The Big Bang is not the beginning of time

[MuraRengan]

In my discussions about time with some of my more science-oriented friends, I've noticed a recurring theme that is that a lot of people consider the Big Bang to be the beginning of time. They say that this is because time is a measurement of physical change, and that no change was measurable before the Big Bang. I'm assuming that some of you here will hold this idea as well.

I don't think that this idea is true, mainly because it asserts that time is only measurable when change can be experienced in the senses. It asserts that without physical things, there is no time. This presents a number of problems, one, you've probably already considered, is that if the Big Bang was the beginning of time, what led up the the Big Bang? Was there no passage of events prior to it? If so, what then was the impetus of the event itself?

I have a different understanding of time and it is simply "the difference between then and now". I think that this is the correct way to understand time, because it eliminates the problems presented by the aforementioned understanding of time. It does not require that there be observable change to keep track of time. For example, when I sleep I experience none of the change in the real world, yet I wake up and hours of time have passed. I'll give another, more concrete example:

I could make a 50 second video that was an all black screen that did not change at all. If I consider time as a measurement of change, then the video has no time at all. Which is clearly wrong. If I consider time as a difference between then and now, then I know the video to be 50 seconds.

Similarly, I could make a video in which there are 20 seconds of black, 1 second of a white screen, and then 29 more seconds of black. The latter understanding of time still knows the video to be 50 seconds, but the former is highly confused as to how to judge time. Are the 20 seconds before the white actual time? Or does the time begin when the video changes to white? Does the white have time, even though it does not change for a full second? And are the remaining 29 seconds of black have time?

Hopefully I've convinced you that understanding time as a measurement of physical change is an inadequate understanding of time. From here I'll make my point: There was time before the Big Bang, and there will be time after the heat death of the universe.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Are you intentionally just trying to start an argument based on a flawed premise? The video takes however long it takes because it is a video. The world around it spins and 50 seconds pass. The video took 50 seconds. If you could create a theoretical environment in which no change took place, then within that self-contained environment, there would be no change and it would be considered timeless as there is nothing happening and it would be exactly as you left it when a new element is introduced. However, much like your video example, when you introduce that new element and an effect takes place on that completely static environment, you are still going to be twenty years or whatever in the future. This means that it existed for twenty years which is measurable.

Time, as a unit, only applies within the universe that change is taking place. Creating a static universe within our own, we can still measure how long it has been and with nothing changing in your static universe, there is nothing contained in it to perceive a different sense of time.

Your case lies in the fact that time is only measurable in the face of change and that if there is no change, then there is nothing to ignite change. However, there has to be a beginning. Either your angle is that there was a higher being that is forever (making time stretch negative infinity) or that the Big Bang started it or some other cause that stretches farther back to its own "Big Bang" that sparked the beginning of time.

Unless we can prove that there was nothing and there will not be anything as long as we look back toward negative infinity, then there will always be the leap of faith that something just "was." It was there, always was there, never had anything that caused it to be there, and all change stems originally from that cause.

You don't want to call it the Big Bang, cool. I don't really want to get into that, but your flawed concept of time doesn't really hold up.

 

[MuraRengan]

Are you intentionally just trying to start an argument based on a flawed premise? The video takes however long it takes because it is a video. The world around it spins and 50 seconds pass. The video took 50 seconds. If you could create a theoretical environment in which no change took place, then within that self-contained environment, there would be no change and it would be considered timeless as there is nothing happening and it would be exactly as you left it when a new element is introduced. However, much like your video example, when you introduce that new element and an effect takes place on that completely static environment, you are still going to be twenty years or whatever in the future. This means that it existed for twenty years which is measurable.

I disagree. The time of the theoretical video does not depend on the world spinning or there being any change in the universe. We can conceive of time without there being a prerequisite change. If there was no earth, no universe, no physical entities at all (and thus no change), and all that existed was this plane of existence the concept of a 50 second video would still be possible, because passage of time from then to now still occurs. My point is, even in a changeless environment, the passage of time as a "then" and a "now" is still a reality.

Time, as a unit, only applies within the universe that change is taking place. Creating a static universe within our own, we can still measure how long it has been and with nothing changing in your static universe, there is nothing contained in it to perceive a different sense of time.

There's no reason to assume that a universe created within our universe would have to have a different sense of time. I'll save comments on this quote until I see your response to my previous response.

