eternity - a clarification

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]. Time only happens inside the universe.

Can you logically back up this statement or provide evidence?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I did look at the link. How can it be anything BUT speculation? It cannot be even a scientific hypothesis since it is completely untestable, and unobservable by definition.

It's not my dictionary. Feel free to look up "universe" on Wiki.

Like I said, you're doing EXACTLY what the fundies do. Changing the definitions of words (since you're trying to talk like a scientist, you have to use the term like scientists use it), ridiculing scientific theories (a black hole is unobserveable too) and in general holding your breath till you turn blue. Sloppy thinking on your part.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Eternity has always been, huh?

Well, the universe likewise has existed for all time. Time only happens inside the universe. The fact that we can guess how long that is in no way negates it.

You have already said that the universe came from nothing so therefore it had a beginning. So therefore it has not always been ..it had a beginning. Eternity has no beginning and never 'was not' (to use an inadequate phrase) so unlike your universe it has no beginning.But still you insist that the universe lasts as long as eternity! But if your universe is eternal then it has always been ...therefore there can have never have been a 'time' when 'nothing' existed , so how come you still say the universe came out of nothing? You can't have it both ways and try to maintain two logically inconsistent arguments at the same time. Make your mind up!

Originally posted by no1marauder
To make it simple,the concept of something that is "eternal" is rational i.e. a product of reason but it can't really be understood by human beings. The concept of something out of nothing is similarly rational, but that can't really be understood either. We have no experience of anything being eternal or something coming out of nothing. So you invent so ...[text shortened]... g to solve the problem. I simply say I really don't know. Who's approach is more rational?

However , we do have lots of experience of many things having causes and not coming out of nothing and have yet to find anything that conclusively comes out of nothing. I would speculate that the reason we have no experience of something coming out of nothing is because it can't happen..it's logically impossible. I have yet to hear an argument to suggest eternity is logically impossible , the fact they are both out of our experience is not the same as saying that they both equally rational.
(PS- This may sound controversial , but I have heard rumours that eternity is infact partially within our experience , they call themselves Christians and they claim that eternity is here with us right now ..it's just that we find it too incredible to believe....but that's a whole different debate....)

Originally posted by knightmeister
However , we do have lots of experience of many things having causes and not coming out of nothing and have yet to find anything that conclusively comes out of nothing. I would speculate that the reason we have no experience of something coming out of nothing is because it can't happen..it's logically impossible. I have yet to hear an argument to sugge s just that we find it too incredible to believe....but that's a whole different debate....)

You really don't know what you're talking about. The fact that nobody has seen something doesn't make it "logically impossible"; how many black holes have people seen? If you want to say God, say God: stop saying idiotic things about "eternity being possible". I've pointed out to you several times that of course the concept of something being eternal is possible; now you have to make SOME argument showing that something IS eternal. You've miserably failed to do so; you simply keep talking in circles.

And believe it or not, not just Christians claim that things are eternal. And many people believe that certain things are eternal that are not remotely like your God. Go figure.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]indeed, the universe includes everything, forever.

the proto-universe was in a state that, had someone from now been able to look at it, we wouldn't comprehend. Neither matter nor energy existed, what existed was something that would give rise to both these things (call it god if you like, but this in no way gives it any sentience). This stuff exi ...[text shortened]... did, when the universe came into existance. I think the Ancient Greeks were closest on this one.

Aha!!!! So it turns out that your idea of 'nothing' isn't actually 'nothing' at all!!!! It's this 'stuff' that existed...as you call it.....Sorry mate...but in my book that's....drum roll...SOMETHING...! If it's really nothing then it can't exist! I knew it! You can't really define the universe as actually coming out of 'nothing' (in the absolute true sense of the word) because you know at the back of your mind it's logically impossible. You don't want to depart from logic because that opens the door to metaphysical concepts, but you're stuck (as I knew you would be all along) because you have to create a quality of 'nothingness' that at least has some kind of 'somethingness' otherwise it just sounds silly and absurd.

Your ideas also have contradictions concerning 'time' although I will grant that you have some interesting ideas and it's well constructed and very deep. My reservation is what happens when you get a bit ruthless with it and start to apply some tough logic , as I have done. I think you would be on much firmer ground just to accept the concept of an eternal universe with no beginning or end. It would make much more sense and you could still be an atheist if you wanted.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You really don't know what you're talking about. The fact that nobody has seen something doesn't make it "logically impossible"; how many black holes have people seen? If you want to say God, say God: stop saying idiotic things about "eternity being possible". I've pointed out to you several times that of course the concept of something being eternal is ...[text shortened]... believe that certain things are eternal that are not remotely like your God. Go figure.

The argument I am making is a process of elimination. Since the only alternative to eternity is rationally absurd one can quite rightly logically postulate that eternity is likely or at the very least rational. Once you have got as far as realising that it's either logically (a) or (b) (see earlier posts) then you are only left with two options , one of which seems much more irrational. This is totally logical and scientific to do this but you have to get really ruthless in your thinking and not allow yourself to get all woolly.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The argument I am making is a process of elimination. Since the only alternative to eternity is rationally absurd one can quite rightly logically postulate that eternity is likely or at the very least rational. Once you have got as far as realising that it's either logically (a) or (b) (see earlier posts) then you are only left with two options , one o ...[text shortened]... but you have to get really ruthless in your thinking and not allow yourself to get all woolly.

You are simply being stubborn. I'm not going to keep wasting my time saying the same thing over and over and over again. You cannot "rationally" postulate things that are completely outside all human experience. One can claim anything is eternal; I say the stuff the universe is made of is eternal; after all it has always been in existence as far as we know. Can you make a "rational" argument otherwise? Probably. Does it "logically" follow? Of course not. You are hopelessly confused over your terminology and concepts.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
indeed, the universe includes everything, forever.

