An Infinite Past?

[JimL]

You are going to have to put that in more familiar terms. How would this actually relate to how this universe was created. What actually caused this universe.

One of the problems i see with this question seer is the underlying assumption that this universe, meaning our particular observable part of space, is a thing in itself. Only in such a case does that question make sense. But if our universe is part of a greater eternal whole, then asking what caused it is like asking what causes the eternal substance to change forms. Well then, the answer to that would obviously be nothing causes it to change forms, its eternal and is a cause unto its own self. If our own little, relatively speaking, universe, were thought of as eternal, you could ask, what causes certain aspects of it to become suns and planets or galaxies, then the answer would be the same, the cause of the suns, planets, galaxies etc. etc., is the eternal nature of the universe itself of which these things are but self caused changes that occur within it. Even should suns, planets, galaxies, or even universes split off, or separate from the whole to become things in themselves they would not be effects that are distinct from their cause in that they would remain one and the same substance.

Is time really anything besides our arbitrary marking of events?

Thats an age old question which no one has been able to answer. My personal opinion is that you are correct, that there is only motion within eternity and we call the measurment of that motion "time." But is there something existent called time itself that actually passes? I don't know, it makes my head spin to think about it, but i don't think so.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

You are going to have to put that in more familiar terms. How would this actually relate to how this universe was created. What actually caused this universe.

Again, the idea that the universe was created or caused is not cogent. Both 'creation' and 'causation' are inherently temporal concepts. It is completely non-cogent to attempt to apply a temporal concept in the absence of time.

Here's an image of a Polar Graph:
polargraph.gif
The point at the very center of the graph is the Pole. Every other point on the graph is a positive distance away from the pole. There is no such thing as "before the pole" or "less than the pole." Everything expands outward from the pole. Time is very similar. There is a temporal pole around which all of time is centered. The question, "What came before the center?" doesn't make any sense.

Is time really anything besides our arbitrary marking of events?

Yes. Time is a material dimension, every bit as much as length, width, and height. When someone uses the phrase "the fabric of the universe," they are referring to space-time. The manner in which we mark time is arbitrary, as is the manner in which we mark space.

[shunyadragon]

Again, the idea that the universe was created or caused is not cogent. Both 'creation' and 'causation' are inherently temporal concepts. It is completely non-cogent to attempt to apply a temporal concept in the absence of time.

Here's an image of a Polar Graph:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1785[/ATTACH]
The point at the very center of the graph is the Pole. Every other point on the graph is a positive distance away from the pole. There is no such thing as "before the pole" or "less than the pole." Everything expands outward from the pole. Time is very similar. There is a temporal pole around which all of time is centered. The question, "What came before the center?" doesn't make any sense.

Yes. Time is a material dimension, every bit as much as length, width, and height. When someone uses the phrase "the fabric of the universe," they are referring to space-time. The manner in which we mark time is arbitrary, as is the manner in which we mark space.

Good explanation.

[mattbballman31]

Craig can argue this as long as he likes but there is not a glimmer of scientific justification for this conclusion.

There isn't supposed to be. It's a philosophical conclusion. In fact, part of Kalam is inferring what this 'cause' must be.

He resorts to modern physics to support the second premise of the Kalam argument, namely: “The universe began to exist” and tries to prove this bald assertion by hijacking the BGV Theorem, which he wrongly says supports the religious presupposition that the universe began to exist.

'Hijacking' is rhetoric. He's using their findings to make premise 2 more plausible than not. Nothing wrong with this. For example, there's absolutely nothing logically wrong with using a premise in a Solipsistic argument attempting to prove the non-existence of external reality in another argument attempting to prove the existence of the external world. Suppose this premise is: knowing the external world depends on the reliability of my sense perceptions. Suppose that some weirdo (you) comes along and says, "You can't use the Solipsism's premise as a part of an argument proving the external world! Solipsism disagrees with the realist's conclusion!" The simple answer is, "Yes you can weirdo." Same thing here.

V. admits his theorem (1) doesn't have a theological implications and (2) that even though he doesn't have the expertise, admits:

This is not to say that you represented my views as to what this implies regarding the existence of God. Which is OK, since I have no special expertise to issue such judgements. Whatever it's worth, my view is that the BGV theorem does not say anything about the existence of God one way or the other. In particular, the beginning of the universe could be a natural event, described by quantum cosmology.

