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

by David Turell , Friday, September 17, 2021, 15:11 (1163 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: More confusion. Is the time you imagine before our BB the same time as our time? Past imagined times might have different qualities as long as we are imagining. What Guth says is prior to our BB time did not exist. He never discussed possible prior BB's as we do.

dhw: You have agreed that time is a sequence of before-during-after. What other “qualities” do you now wish to add to our agreed definition? And of course Guth never discussed possible prior BBs. That is why, in your eyes, he has NOT proven that time didn’t exist before our BB!

Sequence of events is our concept of time in our BB, nothing more. Guth's point remains, time started with our BB. And that is my point.

DAVID: Those imagined sequences we have discussed are timeless…

dhw: If time exists in BBs, imagined BBs can’t be timeless (i.e. without time!).

DAVID: I never said that. Each imagined BB contains its time.

dhw: And therefore time may have existed before our BB, and so you disagree with Guth!

Not Guth's point. Time within imagined previous BB's is not the issue.

DAVID: It is your confused disagreement, not mine. Guth's only point is time started with our BB. Reviewers of his article use it to say our BB came from nothing!!!

dhw: If there was “no before before the BB”, there must have been nothing before the BB. And you do not accept that Guth & Co have proven that there was “no before before the BB”, and that there was no time before our BB, because you agree that your God might have created earlier time-containing BBs before our BB. Please stop pretending you agree that Guth has proven his point when you manifestly disagree with his point.

Are you purposely confused in order to continue this dispute? My imagined prior BB's do not dispute Guth.