4 ms·

It's not laughable at all. Before the existence of our universe, there was no time. Time was created along with the space, matter, and energy when the thing "

It's not laughable at all. Before the existence of our universe, there was no time. Time was created along with the space, matter, and energy when the thing "sprang into existence." It's not valid to extrapolate backward to a time before our universe existed. This is a concept that I've tried to explain to others for years, but it's difficult for most people to grasp.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
paulrouget 4y ago
> Before the existence of our universe, there was no time We don't know that. > Time was created along with the space, matter, and energy when the thing "sprang into existence." These are just speculations. Some theories indeed mention that, but they are not part of our standard models. For now, we just don't know. > it's difficult for most people to grasp. Oh come on…
- anonymousiam 4y ago
  "We don't know that." Yes we do: https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time > it's difficult for most people to grasp. "Oh come on…" Q.E.D.
  - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
    > Yes we do: https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time I don’t see anything in that article mentioning that time did not exist before the universe existed. Did I miss it?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - paulrouget 4y ago
    > Yes we do: https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time We have an accepted standard model. 2 in fact. QM and Lambda CDM say very little about how things were working very close the t=0, and say absolutely nothing about how the conditions were a t=0 or "before". As I said in my comment, people suggest ideas of how things could be. But nothing tangible, nothing ever included in ΛCDM, nothing predicted by QM… we are missing data, solid math, and solid physic to postulate anything about t<=0. I mean … we don't even know how gravity works in these conditions. How could we even say anything about time! > Q.E.D. I would classify your previous comment as pseudo science, and saying "it's difficult for most people to grasp" as lack of humility. If you do understand how space and time were structured "before the existence of our universe", you should go claim a Nobel price.
interpenetrate 4y ago
Time, as component of the universe, itself "sprang into existence?" Despite "sprang" being a fantastical word to use in this context, it at least carries with it one thing for sure: a temporal component. "Springing" on its own indicates some sort of motion, which can only take place in time. Furthermore, "sprang" indicates a past tense, so that this "springing" took place at some (primordial) moment in time. According to your account, time presupposes itself. You're applying the terms of experience to non-experience. The error is in a sophism of figure of speech. Unfortunately you haven't explained anything at all. All you've demonstrated is that Kant was justified in writing the Antinomy.
- anonymousiam 4y ago
  Did you read the article? I put "sprang" in quotes for a reason. Speech (and writing) is how we express ourselves, but our languages are biased by the experience of our forebears, and linear time is a part of that bias.
  - interpenetrate 4y ago
    Forget "sprang." You said this: > Before the existence of our universe, there was no time. This is just a logical error. Unless you're using "before" in some novel way that needs clarifying. To be clear: The author is saying that the universe has no beginning in time (and no outer bound of space). Once you remove your logical error of presupposing time before time, you are saying that the universe has a beginning in time (and presumably is enclosed within spatial bounds). Is this not what you're saying? The esteemed author, in saying confidently that there is no "before" the universe because the universe has no beginning, falls into the same trap that you do but lands on the other side of Kant's Antinomy: the author takes the empiricist stance in the dialectic, and you take the dogmatic stance. But even so, at least the author's stance is amenable to the infinite empirical regression of scientific practice; your stance just "puts speculative reason to slumber."
mistermann 4y ago
> It's not valid to extrapolate backward to a time before our universe existed. And yet, you've managed to do just that! > This is a concept that I've tried to explain to others for years, but it's difficult for most people to grasp. Not surprising since not all people experience the same reality.
- anonymousiam 4y ago
  "And yet, you've managed to do just that!" How?
  - dudeguy3301 4y ago
    lol, some people just 'think' different, like the old macintosh adds...
    - mistermann 4y ago
      It is true, but whether it is funny, and whether the Macintosh ads are an adequate illustration, are very different matters.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    "Before the existence of our universe, there was no time." It seems almost impossible to avoid this sort of thing (~omniscience), at least when discussing certain topics, but it can be a lot of fun to try. Noticing it in others when reading comments is much easier, and a good form of practice.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

paulrouget 4y ago

> Before the existence of our universe, there was no time We don't know that. > Time was created along with the space, matter, and energy when the thing "sprang into existence." These are just speculations. Some theories indeed mention that, but they are not part of our standard models. For now, we just don't know. > it's difficult for most people to grasp. Oh come on…

anonymousiam 4y ago
"We don't know that." Yes we do: https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time > it's difficult for most people to grasp. "Oh come on…" Q.E.D.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  > Yes we do: https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time I don’t see anything in that article mentioning that time did not exist before the universe existed. Did I miss it?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- paulrouget 4y ago
  > Yes we do: https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time We have an accepted standard model. 2 in fact. QM and Lambda CDM say very little about how things were working very close the t=0, and say absolutely nothing about how the conditions were a t=0 or "before". As I said in my comment, people suggest ideas of how things could be. But nothing tangible, nothing ever included in ΛCDM, nothing predicted by QM… we are missing data, solid math, and solid physic to postulate anything about t<=0. I mean … we don't even know how gravity works in these conditions. How could we even say anything about time! > Q.E.D. I would classify your previous comment as pseudo science, and saying "it's difficult for most people to grasp" as lack of humility. If you do understand how space and time were structured "before the existence of our universe", you should go claim a Nobel price.

interpenetrate 4y ago

Time, as component of the universe, itself "sprang into existence?" Despite "sprang" being a fantastical word to use in this context, it at least carries with it one thing for sure: a temporal component. "Springing" on its own indicates some sort of motion, which can only take place in time. Furthermore, "sprang" indicates a past tense, so that this "springing" took place at some (primordial) moment in time. According to your account, time presupposes itself. You're applying the terms of experience to non-experience. The error is in a sophism of figure of speech. Unfortunately you haven't explained anything at all. All you've demonstrated is that Kant was justified in writing the Antinomy.

anonymousiam 4y ago
Did you read the article? I put "sprang" in quotes for a reason. Speech (and writing) is how we express ourselves, but our languages are biased by the experience of our forebears, and linear time is a part of that bias.
- interpenetrate 4y ago
  Forget "sprang." You said this: > Before the existence of our universe, there was no time. This is just a logical error. Unless you're using "before" in some novel way that needs clarifying. To be clear: The author is saying that the universe has no beginning in time (and no outer bound of space). Once you remove your logical error of presupposing time before time, you are saying that the universe has a beginning in time (and presumably is enclosed within spatial bounds). Is this not what you're saying? The esteemed author, in saying confidently that there is no "before" the universe because the universe has no beginning, falls into the same trap that you do but lands on the other side of Kant's Antinomy: the author takes the empiricist stance in the dialectic, and you take the dogmatic stance. But even so, at least the author's stance is amenable to the infinite empirical regression of scientific practice; your stance just "puts speculative reason to slumber."

mistermann 4y ago

> It's not valid to extrapolate backward to a time before our universe existed. And yet, you've managed to do just that! > This is a concept that I've tried to explain to others for years, but it's difficult for most people to grasp. Not surprising since not all people experience the same reality.

anonymousiam 4y ago
"And yet, you've managed to do just that!" How?
- dudeguy3301 4y ago
  lol, some people just 'think' different, like the old macintosh adds...
  - mistermann 4y ago
    It is true, but whether it is funny, and whether the Macintosh ads are an adequate illustration, are very different matters.
- mistermann 4y ago
  "Before the existence of our universe, there was no time." It seems almost impossible to avoid this sort of thing (~omniscience), at least when discussing certain topics, but it can be a lot of fun to try. Noticing it in others when reading comments is much easier, and a good form of practice.