At IAI News: Time existed before the Big Bang

Bornagain77 @18, And once again, even though Minkowski published his union of space-time in 1908, which was based on Einstein's 1905 paper on special relativity, and even though these concepts have been experimentally validated for over a hundred years, when a successful theory is in conflict with the ideology of deterministic materialism, it's philosophically rejected. https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time Conversely, when an obviously racist theory in support of European colonialism and white supremacy first published in 1859, it still maintains its precedence despite being falsified dozens of times and hardly a week goes by without some new discovery that will supposedly upends Darwin's theory. Such an anti-science approach starts with an ideology and then only looks for support of that ideology regardless of the evidence. Over the last few years, I've read about how the laws of the universe MUSTA also evolved over time, applying Darwin's folly to physics, once again without any physical or experimental evidence, using deep time as a magician's cape. -Q Querius

Chuckdarwin/14

Yeah, it’s called Intelligent Design…….

Nice one! Seversky

Relatd/15 Modesty generally compels me to decline any awards or recognition for my efforts, but in this case, for the benefit of all true blue scientists everywhere, I will make an exception……. chuckdarwin

So Lee Cronin, a Professor of chemistry who is shown to be wrong on Origin of Life chemistry,

Dave Farina’s “Experts” completely DEBUNKED. The Religion of Prebiotic Soup - Lee Cronin Part 01 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rwPi1miWu4 Dr. Tour DISSECTS Chemistry of an ‘Expert’ on Origin of Life - Lee Cronin, Part 02 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUOZh4zmrXo Dr. Tour BURSTS Oil Bubble Chemistry and More - Lee Cronin, Part 03 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3A8_ezYlZY

,,, So Lee Cronin, a Professor of chemistry who is shown to be wrong on Origin of Life chemistry, now wants to weigh in on fundamental physics and tell us how we ought to view the physics of space and time? To point out the obvious, might it not be wise for Cronin to first master his own field of Chemistry before he ventures into the field of physics to offer advice as to how people ought to understand it? As to Cronin's comment: "Moreover, seeing time as fundamental has the advantage that it tallies with our own experience." Well actually the fact that our 'experience of the now' is at odds with the passage of time, (Henri Bergson), is one of the primary reasons Einstein failed to receive a Nobel prize for relativity.

Nothing: God’s new Name – Antoine Suarez – video Paraphrased quote: (“it is impossible for us to be ‘persons’ experiencing ‘now’ if we are nothing but particles flowing in space time. Moreover, for us to refer to ourselves as ‘persons’, we cannot refer to space-time as the ultimate substratum upon which everything exists, but must refer to a Person who is not bound by space time. i.e. We must refer to God!”) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOr9QqyaLlA Einstein vs Bergson, science vs philosophy and the meaning of time – Wednesday 24 June 2015 Excerpt: The meeting of April 6 was supposed to be a cordial affair, though it ended up being anything but. ‘I have to say that day exploded and it was referenced over and over again in the 20th century,’ says Canales. ‘The key sentence was something that Einstein said: “The time of the philosophers did not exist.”’ It’s hard to know whether Bergson was expecting such a sharp jab. In just one sentence, Bergson’s notion of duration—a major part of his thesis on time—was dealt a mortal blow. As Canales reads it, the line was carefully crafted for maximum impact. ‘What he meant was that philosophers frequently based their stories on a psychological approach and [new] physical knowledge showed that these philosophical approaches were nothing more than errors of the mind.’ The night would only get worse. ‘This was extremely scandalous,’ says Canales. ‘Einstein had been invited by philosophers to speak at their society, and you had this physicist say very clearly that their time did not exist.’ Bergson was outraged, but the philosopher did not take it lying down. A few months later Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the law of photoelectric effect, an area of science that Canales noted, ‘hardly jolted the public’s imagination’. In truth, Einstein coveted recognition for his work on relativity. Bergson inflicted some return humiliation of his own. By casting doubt on Einstein’s theoretical trajectory, Bergson dissuaded the committee from awarding the prize for relativity. In 1922, the jury was still out on the correct interpretation of time. So began a dispute that festered for years and played into the larger rift between physics and philosophy, science and the humanities. Bergson was fond of saying that time was the experience of waiting for a lump of sugar to dissolve in a glass of water. It was a declaration that one could not talk about time without reference to human consciousness and human perception. Einstein would say that time is what clocks measure. Bergson would no doubt ask why we build clocks in the first place. ‘He argued that if we didn’t have a prior sense of time we wouldn’t have been led to build clocks and we wouldn’t even use them … unless we wanted to go places and to events that mattered,’ says Canales. ‘You can see that their points of view were very different.’ In a theoretical nutshell this, (disagreement between Einstein and Bergson), expressed perfectly the division between lived time and spacetime: subjective experience versus objective reality.,,, Just when Einstein thought he had it worked out, along came the discovery of quantum theory and with it the possibility of a Bergsonian universe of indeterminacy and change. God did, it seems, play dice with the universe, contra to Einstein’s famous aphorism. Some supporters went as far as to say that Bergson’s earlier work anticipated the quantum revolution of Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg by four decades or more. Canales quotes the literary critic Andre Rousseaux, writing at the time of Bergson’s death. ‘The Bergson revolution will be doubled by a scientific revolution that, on its own, would have demanded the philosophical revolution that Bergson led, even if he had not done it.’ Was Bergson right after all? Time will tell. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/science-vs-philosophy-and-the-meaning-of-time/6539568 Sept. 2022 - Thus from multiple lines of experimental evidence, (i.e. Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment with atoms, the violation of Leggett’s inequality, the Quantum Zeno effect, Quantum information theory, Quantum entanglement in time, and quantum contextuality), Einstein’s belief that “The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics” has been thoroughly, and impressively, falsified.,,, Thus in conclusion, Einstein’s non-belief in a personal God, besides being directly contradicted by both of his own theories of Special Relativity and General Relativity, (see posts 13, 14, and 43), is also directly contradicted by multiple lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics. Multiple lines of experimental evidence that all converge to the same conclusion that a ‘Mind first’, and/or Theistic, view of reality is, by far, the correct view of reality to hold. https://uncommondescent.com/cosmology/from-iai-news-how-infinity-threatens-cosmology/#comment-766069 Nov. 2022 https://uncommondescent.com/time/at-big-think-how-reality-is-shaped-by-the-speed-of-light/#comment-769891

