Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes we can, because 'always' means all time and all time is finite.

[b]You need to stop interpreting everything in mathematical terms and think about it philosophically. Just because a term is not mathematically valid doesn't mean that it has no logical or philosophical sugnificance. I still think you are saying that the universe began out of nothing , ...[text shortened]... s finite. However much it is suggested you always think there must be a point 'beyond' it.

And you are just hung up on having a God who is infinite.

-------whitey---------------

Oops! You bring God in again- I never said anything about God. If you can't separate the God thing from this argument then you cannot see it objectively. You have a hidden agenda.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Which is all fine and dandy as long as you assume that the space/time we live in is the only form of space/time possible - Or that no other existence is possible other than space/time.

If you make these assumptions then your argument works. I see no reason to assume this.

No such assumption is necessary. I quite clearly stated that other existences may be there, but they can not be placed relative to ours using our finite dimensions. ie it would be wrong to say that a alternate universe A is 'before' the big bang and alternate universe B is 'after' the apocalypse and alternate universe C lies to the West. Such relative claims are no less sensible than claiming that Narnia can be found by traveling South until the South pole and then to keep going South.

South of the South pole is one great big 'nothing' yet you do not apply your 'before' argument to it, because you are able to understand that dimension. You don't however understand the time dimension.

Originally posted by vistesd
An interesting aside on this (interesting to me, anyway) is that in mystical Jewish theology, “beginning” does not refer to that point before which there was “nothing” (or some nihil “space” somehow separate from God*) but that point “before which nothing is known” (the Zohar).

For these rabbis, of course, this “beginning before which nothing is ...[text shortened]... ind of nothing-something over there; or God floating in some kind of “nothing space”.

They knew Jacob’s Otz Cheim is a 1:1 mind-only symbol of Kosmos and so they were seeing I Am as the primal source of Kosmos, however they could not see where from the mind-only field out of which I Am came into being arose -and they could not understand the nature of the mind-only field out of which Ein came into being; new paths are now visible😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
No such assumption is necessary. I quite clearly stated that other existences may be there, but they can not be placed relative to ours using our finite dimensions. ie it would be wrong to say that a alternate universe A is 'before' the big bang and alternate universe B is 'after' the apocalypse and alternate universe C lies to the West. Such relative cla ...[text shortened]... are able to understand that dimension. You don't however understand the time dimension.

When are you going to get it? Words like "before" in this context can be applied rigorously and literally , but they don't have to be. Philosophically some of these words can be used because we have no other way of expressing other potential realities.

The problem is that you ALWAYS apply the letter of the law to these words and interpret them literally and mathematically. It basically leaves us reading from different chapters of the book and talking two diffrent languages.

So when you say "I quite clearly stated that other existences may be there, but they can not be placed relative to ours using our finite dimensions. " --- I think you are wrong - You cannot catagorically say or know that other planes of existence cannot relate to ours in some spacial or time related way. I see no reason to assume that ALL space/time itself started with the big bang. It may be that there are many other spacial dimensions - and our space time continuum is just an aspect of this. In such an existence it might make perfect sense to say our Big Bang came "after" a different Big Bang. (ie two different universes related in time to each other. )

I don't see how you can rule this out. I feel you are hung up on the concept that OUR space/time is the ONLY version of space/time possible. This can only be assumed if you assume that this universe is all that there is. How can you catagorically make such an assumption?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No such assumption is necessary. I quite clearly stated that other existences may be there, but they can not be placed relative to ours using our finite dimensions. ie it would be wrong to say that a alternate universe A is 'before' the big bang and alternate universe B is 'after' the apocalypse and alternate universe C lies to the West. Such relative cla ...[text shortened]... are able to understand that dimension. You don't however understand the time dimension.

"ie it would be wrong to say that a alternate universe A is 'before' the big bang and alternate universe B is 'after' "



WHY?

Originally posted by knightmeister
How can you catagorically make such an assumption?

It is not an assumption, it is by definition. Definitions cannot be wrong.
If an object is outside time it cannot be placed in relation to the universe using the time dimension.
The error you always make is to start by saying you are using the word philosophically, but then draw conclusions based on using the word literally. You cannot have it both ways.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is not an assumption, it is by definition. Definitions cannot be wrong.
If an object is outside time it cannot be placed in relation to the universe using the time dimension.
The error you always make is to start by saying you are using the word philosophically, but then draw conclusions based on using the word literally. You cannot have it both ways.

If an object is outside time it cannot be placed in relation to the universe using the time dimension.
---------------------------WHITEY----------------------------

All that is being suggested is an object outside "our" time not ALL time.

The problem is you talk about the space/time we live in as if you already know for sure it is "TIME" rather than time (note the lower case letter). Since we have no idea whether the space/time "bubble" ( big bang or whatever) represents everything or just a small part of everything then - YES- it is an assumption.

