03 Jul 07
Originally posted by KellyJayThis is what I believe. Some is based on scientific observation, some is based on pure guesswork and as such I would readily change my view should contrary evidence become available.
That is the point isn't it, how did it get there, you know or at least
think you do. Can you tell me how, I'd like to know? What was it that
blew up, nothing, something, where did the something, or nothing
come from that it could blow up? There a lot of things in the universe
and seeing that 'perfect' spectrum has only possible cause in your
opinion, and you base that upon, what?
Kelly
The universe is and always has been expanding. For any point in time T1 in the universe's history there is always a point in time T2 that is prior to T1 and at which the Universe is smaller.
The big bang refers to the times which cover the period when the universe was so small that matter was highly compressed and was expanding very rapidly and as such was similar to what we nowadays call an explosion. However it differs from a normal explosion in that it was space itself that expands rather than the matter moving away from each other through space. Space is still expanding and I believe that astronomers think that the expansion is accelerating though I haven't kept up with that research recently. But we could say that the bang is still going.
So where did it come from? At any given point in time the universe came from an older (and smaller) universe. There is no beginning to time nor a time when there was no universe. But that does not mean that time is infinite.
But as I said that is just guesswork and quantum physics is starting to show us that our ordinary concepts of time are rather incorrect. There are all sorts of odd things going on such as photons of light that 'know' where they are going at the point when they leave their source, or photons that actually go two different routes and interfere with themselves, or particles that are 'entangled' which means a pair of particles whos properties are not defined until one of the particles properties are known then the other particle in the pair instantly acquires properties even if it is on the other side of the universe!
09 Jul 07
1 edit
So where did it come from? At any given point in time the universe came from an older (and smaller) universe. There is no beginning to time nor a time when there was no universe. But that does not mean that time is infinite.
Let us say that time is infinite because there always was some universe.
If time is infinite how could there be a traversal of an infinite number of moments to arrive at now?
We can traverse a trillion minutes from some point to arrive at the minute which now exists. How can we traverse an infinite number of minutes to arrive at the present minute?
09 Jul 07
Originally posted by jaywillI am proposing that time is not infinite but infinitely divisible and that it has a lower bound (beginning) that is not a part of the set, ie does not exist. So any rules (laws of physics) that are known to apply withing the set (universe) are not required to apply to the beginning and may infact be meaningless if applied outside the set. However the rules (laws of physics) remain consistent.
Let us say that time is infinite because there always was some universe.
If time is infinite how could there be a traversal of an infinite number of moments to arrive at now?
We can traverse a trillion minutes from some point to arrive at the minute which now exists. How can we traverse an infinite number of minutes to arrive at the present minute?
09 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am proposing that time is not infinite but infinitely divisible and that it has a lower bound (beginning) that is not a part of the set, ie does not exist. So any rules (laws of physics) that are known to apply withing the set (universe) are not required to apply to the beginning and may infact be meaningless if applied outside the set. However the rules (laws of physics) remain consistent.
I am proposing that time is not infinite but infinitely divisible and that it has a lower bound (beginning) that is not a part of the set, ie does not exist. So any rules (laws of physics) that are known to apply withing the set (universe) are not required to apply to the beginning and may infact be meaningless if applied outside the set. However the rules (laws of physics) remain consistent.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you propose this then I see you making a very similiar proposition to the idea that God is the Cause of the universe but is Himself outside of that universe and not subject to the rules (laws of physics) that apply within the universe.
The thiest places God as the uncaused Cause from without the universe.
You avoid having to admit that time has a beginning by placing it outside the set of things over which it has enfluence.
If this method works for your theory do you criticize the theist for applying similiar thinking to an uncreated and noncontinguent Being as an all powerful and eternal Creator?
What's the difference?
09 Jul 07
Originally posted by jaywillThe differences include:
If you propose this then I see you making a very similiar proposition to the idea that God is the Cause of the universe but is Himself outside of that universe and not subject to the rules (laws of physics) that apply within the universe.
