The Void of nothing

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]Could you elaborate on this "theory of time" of yours?

Would you say (according to your theory) that the space-time continuum of the universe is interdependent? Or don't you subscribe at all to a relativistic explanation of physics?

I say that relativity says nothing about the unjustified properties you or others assign to time (that you can exist outside of it, stop it, travel backwards through it etc...) Dr Who has a lot to answer for.[/b]

I say that relativity says nothing about the unjustified properties you or others assign to time (that you can exist outside of it, stop it, travel backwards through it etc...)

Neither does relativity preclude existence outside of time. Your argument is a lame strawman: relativity (by definition) describes the physical, not the metaphysical. If you wish to remain on your tiny island while claiming it to be the only bastion of reality, be my guest.

Originally posted by Agerg
I do not choose caused, I do not choose eternal and caused, I choose eternal universe...with respect to my position on this matter you made a mistake (again!)

LMAO! Please read that post again. Perhaps I was being too cryptic for your liking, but if you decipher my analogy of the turtles of causality, you end up with an eternal universe -- exactly the position you hold. I don't think I made any mistake; my summation of you has been quite accurate thus far -- we'll just have to wait and see whether the dishonest skeptic will show his Janusean face.

Originally posted by knightmeister
This little interchange is very very illuminating . In my view what you have said here is illogical and contradictory. What your model implies is that there are two states to existence . Non existence (nothing) and existence (universe) . You also say that the universe 'started' , so there is at least some progression from non-existence to existence. Bu ...[text shortened]... for it to start , ...there's nothing to make anything start not even the thing itself!

The problem is one of not having the right words to explain my meaning. Just as you quite happily totally redefine the meaning of eternity and similarly in one post talk about the paradox of an uncaused cause and in another dismiss causation as being non-existent and therefore irrelevant.

In my opinion there are two possibilities:
1. Time is infinite in the past and the universe has always existed.
2. Time is not infinite in the past and therefore there is a time Zero.
In the case of No 2 there is nothing mathematically wrong with it or any 'laws of physics' being broken. There is no First Cause problem and no Something from Nothing problem. Those problems are based on the false assumption that there is a universe external to the universe (call it eternity if you will).
You are still totally ignoring my question about what is beyond the edge of the universe. Surely space dimensions are easier to understand than time? Is the universe floating in a sea of eternity? Is there a different set of physics laws out there? Is it a void of nothing? Are there multiple universes? could they bump into each other?

Originally posted by Agerg
I do not choose caused, I do not choose eternal and caused, I choose eternal universe...with respect to my position on this matter you made a mistake (again!)

So you would go for an uncaused eternal universe as the most likely logical solution. Is this right? Just checking.....

Originally posted by twhitehead
The problem is one of not having the right words to explain my meaning. Just as you quite happily totally redefine the meaning of eternity and similarly in one post talk about the paradox of an uncaused cause and in another dismiss causation as being non-existent and therefore irrelevant.

In my opinion there are two possibilities:
1. Time is infinite ...[text shortened]... there? Is it a void of nothing? Are there multiple universes? could they bump into each other?

Is the universe floating in a sea of eternity?

I would go for this one as more likely than floating in a void of nothing , simply because for the universe to be floating in a void of nothing it would imply that nothing was actually something . Nothing can't even be a void or vaccuum . By definition nothing is less than a void.

Originally posted by knightmeister
So you would go for an uncaused eternal universe as the most likely logical solution. Is this right? Just checking.....

I guess uncaused yes, but probably not in the sense you are referring to.
Eternal? Well that depends on your definition of the word. Looking it up in a dictionary gave me a variety of meanings. If you mean infinite time then no, I said that finite time would still be a possibility.
There are other critical questions such as the definition of 'universe'. If there exists matter that is not observable or able in any way to communicate information about itself to us then is it still in the universe? Does it still exist?
If the observable universe is just a bubble in some larger space/time construct which obeys the laws of physics then, if we are totally unable to determine the existence of other bubbles do they still exist?

Originally posted by twhitehead
The problem is one of not having the right words to explain my meaning. Just as you quite happily totally redefine the meaning of eternity and similarly in one post talk about the paradox of an uncaused cause and in another dismiss causation as being non-existent and therefore irrelevant.