'Could be'. Of course! Craig agrees this is a 'could be'. And V. is right, in and of itself, the BGV doesn't say anything about the existence of God, just like saying, "knowledge of the external world depends on the reliability of sense perceptions" says nothing about realism or solipsism. It's up to the realist to use this as a premise in an argument for the external world. It's up to the solipsist to us this as a premise in an argument against the external world. In the same way, it's up to the theist to use the BGV as a premise in an argument for God's existence; it's up to YOU to use BGV as a premise in an argument for a natural event described by quantum cosmology.

But let's not have sniveling nonsense about the permissibility of using theologically neutral premises as parts of overall deductive argument for a conclusion that the adherents of the premises might not be privy to. That's just sophomoric.

It doesn't. Vilenkin specifically says it doesn't. And he gives his reasons why it doesn't. And provides natural hypotheses to explain why it doesn't. In short Craig selectively quotes a scientist to try and justify his religious agenda.

Stop being a snob and quote him them! Then we can get away from the vague hand-waiving and get down to the details. In the mean time, all you look like is a snob. I'm dying to see how, where, and why, when we get down to the nitty-gritty, Craig's arguments are magically and easily answered by V.'s natural hypothesis. Oh yea. And your snobbishness is blindingly brilliant in that you have yet to be charitable to Craig by at least admitting Craig has gone deeper, and read in more detail, into V.'s literature than you will ever hope to go. You selectively quote Q&A and debate transcripts as Craig's exhaustive treatment of V. You are a dishonest harbinger of irrational iconoclasm.

This is precisely what it does. Moral Truths and Aesthetic Truths are not new truths about nature; they are reworking existing knowledge.

Nope. Entirely new. Can't derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. 'Ought'/'Virtue' are entirely different dimension of reality.

And with mathematics, once we have accepted a given set of axioms, a valid proof for any theorem makes it impossible for the theorem to be false. But these are not new truths about nature either. Mathematics in and of itself it is unable to generate new knowledge - although it is a useful tool for science in doing so.

Wow. This point flew passed you faster than a speeding bullet. Accepting a set of axioms is beside the point. The point is that math gives you necessary, a priori truths. Science cannot prove necessary, a priori truths. Science uses induction and empirical generalization. Science cannot prove mathematics. Science depends on mathematical models of nature. Mathematics is the language of Science. And what is the scientific adjudication process that decides to accept one set of axioms as as opposed to others? You have to prove how, empirically, our minds and nature are such that there is this coincidental complimentary relationship, and this relationship is such that our minds can sniff out these mathematical truths. Mathematics is deductive; science is inductive. You can't test mathematical truths; they are assumed, 'accepted', as you say. Science presupposes math. Science doesn't operate in a vacuum. If it's a tool for science, then the tool has something about it which allows science to know more if it didn't have it. Glasses are a tool for seeing better. A microscope is a tool to see things too small to the naked eye, a telescope too far away to the naked eye. Math is a microscope/telescope to necessary, a priori truths, truths which science can use as a tool, but the basis of which science can't prove scientifically. The mathematical world doesn't 'generate' new truths; that mathematical world already exists. Mathematical method discovers more and more about that world, and, in turn, science can use more and more to discover scientific truths, as the mathematical method, in turn, discovers more and more about its world. But this just shows that mathematics is a domain of knowledge, a domain delineated by its own internal structure. In turn, mathematics, using its method, can 'generate' new truths in the sense that it can draw out more and more logical implications from a more primitive axiom, as Cantor drew out his Cantorian paradise from applying set theory to transfinite arithmetic.

As for Scientific Truths you’re arguing a straw-man. Nothing in science claims to be proved with perfect certainty. No matter how much evidence there is for some assertion or what kind of evidence it is, it is never logically impossible for it to be falsified – at least in principle.

1. Craig would agree with this.
2. There you go again equating knowledge with certainty. The point, which flew right passed you again, is that science assumes the principle of induction, which must be argued for philosophically. This has nothing whatsoever to do with falsifiability.

But, unlike philosophy, science has a methodology for testing its hypotheses and models against reality and arriving at empirically verifiable conclusions. Thus it is capable of arriving at new knowledge. Philosophy, for all is usefulness in ensuring self-consistency and preventing errors of false inferences in science, does not have this capacity.

Not the point. Science's methodology is permeated with metaphysical and philosophical assumptions. The more you denigrate philosophy, the more you undermine the philosophy upon which science is based. You throw away philosophy because of it's alleged inability to generate new knowledge, and you throw away the philosophy that under-girds the whole scientific enterprise. Keep philosophy, and you have to admit that it is a domain of knowledge, a domain science makes use of by assuming its conclusions to arrive at new truths about the world.

What Craig is doing is unethically claiming cosmological evidence (an area where he has no expertise) to deduce the existence of a Creator/Designer by arguing that, according to the BGV Theorem, inflationary models cannot go infinitely into the past and therefore nor describe the boundary condition.

1. Wait a minute. Didn't I just say, bozo, that Craig isn't claiming the cosmological evidence points one way or the other? Didn't I just quote him as saying he is not doing that? Yes, I did.
2. Also, do I have to be an expert in physics to say that Einstein was probably correct about the General Theory of Relativity?
3. V. agrees that there's an absolute beginning. Do I have to spell it out for you that if something had an absolute beginning, it isn't past-eternal? Can't we get passed this? Good grief!

Well yes. But this does not mean that God can be invoked at this point as Craig seems to be implying, but because at the Planck phase when Quantum Physics takes over.

Yes, but what you run away screaming from is whether the Plank phase is past-eternal. Craig's point is that it can't be for reasons I've already belabored, but you can't be brought to charitably interact with it because of your snobbishness.

Quantum physics, according to the common interpretation, is a-causal.

Give me one citation form a reputable source that says this is the COMMON interpretation. Of course, this doesn't interact at all with my point that there is no consensus on which interpretation is correct, and that the causal interpretation far outnumber the a-causal ones.

One cannot combine the causal physics of Classical mechanics with the a-causal properties of Quantum mechanics. The most one can say about the BGV Inflationary model, according to Carol is that it is past-incomplete and requires different physics to describe the boundary condition.

Right, and I already quote V. as saying: "But if the fluctuations are not so wild as to invalidate classical spacetime, the BGV theorem is immune to any possible modifications of Einstein's equations which may be caused by quantum effects." So, it's still to be determined. In the mean time, theorem more probably entails a beginning.

It certainly does not deductively imply (to quote Craig): "therefore God..." Thus, none of this supports Craig’s “appealing to the cosmological evidence in support of these theologically neutral premises that go to deductively imply the existence of a Creator and Designer”’. It doesn't. He’s fudging the argument with his dishonest misuse of science.

You really are either dumb or blind. This is why I love getting to the 7th, 8th level of exchange with weirdos like you. You get to really see, when you dig passed all the flowery scientific rhetoric, how illogical you get. Once again, a simple, kindergarten point races passed you. Whether you like it or not, whether you see it or not, the BVG theorem makes premise 2 more plausible than not. The 'therefore God' part is like 15 logical inferences away in the context of a philosophical argument. The fact that you can't see this is hilarious to me. Don't get me wrong. I think there are some good objections to Kalam, which I haven't made up my mind about yet. But your whole approach to Kalam betrays an extremely loony and daft mind so overly sozzled by scientific firewater, you really are three sheets to the wind!

In the context of the current discussion Craig is appealing exclusively to Vilenkin and the BGV inflationary model. As well he directly refers to Vilenkin in many of his debates to support one his major arguments for the existence of God.

Yea, so?
1. I'll just spoil the ending and say he appeals to more than just V. to scientifically support premise 2.
2. He refers to V. a lot because V. is one of the distinguished physicists out there right now. Who do you want me to refer to, Bill Nye?

Not paranoid! It is unethical and dishonest to break the responses of a protagonist into one-line sound-bites which are then taken out of context with an attempt to refute them one-by-one. Interesting that you feel the need to adopt such sleazy tactics!

Paranoid. You have yet to show specifically (because specifics make your dialectical blood run cold) how it was taken out of context. You sound like a screaming kid on the playground.