The thiest places God as the uncaused Cause from without the universe.
You avoid having to admit that time has a ...[text shortened]... ed and noncontinguent Being as an all powerful and eternal Creator?
What's the difference?
1. I don't believe in God.
2. I have stated that the lower bound does not in fact exist and not "exist outside the universe".
3. The lower bound in my hypothesis is not a cause for anything so should not be called an "uncaused cause".
4. I have shown that an uncaused cause is not a requirement for a universe with finite time in which everything is caused.
5. I am not claiming that my hypothesis 'proves' the existence of God (or anything else).
I have no problem with a theist hypothesizing that a being they call God created the universe. I do have a problem when they claim that it is a logical deduction based on observation (As this thread suggested). I am trying to show that there are other perfectly reasonable explanations /possibilities.
09 Jul 07
3 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The differences include:
1. I don't believe in God.
2. I have stated that the lower bound does not in fact exist and not "exist outside the universe".
3. The lower bound in my hypothesis is not a cause for anything so should not be called an "uncaused cause".
4. I have shown that an uncaused cause is not a [b]requirement for a universe with finite am trying to show that there are other perfectly reasonable explanations /possibilities.[/b]
1. I don't believe in God.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We know that. That is not a significant difference as the next person can say that they don't believe in a "time" which is outside of the set of all times.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2. I have stated that the lower bound does not in fact exist and not "exist outside the universe".
++++++++++++++++++
Okay. Thanks for that clarification. But I don't see that statement as less mystical than me saying that God has not beginning and is eternal, outside of the universe.
This seems an assertion that one just has to take on faith that time has no lower bound "in fact".
And I have to think about infinitely divisible time with no "in fact" lower bound.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3. The lower bound in my hypothesis is not a cause for anything so should not be called an "uncaused cause".
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wait, the lower bound does not exist or it does exist but is not caused by anything?
Which do you mean? Are you proposing an uncaused lower bound of time or a non-existent lower bound of time?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4. I have shown that an uncaused cause is not a requirement for a universe with finite time in which everything is caused.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think that you have tried to remove time's lower bound somehow. Time as I understand you, has some characteristic which is outside of the set of all things. How it got to this Super Set you don't say. I assume that it is just placed there without a cause by you?
I mean this mystical realm in which a piece of time is, making no beginning to time in the realm of physics, is no less easy to conceptualize than an uncreated Creator.
Is there a cause for a vital component of time being outside the set of things? Is it arbitrarily out there by its own will or what?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5. I am not claiming that my hypothesis 'proves' the existence of God (or anything else).
+++++++++++++++++++
I would not assume that you, an atheist, were out to prove the existence of God. I think you are an atheist. Right?
You seem to be trying to prove that the universe could be just in existence by no cause.
Are you at all concerned about what this philosophy could do to science? Don't you open the door to mystical gaps which say somthing is not caused but just has a component which exists outside of the set of caused things for no reason?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have no problem with a theist hypothesizing that a being they call God created the universe. I do have a problem when they claim that it is a logical deduction based on observation (As this thread suggested). I am trying to show that there are other perfectly reasonable explanations
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am sorry. But I do not yet grasp the "perfectly reasonableness" of your thoughts here.
You have time in the universe with a component of it outside for no reason that I can see yet. Somehow this allows you to conceptualize a beginningless time with a "lower bound" outside of the set of all other things. And the "time" which is in the universe is indivisible but with no lower bound.
At best it somewhat boggles my mind as much as saying that nothing created God Who always was and Himself is the Ground of Being and the Cause of the universe of time and space.
Nothing seems to jump out at me concerning your theory which suggests that it is more reasonable or more logical. At present I find it less so. But I don't mind thinking on it some more.
09 Jul 07
Originally posted by jaywillI didn't claim it was more reasonable, merely that there was no reason to exclude it and thus deduce the existence of God as the only possibility.