In my opinion there are two possibilities:
1. Time is infinite ...[text shortened]... there? Is it a void of nothing? Are there multiple universes? could they bump into each other?

2. Time is not infinite in the past and therefore there is a time Zero.
In the case of No 2 there is nothing mathematically wrong with it or any 'laws of physics' being broken. There is no First Cause problem and no Something from Nothing problem. Those problems are based on the false assumption that there is a universe external to the universe (call it eternity if you will). TWHITEHEAD

....mathematically it DOES present a problem . Nothing can be represented as 0 . So if you want to make something from 0 or if 0 is to become anything more than just little ol' 0 then you need to introduce something else to make it more than 0 otherwise 0 = 0 and nothing more. 0x0+0 X 0x0 etc etc = 0! You could of course introduce a 0.000001 and then make something more than 0. However , the true mathematical and logical concept of nothing means that you can't , it's not there. You are in a sea of 0's. I could give you trillions of them and trillions of years to do your sums and you won't ever get past 0.

So mathematically the idea of something from nothing is a huge problem and is logically insurmountable.

Time is a dimensional concept not an object. You might as well say that there was a point of no centimetres.

Also , if there is a time 0 does that not logically mean that for you there must be a "substance" zero (ie a point of complete non existence of anything). Or maybe you believe in an eternal quantum singularity that has always been there or never not existed? That would at least be more logical than S from N but you would be signing up to the eternity club then.

It seems incredible that you can intellectualise this problem away by saying there is no first cause problem. You are still in the realms of semantics. You have not grasped the true concept of nothing and what it actually means you have just said that physics points to the fact that the universe has a time zero. It's circular reasoning . You say the existence of nothing is not a problem because the non-existence of the universe is not a problem. However , this is based on an initial premise that there can be nothing in existence that is not the universe which may or may not be true.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The problem is one of not having the right words to explain my meaning. Just as you quite happily totally redefine the meaning of eternity and similarly in one post talk about the paradox of an uncaused cause and in another dismiss causation as being non-existent and therefore irrelevant.

In my opinion there are two possibilities:
1. Time is infinite ...[text shortened]... there? Is it a void of nothing? Are there multiple universes? could they bump into each other?

I don't think you have grasped the logical and philosophical issue at hand here......

Here's a thought experiment for you....(I borrowed most of it from the net.)

Let's say you have a large room. It's fully enclosed and is about the size of a football field. The room is locked, permanently, and has no doors or windows, and no holes in its walls.

Inside the room there is...nothing. Absolutely nothing. Not a particle of anything. No air at all. No dust at all. No light at all. There are no quantum particles or quarks or gravity. There is no potentiality or hidden energy fields. It's a sealed room that's not even pitch black inside because pitch black would be too suggestive of something. Then what happens?

Well, let's say your goal is to get something--anything at all--into the room. But the rules are: you can't use anything from outside the room to do that. So what do you do?



Well, you think, what if I try to create a spark inside the room? Then the room would have light in it, even for just a moment. That would qualify as something. Yes, but you are outside the room. So that's not allowed.

But, you say, what if I could teleport something into the room, like in Star Trek? Again, that's not allowable, because you'd be using things from outside the room.

Here again is the dilemma: you have to get something inside the room using only what's in the room. And, in this case, what's in the room is nothing.

Well, you say, maybe a tiny particle of something will just show up inside the room if given enough time.

There's three problems with this theory. First, time by itself doesn't do anything. Things happen over time, but it's not time that makes them happen. For example, if you wait 15 minutes for cookies to bake, it's not the 15 minutes that bakes them, it's the heat in the oven. If you set them on the counter for 15 minutes, they're not going to bake.

In our analogy, we've got a fully enclosed room with absolutely nothing in it. Waiting 15 minutes will not, in and of itself, change the situation. Well, you say, what if we wait eons? An eon is merely a bunch of 15-minute segments all pressed together. If you waited an eon with your cookies on the counter, would the eon bake them?



The second problem is this: why would anything just "show up" in the empty room? It would need a reason why it came to be. But there is nothing inside the room at all. So what's to stop that from remaining the case? There would be nothing inside the room to cause something to show up (and yet the reason must come from inside the room).