I've spent the evening counting seeds as they germinate (for an experiment) and thinking about relativity. Here's my thoughts.

Immediately after the bang the was a huge amount of energy going in all of the rapidly unfolding dimensions. As time went on this cooled and condensed and gave us matter ein's theory. I could be wrong, but it'd require Professor Einstein to be wrong too....

I dont see why anything needed to exist before this universe.

EDIT: Suggesting that something might have (even if isn't matter or energy) existed before hand might confuse some of our scientfically illiterate audience.

Originally posted by knightmeister
...Infact scientists have observed that particles 'apparently' come out of nothing , but the definition of 'nothing' in this case actually means that they don't know where they are coming from yet (this could easily be dark matter for example). A moments reflection would tell you that it is logically impossible to observe that anything comes out nothin ...[text shortened]... e logic I am using to say 'things that have beginnings don't come out of nothing'

...Infact scientists have observed that particles 'apparently' come out of nothing , but the definition of 'nothing' in this case actually means that they don't know where they are coming from yet (this could easily be dark matter for example).

Is this so?

A moments reflection would tell you that it is logically impossible to observe that anything comes out nothing because to observe it coming out of nothing you would have to be able to see nothing or at least give nothing a place in space/ time or the universe which by definition would make nothing into something.

As many have explained it not logically necassary that nothing cannot give rise to something. Before the law of conservation of mass (and energy) many philosophers and scientists thought it highly plausible- and now we are realising that they might even be right.

As soon as you say 'here!' then you give it a place in space/ time and make it something.If someone said to you they had seen a man who didn't exist and had no matter, dimension or no time in which to exist..what would you say?

I dont want a protracted argument on the concept of 0 and complex numbers. Let me just say you are wrong. Location doesn't and dimension do not imply "something". In fact I believe it would negate time and dimension.

It's not my obsession with causality it's science's. If you give me permission to bypass causal logic and basic reasoning I will be able to rip apart any scientific theory or argument you care to mention.

There is no such thing sa causal logic!!!!!
Causality is what we observe. If I repeatedly watch the same event and see that another event always follows then I speculate that the events are causally associated (but they might be coincidental).

When we discuss Quantum causality, then it becomes more of a probability causality.

We hold the universe to be rationally consistent in some way. Therefore , if our solar system has a massive hydrogen/helium reaction at it's centre it is reasonable to extrapolate that those stars are also similar and are subject to gravity etc.

Whatever your causal logic is- this is not it.

And just for hints. We know that stars have hydrogen and helium reactions in their centre because we are looking at the spectral emmissions which give a rough estimate of the substances present.

But we could say that these stars are fuelled by mars bars if we like and there is nothing you can say to refute this unless you invoke the same logic I am using to say 'things that have beginnings don't come out of nothing'

You cannot say they are fueled by mars bars- this is just patent ignorance to scientific theories.
And things can come out of nothing- you just haven't observed happening. If you had you would realise you were wrong.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You have already said that the universe came from nothing so therefore it had a beginning. So therefore it has not always been ..it had a beginning. Eternity has no beginning and never 'was not' (to use an inadequate phrase) so unlike your universe it has no beginning.But still you insist that the universe lasts as long as eternity! But if your univers ...[text shortened]... try to maintain two logically inconsistent arguments at the same time. Make your mind up!

Why can't eternity have a beginning?
Eternity implies infinity.
Infinity can have a beginning.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You have already said that the universe came from nothing so therefore it had a beginning. So therefore it has not always been ..it had a beginning. Eternity has no beginning and never 'was not' (to use an inadequate phrase) so unlike your universe it has no beginning.But still you insist that the universe lasts as long as eternity! But if your univers ...[text shortened]... try to maintain two logically inconsistent arguments at the same time. Make your mind up!

You're right, there wasn't a time when there was nothing. There has only ever been time when things have existed, because the existance of things is a pre-requisite for time. The universe has existed for all time by definition, it's never not existed - that's my entire point. The fact that the amount of time that the universe has existed can be extrapolated is completely besides the point. Here's a question for you KM, does "eternity" require time to exist, or is it independant of time?

Originally posted by Conrau K
I dont see why anything needed to exist before this universe.

EDIT: Suggesting that something might have (even if isn't matter or energy) existed before hand might confuse some of our scientfically illiterate audience.

Yes, but the language doesn't exist for discussing things outside of time. I appreciate it is a very, very difficult concept (esp. for the scientifically illiterate), so some amount of anthropomorphisizing is bound to happen. I guess my point that time is completely irrelevant prior to the existance of the universe was summed up when I tried to express that everything "before" the universe existing for both a very very long and a very very short time simultaneously. Cause and effect are properties of the universe, and it's quite absurd to try and use them to explain the origins of the universe.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Aha!!!! So it turns out that your idea of 'nothing' isn't actually 'nothing' at all!!!! It's this 'stuff' that existed...as you call it.....Sorry mate...but in my book that's....drum roll...SOMETHING...! If it's really nothing then it can't exist! I knew it! You can't really define the universe as actually coming out of 'nothing' (in the absolute tru ...[text shortened]... ld make much more sense and you could still be an atheist if you wanted.

see my refutation to this below. My ideas are necessarily anthropomorphisezed but, as I point out below, logic isn't something you can apply to that period, because all our rules only exist within the universe.

You are trying to open a packing case with the crowbar that's inside it, my friend.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Can you logically back up this statement or provide evidence?

Mass - energy is one of the two great realms of physics, the other is space - time. For a relatively concise and easily read summary may I suggest "a brief history of time" by Stephen Hawking.