See above re Craig and Vilenkin.

Look at him go! Dodge! Slip! Jink! See above All I see when 'see above' is a flock of foul overhead with the risk of getting droppings on me.

See above re the a-causal physics of the Planck epoch.

Splat! Gross!

In Classical mechanics everything has a cause (hence determinism) whereas Quantum mechanics is counter-intuitive and a-causal. Thus Classical mechanics breaks down at the Planck epoch at the point where Quantum mechanics takes over. This is what you don’t understand in your causal arguments for an “absolute beginning of the universe”.

Evasion alert! Evasion alert! Gosh, I wish we were face to face so I could call you out easier!

See above.

Splat!

Abusive ad Hominem fallacy!

You so don't know what fallacies are.

Appeal to Ridicule fallacy

Appeal to a humungous load of fallacies fallacy!

Nonsense! No gaps in science have ever been filled in by religion. Never has an empirical scientific discovery been deemed wrong and replaced by a more convincing mystical explanation.

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law.
—Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, (1981), p. 19.

Think about it.

"Holy cow, Dr. Pasteur! I've examined the pancreas of a diabetic dog, and darned if it's NOT an insulin deficiency after all, but a little evil goblin dwelling inside and he seems really pissed off!" – Courtesy of Gene Weingarten.

Oh, my, my, my. Is this Tassman being a hypocrite and trying to hurt my feeeelings with a . . . with a . . . . APPEAL TO RIDICULE FALLACY . . . Oh, my, my, my.

So you think the arguments of a philosopher overturn the arguments of qualified physicists in a discussion about cosmology.

No, dummy. Craig presents valid philosophical concerns about the metaphysical implications of speculative cosmological models for which the physics justifying it is still inchoate. Much has been written about how actual infinities in reality lead to absurdities. Duh. Physicists need to deal, and have dealt, and are in the process of dealing, with this issue.

Come now. Craig criticizes atheists for purportedly speaking beyond their areas of expertise, and yet here he is, a philosopher/theologian/apologist, presuming to lecture an eminent physicist on what constitutes a tenable theory of cosmology.

Craig, speaking within his area of expertise, can show how a theory may be philosophically untenable. And physicists need to deal, and have dealt, and are in the process of dealing, with this issue: is an actual infinite metaphysically possible? You and your physicist snobs are deaf, blind, and dumb to this extremely important issue.

I’m not. I’m using Davies to show that:

“The favoured view now, and the one that Hawking shares, is that there were in fact many bangs, scattered through space and time, and many universes emerging there from, all perfectly naturally. The entire assemblage goes by the name of the multiverse. Our universe is just one infinitesimal component amid this vast – probably infinite – multiverse, that itself had no origin in time. So according to this new cosmological theory, there was something before the big bang after all – a region of the multiverse pregnant with universe-sprouting potential.” Prof. Paul Davies, Templeton Prize Laureate.

And Davies believes: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." So, because you disagree with Davies' conclusion, then, according to your warped logic, YOU CAN'T USE DAVIES TO SUPPORT YOUR MULTI-VERSE SCENARIO. I, of course, disagree with this. But you're the one saying that Craig can't use V.'s theorem because V. doesn't agree with Craig's conclusion. BY THE SAME TOKEN, you can't use Davies' conclusions about the multi-verse, because HE DOESN'T THINK THERE'S A NATURAL EXPLANATION FOR THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE. Got it, McFly!? Probably not.

This is merely an anti-science rant (a reductio ad absurdum) and demonstrably wrong. Scientific knowledge has come a long way since the pre-scientific notion of a geocentric universe under the sway of powerful nature gods and dominated by shamans – despite the best efforts of those very shamans and their supporters to cling to their irrational belief in supernatural causality. Ahem!

More poisoning the well. Whatever. Didn't expect a real rebuttal. Using your PROGRESS OF SCIENCE clap-trap, you shouldn't be confident in anything science supposedly 'discovers' because future progress might lay waste to whatever model is in fashion today. You can't assume the mutli-verse will just be true someday, because of a past prediction being validated. Every prediction must be scrutinized on a case by case basis. Or else, you're in a swamp of a lot of post-hoc, irrational, retro-confirmatory moonshine.

