Philosophy Asked by exp8j on October 25, 2021
If we accept the result of big-bang theory that time does not indefinitely extend back in the past, how can this result be smoothly integrated with the common-sense view that for every time-instant there exist others prior to it?
That is, how can we re-school our common sense so that it accepts that the idea of "beginning of time" is not an outcome deemed necessary only because of the measuring limitations of experimental physics or the structural properties of the equations used to arrive at it?
Which leads naturally to another issue: why should the experimental approach re-school common sense rather than common sense re-school us with respect to our accepted mathematical methods?
EDIT: I have posted the same question in physics stackexchange. It was rightfully closed as "opinion based", but the following highly illuminating answer was given in the comments by John Rennie:
"no physicist I know really believes time started at the big bang. We believe some theory of quantum gravity will remove the singularity. You don’t want to take the wilder claims of popular science media too seriously. There is no shortage of common sense amongst physicists".
See here.
You must realize that "common sense" views about the operation of the physical world are of no use at all when considering the earliest times in the big bang. In that regime (of order ~ one Planck time) the concept of time itself loses its physical meaning i.e., it makes no physical sense to talk about time intervals shorter than the Planck time (which is about 10^-43 second). Mathematically, this fact gets smoothly integrated into the "common sense" view of time as time marches forward out of the big bang, and the Planck time is left behind in the past.
The mathematical expression of this is what drives our understanding, not the other way around. You will find that the math describing the evolution of the universe at early times is under no obligation to comport with what our everyday opinions about it might be. That regime is the province of mathematics, not philosophy.
A good reference on this topic is Stephen Weinberg's book The First Three Minutes.
Answered by niels nielsen on October 25, 2021
Get help from others!
Recent Questions
Recent Answers
© 2024 TransWikia.com. All rights reserved. Sites we Love: PCI Database, UKBizDB, Menu Kuliner, Sharing RPP