crimeo t1_j4cvhky wrote
Reply to comment by skofan in 87 newly-discovered galaxies, found using Webb space telescope, could be earliest known galaxies in the universe — the first indication that a lot of galaxies could have formed much earlier than previously thought by marketrent
I'm not redefining time at all, it indeed makes sense and I agree that it requires causality.
The problem is that you have no way to establish that causality was not going on before the big bang, because you don't know any of the laws of physics or what the speed of light was or if there even was a maximum speed of light or if movement had different rules in general, or anything else about back then. Nobody does. Because we have no observations of it.
"Assuming this series of things that I have zero basis to assume, there would be no causality, and time requires causality, so there was no time" is obviously not a sound argument. It's valid (syllogism) but not sound (the premises cannot be established as true)
> philosophy
Science extends to saying "I don't know" to things you have no data for.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments