10 Sep 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonKM…You have pre-assumed that the universe is the only thing that exists with no evidence of this.…
[b]…Nothing can exist in the universe that is less than one Planck length across -not even the universe itself! -----------hammy-------------
But the universe does not exist "in" the universe does it. It cannot logically exist within "itself". …
Obviously what I meant by “….-not even the universe itself! “ part of that statement was that n ...[text shortened]...
All my reasoning here it based on my knowledge of science and the evidence -no faith.[/b]
HAMMY - I have no such presumption.
Yes you do . You claimed that to ask the question "what came before the Big Bang " was meaningless did you not. You were quite catagorical about it.
This is only logically possible if you have made the presumption that nothing at all can pre-exist the Universe.
Just be honest , you think that TIME itself began at the Big Bang rather than space/time in our universe. You have elevated the time in this universe to some kind of concept of ALL TIME.
10 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeister…Shouldn't that be "time that we know of within our own universe" rather than TIME? My point here is that you seem to be thinking that time in our universe equates to all possible "time".. . …
that includes the scientific fact that time started at the big bang
------hamilton--------------------
Shouldn't that be "time that we know of within our own universe" rather than TIME? My point here is that you seem to be thinking that time in our universe equates to all possible "time". You say that there was no "before" the universe because th ...[text shortened]... s no time , but all we know is that there was "no time as we know it in this universe".
I don’t exclude the possibility that there may be other universes with their own time and thus, in that sense, I do not exclude the possibility that there could be some other time other than the time in our universe.
…You say that there was no "before" the universe because there was no time . . .…
No. Not “because there was no time” -at what point in time was there no time? I was at great pains to explain the evidence for there being no “before” in my 09 Sep '08 21:19
in this thread by explaining why, according to modern science, time must have started at the big bang.
10 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeister…Yes you do . You claimed that to ask the question "what came before the Big Bang " was meaningless did you not. You were quite categorical about it.
KM…You have pre-assumed that the universe is the only thing that exists with no evidence of this.…
HAMMY - I have no such presumption.
Yes you do . You claimed that to ask the question "what came before the Big Bang " was meaningless did you not. You were quite catagorical about it.
This is only logically possible if you have made the presu ...[text shortened]... our universe. You have elevated the time in this universe to some kind of concept of ALL TIME.
This is only logically possible if you have made the presumption that nothing at all can pre-exist the Universe.
......
Because of the nature of time, it is meaningless to say anything existed “before” our universe. That doesn’t exclude the possibility of there existing other universes- it only excludes it being meaningful to talk about those other universes (assuming they exist) existing “before” or “at the same time” as our own universe and visa versa. If this wasn’t true and it was meaningful to talk about those other universes (assuming they exist) existing “before” or “at the same time” as our own universe, then that would mean there would have to be some other mysterious “other kind of time” which is not the same kind of time that exists in the universes because it exists outside them and it would also mean that all universes would have to exist “within” that “other kind of time” else it wouldn’t be meaningful to say “universe X began AFTER universe Y began“ -this would be an absurdly complex and unnecessary hypothesis that is not currently backed up by any kind of evidence.
…. Just be honest , you think that TIME itself began at the Big Bang rather than space/time in our universe.. ….
No. as I said in my other ( 10 Sep '08 18:46 ) post:
“I don’t exclude the possibility that there may be other universes with their OWN time and thus, in that sense, I do not exclude the possibility that there could be some other time other than the time in our universe.”
…
Have you got any comment to make on my 10 Sep '08 09:45 post?
10 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterA very big and almost certainly wrong presumption. Andrew Hamilton has made it quite clear that he accepts most of the findings of modern physics, and since quantum mechanics is a major part of that, determinism is not one of his beliefs.
via the determinism you presumably believe in
10 Sep 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadThen his thought processes must be based on a system built on randomness and unreasonableness. He's hardly better off then is he?
