Colliding Branes and The T "Before" 0 Question

This may be a sensible question. Or I may be having an ICANT moment. I want to ask about the hypothesis that our universe was created by colliding branes. Also known as the Ekpyrotic Universe model.If the universe was created by colliding branes does this not warrant some validity to ICANT’s oft recited and disparagingly dismissed question of What came before T=0?. Now before anyone starts jumping up and down and talking about going North of the North pole etc. etc. Let me just say I know all that. I have no problem with the idea that time as we define it in our universe is itself a feature of the existence of our universe.What I am asking is the following: If our universe is the product of colliding branes then this implies that there existed something before our universe did. In fact it suggests that there were things (i.e. branes) which were in motion prior to the existence of our universe. And the concept of motion itself implies a change of position in time. So does the colliding branes hypothesis require that there were direct equivalents to time and space in the multi-brane-verse before time and space as we know them as features of our universe existed?I have placed these terms in "parentheses" to indicate that the terms in question are not the same as those that are products of the observable physical time and space within our universe.BB and Cosmology topic. If promoted.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Thread copied here from the Colliding Branes and The T "Before" 0 Question thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Yes, of course. Look back over all my posts where I address this subject and you will see that I consider both the Universe having a finite past and an infinite past. You will see me use the phrase "in the classic Big Bang Cosmology, there is a minimum time, T=0" or something similar. The point is that we have possible quantum extensions to the classical Big Bang that give both a finite past and an infinite past, so given current understanding there is not necessarily a time before T=0. And thus you cannot construct arguments that depend upon a T<0 caveats.

If we assume these caveats then is it fair to say that colliding branes requires concepts like "space" and "time" to exist in a multi-brane-verse? That the very notion of collision requires "motion" which itself requires "time" and some sort of change in "spatial" position?If so what does this tell us about the generality of concepts like time and space as applied to entities that are not our universe? Or is this simply us applying human concepts that make sense in our universe to things that are essentially incomprehensible?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

It's not just fair to say, it has to be the case. Our spatial dimensions are just a subset of those of the higher "brane-space", and we inherit the time dimension. I would be very careful about any "generalities" - each specific model or hypothesis carries with it its own specific structure. Remember that these models are born out of the mathematics, not the other way round. The apparent vagueness of the terms bandied around in such discussions is purely a function of their layman presentation. This is in stark contrast to pseudo-science bullshit, where the vagueness is an inherent property of the "model".