Well, you say, what about a tiny particle of something? Wouldn't that have a greater chance of materializing in the room than something larger like, for example, a football?

That brings up the third problem: size. Like time, size is an abstract. It's relative. Let's say you have three baseballs, all ranging in size. One is ten feet wide, one is five feet wide, one is normal size. Which one is more likely to materialize in the room?

The normal-size baseball? No! It would be the same likelihood for all three. The size wouldn't matter. It's not the issue. The issue is whether or not any baseball of any size could just "show up" in our sealed, empty room.

If you don't think the smallest baseball could just show up in the room, no matter how much time passed, then you must conclude the same thing even for an atom. Size is not an issue. The likelihood of a small particle materializing without cause is no different than a refrigerator materializing without cause!



Now let's stretch our analogy further, literally. Let's take our large, pitch-black room and remove its walls. And let's extend the room so that it goes on infinitely in all directions. Now there is nothing outside the room, because the room is all there is. We have obliterated the walls of the room and everything outside the room as well. Nothing! Period.

This "black" infinite "room" has no light, no dust, no particles of any kind, no air, no elements, no molecules , gravity , etc etc etc etc . It's absolute nothingness. In fact, we can call it Absolutely Nothing.

So here's the question: if originally----there was Absolutely Nothing, wouldn't there be Absolutely Nothing now?

Yes. For something--no matter how small--cannot come from Absolutely Nothing. We would still have Absolutely Nothing.



What does that tell us? That Absolutely Nothing never existed. Why? Because, if Absolutely Nothing ever existed, there would still be Absolutely Nothing!

If Absolutely Nothing ever existed, there would not be anything outside it to cause the existence of anything.

Again, if Absolutely Nothing ever existed, there would still be Absolutely Nothing.

However, something exists. Actually, many things exist. You, for example, are something that exists, a very important something. Therefore, you are proof that Absolutely Nothing never existed.

Now, if Absolutely Nothing never existed, that means there was always a time when there was at least Something in existence.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I don't think you have grasped the logical and philosophical issue at hand here......

Here's a thought experiment for you....(I borrowed most of it from the net.)

So, is there time and space in the room? Do the laws of physics apply in the room?
If so then particles of matter and antimatter will instantaneously appear! What causes them? They don't need a cause. All the need is to not have a reason not to appear!

Originally posted by knightmeister
....mathematically it DOES present a problem . Nothing can be represented as 0 . So if you want to make something from 0 or if 0 is to become anything more than just little ol' 0 then you need to introduce something else to make it more than 0 otherwise 0 = 0 and nothing more. 0x0+0 X 0x0 etc etc = 0! You could of course introduce a 0.000001 and then m ...[text shortened]... nal concept not an object. You might as well say that there was a point of no centimetres.

I know we aren't quite understanding each others language. I can only assume that you do not have much background in mathematics.
The real number line has a point on it which is represented by zero.
There is nothing wrong with talking about a point in space that is zero centimeters in every direction and lasts for zero seconds.

So mathematically the idea of something from nothing is a huge problem and is logically insurmountable.
I really don't see where this fits in as at no point did I say that the universes time was made up of an infinite number of Zero slices. I merely stated that it could have had a point in time before which there was no time ie there was no before.

Originally posted by knightmeister
....you have just said that physics points to the fact that the universe has a time zero.

I did not say that. I said it was a logical possibility that could be considered.

Originally posted by Halitose
LMAO! Please read that post again. Perhaps I was being too cryptic for your liking, but if you decipher my analogy of the turtles of causality, you end up with an eternal universe -- exactly the position you hold. I don't think I made any mistake; my summation of you has been quite accurate thus far -- we'll just have to wait and see whether the dishonest skeptic will show his Janusean face.

LMAO! Please read that post again. Perhaps I was being too cryptic for your liking, but if you decipher my analogy of the turtles of causality, you end up with an eternal universe -- exactly the position you hold. I don't think I made any mistake; my summation of you has been quite accurate thus far -- we'll just have to wait and see whether the dishonest skeptic will show his Janusean face.

It should be I that laughs at you Lennie Small...your turtles head post hinged upon me choosing a *caused* universe...you were wrong 🙄

If one chooses NOT (universe is eternal) then it leads to folk like you reasoning that there must have been a magic friend that had to be eternal such that it could be first caused...either way you don't eliminate eternity...I'll opt for parsimony if you don't mind.

Neither does relativity preclude existence outside of time. Your argument is a lame strawman: relativity (by definition) describes the physical, not the metaphysical. If you wish to remain on your tiny island while claiming it to be the only bastion of reality, be my guest.

It would seem that last sentence applies to you. Why don't you show me how existence outside of time works eh?...show me how relativity theory alludes to this phenomenon (If you cannot, then what it does not preclude is out of scope, thus it would be you fighting strawmen)

(woo-wee you're so clever 😉 )

Originally posted by knightmeister
Why is it that you though you seem to require that something must be eternal; you feel that this *something* must have *created* a temporary universe? This idea does not resolve the problems you, I, or anyone else has with the concept of eternity because eternity is still actually integral to it. AGERG

..and what problem do you have with eternity? D ...[text shortened]... ternity but I have bigger problems with the other theory so I choose the least problematic one.

I also have a problem with eternity but I have bigger problems with the other theory so I choose the least problematic one.

I too find the concept of eternity uncomfortable but the only way to eliminate eternity seems to be the suggestion that time is finite and did not exist before the big bang...This is far more uncomfortable for me than eternity.

Suppose that finite time was indeed true, from this you can infer that there exists a point in time where there were no other points before it. At this point surely there existed not only the singularity that has given rise to the universe we know at present, but also the space to fit it in...how did it all get there?...how exactly does time just *start*?...why does it start?... what happens whilst time does not exist such that time decides *to exist*? how does this happen given that there is no time for it? (some may say my 2 last questions are meaningless...in that case please answer the others)

This may actually be the true proposition but I just find it extremely uncomfortable

Originally posted by knightmeister
You are going too far. If you notice I have deliberately tried to stay away from concepts of deity and used words like eternal existence etc . I will confess that God is in the background , but I don't want that to distract from the argument. At the moment I am making an argument for the eternal existence of life. My main thrust is that S from N is an kely than S from N.

PS - Accepting this truth does NOT imply belief in God . Only eternity.

Apologies KM but the question: I wondered why you found that more likely than one eternal thing and one temporary thing (universe)? seems to imply (albeit indirectly) that there should be some entity that is not part of the universe and is eternal. From this I can only infer a deity.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]LMAO! Please read that post again. Perhaps I was being too cryptic for your liking, but if you decipher my analogy of the turtles of causality, you end up with an eternal universe -- exactly the position you hold. I don't think I made any mistake; my summation of you has been quite accurate thus far -- we'll just have to wait and see whether the dishonest s f scope, thus it would be you fighting strawmen)

(woo-wee you're so clever 😉 )

[/b][/b]It should be I that laughs at you Lennie Small...your turtles head post hinged upon me choosing a *caused* universe...you were wrong 🙄

I gave you the benefit of the doubt in expecting you to at least have the background knowledge to engage in this sort of debate -- if that's what you can call this debacle. Obviously you are somewhat lacking in this department and it seems like I'll have to explain and re-explain myself at each turn. Let's go through this slowly:

Here's what I said to spark your obvious confusion:

Originally posted by Halitose

In your case, you seem quite content to place your universe on the backs of the turtles of infinite causality.

This statement assumed that you had at least read Hawking's A Brief History of Time which I would consider a prerequisite to discussing cosmology -- allowing you to at least have a workable understanding of contemporary theories.

Since you are obviously oblivious to the meaning I had intended, allow me to quote the opening paragraph of Chapter 1:

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He
described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast
collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and
said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant
tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on.” “You’re very
clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down!”

So going back to your statement above: how does an infinite regression of "causal turtles" require you "choosing a *caused* universe"? Is an infinite regression of causal turtles not simply an analogy of an eternal universe?

Since you're turned squirming into an art form, I certainly won't bother with the rest of your post, till we resolve this part.

If you're still confused about this, refer to the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down