Originally posted by knightmeisterI dont know where you are getting this idea from but there is no logical reason to claim that matter and energy have more existence than space and time. They are all just conceptual measurements surely?
The fact that physics seems to suggest that the universe might well have not existed at some point is not disturbing to me at all. What physics might well prove is that the known universe was once nothing and without any matter or energy. Since I also believe this too this is not a problem. I also think that space and time don't exist anyway right now ...[text shortened]... tter and energy. So you stick with the concepts and I 'll stick with the reality of existence.
Originally posted by knightmeisterI think I agree with the above paragraph.
There is a subtle (but incredibly significant) jump from the idea that the universe was ONCE nothing ...to...the idea that this means that it must have COME FROM nothing which can only be made if you start with the premise that "there can be nothing in existence which is not the known universe" . If you start with the premise "there may or may not be a ...[text shortened]... ap which requires you to make some kind of circular reasoning based on an initial premise.
You see , even if I thought there were universes beyond this universe and 12 dimensions or giant polar bears I would still have the same questions philosophically. How did those get there and do they/did they exist continuously? Or is it likely that life, existence and everything in it didn't exist (at all)?
Again the false claim that finite time implies the existence of a 'nothing' state.
Or was it possible that life itself might never have been at all? It's these questions that lead you to think discontinuity seem unlikely rather than permanent life or continuous (eternal) existence (in whatever form that might take)...but it's necessary to understand the question first.
I still don't see how you keep equating life to the universe or existence.
Maybe I just don't understand what you really mean by 'continuous' and 'eternal' as both of them include a time factor in their normal definitions. Maybe you have different definitions?
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo I don't think so. The difference with matter , energy , quantum particles etc is that they are substantive. They objectively exist. matter and energy can be observed physically , they can be experimented on. Matter for example can be broken down into it's constituent parts to try and find out what it's made of. You can put particles in particle acceleraters and examine what they do. Matter and energy can have real effects on us like keeping us warm or giving us radiation sickness. This to me puts these things into a different catagory than space/time. The concept of time for example is experienced subjectively as a passing of one event to another. But really it's just us observing the activities of matter and energy doing it's stuff.
I dont know where you are getting this idea from but there is no logical reason to claim that matter and energy have more existence than space and time. They are all just conceptual measurements surely?
So here's a question , which do you think is most likely ...that if you broke space and time up into it's constituent parts you would find out it is made up of matter and energy ....OR...that if you broke down matter and energy into it's constituent parts you would find it is made up of space/time. My understanding is that physics has been probing deeper into matter for decades now....but space/time exists in the realms of chalkboards and theoretical physics. It's not to say they don't exist , it's just they exist as measurements just like a "mile" is a measurement but you would not say a "mile" is a real object that exists?!
Originally posted by twhiteheadAgain the false claim that finite time implies the existence of a 'nothing' state. TWHITEHEAD
I think I agree with the above paragraph.
[b]You see , even if I thought there were universes beyond this universe and 12 dimensions or giant polar bears I would still have the same questions philosophically. How did those get there and do they/did they exist continuously? Or is it likely that life, existence and everything in it didn't exist (at all)? ...[text shortened]... lude a time factor in their normal definitions. Maybe you have different definitions?
Oh come on!!! I'm not using time based phrases in the way you mean them. I'm trying to describe a state of non-existence of anything whatsoever using the ONLY language I have available to me. I am implying that finite existence or discontinuous existence implies a nothingness state. If a nothingness state does not exist or never existed then existence must be continuous or eternal. Logic dictates this.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWe really are going to have to go back to first base here aren't we. you don't even understand what the question is do you? I'm slightly tempted to think that you are being disingenuous here but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I want you to put aside your assumptions regarding what you THINK I am saying and try and imagine what I am trying to say here.
I think I agree with the above paragraph.
[b]You see , even if I thought there were universes beyond this universe and 12 dimensions or giant polar bears I would still have the same questions philosophically. How did those get there and do they/did they exist continuously? Or is it likely that life, existence and everything in it didn't exist (at all)? ...[text shortened]... lude a time factor in their normal definitions. Maybe you have different definitions?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have no doubt in my mind that life has not always existed and most scientists and religions would agree with me on that one. (assuming you are talking about biological life). TWHITEHEAD
No, there is no such logical conclusion and as I have repeatedly stated, that is the flaw in your argument.
[b]You believe by implication in discontinuity , that life is discontinous. That life itself and everything in it has a beginning.
I have said that it is possible and logical not that I believe it to be the only possibility.(ie believ ...[text shortened]... nd religions would agree with me on that one. (assuming you are talking about biological life).[/b]
And why would I possibly be talking about biological life ? What on earth has that got to do with it.
Think bigger MUCH bigger. Take a deep breath relax and contemplate properly now. Life , everything , absolutely everything , all existence , the whole nine yards - the universe , God , parallel universes whatever. NOT in existence. The Non-existence of anything that possibly could exist , does exist , or has existed. This is what I mean by life itself not existing and I suspect you know this either consciously or unconsciously.
Now whitey. You wouldn't be playing dumb deliberately now would you? Are you too intimidated by the sheer magnitude of my question ? Playing dumb would be a really great way of avoiding the question itself , sophistry of the highest order and yet something leads me to think you just don't get it.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadAgain the false claim that finite time implies the existence of a 'nothing' state.TWHITEHEAD
I think I agree with the above paragraph.
[b]You see , even if I thought there were universes beyond this universe and 12 dimensions or giant polar bears I would still have the same questions philosophically. How did those get there and do they/did they exist continuously? Or is it likely that life, existence and everything in it didn't exist (at all)? lude a time factor in their normal definitions. Maybe you have different definitions?
It does if you think that there isn't anything that can exist outside of time which is what you seem to be saying. It's you that believes in this state of nothing not me.
Do you believe in something from nothing or not? because you seem to pull back uncomfortably from the reality of what this means whenever it rears it's head.
Originally posted by knightmeisterSome defintions....
We really are going to have to go back to first base here aren't we. you don't even understand what the question is do you? I'm slightly tempted to think that you are being disingenuous here but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I want you to put aside your assumptions regarding what you THINK I am saying and try and imagine what I am trying to say here.
NOTHING = an absolute term to describe the absence of anything whatsoever , whatever it is with absolutely no exceptions whatsoever. The anti thesis or existence , nothing is non existence.
EXISTENCE = Everything , again an absolute term that includes everything that can/could/will/ might / has existed including any God or parallel universes or dimensions .
Originally posted by twhitehead"Progression from the state of non-existence of life altogether to life existing."KM
No, there is no such logical conclusion and as I have repeatedly stated, that is the flaw in your argument.
[b]You believe by implication in discontinuity , that life is discontinous. That life itself and everything in it has a beginning.
I have said that it is possible and logical not that I believe it to be the only possibility.(ie believ ...[text shortened]... nd religions would agree with me on that one. (assuming you are talking about biological life).[/b]
"This is a totally false conclusion as the word progression assumes an external time line which is not proven nor implied by the earlier statement (finite time)." WHITEHEAD
dooh !
All this shows is what an illogical and impossible concept S from N is in the first place. Of course...I agree with you.... there can be no "progression" from nothingness to something because as you have said progression assumes external time and in nothing there can be no time external or otherwise. That's why it's most likely and logical to assume that from nothing , nothing can progress. But if that's true we shouldn't be here dicussing us !! Therefore there is no such thing as nothing- therefore eternal continuity of existence.
Every time you invalidate my questions you subtley also invalidate the concept of S from N without realising it.
Be careful whitey , you'll end up sawing off the very branch you are sitting on ....better get off quick and go for an eternal , continuous universe instead....TIMBER!
Originally posted by knightmeisterand you can show that "nothing" was ever the state of the universe?
Some defintions....
NOTHING = an absolute term to describe the absence of anything whatsoever , whatever it is with absolutely no exceptions whatsoever. The anti thesis or existence , nothing is non existence.
EXISTENCE = Everything , again an absolute term that includes everything that can/could/will/ might / has existed including any God or parallel universes or dimensions .
Originally posted by frogstompNo I can't. Physics seems to suggest that the universe is finite but for all we know the singularity at the centre of the big bang might have always existed and be eternal. I have no philosophical problem with an eternal universe other than the fact that it doesn't seem to look eternal , it looks finite instead. What I do find absurd is the idea that this singularity could just pop out of complete nothingness magically. Something from Nothing is self contradictory and unlikely therefore I believe in continuous eternity of existence.
and you can show that "nothing" was ever the state of the universe?
Originally posted by knightmeisterSo you're not a believer in the Cyclic Universe ( the big brother of ekpyrotics)?
No I can't. Physics seems to suggest that the universe is finite but for all we know the singularity at the centre of the big bang might have always existed and be eternal. I have no philosophical problem with an eternal universe other than the fact that it doesn't seem to look eternal , it looks finite instead. What I do find absurd is the idea that t ...[text shortened]... ng is self contradictory and unlikely therefore I believe in continuous eternity of existence.
Originally posted by frogstompNothing will eventually be the state of the universe, apart from electromagnetic radiation and a myriad of subatomic particles fleetingly popping in and out of existence in the vacuum. All matter is unstable (albeit with very long half lives), ultimately decaying predominantly into gamma radiation. Followed in time by the heat death of the universe as the radiation emitted by decaying matter spreads out across space at the speed of light.
and you can show that "nothing" was ever the state of the universe?
Nil Desperandum. . . It could be worse.
Originally posted by EAPOEyeah, a universe filled with 54Fe particles.
Nothing will eventually be the state of the universe, apart from electromagnetic radiation and a myriad of subatomic particles fleetingly popping in and out of existence in the vacuum. All matter is unstable (albeit with very long half lives), ultimately decaying predominantly into gamma radiation. Followed in time by the heat death of the universe as the radi ...[text shortened]... atter spreads out across space at the speed of light.
Nil Desperandum. . . It could be worse.
Originally posted by EAPOEI must point out that your hypothesis is no more definitive that the other guy's. For instance what is the universe expanding into, and why?
Nothing will eventually be the state of the universe, apart from electromagnetic radiation and a myriad of subatomic particles fleetingly popping in and out of existence in the vacuum. All matter is unstable (albeit with very long half lives), ultimately decaying predominantly into gamma radiation. Followed in time by the heat death of the universe as the radi ...[text shortened]... atter spreads out across space at the speed of light.
Nil Desperandum. . . It could be worse.