholics need be concerned: it all started with the Big Bang and God did it; there was a prior condition that led to the Big Bang and God did it; the Big Bang is an error of perspective and something else happened, and God did it. I vote for the third possibility myself. Errors of perspective are the “red herrings” of empirical science and the temporally symmetrical red shift that has led to the Big Bang Theory has all the makings of one. See the following for another nail in what may be the Big Bang coffin: eprintweb.org/S/article/astro-ph/0809.3734
The complete article is available with a Google search as a download.

And, from a Thomist position, you are all guilty of the Cosmogonical Fallacy. See the following:

guweb2.gonzaga.edu/faculty/calhoun/socratic/Tkacz_AquinasvsID.html

An expanded version of this article is available in the November issue of This Rock magazine.

 

[rossum]

thats the problem the definition of ‘eternal’ is always existing, its not linked to time. time did not always exist, so time is not ‘eternal’ either.

I asked you to provide a definition of “always” that does not include the concept of time. You have not so far done so. Merely repeating your previous definition of “eternal” = “always existing” does not advance the discussion at all. Please provide your definition as requested.

no, but you know how i feel about wild conjecture.

How do you know that it is “wild conjecture” if you have never read about it?

what are you talking about? when have i done that?, please provide a post # and thread. because i dont remember talking about time before the big bang.

You have said “eternal” and “always existing”. Both of those you have said operate “before” (whatever that may mean) the Big Bang. Until you can provide an atemporal definition of either “eternal” or “always” then you are referring to time before the Big Bang.

time had a beginning and we have yet to see if it has an end so , calling time infinite is very premature. you are assuming and endless set of positive intergers.

Not only are you deficient in scientific knowledge, your are deficient in mathematical knowledge as well. As defined by the Peano Axioms (look them up if you have not seem them before) the positive integers are, and must be, infinite. They are infinite by definition. I am assuming nothing, merely using the appropriate mathematical definition for a mathematical object.

the universe, time, and all physical laws had a beginning. time is only relevant in terms of this universe, which does not make it eternal.

There is no time when the universe does not exist; that is eternal enough for me. If you want an atemporal definition of “eternal” then please provide one; as I have pointed out using “always” merely smuggles in time under a different word.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The argument on this thread seems to be mostly a question of semantics. You both choose the definitions of “infinite” and “time” and “eternal” and “always” that will support your conclusion and this gets us nowhere.

actually i just use the definitions in the dictionary that came with my linux distro.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I asked you to provide a definition of “always” that does not include the concept of time. You have not so far done so. Merely repeating your previous definition of “eternal” = “always existing” does not advance the discussion at all. Please provide your definition as requested.

i know i didnt and i dont intend to, the definition of eternal does not include the word time, they are not the same concept.

i will post this definition again

Eternal E*ter"nal, a. [F. ['e]ternel, L. aeternalis, fr.
aeternus. See Etern.]

1. Without beginning or end of existence; always existing.
   [1913 Webster]

time had a beginning, therefore it violates the definition of ‘eternal’ it doesn’t matter if one cant separate the two concepts linguistically. they are separate by definition.

You have said “eternal” and “always existing”. Both of those you have said operate “before” (whatever that may mean) the Big Bang. Until you can provide an atemporal definition of either “eternal” or “always” then you are referring to time before the Big Bang.

so i never said it, but you implied it based on a lack of information? or i never said it but you inferred that i said it? because i didnt give you a definition you wanted? what?

by the way notice the definition of ‘eternal’ is atemporal.

Not only are you deficient in scientific knowledge, your are deficient in mathematical knowledge as well.

yes, the famous i am stupid argument. thats worked well for you before.

As defined by the Peano Axioms (look them up if you have not seem them before) the positive integers are, and must be, infinite. They are infinite by definition. I am assuming nothing, merely using the appropriate mathematical definition for a mathematical object.

you assume an infinite positive set of integers* in relation to time

• as that set of integers is not complete than we cannot say that time will not end.

you are assigning an infinite set to what is at this moment a finite phenomenon.

