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

by David Turell , Wednesday, September 08, 2021, 15:36 (959 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Read properly: if imaginary BB's existed they contained time only within them!!! Not inbetween !!!

dhw: The question whether time exists as a sequence of before-during-after BBs (i.e. BETWEEN BBs) is irrelevant to your belief that time may have existed within earlier BBs. If you believe that there may have been earlier BBs which contained time, you do not believe that Guth & Co have proven that time did not exist before our BB.

Your obvious confusion continues. Guth's paper referred only to our BB. In the paper the authors were simply saying time started with our BB

DAVID: You are so confused. Time exists only within BB's.

dhw: And if there may have been earlier BBs, then time existed before our BB.

In that sense yes.

DAVID: Guth's point and mine is our time started with our BB.

dhw: Of course “our” time started with our BB, but Guth & Co claim that there was nothing before our BB, and so there was no time before our BB. You think they proved this, but you also think there may have been time before our BB, in which case they have not proved there was no time before our BB. You are trying to hide your own confusion by inserting the word “our”. Please reread the bold at the start of this post, agree with me that you do not accept it, and let us move on.

We are arguing about nothing. Guth considers only the 'before' of our BB, nothing more. You've dragged in the concept of imagined sequential BB's to refute Guth. It doesn't as it exits only in your imagination. Guth speaks to a specific point and you generalize it.