Your case lies in the fact that time is only measurable in the face of change and that if there is no change, then there is nothing to ignite change. However, there has to be a beginning. Either your angle is that there was a higher being that is forever (making time stretch negative infinity) or that the Big Bang started it or some other cause that stretches farther back to its own "Big Bang" that sparked the beginning of time.

I think you're misunderstanding my point a bit. I believe that time is measurable without change, because I feel that time has nothing to do with (physical) change at all. I think that this is demonstrated by the fact that we can still understand that time passes even in changeless states, such as the video, and I extend that idea to every entity in the universe. I'm not interested in arguing what created time at the moment.

Unless we can prove that there was nothing and there will not be anything as long as we look back toward negative infinity, then there will always be the leap of faith that something just "was." It was there, always was there, never had anything that caused it to be there, and all change stems originally from that cause.

Again, the aim of this thread was not to get into this type of discussion. I'm only interested in time and how time works, not the ramifications of the function of time.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

The perception of a "now" and "then" in a black video is verified from the fact that things are moving and changing and existing outside of it. "Now" and "then" doesn't make sense in an actual nothingness, because the concept doesn't make sense, nothingness can't even be imagined. I agree with Ryker, that analogy is incredibly flawed.

 

[MuraRengan]

The perception of a "now" and "then" in a black video is verified from the fact that things are moving and changing and existing outside of it. "Now" and "then" doesn't make sense in an actual nothingness, because the concept doesn't make sense, nothingness can't even be imagined. I agree with Ryker, that analogy is incredibly flawed.

Explain to me how "now" and "then" make no sense in nothingness. I have no trouble with this concept at all. Omitting the example of the video, do you honestly think that the reality of "now" and "then" doesn't happen in the universe if things don't change?

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I'd like to hear how it does make sense, if you don't mind? Particularly because we are talking about nothingness here. It's a bit hard to say anything of it, don't you think?

 

[MuraRengan]

I'd like to hear how it does make sense, if you don't mind? Particularly because we are talking about nothingness here. It's a bit hard to say anything of it, don't you think?

It seems really simple to me. But first lets try to clear up some confusion.

When I speak of nothingness, I'm talking about a lack of all physical entities in the universe. If our universe had no physical entities, it would still have the two things that support being as we know it: space and time. Even without things to occupy the space, the space is still evident, occupyable, and unique. In the same way, even without things existing in time, time still flows. Can we agree on that?

 

[Holder of the Heel]

In a pocket of space that has no change sounds like the essence of eternity to me, and that tells me it is timeless. Would speak of the empty-space if I knew anything about it, I am not sure if we had empty space there wouldn't be "change" because of physical particles that still exists in empty-space. Since I know nothing of physics, I'll stop there.

 

[Alphicans]

If you could create a theoretical environment in which no change took place, then within that self-contained environment, there would be no change and it would be considered timeless as there is nothing happening and it would be exactly as you left it when a new element is introduced.

I do not know much about the time debate, but I know enough about arguments to know this needs qualifying. Your argument depends on a definition you're using. You need to prove your definition before you can use it. Why is change necessary for time to lapse?

 

[Claire Diviner]

By the OP's description, it would be virtually impossible to measure the beginning of time, as there would be no way to observe an era before existence by the common definition of the word. Of course, existence has to start from somewhere, in this case, The Big Bang, and for that to occur, there had to be some change within the space of emptiness, which would suggest time kept flowing even in an era without a universe.

 

[Dre89]

Nothingness is the lack of all properties, including time and space. Nothingness is literally no existence at all. Time and space without physical entities is emptiness, which is different to nothingness.

Because time is a property and has a specificc form (eg. infinite vs finite, circular vs linear) it can't exist in actual nothingness, therefore nothingness can't have time. That doesn't mean that originally there was no time, because it's not clear whether it is possible for true nothingness to actually exist, even saying that non-existence exists sounds contradictory.

But with the big bang, time doesn't just exist when there is motion, it simply only becomes relevant at that point. That doesn't change the fact that it may have been X amount of years before the big bang actually happened (meaning empitness would have preceded it, not nothingness).

 

[MuraRengan]

I'm willing to exchange the term "emptiness" for "nothingness". The point still stands.

 

[Jon Farron]

Edit: Wasting my time -.-

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Believing the Big Bang started everything requires the same amount of faith as believing in God. There is no reliable scientific evidence for either. (Actually there is a lot of evidence regarding the great flood in the Bible with the fossil record, disproving evolution, but I'm not gonna go into that unless you want me to. I don't wanna start a flame war.)