[seer]

Again, the idea that the universe was created or caused is not cogent. Both 'creation' and 'causation' are inherently temporal concepts. It is completely non-cogent to attempt to apply a temporal concept in the absence of time.

Here's an image of a Polar Graph:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1785[/ATTACH]
The point at the very center of the graph is the Pole. Every other point on the graph is a positive distance away from the pole. There is no such thing as "before the pole" or "less than the pole." Everything expands outward from the pole. Time is very similar. There is a temporal pole around which all of time is centered. The question, "What came before the center?" doesn't make any sense.

I understand the graft, but I have no idea how that changes the fact of creation. The fact of a physical beginning. If our universe is finite, it began to exist. If we don't have the words or concepts to understand what "caused" the universe that doesn't change the fact that it had or needs a cause.

Yes. Time is a material dimension, every bit as much as length, width, and height. When someone uses the phrase "the fabric of the universe," they are referring to space-time. The manner in which we mark time is arbitrary, as is the manner in which we mark space.

But length, width and height are words used to describe physical qualities. As far as I know time is not a physical thing. And as you know there has been an on going argument as to whether time is real or not. For instance Julian Barbour's work, or the idea of timeless physics in general. And if time is an illusion, then our time problem goes away - correct?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I understand the graft, but I have no idea how that changes the fact of creation. The fact of a physical beginning. If our universe is finite, it began to exist. If we don't have the words or concepts to understand what "caused" the universe that doesn't change the fact that it had or needs a cause.

But length, width and height are words used to describe physical qualities. As far as I know time is not a physical thing. And as you know there has been an on going argument as to whether time is real or not. For instance Julian Barbour's work, or the idea of timeless physics in general. And if time is an illusion, then out time problem goes away - correct?

I'm going to combine these into a single response, because the latter might help explain the former.

In modern physics, time is every bit as much a physical thing as length, width, and height. Dr. Barbour's work is not meant to mean that time, itself, is not a physical dimension, but rather that our perception of time as a dynamic, changing thing is what is in error. If you are familiar with William Lane Craig's work on the subject, at all, Barbour is basically supporting the Tenseless theory of time over against the Tensed theory of time. The idea is that all of time-- past, present, and future-- is co-extant and actual, in exactly the same way that all points in space are co-extant and actual. Asking "what came before time?" is exactly like asking "what is to the left of the universe?" It's a nonsensical question.

EDIT: I made a mistake, in my post. Barbour does, indeed, deny the existence of an external dimension of time. I was confusing him with McTaggert's work on the subject. I am unfamiliar with Barbour's precise position, and though it is certainly a minority position amongst physicists, I'll read The End of Time in order to get a better handle on his claim.

Still, even if Barbour's theories on time are accurate, it remains completely non-cogent to assert that something could have created the universe.

[seer]

EDIT: I made a mistake, in my post. Barbour does, indeed, deny the existence of an external dimension of time. I was confusing him with McTaggert's work on the subject. I am unfamiliar with Barbour's precise position, and though it is certainly a minority position amongst physicists, I'll read The End of Time in order to get a better handle on his claim.

Still, even if Barbour's theories on time are accurate, it remains completely non-cogent to assert that something could have created the universe.

Boxing, I think you are in the minority here, I have heard or read countless physicists musing about what created this universe. In this thread we are speaking of the BGV theorem or quantum tunneling to answer these very questions. I mean we have a universe, it is finite - is that where it stops? We can't asked what came before or what caused it?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Boxing, I think you are in the minority here, I have heard or read countless physicists musing about what created this universe. In this thread we are speaking of the BGV theorem or quantum tunneling to answer these very questions. I mean we have a universe, it is finite - is that where it stops? We can't asked what came before or what caused it?

The BGV is very commonly misrepresented. The only conclusions from BGV are that inflationary cosmology is not sufficient to describe the past history of the universe. It most certainly does not say, as William Lane Craig is keen on claiming, that all expanding universes must have a finite beginning in history.

