That claim needs evidence.
1 Like
What is ānatureā? Ā
Nature is a set of stochastic processes, the results of which we see around us.
1 Like
āBeforeā the Big Bang, what was there to process?
I donāt know.
1 Like
So there was no time, space or material. There was a beginning event to āNatureā.
Based on what evidence?
1 Like
Big bang cosmology and relativistic equations.
If you think that is evidence, then I really donāt know what to say that already hasnāt been said. When you get around to describing actual evidence I will be all ears.
1 Like
There was a beginning event to āNatureā. Something caused it. We have objective evidence for Godās providential interventions into his childrenās lives. I am willing to make the obvious correlation.
The beginning of time 13.8 billion ya is the implication of big bang theory because time is part of a mathematical space-time structure which came into existence 13.8 billion years ago. And thus the evidence for it, is all the evidence we have for the big bang and for the inseparability of time and space. The notion of absolute time we had from before relativity is certainly dead with no possibility of revival. The measure of time is dependent on the local space time structure and both time and simultaneity is completely relative. The result is that talking about a time before the big bang is no less speculative and philosophical than talk about a divine creator.
3 Likes
What would a universe without any matter, energy, time, or space be like?
1 Like
I donāt think it could be called a universe. If such a state existed it would probably be described in terms of quantum physics or some other physics yet to be discovered.
1 Like
It going to be difficult using material tools to discover anything outside of the material universe, this natural universe where time actually had a beginning.
Quantum entanglement is a little difficult (ā gross understatement) to explain in terms of cause and effect. We understand the what but not the how.
You still havenāt supplied evidence for that claim.
(Just a short hike to the road to get the mail and take a few photos. 
)
@mitchellmckain has actually already addressed this above, about absolute time, and Iām sure he has a better mathematical physics background than I, and may know the relevant equation off the top of his head. @Klax and @glipsnort, @Chris_Falter, @pevaquark and others?
Meanwhile, Iāll look for it. Itās pretty straightforward.
Well, I found this before I found the equation I have in mind:
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/hawking-time.html
This is the same thing, at first glance, anyway, but maybe harder to read unless you use the āreader modeā of your browser:
https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lectures/the-beginning-of-time
Ā
Also this:
Ā
And this:
Say what??! Mitch is on record as a nonbeliever where absolute time and absolute space are concerned: On the intersection of an Infinite and Eternal God and Einsteinās Theory of Special Relativity:
- āAbsolute space and absolute time simply have no validity in either science or theology. In science the notion that space or time are absolute are shown to be incorrect in so far as we can measure them ā they are just ways in which the events of the physical universe are ordered (and because of the Minkowsky structure this ordering is not as you might expect). In theology, space and time are things created by God so there is nothing absolute about them there either.ā
- Really brilliant reasoning there!
- I defined Absolute Space and Absolute Time as sets. The elements of Space are dimensionless points and the elements of Time are dimensionless instants. Both Absolute Space and Absolute Time are abstract nouns, not concrete nouns. So Mr. Scientist says Absolute Space and Absolute Time have no validity in science or theology because they canāt be measured. LOL! Hello? Somebody doesnāt seem to know what an abstract noun is.
- Really brilliant reasoning there!