Helmut, List: The Big Bang is called a "singularity" because it is the point in the past when the mathematical equations that scientists currently take as governing our existing universe break down; i.e., the event when those laws of nature came into being, *assuming *that they have remained essentially unchanged since then. (Peirce, of course, held that they have *evolved*, and are still subject to minute spontaneous variations.) Consequently, as Gary R. has been highlighting by quoting CP 6.208, if the Big Bang has a place in Peirce's cosmology *at all*, it can *only *correspond to the beginning of our *existing *universe. Everything that comes *before *that in Peirce's blackboard narrative--the blackboard itself, the initial chalk mark, the aggregation of multiple marks into reacting systems, and the merging of those systems into larger Platonic worlds--must *precede *the Big Bang. Now, granted, since the Big Bang corresponds to the *beginning *of time, "precede" has to be taken in some way other than strictly chronologically; but as Clark Goble has affirmed, this problem of language arises no matter what words we use when trying to discuss things "before" time began. The only way to avoid the kind of circularity that you describe below is to recognize the necessity of necessary Being--*Ens necessarium*--which Peirce explicitly identified as God in "A Neglected Argument."
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > Edwina, list, > I my humble (being a layman about all these things) opinion, I agree with > Edwina, because the big bang is said to have been a singularity, and I > guess, that "singularity" is not only a matter of physics, but of > everything, such as philosophy, black boards, metaphysical meanings of > metaphors, whatever. So there can not be a "pre" of it, the less as the big > bang is said to be not only the origin of space, but of time too. Lest you > suggest a meta-time, in a meta-universe, but then the problem of beginning > is merely postponed to that: Did the meta-universe come from a > meta-big-bang? I only have two possible explanations for this problem of > origin/beginning: Either there was no beginning/creation, and no big bang > (I had supposed a multi-bubble-universe some weeks ago) , or there is a > circle of creation, like: A creates B, B creates C, C creates A. But this > would mean, that creation is atemporal, otherwise it would not work. But I > like it, and maybe it is good for some quite funny science-fiction story. > But perhaps it is not far fetched: Creation is everywhere, is "God", and it > forms circular attractors of recreation. Stop! This is getting weird, I > have to think some more about it first. > Best, > Helmut >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
