🚀 go-pugleaf

John Stein wrote:
> 
> --
> John Stein <jstein@tfs.net>
> 
> Hawking uses this analogy when people ask him what caused the big bang, or
> what was before the big bang. His opinion is (according to a Brief History
> of Time) that time started at the big bang so asking what is before the
> big bang is like asking what is more to the north then the north pole.

exactly, there was nothing before the big bang.  so what is the point
in asking what was before.  besides even if something did exist
before the big bang, there is no way we could ever know about it.

> 
> > > >I confess to vast unfamiliarity with
> > > >Hawking's theories, but my imagination tells me that to travel the
> > > >distances of space (as we measure distance), we not only must overcome
> > the
> > > >distance involved but time.
> 
> > > Agreed. It takes time to overcome the distance. So the distance isn�t
> > > the real problem, but time is.
> >
> > > >This doesn't mean time as in going faster to do
> > > >it in less, but to travel in some way as to make our current
> > understanding
> > > >of time irrelevant. Perhaps this means, then, that we find some manner
> > of
> > > >entering eternity as a method of overcoming both distance and time.
> > > >
> > > You mean something like:
> > > - Now I�m here.
> > > - Blink to eternity
> > > - Blink, now I�m there (say 1 sec. later, and 3000000 lightyears
> > > further)
> >
> > Yes, I suppose so. Leave a temporal dimension, enter another where time
> and
> > distance are irrelevant, and pop out at your destination 3000000 light
> > years away. It's profoundly speculative. Is there anything scientifically
> > substantial to hint at such a concept?
> >
> 
> Excuse me but what are we tlaking about here. How can you leave our
> dimensions. If there are more dimension (say ten) we're allready in them,
> we just don't move in them. So you cannot "enter" or "leave" a dimension.
> This and the sometimes irritating property of time that makes us unable
> to choose whether we move or not in that dimension makes it impossible to
> move instantaniously in the way you guys describe.
> 
> I was already confused, and now it's getting worse. Science needs causality
> to understand the universe. We've worked our way back to the big bang,
> saying the universe was created by its effect. Are simply satisfied by
> saying we can't look past that moment? We do look past the North Pole,
> though we don't describe what we find there as north. We describe it as
> space, solar system, or whatever.

we are hit over the head with hard limits.  at the big bang, everything
in the universe existed as a point energy mass.  all information of
anything
that could have existed "before"(time starts from the big bang so what
does
before mean in this context anyway?), would have been lost in the
process 
of it being compressed into this energy mass.  

imagine if i put a person in a compressor and compressed them into say
a cubic millimeter.  now is there anyway you could look at this little
cube and tell me any real information about what the person looked like
before?  then lets say the cube is only a nanometer big?  you cant,
the information is simply lost to us.  the same is true of the big
bang, all of our knowledge of the universe has to start with the big
band anything "before" is just lost information.

> 
> If we look past the big bang, when time begins, then we will be describing
> something beyond time or in "not time." Causality would tell us something
> was at work to cause the big bang, and whatever that something was may have
> existed in a "not time" state. So the question I'm playing with is: If it
> is possible that "not time" once existed, can time and "not time" coexist,
> or did one replace the other at the moment of the big bang. And if they
> coexist, how, since by definition they are dissimilar. If they coexist, can
> objects move between the two?

> 
> The best word I know for "not time" is eternity: no beginning, no end;
> simply being or existence. Perhaps there is a better one. Perhaps also I
> use the term "dimension" incorrectly. My background is philosophy and
> theology. I am fascinated by this, but struggle to keep up with the formula
> and terminolgy.

there really is not good terminalogy for what would/could have existed
before the universe.  besides it simply is beyond our ability
to ever know for certain what was before the big bang.

-- 
buckysan: does anyone else like ani-mayhem? 
          
annapuma and unapumma in 96'

 " the realization that the pursuit of knowledge can be an
   end unto itself is the beginning and highest form of wisdom"
























.


.