What does "outside time" mean for you? Have you reified the time we experience in this universe to somehow be "all TIME"? If so then that's fine , but it's still just an assumption.

For example , why couldn't the "time" in our universe just be surrounded by a larger reality of some sort with it's own "time" . All that would be needed would be for our big bang to exist within a larger big bang of some sort. Or even several small big bangs (each with their own "time" ) encased within a large super bang.

Afterall , all that we really know is that the time we experience in this universe started 12 billions years ago. Whether this time we expereince is the only time that exists - we have no idea.

So , I ask again - why are you so catagorical about this when there is no logical reason to be so?

Originally posted by knightmeister
A thought experiment.....

One thing we do know is that something happened. Life exists. Existence "is". Stuff began. The Universe is a reality. We exist. Existence exists. The Big Bang "banged".

A thought that always occurred to me when I grew up was this. What if nothing had happened? No existence. No life . No reality. No Bang. Nothing to caus ...[text shortened]... ever was nothing there would always be nothing.

No beginning.

As far as I can tell, there never was nothingness as you describe it.

This is why I find the idea of saying that the Big Bang is the beginning of everything a bit silly

The Big Bang was the beginning of observable time. It was not the beginning of everything. It wasn't the beginning of the singularity before observable time.

I don't understand how you concluded that there must always have been life. Mass/energy and space/time (MEST) yes - but life?

Originally posted by rwingett
There is something about the Jewish relationship with god that strikes me as being far more 'mature' than that of most Christians. Maybe because they don't feel the need to make up answers for everything they don't understand. Or maybe its just because I'm not exposed to Judaism all that much. Not sure which.

I agree.

Coincidentally I find lots of atheist Jews who claim Judaism as their religion for cultural reasons.

I find atheist Catholics too for that matter.

Originally posted by knightmeister
What do you think about spacial dimensions? Is space infinite in extent? If not, then your thought experiment should apply to space too ie what is outside space?
-------whitey-------------------------------

I think that the space/time we live in is finite. I don't know what is outside what we live in. However, if the space/time we live in "began" then that implies nothingness.

I think space is infinite.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I thought that science had demonstrated that the universe was once condensed into a tiny (but hugely dense) singualrity smaller than a cricket ball (or so some say). If that is so then all that we see must be an extension (or expansion ) of the singularity.

If science is also right about the universe being 12- 14 billion years old then it has to be finite , yes?

Why would you think it was infinite? Blooming big yes , but infinite?

The way I understand it is that space is like rubber - elastic. It expands - stretches - over time. At the beginning of observable time all matter was close together, but that doesn't mean there was a place outside the matter that was empty. It could be that all space was filled with matter until space began to stretch, creating distance between pieces of matter.

Or, maybe there was more than one singularity. I've never heard this before, but it seems to me like a possibility. In that case someday we'll start to see galaxies moving towards us from one direction, from a different Big Bang. This is my own idea, so take it with a grain of salt or maybe a whole salt shaker.

There is absolutely no evidence for any kind of "edge" to the universe. There is the "edge of our vision", but that doesn't mean the Universe stops there!

I think the cricket ball idea is that the universe was as dense as if all matter were crammed into a cricket ball; not that all matter was actually in cricket ball form in empty space.

The 12-14 billion years is the "edge of our vision" again, not the edge/ beginning of the universe.

Originally posted by knightmeister
We cannot say what came "before" the singularity because there was no "before" - but also we cannot say that the singularity has always existed because that would extend the finite scale of existence to infinity.

We cannot say what came "before" the singularity

That is correct.

because there was no "before"

No, that is incorrect.

but also we cannot say that the singularity has always existed

True.

because that would extend the finite scale of existence to infinity.

Incorrect. I'm not sure what you mean by this. You have the facts, but your explanations are way off.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Good answer. I'm still thinking about it myself,like I said ,I could be wrong. Do you think its possible that were more than on big bangs and hence we live in what is termed a 'multiverse' tather than just a universe? I know its a big question but give it a shot. All points of view are most welcome aboput such subjects-and how it all MIGHT relate to a creator. Cheers!

HEY! Maybe my idea wasn't so original.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes we can, because 'always' means all time and all time is finite.

[b]You need to stop interpreting everything in mathematical terms and think about it philosophically. Just because a term is not mathematically valid doesn't mean that it has no logical or philosophical sugnificance. I still think you are saying that the universe began out of nothing , ...[text shortened]... s finite. However much it is suggested you always think there must be a point 'beyond' it.

I think there's a time before observable time.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If the space time we live in is finite then there is nothing outside it - by definition.
There may be other existences, but they are not 'outside', 'after', 'before' or any other relative words.

Observable space-time is limited. There's a big difference.