There is no time when the universe does not exist; that is eternal enough for me. If you want an atemporal definition of “eternal” then please provide one; as I have pointed out using “always” merely smuggles in time under a different word.

the definition of eternal is atemporal, see above. an inability to linguistically separate the concepts is not an indication that they are the same. or even linked

time had a beginning, it is not eternal, no matter how much you would like it to be. same with the universe, its not eternal.

 

[rossum]

i know i didnt and i dont intend to, the definition of eternal does not include the word time, they are not the same concept.

i will post this definition again

Eternal E*ter"nal, a. [F. ['e]ternel, L. aeternalis, fr.
aeternus. See Etern.]

1. Without beginning or end of existence; always existing.
   [1913 Webster]

time had a beginning, therefore it violates the definition of ‘eternal’ it doesn’t matter if one cant separate the two concepts linguistically. they are separate by definition.

Please define “always” as used in Webster’s definition, without referring to time.

by the way notice the definition of ‘eternal’ is atemporal.

Not until you give an atemporal definition of “always”.

you assume an infinite positive set of integers* in relation to time

• as that set of integers is not complete than we cannot say that time will not end.

What do the positive integers have to do with time? They are a mathematical concept, independent of time. My initial use of them was to show that a “half-infinite” set, such as the positive integers, has the same cardinality as an infinite set, such as the integers (both positive and negative).

you are assigning an infinite set to what is at this moment a finite phenomenon.

You have misunderstood my illustration, it was an illustration of the nature of infinity not an illustration of the nature of time.

the definition of eternal is atemporal, see above. an inability to linguistically separate the concepts is not an indication that they are the same. or even linked

We disagree, and until you can provide an atemporal definition of “always” we will continue to disagree. There is no time at which the universe did not exist.

time had a beginning, it is not eternal, no matter how much you would like it to be. same with the universe, its not eternal.

Only on some theories, not on others. Black body radiation was infinite on some theories but not on others. Anybody who based an argument from God on the infinite value for black body radiation was basing their argument on changing science. You are doing something similar.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Please define “always” as used in Webster’s definition, without referring to time.

why? the word in contention is ‘eternal’, time having a beginning excludes it from that definition, you are focusing on the wrong thing. the prequisites of no beginning or end are the deal breakers.

so once again by definition, both ‘time’ and the universe are excluded.

it cant be more clear than that.

What do the positive integers have to do with time? They are a mathematical concept, independent of time. My initial use of them was to show that a “half-infinite” set, such as the positive integers, has the same cardinality as an infinite set, such as the integers (both positive and negative).

You have misunderstood my illustration, it was an illustration of the nature of infinity not an illustration of the nature of time.

i didn’t misunderstand, you implied that a ‘half infinite set’ was sufficient to call time infinite. i pointed out that we don’t even have that ‘half-infinite’ set to make that determination.

We disagree, and until you can provide an atemporal definition of “always” we will continue to disagree.

we dont disagree, you keep trying to make ‘time’ fit the definition of ‘eternal’ focusing on the word ‘always’ but ignoring the prerequisites of having no beginning or end.

There is no time at which the universe did not exist.

not the same thing as eternal.

Only on some theories, not on others. Black body radiation was infinite on some theories but not on others. Anybody who based an argument from God on the infinite value for black body radiation was basing their argument on changing science. You are doing something similar.

then no argument concerning anything should ever be made by that reasoning, it might turn out to be wrong.

you might as well quit selling that. i aint buying it.

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

I want to think there’s something in Jewish mysticism (either Kabbalah or the Zohar) that speculates God first created a substance out of which He formed the universe. Maybe this is a mystical version of the singularity that the Big Bang theorists talk about…

 

[Diddi]

Please define “always” as used in Webster’s definition, without referring to time.

