Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Or maybe it was hyperbole. On "The most important question ever" list, I would put it in the tp 5, but not number 1. 🙂

But if Hawkings hypothesis was correct and it was not only unknowable but also had no real impact on the current state of the universe, then wouldn't it simply be little more than a curiosity?

Originally posted by twhitehead
But if Hawkings hypothesis was correct and it was not only unknowable but also had no real impact on the current state of the universe, then wouldn't it simply be little more than a curiosity?

That might be true, IF one accepted Hawking's hypothesis.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
That might be true, IF one accepted Hawking's hypothesis.

Of course. And I am sure his comment was similarly conditional to the hypothesis.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course. And I am sure his comment was similarly conditional to the hypothesis.

Likely.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And you are welcome to that belief.
However, I think Hawking was saying that since the current makup of the universe is a result of the events during the big bang and not what came before, it doesn't really matter whether God was behind it. It wouldn't make any difference.

If he had an effect, it would be either in the formulation of the laws of physi nce would it make if the universes existence was just as much a brute fact as Gods existence?

My personal theory and I entrain anyone to disprove it:
Our universe came about in a 'high school' class science experiment, where the kids had 5th dimensional straws where they blew energy into which upset a local condition that they were monitoring attosecond by attosecond for their high school graduation project.

They had to get it right, generating a viable universe, or else they would have been stuck behind a year, doing it all over again the next semester. We can't know if the instructors actually gave them a passing grade for another (what to us) is another 50 billion years or so. Of course to them, only a few weeks pass by while the kids monitor the experiment.

They are taught to have a strictly hands off approach to the project else they interfere with the end product of the experiment, that is, do any life forms generated in that daughter universe evolve enough to see the classroom and discern the students at work?

BTW, here is a link to an alternate physics of the BB, where there is no singularity. Very preliminary for sure, but here it is:

http://www.physorg.com/news198135631.html

Originally posted by sonhouse
My personal theory....

You mean 'hypothesis'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]Some good quotes from the article:
Contrary to the common perception, BBT is not a theory about the origin of the universe. Rather, it describes the development of the universe over time.

This, of course, assumes that the material universe always existed. If, however, the material universe was created, time began upon the conception of the material universe and ONLY then.

Of course, for those of you who are forced to adopt the "material universe always existed" stance, due to the believe that there is no God, I have only one question. If time measure from point A to point B, which it does, why is there no point A?

Originally posted by whodey
This, of course, assumes that the material universe always existed. If, however, the material universe was created, time began upon the conception of the material universe and ONLY then.

Of course, for those of you who are forced to adopt the "material universe always existed" stance, due to the believe that there is no God, I have only one question. If time measure from point A to point B, which it does, why is there no point A?

What do you mean when you say "time measures from point A to point B"?

Originally posted by whodey
This, of course, assumes that the material universe always existed.

If by that you mean that it assumes that time is infinite, then no, it doesn't.
In fact, I cant see how anything you quoted involves assumptions of any kind.

Of course, for those of you who are forced to adopt the "material universe always existed" stance, due to the believe that there is no God, I have only one question. If time measure from point A to point B, which it does, why is there no point A?
I don't understand what you claim we are forced to adopt, nor why you claim it, nor do I understand your final question.
Could you expand on each of those items?

Originally posted by whodey
This, of course, assumes that the material universe always existed. If, however, the material universe was created, time began upon the conception of the material universe and ONLY then.

Of course, for those of you who are forced to adopt the "material universe always existed" stance, due to the believe that there is no God, I have only one question. If time measure from point A to point B, which it does, why is there no point A?

Actually, for me, it works the other way around: since I think the notion of the universe coming into existence ex nihilo by the action of some (any) exogenous agent is implausible, it is immaterial to me whether or not such putative exogenous agent is a “creator god” or not.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You mean 'hypothesis'.

Or supposition, take your pick🙂

Originally posted by whodey
This, of course, assumes that the material universe always existed. If, however, the material universe was created, time began upon the conception of the material universe and ONLY then.

Of course, for those of you who are forced to adopt the "material universe always existed" stance, due to the believe that there is no God, I have only one question. If time measure from point A to point B, which it does, why is there no point A?

By that I assume 'time measured from point A to point B' is going from the past into the future.

What seems a good hypothesis right now is our universe was spawned from a previous universe just as our universe spawns daughter universes. What that says is the Point A bit is just the starting of a local clock, our universe. That implies there are many other Point A's in other universes, both parent and daughter. Presumably ad infinitum.

Originally posted by sonhouse
By that I assume 'time measured from point A to point B' is going from the past into the future.

What seems a good hypothesis right now is our universe was spawned from a previous universe just as our universe spawns daughter universes. What that says is the Point A bit is just the starting of a local clock, our universe. That implies there are many other Point A's in other universes, both parent and daughter. Presumably ad infinitum.

The only thing this seems to show is that the current beliefs/hypothesis just
don't cover all the points we see nicely.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The only thing this seems to show is that the current beliefs/hypothesis just
don't cover all the points we see nicely.
Kelly

You persist thinking that this is a religious matter. No, it isn't.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The only thing this seems to show is that the current beliefs/hypothesis just
don't cover all the points we see nicely.
Kelly

That includes ALL belief's, including religious ones from ANYONE on the planet. No human knows ANYTHING about the beginning of the universe, created or not. Anyone who does think they KNOW how things started are simply deluded.