23 Apr 06
Originally posted by HalitoseNo, it is not. If it were a violation of the law of non-contradiction, then there would be a proof that has, as its sole premise, "something came from nothing", and yields a conclusion of the form (P & ~P).
Isn't "something from nothing" a violation of the logical law of non-contradiction?
23 Apr 06
Originally posted by knightmeisterUm, you're the one who brought up formal logic in the first place. If you want to retract your original contention that some priniciple of sufficient causation is part of the content of formal logic, then great. If you want to retract your claim that it is impossible that the supposition 'something can come from nothing" is true, then double-great.
I've never seen a unicorn come out of custard , nor has anyone else that I know of.
I've never seen something come out of nothing (except on a David Copperfield show) , and apparently it's far from conclusive that any physicists have (ref- recent quotes).
Until I hear of someone saying they have seen something come out of nothing (remember I'm r ...[text shortened]... . Show me this 'something from nothing'. I'm there to be shot down , go on have a pop!
23 Apr 06
Originally posted by knightmeisterFirstly, you haven't posted the Lie algebra you are using in your assumption.
Why can't I?
"The maths behind string theory suggest 10 dimensions to existence.." Brian Greene , Harvard Physicist , interview re- "Fabric of the cosmos, Space time and the texture of reality."
Time is only a fourth dimension of ten if string theory is correct. It may or may not be correct but I am good scientific company if I posit that there ...[text shortened]... possibility of just one timeless dimension , or do you think Mr Greene is off his rocker?
Secondly, string theory does NOT have a time-string
Maybe this might help you with strings:
A string can move sideways or up and down in spacetime and as the string moves around in spacetime, it sweeps out a surface in spacetime called the string worldsheet, a two-dimensional surface with one dimension of space and one dimension of time.
That being said ... perturbative string theory is only valid as long as spacetime curvature is small compared to the string scale and when these become large, there is no spacetime geometry that is guaranteed to describe the result. Only under very strict symmetry conditions, such as unbroken supersymmetry, are there known exact solutions to the spacetime geometry in string theory.This is a hint that spacetime geometry is not something fundamental in string theory, but something that emerges at large distance scales or weak coupling.
23 Apr 06
Originally posted by bbarrOk , I retract . I don't know what the philosophical term for it is (causality - I think). It's more of a scientific term I'm after . There's a premise in science that holds that the universe is rational and understandable , therefore there is a reason /cause for every effect ( a moments reflection will tell you the whole of science would never have got going without this premise - is this logical enough for you?) This 'logic' is fundamental to all science and reasoned thinking is it not? (eg- why does that person do that? Where does electricity come from? What causes variety of species?).
Um, you're the one who brought up formal logic in the first place. If you want to retract your original contention that some priniciple of sufficient causation is part of the content of formal logic, then great. If you want to retract your claim that it is impossible that the supposition 'something can come from nothing" is true, then double-great.
"Something from nothing" completely reverses this idea , so even if it were true then no-one would ever be able to make sense of it since only something is understandable. Nothing is not penetrable. Something from nothing is self evidently contrary to scientific reason hence the intial hub bub about The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and quantum particles.
The second retraction is not neccessary as I have not claimed this , only that 'something from nothing' is extremely unlikely and not backed by conclusive evidence. I hold that something from nothing is impossible due to it's unlikelyhood.
I could claim that unicorns come from custard (also extremely unlikely) and if you say it's impossible, I can ask you to retract your claim that it is impossible that the supposition 'unicorns can come from custard' is true.
As Atheists are often found of saying " Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof " The claim that something can come from nothing is an extraordinary and paradoxical claim , and therefore requires me to be rigorous with absolute versus woolly definitions of nothing.
What follows is that I get accused of being stubborn, gibbering and making trivial objections when woolly definitions of so called vacuums of 'nothing' are put in front of me.
You see what's happened here, I think, is that over zealous Atheists have jumped on the idea that physics has somehow shown 'something from nothing' and in their keeness to give Theistic arguments a good shafting have lost track of the emerging science and become woolly in their interpretations of nothing to make it fit the argument they want it to make. All while not realising that the onus is on them to show this extraordinary claim to be true ,meanwhile physics is unable to offer conclusive evidence to back them up. Note the deafening silence on quoting experiments or current theoretical physicists.
