What does the BGV theorem say?

[PdotdQ]

@Jim

So if I’m making a plausibility rather than probability inference, would change anything for you?

My problem is that instead of plausability (which I have no problem with) you kept claiming that (emphasis mine):

@Jim

seems to seriously infer a beginning of physical reality.

@Jim

BGV strongly indicates a beginning through classical GR all the way down to the initial moment of planck time

These are saying that the BGV theorem is not only positive evidence for the beginning of time, but strong positive evidence for the beginning of time. This is very different from “plausible” which from the very beginning I have no problem with, as I kept saying, like in these two instances for example:

@PdotdQ

It is premature to suggest with any significant degree of confidence that the BGV theorem survives in the quantum regime.

@PdotdQ

Remember, my entire point is not to say that the universe has no beginning, but that we do not know whether the universe has a beginning .

Also, before I forget, you will have to retract this statement:

@Jim

In general, theorems in classical physics cannot be used in the quantum regime

This is where I would take exception.

As under your broadened version of “objectively confirmed”, there should be no more question that the statement

In general, theorems in classical physics cannot be used in the quantum regime
is “objectively confirmed”.