The belief that atheism requires the same amount of faith as theism is a massive misconception by theists. What is ACTUALLY said is that atheism requires faith much like DEISM, and this is possible because we do not entirely understand the universe. Though, from a metaphysical standpoint, even then, it makes a lot more sense to say that there isn't a god-entity because that not only doesn't solve the supposed issues of atheism but adds in the question of why the heck there is a living entity, not to mention a god-like one. Theism however is something that can be disproved because it makes verifiable metaphysical, logical, scientific, and historical claims that can be tested or be discussed in legitimate argument.

You as a person just need to pick which side your on really. I personally am a Pro-Creationist, it's just amazing how everything flows together, how could it have just evolved from an explosion? And if evolution IS real, why aren't people evolving into other things today?

The first part about how everything flows together isn't exactly an argument, though it is commonly employed sadly (it's basically like how does order come from disorder?), I don't see how things coming from an explosion wouldn't have effects that mold each other and not be sensible. Nor do I understand these conceptions of disorder and order the argument implies.

I believe in some parts of evolution, like 2 different dogs breeding to eventually create a different type of dog. That goes on everyday. But monkey's turning into a human just doesn't really make sense, because wouldn't us humans be evolving into something else right now?

Humans ARE evolving. Just because you don't wake up as a completely different animal doesn't mean you aren't. That's not how evolution works.

Take the human eye for example, scientists are still baffled by the complexity of it, and many evolutionists don't like to talk about it for fear of being questioned. Darwin himself new it would be a problem to his theory.

What?

Now time, from a creationist view, began when God created our universe. God doesn't have time, he is eternal and doesn't have a beginning or an end.

if I were to look at this from an evolutionist point of view... where did the big bang come from? Why did it happen? What caused it? If there was nothing there, how did it get there? If the universe just existed where did that come from? How did the universe come to be? It just doesn't make sense :l

Now, you say that last sentence, yet you say the quote above this one, and more importantly, the quote right here.

Of course you could ask the same questions about God, but he's just there and always will be. There's no point in trying to understand because you can't, you just have to say ok he's just there lol.

Moving on from that though, the Big Bang is not an evolutionary theory. Every has to accept it lest they be blatantly denying evidence. In fact the Big Bang has nothing directly to do with evolution at all, I'm confused as to how you are making the connection.

inb4myagrumentisinvalidbecauseimachristian -.-

No, you're arguments are invalid for other reasons.

I'm not trying to preach to you, I'm just stating my opinion on the beginning of time.

No, you were preaching. You tied in multiple topics into this one, briefly passing over them without giving much reason to entertain them.



Twas bored.

 

[Alphicans]

Your argument is invalid because you've shown yourself to be uneducated on the subject of evolution. Creationists should have the respect to understand the theory of evolution before saying anything. Your point about the eye is one that I've heard multiple times and it always makes me laugh... Not only because it's like a reverse argument from ignorance (a fallacy.. err.. a reverse fallacy lol) but also because evolutionary theorists have already proposed mechanisms for the development of the eye, and can point to transition phases in optic sensory development. In my view creationists can attack evolution, but through means that are contradictory to christian beliefs (ie. pointing to the existence of homosexuality in animals and questioning how this contributes to fitness) meaning they won't even use arguments like this. Even then nothing is a knock down argument.

 

[Jon Farron]

Edit: wasting my time -.-

 

[Vinylic.]

Belief is a strong word and it can be used wrongfully.

At least, that's what I think.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

I never said atheism requires faith, I said believing that the Big Bang happened requires faith.

Actually no. See: Cosmic Background Raditation

Also, saying evolution is monkeys turning into humans is like saying god is a great guy in the sky.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Why would you contrast the Big Bang and God then, and then also go onto talking about a proof for God?

Also, looking around at the world and saying God must have made it because of the detail is the flimsiest argument you can make for it.

Do not call any of us close-minded if you are going to not use any evidence or logic in the Debate Hall, it's offensive and hypocritical.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Plus it would just end up like the Obama vs Romney argument in the User Blogs

Wasn't that the blog where your arguments got shot down over and over again?

That's not a sign of "everyone else is close-minded," more "my arguments need work"

 

[Jon Farron]

Edit: wasting my time -.-

 

[MuraRengan]

Lets all just pretend that White Mage's posts never happened and go back to discussing the actual topic. Is there anyone at this point who is still unconvinced that time lapse does not require physical change?

