23 Jan 07
Originally posted by AgergYou're starting to see the contradictory nature of S from N !! You agree that it makes no sense because it raises too many contradictions. Eternity raises the other question of how incredible something must be to have had no beginning. But you don't have to ask how did it get there , because it has always been.
[b]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. ...[text shortened]... )
This may actually be the true proposition but I just find it extremely uncomfortable[/b]
23 Jan 07
Originally posted by AgergI think it could imply a lot of things. Even if it did imply a deity , it could be any kind of deity rather than the "magic" deity you seem to hate so much.
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.
23 Jan 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo, is there time and space in the room?WHITEHEAD
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!
Why do you even need to ask ???? By defintion there is NOTHING in the room. Have you not understood what nothing is? The "state " or room of nothing excludes the posibility of anything being in it . And by this I mean absolutely nothing at all. How can you ask if there is something in a room of nothing? It's contradictory nonsense. The term nothing defines the issue absolutely. It's no wonder that particles of matter and anti matter will instantaneously come out of this thing you call nothing because you have allowed something to be in there (namely time and space) . In any case you have yet to prove that time and space exist in real terms. Do you understand what I am saying when I say you have reified time ?
24 Jan 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterIf there is truly nothing in the room then you have given existence to nothingness (a clear contradiction) which we both know is meaningless thus making your whole story of no value whatsoever.
So, is there time and space in the room?WHITEHEAD
Why do you even need to ask ???? By defintion there is NOTHING in the room. Have you not understood what nothing is? The "state " or room of nothing excludes the posibility of anything being in it . And by this I mean absolutely nothing at all. How can you ask if there is something in a room of nothi ...[text shortened]... exist in real terms. Do you understand what I am saying when I say you have reified time ?
24 Jan 07
Originally posted by AgergAlthough you may be uncomfortable with finite time, there is no good reason why it should not be the case.
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*?...wh ...[text shortened]... it? (some may say my 2 last questions are meaningless...in that case please answer the others)
All the questions you ask about how time 'starts' clearly assume an external time line with the existence of time before time which is meaningless.
Why has nobody yet even tried to address my questions on space? Is it too uncomfortable for those proposing a caused universe?
Suppose that the current universe was once so small that it was only 1 metre across. What was outside the sphere? If you were walking along 2 metre a line from outside the universe to inside the universe what would cause the space dimensions to suddenly start as you cross from 'nothing' into the universe?
24 Jan 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadAre you saying that it's impossible for nothing to exist? If you are then that threatens your argument not mine. I DO believe the existence of absolutely nothing is impossible because if it were true then there would be nothing now. Maybe nothing "non-exists" then?
If there is truly nothing in the room then you have given existence to nothingness (a clear contradiction) which we both know is meaningless thus making your whole story of no value whatsoever.
You are starting to understand the "clear contradictions" here but have failed to realise how they affect YOUR position. You are the one infact who is claiming the existence of nothing because you subscribe to the S from N idea. If it makes my story of no value it must also make S from N of no value. You can't have your cake and eat it!
In some ways it actually validates the story because it shows up the idea of absolutely nothing to be a bizzarre and illogical idea.
24 Jan 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy has nobody yet even tried to address my questions on space? Is it too uncomfortable for those proposing a caused universe? WHITHEAD
Although you may be uncomfortable with finite time, there is no good reason why it should not be the case.
All the questions you ask about how time 'starts' clearly assume an external time line with the existence of time before time which is meaningless.
Why has nobody yet even tried to address my questions on space? Is it too uncomfortable for those pr ...[text shortened]... cause the space dimensions to suddenly start as you cross from 'nothing' into the universe?
It may be because you think that space and time are real things that exist rather than concepts. I'm more interested in what space is made of. Both space and time are contigent on things like matter and energy. You also presume that nothing can exist without 4d space/time to exist in which is a presumption based on the 4d universe. We don't even know that the beginning of the universe represents the beginning of 4d space time full stop. We know it is the beginning of 4d space/time for us and that is all.
24 Jan 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe quoted article is talking about something from a previously existing space time and not from the 'nothing' that knightmeister is referring to.
"S from N" is not unreasonable:
http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/creation.htm
Of course knightmeister's whole paradox only exists because he is trying to make two conflicting assertions:
1. Nothing is completely and utterly nothing.(no time or space)
2. Nothing existed at some point in time and space.
and then show that the assertions are conflicting.
The flaw in his logic is the conclusion he draws after showing that the assertions are conflicting is an invalid conclusion.
24 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead1. Nothing is completely and utterly nothing.(no time or space)
The quoted article is talking about something from a previously existing space time and not from the 'nothing' that knightmeister is referring to.
Of course knightmeister's whole paradox only exists because he is trying to make two conflicting assertions:
1. Nothing is completely and utterly nothing.(no time or space)
2. Nothing existed at some point i ...[text shortened]... nclusion he draws after showing that the assertions are conflicting is an invalid conclusion.
2. Nothing existed at some point in time and space WHITEHEAD
1 . Is correct and accurate whereas 2 is not what I am saying at all and a complete mistranslation since nothing cannot "exist" because nothing is the negation of existence. Also nothing cannot (non) exist within something because that something would negate the nothing ness of nothing , there would be something (namely the thing that nothing exists in).
Since I have repeatedly stated (with little response) that neither time nor space are objective things that can be substantiated with regards to energy or matter or quantum particles , I would hardly be likely to think 2. This is either clever wordplay or a confusing of philosophical and scientific terms.
