Summations Only

If time is something more than memory and a comparison of motions as you seem to hint to the cat, Whim, you need to specify that extra something. Draw a mock-up of the thingy like so the judge can see you are not crapping at the mouth in an attempt to put a slur on the prosecution. If you want keep it all mysterious though, the church is two doors on the left. You are welcome there with your babble.
Here is the court session and your bigbangism is in the dock.

Not necessarily. Carroll's notion has time stretching infinitely forwards and backwards.
No matter how far you go 'back' (which is an arbitrary direction along the time line according this notion) there will still be universe. If you want to submit that as evidence - I submit to you that you must accept other physics papers as evidence too, right? This would mean you accept that the universe was hotter and denser earlier.As for the paper, I don't think either of us are qualified to understand what's going on there. But maybe they've indeed ruled out certain universe configurations. I've no idea if that includes Carroll's or not. No it wouldn't. It would just mean they would begin to exist. There would be no prior time when there was non-existence, from which it came. There could be no time, as time wouldn't exist. I'm going with the first one. Carroll's notion as far as I can tell, does not have a beginning but I'm not sure it has an infinite 'past' necessarily either.In any event, always existed does not have to mean 'infinite time'. A fence can always be next to a certain road in space, but not have 'infinite length'. The universe could always have existed, but there could be a finite amount of time within it. There wasn't a thing that preceded it. There was neither time nor space in which something could exist, and if there was an alternate region of existence outside our universe/multiverse, there is no reason to say that it exists 'before' the universe, let alone that it might have causal influence upon it. In what time and space could it have caused anything?So yeah - the universe always existed, for however long always is.

I would just change your wording to "It was created by a natural phenomena (e.g. branes)"
Or maybe call it "existed in a different way" as opposed to "already existed."The "already existed" part is kind of the same fallacy ICANT is falling into when he speaks of "always existed" in some form.The terms 'always' and 'already' imply a usage of time. Time is a property of our universe.
There may be some sort of natural process outside/beyond our universe... but it is an assumption to think that "time" (at least as we know of it) would be a part of that process in any recognizable way.It's very weird to consider... because "time" seems so basic to us.
But, again, that's just because we're us, and we're here in this universe... that has "time."In contemplating uber-universe scenarios, we can no longer assume the properties of our own universe. Even if they do seem basic and necessary to us.
ICANT seems unable to do this (hence his limit to the 2 options), but I don't think that means we should all lower our intellect to the same level... it will only add confusion to anyone actually trying to learn something from all of this.I do agree with your idea, and that your options 3 and 4 are valid. In fact, since this is the beginning of the entire universe, I think it's quite rational to include a "???" option because it is highly likely that something not-based-in-our-universe does not work in ways that we understand from-within-our-universe.
I'm also talking out of my ass (so my point of contention may be wrong as well...) just wondering if I'm understanding things correctly or not. If I'm not, I'm hoping someone will correct my error with an explanation as to why I'm wrong.

Yes. Your wording is probably better. I was reluctant to bring the "time only exists in a universe" part of the discussion.
I was having enough troubles explaining that ICANT's unsupported conclusion is as valid as any other unsupported conclusion. True. I would be surprised if the description of what was around "before" our universe didn't require words and concepts that do not currently exist. Clarification is always good on these difficult to describe subjects.

Understood. Yeah... a bit dwarfing to ponder.
Or, at least it is to me. Maybe folks like cavediver and Son Goku actually have a bit more inkling in that direction. Maybe that's what they mean when they say "it's all in the maths!" ...the concepts and words havn't been invented yet.
C'mon, astrophysicists, invent concepts and ensure that they are mainstream, already! Slackers.

He also unnecessarily assumes that existence is a binary state - that is something either exists or not. But we don't know that there aren't other states of quasi-existence. If there's upwards of 10 dimensions then who knows what kinds of states of existence there might be.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Hi Stile, When I say 'always' I am not invoking time. I am invoking eternity. When you speak of time you are referring to existence.If not please explain what time is and how it is determined.You have made the assertion that, "time is a property of our universe". I assume you are referring to time being a demension.Please describe the entity that is time which you say is the property of the universe.Space is an entity, matter is an entity and energy is an entity but what kind of an entity is time?God Bless,

Hi CS, Where would those 10 dimensions exist?God Bless,

Not in a place such that the question "where" makes any sense.

Hi Mod, Carroll actually said of time:

quote:

---

The distinction between past and future seems to be consistent throughout the observable universe. The arrow of time is simply that distinction, pointing from past to future.

---

That says time flows in one direction. I like what Carroll has to say about the early universe.

quote:

---

I’m on record as predicting that we’ll understand what happened at the Big Bang within fifty years. Not just the Big Bang model the paradigm of a nearly-homogeneous universe expanding from an early hot, dense, state, which has been established beyond reasonable doubt but the Bang itself, that moment at the very beginning. So now is as good a time as any to contemplate what we already think we do and do not understand. (Also, I’ll be talking about it Saturday night on Coast to Coast AM, so it’s good practice.)

​

There is something of a paradox in the way that cosmologists traditionally talk about the Big Bang. They will go to great effort to explain how the Bang was the beginning of space and time, that there is no before or outside, and that the universe was (conceivably) infinitely big the very moment it came into existence, so that the pasts of distant points in our current universe are strictly non-overlapping. All of which, of course, is pure moonshine. When they choose to be more careful, these cosmologists might say Of course we don’t know for sure, but Which is true, but it’s stronger than that: the truth is, we have no good reasons to believe that those statements are actually true, and some pretty good reasons to doubt them.

---

I happen to be one of those who doubt them. Could you explain what time is?Since I know you are going to say it is a dimension of the universe and did not exist until the universe began to exist could you tell me specifically what entity is time? If it does not have an infinite (eternal) 'past' it had to have a beginning to exist. Always to me means eternal but I will change the usage and use eternal exclusivly henceforth.God Bless,

Hi CS, So you don't have a clue.God Bless,

I never mentioned that at all, or even insinuated that.I'm just saying Son told you the Big Bang model doesn't deal with T=0 and you want to tell a working physicist that it does. As though somehow you know something he doesn't? What that link said was fine, and you should try to learn it if you're this interested in it. Anything you're making up is void of any actual math or physics so, really, it's irrelevant.- Oni

lol, wut? I directly answered your question Did you just not understand it? The word "where" implies a location within the 3 spatial dimensions. The 4th dimension, time, doesn't really exist in a place such that you could ask "where does time exist". Similarly, higher dimension aren't really in a place such that the question of where they exist makes any sense.Wait... what the fuck am I doing? I'm trying to explain something to you as if you'll honestly try to understand it rather than just insist on your preconceived notions. Gawsh I'm stupid.

Okay, once again.In the Big Bang model there is no Planck time. The existence of a Planck time, where gravity begins to behave quantum mechanically, is an extension of the Big Bang theory that a good number of physicists think might be worth trying to develop. There are other ideas.There are several models where the four forces don't unite into one force, that is also just an proposed extension.In the conventional Big Bang model none of the stuff you wrote is even mentioned. No it isn't.

Well I just looked through "The Early Universe" Kolb and Turner, the standard graduate text on cosmology and they don't say such a thing. In fact they only mention the Planck Epoch in the final chapter as a possible extension of the Big Bang theory.I guess you're going to say Kolb and Turner is my Bible/Qu'ran or something aren't you?