Cosmologic philosophy: Egnor on Big Bang, etc. (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, September 05, 2021, 09:21 (1175 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] you wrote: “there is no before before the BB. Time didn’t exist. This was proven by Guth, Borde and Valenkin by mathematics years ago, presented by my books and here.”

DAVID: The presence of God before He made our BB does not create time before our BB.

dhw: The presence of God is already a “before”, and you agreed that he might well have created other BBs.

DAVID: That creates a theoretical sequence but that sequence in not in physical time.

What is a “sequence in physical time”? The sequence of before-during-after is our DEFINITION of time, as in your next comment:

DAVID: I accept the definition of time as a sequence of events only when they exist in a BB that contains time, which by definition ours does and therefore possible/imaginary prior BB's did.

dhw: Thank you. Possible BBs are enough to show that you do NOT accept that Guth & Co have “proven” that there was no before and that time did not exist before our BB. They have no more evidence for their imaginings than you have for yours.

DAVID: They are writing about physical time within our BB, nothing more.

I really don’t know what you mean by “physical” time. You agree that time is a sequence, not a body! And Guth & Co claim that there never was any such sequence before our BB, but you disagree, because you say it is possible there were other sequences. And then you disagree with yourself and support Guth & Co by saying they have proved that there was nothing before our BB. Why do you continue to argue against yourself?

DAVID: I agree with Guth et al physical time started with our BB. Use your imaginary time all you wish, but it is imaginary.

Read your bolded statement at the start of this post. “There is no before before the BB. Time [which you agree is a sequence of before-during-after] did not exist.” Then read all your statements about your God possibly creating BBs before ours, and time existing in all those BBs (though for some reason, you can’t see that a sequence of BBs would also constitute before-during-after). Then please stop disagreeing with yourself, and we can end this discussion.