A very big and almost certainly wrong presumption. Andrew Hamilton has made it quite clear that he accepts most of the findings of modern physics, and since quantum mechanics is a major part of that, determinism is not one of his beliefs.
10 Sep 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonBut if our universe exists WITHIN another universe then it WOULD be meaningful to ask "what came before the Big Bang?" Since you cannot rule this out any more than you can rule your own theory in , how was it that you were able to be so catagorical about this if it is not an article of faith?
[b]…Yes you do . You claimed that to ask the question "what came before the Big Bang " was meaningless did you not. You were quite categorical about it.
This is only logically possible if you have made the presumption that nothing at all can pre-exist the Universe.
......
Because of the nature of time, it is meaningless to say anything ...[text shortened]... time in our universe.”
…
Have you got any comment to make on my 10 Sep '08 09:45 post?[/b]
10 Sep 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonHave you got any comment to make on my 10 Sep '08 09:45 post?
[b]…Yes you do . You claimed that to ask the question "what came before the Big Bang " was meaningless did you not. You were quite categorical about it.
This is only logically possible if you have made the presumption that nothing at all can pre-exist the Universe.
......
Because of the nature of time, it is meaningless to say anything ...[text shortened]... time in our universe.”
…
Have you got any comment to make on my 10 Sep '08 09:45 post?[/b]
---hammy===============
Yes , I'm not trying to prove God or anything , you seem to fear where this argument might go. It doesn't lead to God , it's about (at least now it is) continuous existence versus discontinuous existence. Eternity versus "finiteness" .
11 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeister…Yes , I'm not trying to prove God or anything , you SEEM to FEAR where this argument might go...… (my emphasis)
Have you got any comment to make on my 10 Sep '08 09:45 post?
---hammy===============
Yes , I'm not trying to prove God or anything , you seem to fear where this argument might go. It doesn't lead to God , it's about (at least now it is) continuous existence versus discontinuous existence. Eternity versus "finiteness" .
I was at pains to explain in the 10 Sep '08 09:45 post my reasoning and, by doing so, one thing I clearly implied is why I would NOT “FEAR” where the argument would go -read it again and then came back to me and explain in what way I “SEEM” to “FEAR” where the argument would go. Also explain to me exactly what I would have to "fear" here.
12 Sep 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadI mean that if he traced back the origin of his thought processes they would be built on the foundation of either a random process or an irrational event with no cause.
I think he has asked you this, and I will ask you too. What do you mean by "unreasonableness"?
I'll give you a contrast. My thought processes are directly founded on a stable , rational and sentient foundation. I believe that there is an intelligent reason (that is caused and was intentional) why I can think and that it's not by chance (or by some irrational process of something from nothing) that I can form concepts.
12 Sep 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonBecause of the nature of time, it is meaningless to say anything existed “before” our universe. That doesn’t exclude the possibility of there existing other universes- it only excludes it being meaningful to talk about those other universes (assuming they exist) existing “before” or “at the same time” as our own universe and visa versa. ----------hammy---------------------
[b]…Yes you do . You claimed that to ask the question "what came before the Big Bang " was meaningless did you not. You were quite categorical about it.
This is only logically possible if you have made the presumption that nothing at all can pre-exist the Universe.
......
Because of the nature of time, it is meaningless to say anything ...[text shortened]... time in our universe.”
…
Have you got any comment to make on my 10 Sep '08 09:45 post?[/b]
You miss the point again. If we cannot exclude the existence of a reality beyond/outside/before this universe or of other universes then we have a problem. The existence of higher realities , branes , larger universes , further dimensions not only cannot be ruled out , they are also no less likely than the scenario that the universe is the only thing that exists.
So we cannot say with any certainty at all whether the universe is the only thing that exists or if it is part of another reality. Therefore we need to find a way of expressing this. The problem is that whatever words we use are inadequate because they may or may not be relevant. (eg before , outside , beyond , larger etc etc). All these words can be challenged....