Are you denying that the state of non-existence called nothing was ever there? If you say that the universe didn't always exist and that the universe is finite and had a beginning then that logically implies you believe in a state of complete non existence of life itself. You believe by implication in discontinuity , that life is discontinous. That life itself and everything in it has a beginning. Progression from the state of non-existence of life altogether to life existing. If you don't believe in this then you must believe in continuity , ie life has always existed.
Question - I would assume that you believe the universe to have finite dimensions (however huge it is) . Therefore , since physics implies that the universe is like a big explosion of matter exploding in all directions and that universe was once smaller than a cricket ball......my question is when the universe was the size of a cricket ball do you think that it was surrounded by a complete absence of life itself? Do you imagine a universe expanding into nothingness/non-existence? Does the universe have an edge or has it ever had an edge? Or is there something right now in non- existence called nothingness into which the universe is expanding?
24 Jan 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungMany of the quotations talk about quantum fluctuations in "vaccuums"...the idea that physics has proven and observed matter coming from "nothing" is false and can be challenged.
"S from N" is not unreasonable:
http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/creation.htm
http://www.2think.org/nothingness.shtml
"The point Genz hammers home through this history lesson is that vacuums were once thought to be impossible, then thought to be probable, and are just now (during the past hundred years of experimentation and observation) known to be impossible. He states on page 207 that "there is no such thing as absolutely empty space. All space contains fluctuating fields and particles. Even in the emptiest space that the laws of nature permit, there are energy levels about which the energies of the fields and particles fluctuate; and these energy levels are never sharply defined." Essentially, as space is created it is given some properties of 'non-emptiness'."
http://www.ulsterpublishing.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=355850
"It turns out that the Greeks were right. First, no matter how good the vacuum, its space is still penetrated by some infrared heat and microwaves from the vacuum's walls and environment. Since energy and mass are fundamentally the same, those waves zipping through space mean that you can't ever have a true vacuum.
But that's small potatoes compared to this next item. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle says that a vacuum shouldn't exist, and other theorists argued that the vacuum of space should be filled with a bizarre sort of quantum energy.
They were right, too. Much experimental evidence shows that "virtual particles" - things like electrons and antimatter positrons - snap, crackle and pop out of nothingness everywhere and all the time. Each particle typically exists for just a billionth of a trillionth of a second, then vanishes. If there's an energy field around, a subatomic particle can borrow some of that energy to remain in existence forever. Thus, things perpetually spring to life out of that quantum vacuum.
Most physicists now believe that this underlying "quantum foam" pervades the cosmos. It's everywhere and its power is unimaginable. Estimates of the power in each small bit of seemingly empty space vary enormously. But it's possible, perhaps likely, that the volume within a coffee cup contains enough energy to instantly boil away all of Earth's oceans."
24 Jan 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadIn 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
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 think the difficulty here is that you are thinking about this issue from a physics and maths point of view and I am approaching it from an existence and philosophical logic point of view. So when I say things like 'external' or 'before' the universe I am asking a philosophical question about the continuous or discontinuous existence of matter and energy (and anything else). You think I am refering to issues of time and space which I am not. I am asking questions about the continuity or discontinuity of existence (whether inside or beyond the universe)
I have no doubt that the laws of physics and maths point towards the idea that there is such a thing as finite time and and finite space. Logically this implies a quantum singularity of no space dimensions and no time. I have no problem with this idea whatsoever since I , like you , believe in a limited finite universe that has a beginning (or started).
However , you do not address the question of zero energy or zero matter (upon which space and time depend) You have a vision of the substance of the universe resting on some kind of platform of space/time , which to me is analogous to saying that a wooden ruler is dependent on a centimetre to exist whereas infact it is the ruler that actually exists and the centimetre is just a measuring concept.
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 (let alone at the singularity) because time and space are conceptual terms that depend on other things that really do exist like matter and energy. So you stick with the concepts and I 'll stick with the reality of existence.
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 anything besides the known universe" ( which is more scientific and open minded) then you can only say that proving the universe is finite and has a beginning proves only one thing...that....erhem.... the universe is finite and had a beginning. To go beyond this and say that therefore the universe came from nothing is a leap which requires you to make some kind of circular reasoning based on an initial premise.
In short what you do is say" there is nothing that exists that is not the known universe" and then derive all your arguments back from there. However , this is not scientific since no scientist would ever exclude the possibility that existence can only ever be what is currently known.
I'm not the one making an assumption about anything . What I say is "existence (whether it's just the known universe or not) may have started from nothing or it may not so let's compare logically which one is the least self contradcitory or likely". When you do this you get into a whole load of different questions about the likelihood of discontinuity and what the non-existence of ANY existence means philosophically and logically.
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)? 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 neccessary to understand the question first.
25 Jan 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterI think I have several time stated that I do not subscribe to the something from nothing idea. That does not however mean that I think that time is infinite or that the universe was created from something.
You are starting to understand the "clear contradictions" here but have failed to realise how they affect YOUR position. You are the one infact who is claiming the existence of nothing because you subscribe to the S from N idea. If it makes my story of no value it must also make S from N of no value. You can't have your cake and eat it!
25 Jan 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterNo, there is no such logical conclusion and as I have repeatedly stated, that is the flaw in your argument.
Are you denying that the state of non-existence called nothing was ever there? If you say that the universe didn't always exist and that the universe is finite and had a beginning then that logically implies you believe in a state of complete non existence of life itself.
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 believe in it)
Progression from the state of non-existence of life altogether to life existing.
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).
If you don't believe in this then you must believe in continuity , ie life has always existed.
I believe both finite time and infinite time are possibilities (this has nothing to do with the existence of life. I 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).