I'm not discussing string theory because that would be irrelevent in a still universe (as in, all dimensions and everything being in a state of actualized absolute zero), and the only way that time before the Big Bang would be irrelevant is if that were the case (but then again, in my opinion, if the Big Bang occured during a state of absolute zero I would assume it would mean that that was INCREDIBLY relevant, as it's considerably impossible). I'm just answering the op, not discussing anything else really, I'm saying that Stephen is full of shit when he says that time is irrelevant before his big bang because he's old and knows he'll definitely fail if he tries to figure that shit out, so he just declares it trivial.

-------
Who dares wins. - Special Air Service

---

correct but for instance would carl sagan be so faggy as to say that it is insignificant just because we currently dont have the means?

---

---

"Dimensions" as they are commonly understood are bullshit, if there was any energy anywhere in the universe (which I define as encompassing everything and all dimensions and all matter ever) then time definitely existed, and there was 'something', and so the idea that it 'doesn't matter' is a bullshit excuse for 'we currently have no way of knowing wtf.'

---

Dimensions just refer to the number of numbers you need to completely specify the position of an entity. Energy is the ability to do physical work. Everything before the Big Bang and the singularities of general relativity can have no observational consequences at all, so we might as well apply the principle of economy and cut it out of our theories. That is Hawking's argument, as well as the fact that time is quantized gives additional support.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

"Since no time earlier than the Planck time can be logically defined, the whole notion of time before the big bang is meaningless."

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

"Since no time earlier than the Planck time can be logically defined, the whole notion of time before the big bang is meaningless."

---

You're merely elaborating on what I disagree with as though doing so is somehow an argument. As Carl Sagan said, "brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."

Hawking is brilliant and well-spoken/written, but I don't like him because he's so obviously wrong and so blatantly just as ignorant as the rest of us.

Sagan gave a demonstration in one of his segments whereas he created a "flat" universe with "flat" inhabitants, whereas they could only observe within their flat dimension.

He presented this universe, as completely flat and without thickness whatsoever, with an apple. Naturally, said universe could not observe the apple as anyone in a three dimensional universe could, and in fact as far as they were concerned the apple did not exist (they weren't even debating the apple as they had no idea of it) until suddenly, it touched their universe. He demonstrated what they would see by putting stamp paint on the apple and touching it. That's all they'd see, not an apple, but a flat red side view of an infinitely thin layer (since it could have no thickness whatever). The point being, of course,  that you cannot observe or even comprehend that which does not fit the mold of your own dimensional view. This of course naturally demonstrates the fundamental difference of dimensions from your oversimplification from reality, as well. It is not just how we grid-find shit, it's how shit is manifested in the first place.

The point I'm making is that just because we cannot logically determine something does not mean that it cannot be logically determined, or even that "logical determination" would be accurate in the first place, and that economizing it out of the equation is fucking homo for that reason, it's giving up.

-------
Who dares wins. - Special Air Service

If Ockham's Razor were invoked as an excuse to ignore variables formerly thought unobservable and insignificant astrophysics would not exist.

-------
Who dares wins. - Special Air Service

---

We do not know that the environment pre-big bang is inconsequential or unobservable. Perhaps there's still something there, at the center of the universe. A trace, evidence of arson, something significant.

If Ockham's Razor were invoked as an excuse to ignore variables formerly thought unobservable and insignificant astrophysics would not exist.

---

No, since currently untestable in practice (earlier astrophysics) does not mean fundamentally untestable in principle as in this case.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

The assumption being made is that in this case it is untestable.

---

In principle, that is, not just practice.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

I comprehend your entire argument, Moridin, I just disagree. I feel that an assumption is being made, and that it is a fatal one, in principle.

I do not buy that the big bang started it all and that was that. You might as well say God did it with that kind of statement.

-------
Who dares wins. - Special Air Service