Nothing seems to jump out at me concerning your theory which suggests that it is more reasonable or more logical. At present I find it less so. But I don't mind thinking on it some more.
I realize that you have not really understood the concept I am trying to explain so let me have another go.
Look at the set of real positive numbers. We know that certain rules exist that apply to all real positive numbers. For example, for any two real positive numbers, you can add them and get a third real positive number. Lets pretend that the real positive numbers are time and that addition is 'causation'. For any real positive number, you can always find two other real positive numbers that when added give the originally required number.
You can also divide or multiply any real positive number by any other real positive number to get another real positive number.
However real positive numbers are finite in one direction. They are never less than or equal to zero.
Zero is not a real positive number.
As far as real positive numbers are concerned Zero does not exist. Some laws do not even apply to zero, for example division by Zero is meaningless.
I am hypothesizing that time extends backwards but never gets to a particular value we might call Zero Time. That imaginary point does not exist, but it doesn't mean that time is therefore infinite in the past.
One can do the same with the spacial dimensions. We know that the universe is expanding. We can hypothesize that it has always been expanding and when we project that into the past, we see that it gets smaller and smaller the further back you go. But for any size however small there is always a smaller size possible, so there is never a 'first cause'. A zero size does not exist.
09 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I didn't claim it was more reasonable, merely that there was no reason to exclude it and thus deduce the existence of God as the only possibility.
I realize that you have not really understood the concept I am trying to explain so let me have another go.
Look at the set of real positive numbers. We know that certain rules exist that apply to all real ys a smaller size possible, so there is never a 'first cause'. A zero size does not exist.
I am hypothesizing that time extends backwards but never gets to a particular value we might call Zero Time. That imaginary point does not exist, but it doesn't mean that time is therefore infinite in the past.
One can do the same with the spacial dimensions. We know that the universe is expanding. We can hypothesize that it has always been expanding and when we project that into the past, we see that it gets smaller and smaller the further back you go. But for any size however small there is always a smaller size possible, so there is never a 'first cause'. A zero size does not exist.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I thought that Steady State Theory had fallen out of favor these days. Your hypothesis is not exactly Steady State. But it does share some charachteristics.
I'll get back to you latter.
09 Jul 07
Originally posted by jaywillThis not steady state theory though. There are no words to describe the beginning of the universe, since there is nothing to compare it to. It doesn't make logical sense in our brains, although T has done a valiant job in trying to explain the concept.
[b]+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am hypothesizing that time extends backwards but never gets to a particular value we might call Zero Time. That imaginary point does not exist, but it doesn't mean that time is therefore infinite in the past.
One can do the same with the spacial dimensions. We know that the universe is expanding. We can hypothesize that ...[text shortened]... tly Steady State. But it does share some charachteristics.
I'll get back to you latter.
09 Jul 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadam hypothesizing that time extends backwards but never gets to a particular value we might call Zero Time. That imaginary point does not exist, but it doesn't mean that time is therefore infinite in the past. WHITEY
I didn't claim it was more reasonable, merely that there was no reason to exclude it and thus deduce the existence of God as the only possibility.
I realize that you have not really understood the concept I am trying to explain so let me have another go.
Look at the set of real positive numbers. We know that certain rules exist that apply to all real ...[text shortened]... ys a smaller size possible, so there is never a 'first cause'. A zero size does not exist.
But surely it means that time can have no beginning either. Are you saying (once again) that time is neither finite or infinite?
09 Jul 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterI said things cannot exist outside of time. However, that doesn't apply to the big bang singularity, because logically, it doesn't exist either inside or outside of time.
So something exists that is not in time but preceeds the big bang. I thought there was no "before" the big bang? I also thought that nothing could exist outside of time (or was that a different scotty)
10 Jul 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribbleshee hee
It just depends whether your notion of common sense includes the rules of deduction. The more stupid a person you are, the less likely it is that the condition holds, and the more likely you are to find logical inference violating your common sense.