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

by David Turell , Saturday, September 18, 2021, 15:35 (951 days ago) @ dhw

Please read these statements of yours carefully:
DAVID: “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: I accept the definition of time as a sequence of events [dhw: my definition was a sequence of before-during-after] only when they exist in a BB that contains time, which by definition ours does and bbbtherefore possible/imaginary prior BB’s did.bbb

dhw: If it is possible that BBs took place before our BB, and by definition they contained time, you clearly do not agree that Guth & Co have proved that there was no “before” our BB and no time existed.

The point I agreed with from Guth is time started with our BB. Nothing more. Imagined previous BB's containing time is a different subject, not covered by Guth. Time exists only in BB's. Quite clear!!!!

DAVID: 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.

dhw: You wrote that by definition our BB contains time and therefore possible prior BBs contained time. And if possible prior BBs contained time, then clearly it has not been proven that time did not exist before our BB!

Not the point!!!!! The possible time you are discussing is not Guth's point or mine. Imagined previous BB's containing time are not the issue Guth proved.

DAVID: Each imagined BB contains its time.

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

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

dhw: Of course it’s not Guth’s point as you present it. According to you, he doesn’t believe in the possibility of “before our BB” or time existing before our BB. But you do believe in that possibility, and that is the WHOLE point: Guth has NOT proven to you that time did not exist before our BB! […]

Imagined previous BB's in sequence do not produce time

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

dhw: Your imagined prior BBs not only dispute his claim that there was no before, but also, since “each imagined BB contains its time”, they dispute his claim that there was no time prior to our BB. It is because he does not consider the possibility of prior BBs and prior time that it is absurd for you to tell us that he proved his point. The confusion is entirely yours, and this dispute should have ended the moment you said Guth had proved there was no “before” and no time before our BB, and you went on to reveal that you believe there may have been BBs and there may have been time before our BB.

Your twisted thinking is beyond belief. My imagined possible previous BB's do not refute Guth's only point, our time stated with our BB.