Originally posted by Mentat
Not exactly true. For example, BB theory dictates that there was a singularity, at the "beginning of time". However, there was no time before the "beginning of time". These thing never "come into existence" because there was absolutely 0 time "before" them.
I think there is some misunderstanding here on what the Big Bang theory in fact claims, and what not. Your reference to the sigularity and the beginning of time thing, is an interpretation, if you want, and extention, to the Big Bang theory. The debate in theoretical physics and cosmology is still going on as what happened at and or before the Big Bang. The BB theory itself cannot state more then that the current observable universe was in the past in a more dense, more hot and smaller state as it is now, and we can calculate back from now to perhaps the 10 to the minus 43 seconds after the projected singularity, but there physical theories break down.
At least 3 possible scenarios exist to explain the phenomena:
1. Instanton-pea (Hawking-Turok these). Time was near the beginning of the Big Bang "space-like", and which implements in a certain sense the 'beginning of time'.
2. Brane cosmology. We reside on one brane, and another brane collided on our brane, causing the Big Bang. In this model, neither a beginning of time is required.
3. Eternal Inflation. The universe comes out of a process called Inflation (exponentional growth of space-time); inflation can reproduce itself, and once started, never stops. This removes the need for a beginning of time.
Me personally have sufficient doubt about the first hypothese. In theory it might look good, it portrays the 'begin of time' like the North pole, which is a place one cannot go any further to the north, and is not a special point. However it conflicts drastically with our experience of time, and the theory asks us to adapt the concept of imaginary time. In imaginary time, the singularity disappears.
Most convincing to me sounds the idea of eternal/chaotic/open inflation, hich makes the best predictions about the current state of the observable universe.
Good points, I hope Lifegazer can restrain himself from attacking them.
We will see that. Meanwhile, I am having the sensation of sitting on a chair, but nevertheless I sit on a real chair, which is independend of my experience of that chair.
I only posted about the "gap" because it still seemed that the seperating of forms of existence was going too far. They are all (IMO) just as much existent as the other, and thus don't really belong in different "categories", but all belong in the category of "existence".
Yes, they can be all said to be existent, nevertheless it is important to denote the difference in the way they exist.
Same way as one should not mix fairy tales with reality, or dreams with reality. If I have a dream, and meet in my dream a person, I will not assume that when in reality I meet that person, he/she has actually knowledge about the meeting in the dream.