Not until you give an atemporal definition of “always”.

We disagree, and until you can provide an atemporal definition of “always” we will continue to disagree. There is no time at which the universe did not exist.

Let’s cut to the quick and first find an atemporal definition of “eternal”.

thefreedictionary.com/eternal Try the first definition.

dictionary.reference.com/search?q=eternal Try the fourth definition and maybe first, second, third and sixth.

yourdictionary.com/eternal Try definition six and possibly definition six, though it contains that word “always”.

Now, let’s see what we can do with “always”.

yourdictionary.com/always Try definition four.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/Always Try definition one, and don’t quibble. It uses the word “time” in a different sense.

Actually, “always” seems to have two connotations: 1. Forever, which is definitely temporal and 2. without exception, which doesn’t have to be temporal, but the temporal sense predominates. I think that warpspeedpetey took the word “always” to mean “without exception” when he made the merely tactical error of choosing a definition that contains the word “always” and you just won’t let him off the hook. The word “eternal” can be defined in a atemporal way without using the word “always”. God is eternal and God is outside of time. We are to spend eternity somewhere so are heaven and hell in some part of the Big Bang Universe? I still say this is a semantic argument.

 

[rossum]

Let’s cut to the quick and first find an atemporal definition of “eternal”.

thefreedictionary.com/eternal Try the first definition.

Which reads: “1. Being without beginning or end; existing outside of time.” This definition is meaningless without a definition of “time” and hence is itself dependent on time: “existing outside of forglestutz”. Also, since the world we live in here and now is inside time, anything that is purely outside time can have no impact on us here and now. Since God is supposed to be able to affect things here and now, He does not conform to this definition of eternal.

dictionary.reference.com/search?q=eternal Try the fourth definition and maybe first, second, third and sixth.
The fourth definition is “existing outside all relations of time; not subject to change”. The first part of this I have already commented on, for the second part the time dependance is smuggled in with the word “change” - can you find a definition of “change” that does not involve time.

yourdictionary.com/eternal Try definition six and possibly definition six, though it contains that word “always”.

I would direct your attention to definition one: “without beginning or end; existing through all time; everlasting” (emphasis added). That is the sense in which I say that the universe is eternal if time began at the same instant as the universe.

Now, let’s see what we can do with “always”.

yourdictionary.com/always Try definition four.

Which reads: “in every instance; with no exception”. This is getting close, but you need to think of the range of instances over which “always” is being applied. If the range is a temporal range (as it is in the definition of “eternal”) then this definition smuggles in time. If the range of the “always” is not temporal then this definition can be atemporal: “Prime numbers greater than two are always odd” does not include time, because the range over which the “always” operates is not a temporal range.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/Always Try definition one, and don’t quibble. It uses the word “time” in a different sense.

Which reads: “every time; on every occasion; without exception”. Again you need to look at the range of instances that are being considered. Do the instances form a time based range or not?

The word “eternal” can be defined in a atemporal way without using the word “always”.

Here we disagree; I see “eternal” as requiring time to be defined in order to make any sense at all.

God is eternal and God is outside of time.

I have mentioned my take on “outside time” above.

We are to spend eternity somewhere so are heaven and hell in some part of the Big Bang Universe?

I do not know where heaven is, but hell is somewhere below the east bank of the Jordan river, see Numbers 16 31-33.

I still say this is a semantic argument.

It is more than that, but semantics are a part of it. From the Madhyamika Buddhist point of view, trying to define “eternal” in the absence of time is impossible. Without time there is no referent against which eternal can be specified. Beyond the semantics lies the problem of reification which seems common in Platonic philosophy and much of the Christian philosophy that has developed from it. Nagarjuna in particular and Madhyamika philosophy in general deny all forms of reification. See my sig for an example.

rossum

 

[rossum]

not the same thing as eternal.

Why not, a definition of eternal is “existing through all time”. If time started at the same instant as the universe then the universe meets this definition of eternal.

then no argument concerning anything should ever be made by that reasoning, it might turn out to be wrong.

I am saying that you should avoid making arguments based on current science where there is uncertainty in the current science because you cannot be sure that the basis of your argument will not change. At the moment there is great uncertainty in science around the moment of the Big Bang and what may (or may not) have preceeded it. In particular those infinities you are fond of quoting are uncertain. You are ill-advised to use such an insecure base for your arguments.

rossum

 

[JDaniel]

A little to contribute:

Whenever I see someone working so hard to confuse an issue that is “simple” by the nature of it, I always suspect ulterior motives.

Time is the measure of motion.

Prior to the first zillionth of a second after the beginning of the outward expansion of the big bang, if that cosmology remains valid for a while longer, was no motion. Hence, no time. It’s as simple as that.

It is true, though, that there has been no “time” in which the universe has not existed - precisely because the universe has only existed during time. It’s physical reality, in motion, thus never outside of time. Unlike, God, who can and does exist outside of time.

Merry Christmas and
God bless,
JD

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Why not, a definition of eternal is “existing through all time”. If time started at the same instant as the universe then the universe meets this definition of eternal.

more sophistry, the definition that we have been using requires it to have no beginning, if they both started at the same instant, they both had a beginning and therefore do not meet the definition of eternal.

I am saying that you should avoid making arguments based on current science where there is uncertainty in the current science because you cannot be sure that the basis of your argument will not change. At the moment there is great uncertainty in science around the moment of the Big Bang and what may (or may not) have preceeded it. In particular those infinities you are fond of quoting are uncertain. You are ill-advised to use such an insecure base for your arguments.

i understand, and i still aint buying it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Why not

lets see what we can do with the varying definitions that are entering the conversation and their senses that might be applicable.

e·ter·nal (-tûrnl)
adj.

1. Being without beginning or end; existing outside of time. See Synonyms at infinite.

here we see a specific definition denying that the concepts of time and eternal are contingent, on eachother.

1. Something timeless, uninterrupted, or endless.

here again is a denial of the contingency of the concepts of time and eternal

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000
eternal
Adjective

1. without beginning or end; lasting for ever

here again is the definition i have used, your assertion fails on the basis that both time and the universe had a beginning, failing the prerequisites for ‘eternal’

eternal Hear it!
Related Forms · Idioms · Synonyms · Usage Examples · Quotes
eternal Definition

eter·nal (ē tʉr′nəl, i-)

adjective

1. without beginning or end; existing through all time; everlasting

notice here, where you like this definition because of the ‘existing through all time’ part, it too is predicated on having no beginning. even in this definition, your assertion fails to meet the necessary prerequisites. same as the definition we started with.

1. Philos., Theol. outside or beyond time or time relationships; timeless

here in its philosophical sense, or theological sense, we see again a denial of a contingency between time and eternity.

e⋅ter⋅nal
   /ɪˈtɜrnl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation * Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective

1. without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal ): eternal life.

here you see the ideas of ‘eternal’ and ‘time’ in juxtaposition, another denial of your assertion.

1. Metaphysics. existing outside all relations of time; not subject to change.

but here is my favorite, this is the death knell of your assertion, the nail in the coffin so to speak.

here, the metaphysical sense, the sense in which we are directly discussing.

metaphysically the the concept of ‘eternal’ is completely unrelated to the concept of time.

in every sense of the word we have seen so far, your assertion is false. specifically in the sense of metaphysics, the area that we are discussing.

[Edited]*

 

[rossum]

more sophistry, the definition that we have been using requires it to have no beginning, if they both started at the same instant, they both had a beginning and therefore do not meet the definition of eternal.