Quantum Tunneling and multiverse hypotheses posit the existence of extra physical dimensionality which would encompass our space-time manifold, which in turn would restore cogency to the concept of causation. Conversely, Classical Theism posits that an utterly immaterial, timeless, and non-spatial entity performed an action resulting in the creation of our space-time manifold. However, since the entire concept of "action" is dependent upon change over time, this explanation lacks cogency.

[Jedidiah]

Again, the idea that the universe was created or caused is not cogent. Both 'creation' and 'causation' are inherently temporal concepts. It is completely non-cogent to attempt to apply a temporal concept in the absence of time.

Except you ignore the possibility of something outside the time within the created world. God exists in His own way which we are incapable of understanding. From this point outside creation something can precede creation. It is only a failure of language that makes it seem that we are claiming something came "before" the creation.

Your argument assumes that God did not create the universe. You are arguing circularly.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Except you ignore the possibility of something outside the time within the created world. God exists in His own way which we are incapable of understanding. From this point outside creation something can precede creation. It is only a failure of language that makes it seem that we are claiming something came "before" the creation.

Your argument assumes that God did not create the universe. You are arguing circularly.

Not at all. I'm not ignoring the possibility of something outside of space-time. I'm saying that this is not a cogent concept, and therefore cannot be explored rationally.

If one could provide a cogent definition for "creation" or "causation" in the absence of space-time, I'd be more than willing to explore the matter with that person.

[seer]

The BGV is very commonly misrepresented. The only conclusions from BGV are that inflationary cosmology is not sufficient to describe the past history of the universe. It most certainly does not say, as William Lane Craig is keen on claiming, that all expanding universes must have a finite beginning in history.

No, that is false Boxing. Vilenkin says, that the theory can not be complete to the past, that space-time has a past boundary, which he himself calls a beginning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7A

Conversely, Classical Theism posits that an utterly immaterial, timeless, and non-spatial entity performed an action resulting in the creation of our space-time manifold. However, since the entire concept of "action" is dependent upon change over time, this explanation lacks cogency.

How does that follow if Intelligence and Intention is involved. Why can not the concept of action be dependent on will and intent. And talk about incoherent - if you accept the multiverse theory you accept the idea that there are an infinite number of universe where you and me are having this exact same debate. Never mind the incoherence of moving through an infinite number of past events to get to this present universe.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

No, that is false Boxing. Vilenkin says, that the theory can not be complete to the past, that space-time has a past boundary, which he himself calls a beginning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7A

Vilenkin very clearly states, in this video, that the current models for a past-eternal universe suffer from geodesic incompleteness or quantum instability, and that he instead prefers past-finite models of the universe. Vilenkin explicitly defines "beginning," in the video, as the past boundary of time. This is very different from the common connotation of the word "beginning," which implies a period of time when an entity did not exist followed by a period of time when an entity does exist.

I have read the BGV, for myself. You can, too, right here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0110012v2.pdf

The conclusion of the paper is very clearly stated: "inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime."

How does that follow if Intelligence and Intention is involved. Why can not the concept of action be dependent on will and intent.

How do will and intention change anything? Can you define an action which involves will and/or intention, but which remains independent of time?

[seer]

Vilenkin very clearly states, in this video, that the current models for a past-eternal universe suffer from geodesic incompleteness or quantum instability, and that he instead prefers past-finite models of the universe. Vilenkin explicitly defines "beginning," in the video, as the past boundary of time. This is very different from the common connotation of the word "beginning," which implies a period of time when an entity did not exist followed by a period of time when an entity does exist.

I have read the BGV, for myself. You can, too, right here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0110012v2.pdf

The conclusion of the paper is very clearly stated: "inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime."

In the video and in your link that we still need initial conditions. That space-time is finite and has a boundary, i.e. not eternal past. And no Boxing, Vilenkin's use of "beginning" is not different than ours. Did something "lie beyond this boundary" as he asked, we don't know but we would need a completely "new physics" to get there. And what will that look like, would it include space-time as we know it?

How do will and intention change anything? Can you define an action which involves will and/or intention, but which remains independent of time?