BUT--- We have no other words we can use!!!!!!!!!
Therefore , the only way to express this is to use words like before on the understanding that they may or may not be accurate. My beef is that you have been so catagorical about something that you just don't know about.
For example, the universe could exist inside a larger universe like a bubble within a bubble. If that was true then the word "before" could well have some meaning within the context of the other universe if that universe was also a space/time universe.
You would have been better advised to have said this.
To ask "what came before the universe" MIGHT not be meaningful.
12 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou are not answering the question, you are simply hiding.
I mean that if he traced back the origin of his thought processes they would be built on the foundation of either a random process or an irrational event with no cause.
So what do you mean by 'irrational' and why do you apply it to an event with no cause?
And how does that translate to 'unreasonableness'? Does your word 'unreasonableness' have anything whatsoever to do with the English word 'unreasonable'? If so, what is the connection?
I'll give you a contrast. My thought processes are directly founded on a stable , rational and sentient foundation.
Or so you believe. In actual fact, I suspect that your thought processes and mine, are founded on the same thing, whatever that it.
I believe that there is an intelligent reason (that is caused and was intentional) why I can think and that it's not by chance (or by some irrational process of something from nothing) that I can form concepts.
But do you believe that it is impossible for thought processes to arise from a process such as evolution with no direct input from an external intelligence?
And further do you have any reasons for that belief that can be explained? Or is it simply belief that arose by chance or from some irrational something from nothing process?
12 Sep 08
6 edits
Originally posted by knightmeister…You miss the point again. If we cannot exclude the existence of a reality beyond/outside/before this universe or of other universes then we have a problem. The existence of higher realities , branes , larger universes , further dimensions not only cannot be ruled out , they are also no less likely than the scenario that the universe is the only thing that exists. ,…
Because of the nature of time, it is meaningless to say anything existed “before” our universe. That doesn’t exclude the possibility of there existing other universes- it only excludes it being meaningful to talk about those other universes (assuming they exist) existing “before” or “at the same time” as our own universe and visa versa. ----------hammy vised to have said this.
To ask "what came before the universe" MIGHT not be meaningful.
Exactly at what point in time would these branes , further dimensions etc exist? There is no premise for the belief that they would “exist” in some kind of “time” of their own because there is no premise for the belief that there is some "other kind of time" other than what exists in the universes -therefore, we should assume that these branes , further dimensions etc would really not “exist” in the normal sense of the word but, instead, just be nothing more than totally abstract mathematical extrapolations to correctly explain the existence of universes. Such mathematical extrapolations are usually represented visually by scientists just to make it easier for us to mentally handle them but that inadvertently gives the false impression that they “exist” in the same physical sense as familiar things in our universe exist, I.e. “exist” at specific times and places.
I do not totally exclude the possibility that there “could” be some other “kind of time” other than the kind of time that exists in our universe/all universes, but, given the fact there is currently not a shred of evidence for the existence of such a "other kind of time”, until if and when evidence for such a thing appears, I should regard the probability of such a thing existing to be vanishly small.
…the universe could exist inside a larger universe like a bubble within a bubble.. ..…
Have you currently got any premise or evidence or reason to believe that this is may be true?
If you think about it, that hypothesis is rather speculative because it assumes a lot:
1, it assume other universes exist.
2, it assumes that it is meaningful to talk about the “position” of a universe relative to the “position” of another universe -whether that relative “position” is “next to” or “outside but not next to” or “inside” etc.
3, it assumes that the “position” of a universe CAN be “inside” the position of another universe.
4, it assumes OUR universe is inside another.
We should generally regard the probability of any hypothesis like this one of being true to be small until if or when there is sufficient evidence to rationally believe such a hypothesis.
Again, I would not totally exclude the possibility but, until if and when evidence for such a thing appears, I should regard the probability of such a hypothesis of being true to be small.