 

[Alphicans]

I took 2 years of Evolution at my school, I know A LOT about evolution. You shouldn't just assume things.
I'm not going to go into it though, because I know most of you have already made up your minds not to believe that there is a God, so there's no use wasting my energy on close minded people.

Spoiler

Plus it would just end up like the Obama vs Romney argument in the User Blogs

Have any of you even stopped to consider the possibility that there is a God? I bet if you stopped for a minute, and looked around, you would see that this world couldn't have just evolved, or came to be from a random explosion. Just look at the detail and complexity! It's amazing. I admit, sometimes I have had my doubts, but the very next day after the doubts, something comes up and it's just like "wow, there can't be another explanation".

Also, the thread title is "The Big Bang is not the beginning of time" so I was just throwing out another possibility... No need to get all upset :S


and @Holder of The Heel
I never said atheism requires faith, I said believing that the Big Bang happened requires faith.

Two years of evolution and you claim we evolved from monkeys? That two years sure was a waste. And you accuse me of assuming, and then right after you assume I do not believe in god. I do believe in god, but I am no christian, as I believe there is no value in religion. Also, BELIEVING IN GOD DOES NOT MEAN YOU CANNOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION.

EDIT: This has inspired me to have a discussion on the value of religion.

 

[Ussi]

The measurement of change is inadequate to measure time, but what else can we even use to measure time? If your point is there was a time before we could measure time and there will be time after everything is gone, then what is there to debate?

 

[-Jumpman-]

I'm willing to exchange the term "emptiness" for "nothingness". The point still stands.

According to those who believe scientific theory, i.e. the Big Bang, space didn't exist before the Big Bang either. Your point relies on existence of both space and time, when you're trying to prove that time existed.

It is clear that your example of counterfactual reasoning doesn't support your notion.

 

[MuraRengan]

The measurement of change is inadequate to measure time, but what else can we even use to measure time? If your point is there was a time before we could measure time and there will be time after everything is gone, then what is there to debate?

If my point is clear and people accept it, then there is nothing to debate. I was initially expecting more resistance to this idea because in the past I have argued this same point bitterly with people stating firmly that time is change. I've done research that suggest that even modern science believes that time is measured by change. There are scientific articles written that claim that time began at the big bang and that it will end with the heat death of the universe, and since people on these forums tend to not question anything asserted by science, I was expecting people to be fiercely against this idea (mainly because it contradicts the scientific idea of time as understood by Einstein's Theory of Relativity). I'm surprised that so few people had a problem with it.

 

[Claire Diviner]

White Mage, you shouldn't just edit your posts to say "-wasting my time-". You made your argument, and people debate them. The least you could do is try to stick with your point, wrong or not, than show people that you simply give up; it's unbecoming a debater.

 

[Jon Farron]

I know, but I think it's just best that I stay out of debates regarding stuff related to religion, unless it's a very open topic about it.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

The theory of relativity gives us the best idea so far on how to understand the concept of time: by describing it as one pillar of the four-dimensional spacetime continuum. If we use this as our basis to approach a discussion about time it seems only logical to assume that time can not exist without the existence of space and vice versa. First of all, there are no observations of any space where time is not a present entity and in the same hand time [or change] has never been observed or measured outside of space. And of course it matches the theory of relativity, which has correctly predicted a number of phenomena. Logically, if you assume the big bang to be the beginning of the space of our universe it also has to be the beginning of time in that universe. They are part of the same entity after all.

By the OP's description, it would be virtually impossible to measure the beginning of time, as there would be no way to observe an era before existence by the common definition of the word.

Indeed. Before our universe existed the question of time and space couldn't possibly have any relevance. A question that makes no sense whatsoever can not result in an answer that *does* make sense.

 

[Ussi]

If my point is clear and people accept it, then there is nothing to debate. I was initially expecting more resistance to this idea because in the past I have argued this same point bitterly with people stating firmly that time is change. I've done research that suggest that even modern science believes that time is measured by change. There are scientific articles written that claim that time began at the big bang and that it will end with the heat death of the universe, and since people on these forums tend to not question anything asserted by science, I was expecting people to be fiercely against this idea (mainly because it contradicts the scientific idea of time as understood by Einstein's Theory of Relativity). I'm surprised that so few people had a problem with it.

Time started, sotospeak, at the big bang because that's the first moment we can measure time in this universe. If there is a time before, we can't measure it.