Of course not, I do not dwell in a timeless realm. But a Mind can will and act, creating time with matter and energy. Do you know what it is like to move through an infinite number of past events to get to this present universe? How that would even be possible? And if time really is an illusion then your question is moot, there is nothing to be independent of.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

In the video and in your link that we still need initial conditions. That space-time is finite and has a boundary, i.e. not eternal past. And no Boxing, Vilenkin's use of "beginning" is not different than ours. Did something "lie beyond this boundary" as he asked, we don't know but we would need a completely "new physics" to get there. And what will that look like, would it include space-time as we know it?

You are absolutely misrepresenting the BGV if you are claiming that it states the universe certainly had a finite past boundary. This is eminently clear from reading the paper, and even from the video which you provided. When Vilenkin finally comes to directly address the question, "Did the universe have a beginning?" at around the 35:00 minute mark of the video, his answer is, "Probably yes." You do not qualify an answer with "probably" if you are absolutely certain.

Neither the video nor the original paper conclude with certainty, as regards the past-finitude of the universe. As I mentioned, both simply state that our current understanding of physics is insufficient to describe the whole past-nature of the universe, and the video adds Dr. Vilenkin's suspicion-- far from a certitude-- that space-time had its origin in a quantum nucleation from nothing.

Of course not, I do not dwell in a timeless realm. But a Mind can will and act, creating time with matter and energy.

Baldly asserting that a mind can will and act in the absence of space-time, let alone that a mind can actually create space-time, is silly. I can just as easily assert that a mind cannot will and act in the absence of space-time, and at least I would have the justification that "will" and "action" lose cogency in the absence of time. You have provided absolutely no justification for your claim.

Do you know what it is like to move through an infinite number of past events to get to this present universe? How that would even be possible?

This assumes that the Tensed theory of time is accurate, which I would thoroughly dispute (and have done, in a series of articles on my blog). If the dynamism of time is illusory, there is no need to traverse time from one moment to the next in order to bring the future to actuality. The whole of time-- past, present, and future-- is actual, on the Tenseless theory of time, and therefore infinitude would present no problem.

And if time really is an illusion then your question is moot, there is nothing to be independent of.

I've already started in on Dr. Barbour's book, in order to better comprehend his claims, but I will reiterate that-- regardless of the implications-- Dr. Barbour's position represents an incredible minority of scholarship on the subject. Generally, such fringe positions do not make the most convincing evidence for a claim.

[shunyadragon]

You are absolutely misrepresenting the BGV if you are claiming that it states the universe certainly had a finite past boundary. This is eminently clear from reading the paper, and even from the video which you provided. When Vilenkin finally comes to directly address the question, "Did the universe have a beginning?" at around the 35:00 minute mark of the video, his answer is, "Probably yes." You do not qualify an answer with "probably" if you are absolutely certain.

Careful with the understanding of what Vilenkin describes as a 'probable beginning.' The reasoning of seer and Craig jump on this to conclude that our physical existence most likely (probably) had an absolute beginning is the problem. In their view 'probably' is sufficient from the scientific perspective to support a theological argument. The problem is not with 'probably,' but with what is considered the difference between a 'beginning' between science and philosophy/theology. In philosophy/theology we have the concept of an 'absolute beginning,' as with Creation 'ex nihilo.' In science 'beginnings' are never conceptually absolute. When Vilenkin and other cosmologists speak of beginnings it is always a beginning from something.

The same problem is with the use of the descriptive word 'nothing.' In philosophy/theology we have the concept of 'absolute nothing,' but when 'nothing' is used by scientists in reference to the cosmos, 'nothing' does not mean 'absolutely nothing.' If used ( I do not like this term used in science) it refers to the 'Quantum world of Quantum gravity and zero-point energy.

In contrast the theology of the Baha'i Faith does not consider the 'nothingness' of the Matrix of our physical existence as 'absolutely nothing.' It considers this Matrix the Created coeternal physical existence as something from which universe arise Created naturally. Some atheists and others, like JimL, consider this concept of a co-eternal physical existence with God illogical and unreasonable, but nonetheless as far as the nature of our physical existence it is compatable with the scientific view.

Edited: The following post by Mattbballmen31 reflects this misrepresentation and misuse of science in theological arguments that I outlined above in terms of beginnings and nothingness. He is notorious in previous threads for misusing 'nothing' and the archaic use of 'infinite regress' (which only exists within finite dimensional terms) to philosophically justify a finite physical existence.