If before time there was indeed time, (as Awori states), then there was no "before time." It depends on one's concept of time. "Internal Universal" time is restricted to the observed universe, and is defined by the events takng place in the observed universe. External time supposes a context larger than the observed universe, and would encompass all alternate forms of exitence, including parallel universes, and forms of existence for which we have no concepts at all. We simply cannot impose our own definition of time into a larger context than the observed universe, since we do not have the necessary conceptual framework. Therefore, we are stuck with internal universal time, which began with the existence of events in the observed universe. The idea of time before then is speculative, since we cannot fathom what events might have occurred within a primordial point particle. We cannot even envision what, if anything, goes on inside a black hole. Is there time there? We have no basis for discussing that question. So therefore, our concept of time begins at the Big Bang, or perhaps an instant before. There is a grey area there, but we are stuck with it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
On Apr 21, 10:42 am, awori achoka <[email protected]> wrote: > This is purely philosophical---before time, there was time--otherwise "the > period before time began" would not have been there!. Because a period > denotes time. > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > > In a sense, one can argue that the beginning of time was the beginning > > of everything. > > But that is because semantically, we identify "beginning" with time. > > Therefore, by definition, nothing can have happened before time began. > > > But conceptually, we can say that if time began, then something must > > have caused time to begin. > > So even though technically there was no "before" time, > > the initiation of time must have happened "before" time began. > > > We should not get caught up in the semantics. > > > If we accept that the universe has order and structure, then we must > > accept that there is some organizing principle underlying that order > > and structure. > > > That organizing principle can be likened to a molecule of DNA. > > Let's use human DNA as our analogy. > > > DNA is not the human. It is the coded instruction set for > > "building" (so to speak) a human body. > > Within that coded instruction set is the organizing principle that > > results in the human body. > > > In a similar manner, we can discern that there must be a coded > > instruction set, > > we might liken it to a computer program, that organizes the cosmos. > > > But just as DNA is not a human body, so also we can reasonably assume > > that the > > organizing principle is not the same as the "finished product," the > > cosmos. > > The organizing principle would be as different from the cosmos as DNA > > is from a human body. > > > The organizing principle need not obey the laws of cause and effect, > > the laws of sequence, the laws of time. > > Indeed, even human logic itself is encoded in the principle, and > > therefore > > the organizing principle is not subject to, not subordinate to, > > the human intellect. > > > We can only conclude then, that we have utterly no method of ever > > understanding the > > organizing principle unless certain conditions are met: > > > The organizing principle is intelligent and purposeful. > > It reveals itself to us, at least in part. > > It bestows on us the capacity to understand what it reveals to us. > > > If this sounds like theology, it is because it deals with ultimates > > and absolutes. > > But it also shows us that while ultimates and absolutes are forever > > beyond the ken of the human mind, > > it is entirely reasonable to propose that there is an ineffable > > essence to all reality, and that it is entirely reasonable to > > attribute intelligence and purpose to it (after all, these exist in > > our finite beings). > > > All of which impose upon us one critical attribute for which each of > > us must strive--- > > humility. > > ----------------------------------------- > > > On Apr 19, 5:42 am, awori achoka <[email protected]> wrote: > > > A particle of what? In what context did it exist---in a timeless context? > > My > > > argument is that---everything began at a point--a point of time. First > > there > > > was time then an event---the event was the beginning. > > > > On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > In the beginning there was a primordial point particle. > > > > This was BEFORE there was time, space and energy. > > > > ---------------------------------- > > > > > On Apr 17, 10:06 am, awori achoka <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > For the sake of debate----in the beginning there was time and then > > space > > > > and > > > > > energy followed. The rest is history. > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > What is the Organizing Principle of the Universe? > > > > > -- > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups > > > > "Epistemology" group. > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > [email protected]<epistemology%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > <epistemology%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > . > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > > > -- > > > > nubiaafrika.blogspot.com > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Epistemology" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]<epistemology%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > . > > > For more options, visit this group athttp:// > > groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Epistemology" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]<epistemology%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- > > nubiaafrika.blogspot.com > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