 

[MuraRengan]

According to those who believe scientific theory, i.e. the Big Bang, space didn't exist before the Big Bang either. Your point relies on existence of both space and time, when you're trying to prove that time existed.

It is clear that your example of counterfactual reasoning doesn't support your notion.

Logically, if you assume the big bang to be the beginning of the space of our universe it also has to be the beginning of time in that universe. They are part of the same entity after all.
:

Problem is, I'm not convinced that space, in the sense that there is a boundary in which all occupyable space in the universe is contained, would be caused by what is apparently a physical phenomena IN space (the big bang). Saying that the Big Bang was the beginning of space supposes that there is some quality about the Big Bang that allows it to to expand occupyable space itself. I try my best to be as well read on the subject as possible, but I have never come across an article that can help me to understand how this can be true. Einstein's theory addresses the "what if" of the question but not the "how". If anyone has some illuminating information on how it's possible for the Big Bang to expand occupyable space itself, instead of the Big Bang expanding particles into already existing occupyable space, then I am eager to learn of it.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Observations show that the universe is expanding. What you believe to be impossible to have originated from the Big Bang is happening right now - occupyable space is being expanded.

 

[MuraRengan]

Observations show that the universe is expanding. What you believe to be impossible to have originated from the Big Bang is happening right now - occupyable space is being expanded.

How so? Explain? Give me some evidence to convince me. A scientific article explaining how time expands space is what I'm looking for. I'm asking for empirical evidence because I'm beginning to believe that science as a whole has reached a huge misunderstanding about time and space. I don't see any logical reason how the Big Bang could expand occupyable space, so it's not enough that you tell me "Science says so." I want to understand how. For that reason, I can't take you at your word without understanding the logic and the process behind this deduction.

 

[Ussi]

1925 Edwin Hubble provided observational evidence that galaxies were receding from each other.

Based off this observation the galaxies are repeling each other... And over time they get further apart. I'm guessing it'll stop once the universe reaches equilibrium in forces.

If you really need an article i'll look for one.

Or maybe i'm misunderstanding something. I'm assuming time expanding the universe as "the expansion of the universe is happening over time"

 

[~ Gheb ~]

^ Mura, are you actually going to respond to this or will you at least acknowledge it? What more evidence do you need than observations that can be made and calculated by anybody at any time?

 

[MuraRengan]

Sorry I've been busy, college and whatnot, but yes I will respond.

I know about Hubble's observations. I was expecting something along the lines of the Red-Shift phenomena. Regardless, this evidence is not evidence of the realm of occupyable space expanding. Galaxies repelling each other does not necessitate that the space which they pass through as they spread apart was not existing space prior to their movement through it.

Hubble's observations only identify that there was space that was unoccupied prior to the galaxies' movement through them, not that that space was created by the galaxies' movement.

The problem I think we're having here is that I think we're talking about two different things. You mentioned earlier that the universe is expanding. I do not disagree with that at all. I'm saying that the universe's expansion has nothing to do with the fact that space exists because the universe can only expand into a field of empty space that existed prior to it.

 

[Ussi]

So metaphorically, if the universe was contained in a box (not the shape) and the universe is only concentrated in the center of it. it would just expand till it will either hit equilibrium or hit the edge of the box?

 

[MuraRengan]

So metaphorically, if the universe was contained in a box (not the shape) and the universe is only concentrated in the center of it. it would just expand till it will either hit equilibrium or hit the edge of the box?

Yes, this is how I view the relationship between space and the expanding universe, with one stipulation: the box could have been infinitely big to begin with (which I don't personally think is true, but I'm not rejecting the idea altogether.)

On the converse, the conception that the universe expands space itself suggests that, in this metaphor, when the universe expands it would simply make the box bigger as it needed more space. But in all my understanding of space and matter, I see no way this could be true, and I have seen no evidence in science supporting it either.

 

[Ussi]

Well.. What if the edge of the "box" is flexible like a balloon? Then it would expand until the pressure from the universe was too much.

 

[MuraRengan]

Well.. What if the edge of the "box" is flexible like a balloon? Then it would expand until the pressure from the universe was too much.

An interesting thought, but I don't think the metaphor holds up in this instance. The only reason a balloon can stretch is because there is already space available for it to stretch to. In the metaphor of the box, every "unit" of occupyable space is contained in it. The box would not be able to stretch because there is literally nowhere for it to stretch to without necessarily creating space that was not already there.