Imaginary Time

[WinePusher]

Stephen Hawking coined this term in "A Brief History Of Time" and I am no expert on this, I know only what I've read from his exerpts.

Establishing the fact the Hawking believes a singuarlity occured, and space and time began to exist as well, he creates the notion of imaginary time to provide a possible explanation. He argues that imaginary time runs perpendicular to actual time, and any singularity is only a singularity in actual time, not imaginary.

Now, somebody looking at the word "imaginary time" would probably write it off as bogus, for they see the word "imaginary." Is imaginary time a legitamate proposal, or is it all in Hawkings Imagination.

[LiamOS]

Their methods, appear to me, to be wrong because the most plausible explanation for seen complexity would be design, as it would be if it were any other thing. But as I listed (Michael Shermer, Dan Barker, Peter Atkins) go to extreme lengths to avoid this explanation because of its theistic implications. It is their beliefs influencing their scientific worldview, as fundamentalist christianity does to creationist scientists. That was what was meant behind my quote.

Obviously we don't accept a designer. Naturalistic explanations always come first in science, and if we really can't find one, we'll give you a call.

I will say it again, the inference I am drawing from Hawkings theory is that it is an attempt to avoid a theistic explanation.

Obviously we don't accept a designer. Naturalistic explanations always come first in science, and if we really can't find one, we'll give you a call.

A good example is Titan, one of the moons of Saturn.
It looks like there's life there, but nobody is jumping on that boat, because there are probably more natural explanations for the anomalies in the hydrogen and other gasses.

[Abraxas]

Their methods, appear to me, to be wrong because the most plausible explanation for seen complexity would be design, as it would be if it were any other thing. But as I listed (Michael Shermer, Dan Barker, Peter Atkins) go to extreme lengths to avoid this explanation because of its theistic implications. It is their beliefs influencing their scientific worldview, as fundamentalist christianity does to creationist scientists. That was what was meant behind my quote.

What great lengths do they go to? Why are they great lengths? On what basis do you assert the most plausible explanation is a designer?

I do not have a position on imaginary time, nor do I think I stated one in the O.P . I will say it again, the inference I am drawing from Hawkings theory is that it is an attempt to avoid a theistic explanation. My opinion, which is niether falsifiable nor truthful, is simply an opinion, which I have already retracted as some regard it is slander.

Your opinion was it was a great length gone to to avoid implying a designer. I am asking on what basis you believe it to be a great length?

I don't believe he stated it was uncaused. He simply indicated that imaginary time provided an explanation for how a singularity could be disrupted. Nowever, nothing about that indicates the cause of the singularity or the the cause of the intersection.

He indicates that the big bang would only be considered a singualrity in actual time

Correct. How does this change what I said?

Well, as you said, your weren't very specific in presenting your topic.......Do you not have any opinions about speculation concerning the big bang, or any other scientific problems? I believe you said in a post concerning the cosmological argument, that the Cyclic model would be sufficient to account for the big bang (did you not?) If you take this position, are you not going aganist a part of the scientific community by doing so? Thus, are the questions are you asked not applied to you also?

Being sufficient to account for something does not mean I believe it to be true. A lot of models are sufficient, in my opinion, including things like cyclic, ekpyrotic, and multiversal all the way up to the matrix, a dream, or yes, even God. Any of the above would account for all known phenomena in this universe. The strength and probability of the support for selecting any of above I couldn't begin to calculate, though the latter three are vanishingly remote and would raise more questions than they solve.

As for the cosmological argument thread, I was attacking a proof by undermining a premise. I simply pointed out that an oscilating universe being even a possibility would make it hard to assert there must be a first cause. I was not stating I believed the oscilating universe is the way the universe works, just that a first cause is not inherently necessary as the argument requires.

Statements like "time, in the same way, exists only to describe the changes in sequence between events"

I may have overstated by using the word "only exists."

Time: an essential part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects.

Please tell me how my definition is a profound misunderstanding?

Key word is "part". The way you phrased it would be more akin to the entry reading "Time: the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects" which, from a physics standpoint, is a grossly insufficient definition.