- Joined
- Oct 14, 2015
- Messages
- 64,291
- Reaction score
- 62,722
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
I will discuss this in language which seems clunky, but the reason for the clunkiness should soon become apparent
The theory: All matter and energy exists at a dimensionless point. No length, width, height, or time.
The statement "the big bang exists" is true. At the point at which that statement is true, the qualities of length-having, width-having, and height-having are true. (The three large spatial dimensions)
The statement "time exists" is true.
From the moment that the statement "time exists" is true, we have causality. We have change. We have interrelations between mass and energy in the theatre of spacetime. We can speak of a "before," and "after" - relations in time. Tenses become true expressions about reality: "happened," "happening," "will happen" become sensible.
So....... what's the problem?
The problem is that it is a fundamental logical fallacy to say things such as "the big bang happened," "the universe came into existence," "the three spatial dimensions existed before time," or "the universe existed at a dimensionless point before the big bang."
It occurs to me that one problem with all this is that I'm speaking about math I wouldn't understand using English. Hawking & Hartle certainly realize the problem, but they speak in math, so they would say that the universe has no origin in any sense that we might understand it. That it has no beginning.
Yet....here it is.
Further, it seems that without regard to math involved, the concept of change - of things happening - without time is simply impossible. You cannot have change without time. How can time "come into" existence? That implies a change between "the statement 'time exists' is not true" and "the statement 'time exists' is true". Yet there could be no change without there being time.
The theory: All matter and energy exists at a dimensionless point. No length, width, height, or time.
The statement "the big bang exists" is true. At the point at which that statement is true, the qualities of length-having, width-having, and height-having are true. (The three large spatial dimensions)
The statement "time exists" is true.
From the moment that the statement "time exists" is true, we have causality. We have change. We have interrelations between mass and energy in the theatre of spacetime. We can speak of a "before," and "after" - relations in time. Tenses become true expressions about reality: "happened," "happening," "will happen" become sensible.
So....... what's the problem?
The problem is that it is a fundamental logical fallacy to say things such as "the big bang happened," "the universe came into existence," "the three spatial dimensions existed before time," or "the universe existed at a dimensionless point before the big bang."
It occurs to me that one problem with all this is that I'm speaking about math I wouldn't understand using English. Hawking & Hartle certainly realize the problem, but they speak in math, so they would say that the universe has no origin in any sense that we might understand it. That it has no beginning.
Yet....here it is.
Further, it seems that without regard to math involved, the concept of change - of things happening - without time is simply impossible. You cannot have change without time. How can time "come into" existence? That implies a change between "the statement 'time exists' is not true" and "the statement 'time exists' is true". Yet there could be no change without there being time.
Last edited: