Dear Tom,
J: ... we are asked to accept that the universe sprang into existence at a particular point and from this emerged time, space, energy and mass, with no precedents.
E: To me the big bang is an unproven hypothesis, a challenge to find alternative explanations of red shift. I do not consider questions that can definitely not be answered foundational (in the sense of something that carries a building, not in the sense of providing money). So far I shared the opinion that time emerges because I mistook it in the sense that possibilities are coming reality.
(E:) Why do you think "space is an equilibrium state"? Whom do you follow in that?
J: That's pretty much my own. Once time is described as a third order effect of motion, ...
E: Here you lost me because I refuse speculating without any tangible basis. How can motion and effect "emerge" prior to time, space energy and mass?
J: One of the issues I've raised over the years with Lawrence, Tom and others, is that if space truly expands from a point, what accounts for the otherwise stable speed of light?
E: Good point.
J: I think it goes back to the basic geometric assumption that the center point of the three dimensional coordinate system ...
E: Is there "the" Cartesian coordinates?
J: ... is the zero point, but a point is still a singular entity.
E: Hm. I am at variance with mathematicians because I consider points that are located within the continuum of real numbers as intangible as the center point of a ball. To me a line current is an ideal model and absolutely unrealistic.
J: Logically zero would be the absence of any particular references, ie. blank space.
E: Yes.
J:But the reality is that that point is a conceptual abstraction, while the physical reality is still just a bunch of energy moving around, from which we perceive whatever comes in contact with our point of reference.
E: Without integration we would not perceive anything.
J: It doesn't stop, we just take snapshots of it ...
E: A snapshot is an integration over a more or less extended part of the past.
J: ... and reconstruct our sequential sense of motion from these series of impressions. It (is?) not that everything exists at the present moment, but that it simply exists. The sequential referencing is entirely a function of perspective.
E: Our auditory sense is specialized to pick up and analyze temporal sequences. It cannot, of course, deal with the infinitely small very point of time. The input (not necessarily the source of sound) exists at caudal stages of the auditory pathway within windows of memory including the near past. The perspective is always backward.
Incidentally, I wonder why my voting did not have any visible effect.
Regards,
Eckard