We are using different definitions of eternal. An eternal 1 metre cube has a beginning and an end in space but neither beginning nor end in time. Being eternal does not require absence of a beginning, it does require the absence of a beginning in time. There is no time when the eternal does not exist so the eternal does not have a beginning in time. In other dimensions a beginning and end are perfectly possible.

rossum

 

[rossum]

lets see what we can do with the varying definitions that are entering the conversation and their senses that might be applicable.

1. Being without beginning or end; existing outside of time. See Synonyms at infinite.

On the contrary, they must be contingent on each other. Your definition says “outside time”. That definition is contingent on time; if I say that q’atloos are “outside forglesnatz” do you have any better idea of what q’atloos are? The meaning of q’atloos is contingent on forglesnatz. This definition of eternal is similarly contingent on time.

I have covered the “Being without beginning or end” part in my previous post.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

We are using different definitions of eternal.

i dont see a definition of eternal that fits your assertion, they all seem to exclude it.

An eternal 1 metre cube has a beginning and an end in space but neither beginning nor end in time.

any physical cube, made of matter did begin to exist and will end, if you are talking about a concept of a cube than that doesnt really exist, its just a concept.

Being eternal does not require absence of a beginning, it does require the absence of a beginning in time.

according to the definitions it does require the absence of a beginning.

There is no time when the eternal does not exist so the eternal does not have a beginning in time.

the definitions all say time and eternal are unrelated. they dont have a relationship.

the specific definition from the discipline of metaphysics #4 below, specifically excludes any relationship to the concept of time.

e⋅ter⋅nal
   /ɪˈtɜrnl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation * Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective

1. without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal ): eternal life.
2. perpetual; ceaseless; endless: eternal quarreling; eternal chatter.
3. enduring; immutable: eternal principles.
4. Metaphysics. existing outside all relations of time; not subject to change.

the definition of ‘eternal’ in the discipline of metaphysics, is directly opposed to your assertion. see the part where it states “existing outside all relations of time” thats the part that opposes your assertion.*

 

[warpspeedpetey]

On the contrary, they must be contingent on each other.

then why do definitions from several different sources say they dont have a relationship?

Your definition says “outside time”. That definition is contingent on time;

that definition exculdes the assertion of the basis on a beginning, and says nothing in regard to a beginning in relation to time,

the metaphysically, technically correct definition excludes all relationships between time and ‘eternal’

if I say that q’atloos are “outside forglesnatz” do you have any better idea of what q’atloos are? The meaning of q’atloos is contingent on forglesnatz. This definition of eternal is similarly contingent on time.

except multiple definitions disagree with you. the two concepts are not related, the contingency you are trying to create is one of language, in another tongue their separation may be more clear.

but most important, the metaphysical definition does not agree with you, it flatly denies the relationship you are attempting to construe from linguistic artifacts.

the technical definition is rejects your assertion, what else can be said?

 

[rossum]

the two concepts are not related

Please explain the meaning of “q’atloos”, since the meaning is not related to forglesnaz. Remember that q’atloos are outside forglesnatz so you can now explain the meaning of q’atloos.

rossum

 

[rossum]

any physical cube, made of matter did begin to exist and will end, if you are talking about a concept of a cube than that doesnt really exist, its just a concept.

Where did I say physical? A cube is a mathematical object. An eternal cube is an object with beginnings and ends in the three space dimensions but neither beginning nor end in the time dimension. Your definition of eternal as without “beginning” is incorrect. It would be better phrased as without “beginning in time”. The “in time” part is precisely my point.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Please explain the meaning of “q’atloos”, since the meaning is not related to forglesnaz. Remember that q’atloos are outside forglesnatz so you can now explain the meaning of q’atloos.

rossum

once again, you are playing with artifacts of the english langauge, construing them as concepts that the technical definition defies, as 2 unrelated concepts. those artifacts may well not exist in other languages unfortunately i only speak english and spanish, and my spanish is not good enough for these matters. but thats why your assertion is wrong. time is not related to the concept of eternal, by the very metaphysical definition.