Far out cosmology (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, February 03, 2014, 11:37 (3735 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: George defines energy "in terms of dimensions of mass, time and length." Since energy can take many different forms, I wouldn't know how to define it, and I certainly wouldn't endow it with any personal qualities, but I see no reason to assume that it has not been doing whatever it does for ever and ever.-DAVID: George is a mathematician, and his definition is correct as we observe energy in our current universe.-I am not disputing George's definition (though I don't know why mathematicians should have a monopoly on definitions). "In terms of..." covers a pretty wide area, and my point is that no matter how you wish to define it, no-one can possibly state with any authority that energy in one form of another has not been doing its own thing for ever in any number of universes past and/or present. George has attacked this idea on the grounds that one cannot assume the existence of "time" outside what he calls "the universe" and what I would prefer to call "our universe", and in tracing its history he believes "one reaches a situation where time no longer exists, or becomes non-directional or indeterminate". I have questioned how he is defining time. Specifically, if the Big Bang took place, I cannot for the life of me see how it could not have had a cause, and the sequence of cause and effect demands an onward movement from before to after, or from past to present. That is a temporal concept, and cause and effect are palpably existent, and are neither non-directional nor indeterminate. The alternative to an endless sequence of past causes and effects is a beginning without a cause and preceded by absolute nothingness. If you can believe that, you can believe anything.