bornagain77

Pearlman @11, You've also read books by Gerald Schroeder, right? The essentials of measuring spacetime is a reference time and a reference length. Otherwise, one could ask, "Before there was such thing as a meter stick, how long is a meter?" and "Before there was a clock or a periodicity, how long is a second?" The first five verses of Torah addresses the appearance of spacetime, mass-energy, plus light. If one considers the red-shift extrapolation back to the beginning, which doesn't necessarily have to begin at one infinitesimally small point, there's no question that the hypothesized spacetime during the initial inflationary period, spacetime was considerably distorted. While, some in the past have mocked Torah for the appearance of the sun, moon, and stars AFTER light was created along with several dark-light cycles, however this worldview coincides with the current secular understanding*--another reason that secular scientists find the Big Bang hypothesis repugnant as they do all the scriptures. * Comparing Torah's account of creation with a Wikipedia description of the early chronology of the universe, the initial “cosmic dark ages” that are believed to have lasted several hundred million years:

Before decoupling occurred, most of the photons in the universe were interacting with electrons and protons in the photon–baryon fluid. The universe was opaque or "foggy" as a result. There was light but not light we can now observe through telescopes. The baryonic matter in the universe consisted of ionized plasma, and it only became neutral when it gained free electrons during "recombination", thereby releasing the photons creating the CMB [Cosmic Microwave Background]. When the photons were released (or decoupled) the universe became transparent.

Thus, according to current scientific theory, the universe was initially dark and fluid. Then, the universe went through an inflationary stage or two, changed from opaque to transparent, and light became visible. That the universe originated from perhaps a singularity and has been expanding—stretching—ever since then, is a relatively new scientific theory. For hundreds of years, it was assumed that the universe was static and infinite, having no beginning or end. During that time, critics of the Bible would ask how light could possibly exist before the stars came into being. Now, science itself provides an answer to their objection—stars formed later. - Does this "prove" the Bible? No, of course not. - Does this mean we should syncretize the science and the Bible? Again, no. The scientific method, which is described in the Tanakh by the way, is an intellectual discipline that follows a specific set of steps. The Bible represents itself as being revealed by God, not developed by man. Obviously not everyone believes this, but that's what the scriptures claim. Thank you for your contributions. -Q Querius

Jordan Peterson on the Christian Origins of Science https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMTWnd5BhxI bornagain77

CD at 14, You are the winner of the Cheap Shot Award. It will be sent to you shortly. relatd

Querius

As a result, we’re starting to see a substitute for Science that’s NOT grounded on causality, observation, data, measurement, experimentation, independent repeatability, and logic, but one that’s instead grounded on ideology alone. Experimentation will be replaced by a new orthodoxy and good intentions.

Yeah, it’s called Intelligent Design……. chuckdarwin

An infinite past is logically impossible as Origenes posted at 4. For it to be true, an infinite amount of time must have passed before now, and what does that even mean? Similarly, the previous cosmologist desire for an infinite universe in time was even worse: everything would have run down (heat death) a very long time ago, indeed, infinitely long ago. In any case, the Big Bang is posited as the start of everything in the Universe. If there was something (even time), "before", then we need to look back farther for the beginning, which includes not just time, but whatever caused the Big Bang, along with the laws governing the passage of time - whatever they may be. Finally, if time was infinite leading up to the Big Bang, then why did the Bang happen at that moment? Any quantum physics probabilities or other mechanisms posited to have "caused" the Bang would have happened infinitely long ago - whatever that means. :-) Fasteddious

