The Big Bang Theory Does Not Require A Singularity At T=0

Thank you for your prompt and eloquent reply. I see from the likes of your response that I am going to have to really work for this one! "the scope of your argument can thus only fall to things within nature, and not nature itself. That is, while everything within a set obeys a certain property (causality) it does not follow that the set itself obeys that property, especially when the property is defined by the set! (causality makes no sense without time!) This is easily demonstrable by analogy: The United Nations is comprised of various nations from around the world. Does this imply that the United Nations is itself a nation? Is the set of all even numbers itself an even number? Most certainly not." While I like your analogy I'll have to ask then in retort, what IS nature if it is not natural things themselves? The way it seems to me, nature is the totality of natural science. Natural law and natural elements ARE nature. But if you disagree, then I would be willing to hear what your definition of nature is. But as of now, the dictionary sees it my way, and therefore validates my ontological argument: http://dictionary.reference.com... "without a beginning of time this does not negate the fact that causal events occur. It simply means that there was no beginning to time." Aside from this defying intuition, it also goes against observation. Case in point: A theory suggesting that the universe is somehow timeless is a tautology. Its like saying that it is either up or down, and really gives no substantial reason why it should be so, because, as we all know, it is either up or down. Secondly, and vastly more important for a physics major, it defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The 2LoT stipulates that disorder always increases with time which greatly infers that there was a beginning. If there was not, we should expect mass disarray on an unprecedented level, so much so that life would not be feasible. It also no sooner reconciles how you can have time without space, since they are homologous. You attempted to reconcile this quandary, but I could not make heads or tails of your answer as I found it vague. Clarification would be greatly appreciated. Of this inequality you have presented, I am curious to know whether you prefer Hoyle's Steady State model to the Big Bang. Because if you do prefer the Big Bang model without a singularity you would have to consider that the state of the universe after the Big Bang would not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down IN the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter would break down AT the Big Bang. Since that quite obviously is not the case, how do you reconcile that inequality? Now, Quantum theory introduces a new idea, that of imaginary time, which I can only assume is where this debate is being lead. However, the state of the universe in this imaginary time seems inconsequential even in theory, because we can calculate and observe the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning, a singularity, just as we observe and just as it aligns with our ontological intuitions. I would also like to ask how you feel about the proposed Big Crunch. I only ask because since there was a singularity, and we do have the Second Law, it only seems inevitable that the laws of physics will indeed someday deteriorate with the passing of time. If time itself had no beginning, then conceivably it would have no end either. How would you reconcile this conundrum without risking the very laws of physics that bind the universe in the first place? The causal inference of man in his understanding is based on the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come from absolutely nothing. A pure potentiality cannot, in it's own right, actualize itself. In the case of the universe, whether we speak of boundary lines, fixed points or the infinite, there was not anything prior, to the singularity. Time simply could not have existed infinitely if space itself was not also infinite. It was Albert Einstein who noted that time and space are conjoined as homologous and inseparable. Anything other than a singularity is in direct contravention with the Law of Conservation and Energy. Astrophysicists Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose, have all confirmed Einstein's General and Special theory of Relativity. We know, beyond all reasonable doubt, that time and space had a finite beginning. In fact, even the First Law of Thermodynamics may be in jeopardy with your theory violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. The 1st Law states that the sum kinetic energy, potential energy, and thermal energy remain constant in a closed system, such as we see in the universe. Matter, or its energy equivalent, cannot be created or destroyed by ‘natural' means. To put it in the simplest terms possible, there was a lack of anything. The potential for the universe could not have lain itself since it was non-existent before the singularity. I am not one to balk at quantum physics, which seem to make the impossible possible. But there are immutable laws of physics which are not usurped by quantum physics. The theory you propose seems to challenge every fundamental paradigm that we know about the universe through testing and observation. I find that my incredulity about such a theory to be insuperable. Though I find myself in such a state, I am still open to your inquiry.