Time doesn't exist. Time is just a sequence of states of reality. Any talk about time existing or coming into existence or there being a time when there was no time is nonsense. One could talk about a state with no previous states, but that could still be called a time. Random Nobody

Not for very long. If Pearlman YeC SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model, we find the universe attained mature size and density by the end of day 4. With the start of time coinciding with the start of the physical universe early day one. Pearlman

Not for very long. If Pearlman YeC SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model, we find the universe attained mature size and density by the end of day 4. With the start of time coinciding with the start of the physical universe early day one.. Pearlman

Hilbert's Hotel--you can check out, but you can never leave..... You know, Craig is a theologian, not a physicist or cosmologist.... chuckdarwin

I wonder what Cronin's concept of time is, but in any case imagine a state in which there's absolutely no change or motion, a bit like pausing a DVD. Would time exist for anything in that state? If not, and if motion is contingent upon matter - something must change in order for there to be motion - then apart from the Big Bang, assuming the Big Bang is the origin of all mass/energy, there is no matter thus no change and thus no time. Dick

Where is the link to the actual talk / essay / paper? Oddly, News includes a link, but it's to Cronin's bio not his actual, entire argument, which is the subject of the entire post. It's as if News isn't actually interested in the underlying details and logic of Cronin's argument, but just finds it objectionable. For example, we get a two minute entire video from WLC, but nothing but a paragraph from Cronin without any context. Here's the essay at IAI: https://iai.tv/articles/time-existed-before-the-big-bang-lee-cronin-auid-2402 critical rationalist

Many folks also don't like, but can't falsify Einstein's description of spacetime, in which he theorized that space and time are not separate entities but the manifestation of a single entity, spacetime. The Hafele-Keating experiment in 1971, famously supported Einstein's special and general theories of relativity. However, the Big Bang theory of the origin of spacetime and mass-energy is ideologically repugnant to deterministic materialists, who choke on the words, "In the beginning." Thus, they've determined that this highly successful and frequently verified theory has got to go! As a result, we're starting to see a substitute for Science that's NOT grounded on causality, observation, data, measurement, experimentation, independent repeatability, and logic, but one that's instead grounded on ideology alone. Experimentation will be replaced by a new orthodoxy and good intentions. This is the fundamental problem with Darwinism and uniformitarian geology and paleontology, and is now poisoning astronomy, theoretical physics, all biology, genetics, medicine, nutrition, and many other science disciplines. "Follow the science" is now becoming synonymous with "Follow your heart" (as long as your heart conforms to the current narrative, of course).

"We don't need doctors, we need Communist doctors. - Attributed to Mao Zedong

-Q Querius

"I’m not clear on the relation between an infinite past and Hilbert’s Hotel. Can someone explain the connection?" PM1, Did you watch the video? Andrew asauber

"That is the great advantage of..." LOL It's like being able print money. I'll just print some money, whatever I need, and everything will be good. LOL Andrew asauber

PM1 @2 On this subject, I've never forgotten the following text by HeKS:

Imagine walking into a field and seeing a ladder running straight up into the sky as far as you can see. Near the bottom is a man climbing down the ladder towards the ground. As you get closer you hear him say, “3, 2, 1, done. Wow, I have literally been climbing down that ladder forever.” Is his statement even coherent? Taken literally, this man is claiming to have ended a climb down a beginningless succession of rungs and to thereby have traversed an infinite sequence one step at a time. But if the ladder truly has an infinite number of rungs, such that there is no first, highest rung to the ladder, then the man could not have traversed all the rungs of the ladder to reach the ground, as there was no opportunity for him to begin his descent. That any particular rung is only a finite distance from the ground is irrelevant, because the man is climbing down the ladder towards the ground, not up the ladder and away from the ground. As such, the absence of any beginning point for the man to have started a descent means that no matter what particular rung you might choose, however far from the ground it might be, the man could never have gotten even to that rung, much less to the ground. The man would always be infinitely far from any particular rung you might choose. So, if we accept that the ladder truly has an infinite number of rungs and yet the man has reached the ground, the only logical conclusion is that the man began his descent down the ladder at some specific time and at some specific rung that was a finite distance from the ground and that that rung where he began his descent was preceded by an infinite number of other rungs. [.... More look for post #1116 ...]

Origenes

One clear thing is that infinite in terms of time and space cannot exist. Because one can conceive of it in one's mind, people give it reality. But like any reality it will then have many implications of which is an infinite number of absurdities must then exist. People continually confuse useful concepts that are mental only with reality. Most mathematics is such a concept. It is extremely useful in the real world but many of its concepts are not in the real world. The simplest example is a line or a circle. Neither exist in the real world but extremely close approximations do, so the mathematical concepts associated with both are infinitely useful when dealing with these extremely close approximations. The operative sentence for Cronin's nonsense is

Many folks in physics sure don’t like the Big Bang.

jerry

I'm not clear on the relation between an infinite past and Hilbert's Hotel. Can someone explain the connection? PyrrhoManiac1

There's that word again: Emergent... relatd