23 Apr 06
The claim that something is eternal is also extraordinary. So you have two extraordinary propositions which are supposed to be the mutually exclusive sole possibilities. In that case either proof is required to decide which is a more reasonable hypothesis (and no, not we've never seen something from nothing because we've never seen anything eternal either) or the question is unanswerable by human beings.
23 Apr 06
Originally posted by knightmeisterWhy must you insist that something needs a cause and then claim that God is a something that always was?
Ok , I retract . I don't know what the philosophical term for it is (causality - I think). It's more of a scientific term I'm after . There's a premise in science that holds that the universe is rational and understandable , therefore there is a reason /cause for every effect ( a moments reflection will tell you the whole of science would never have go ...[text shortened]... deafening silence on quoting experiments or current theoretical physicists.
23 Apr 06
Originally posted by frogstompOk , you win, string theory does not have a time string. I have never said my concept of eternity is reliant on time , just reliant on it having no cause/beginning. This is because eternity is not an 'effect' of anything else but the Uncaused Cause of everything else , the fundamental 'energy' of existence, if you like, that cannot be reduced down any further or be destroyed.
Firstly, you haven't posted the Lie algebra you are using in your assumption.
Secondly, string theory does NOT have a time-string
Maybe this might help you with strings:
A string can move sideways or up and down in spacetime and as the string moves around in spacetime, it sweeps out a surface in spacetime called the string worldsheet, a two-dimensi ...[text shortened]... amental in string theory, but something that emerges at large distance scales or weak coupling.
24 Apr 06
Originally posted by knightmeisterThat's a fairly good description of mass/energy too, ya know.
Ok , you win, string theory does not have a time string. I have never said my concept of eternity is reliant on time , just reliant on it having no cause/beginning. This is because eternity is not an 'effect' of anything else but the Uncaused Cause of everything else , the fundamental 'energy' of existence, if you like, that cannot be reduced down any further or be destroyed.
What you dont seem to realize is that any attempt to limit the existence of stuff , also applies to the existence of God. i.e. If stuff needed a cause than God did too ...and furthermore , we know stuff actually exists so why do we need something gossameric to have created it?
Think more of quantum field theory in which the curling and uncurling of spacetime created mass and energy.
This could have occur in Galilean as well as Einsteinian Relativistic Spacetime.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
24 Apr 06
Originally posted by bbarrSorry to toss your name in to the air. Just to lend a bit of credibility to Kneighmeister, he is really trying. His articles almost had me. But I guess I'm just here to enjoy the conversation- not to convince anyone that God does not exist or something like that.
Look, it's been obvious for pages now that this fellow doesn't know anything about logic. He claimed, absurdly, that some principle of sufficient causation was part of formal logic. Now he claims that something's coming into existence from nothing is logically impossible. But, of course, that's absurd too. So, given that you are arguing with a person that d ...[text shortened]... rect account of the history of the universe, what do you hope to accomplish in this thread?
24 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderSo do you agree that these two are the sole candidates or do you have a third possibility to throw into the ring.
The claim that something is eternal is also extraordinary. So you have two extraordinary propositions which are supposed to be the mutually exclusive sole possibilities. In that case either proof is required to decide which is a more reasonable hypothesis (and no, not we've never seen something from nothing because we've never seen anything eternal either) or the question is unanswerable by human beings.
24 Apr 06
Originally posted by Conrau KThanks for the concillatory gesture. I have been very sarcastic I know so far but I don't take kindly to being accused of 'gibbering'. I am trying so hard to understand why you lot seem to think that something from nothing is just a run of the mill hypothesis. I will lower my guard and admit that eternity is an incredible claim as well. Since we are in the business having to admit that something pretty damn wierd and unimaginable has to be in existence(in the absence of a 3rd option) then lets all stop pretending that the universe/life is anything other than a mindbending place that is likely to be beyond rational understanding.
Sorry to toss your name in to the air. Just to lend a bit of credibility to Kneighmeister, he is really trying. His articles almost had me. But I guess I'm just here to enjoy the conversation- not to convince anyone that God does not exist or something like that.
Could you say what you mean when you say my articles 'almost got you'?
24 Apr 06
Originally posted by frogstompYou have not read the thread properly. I do not say that stuff needed a cause , I said that 'all stuff that has a BEGINNING has a cause'. The argument is more subtle than the traditional 'well what caused God then?' debate.
That's a fairly good description of mass/energy too, ya know.
What you dont seem to realize is that any attempt to limit the existence of stuff , also applies to the existence of God. i.e. If stuff needed a cause than God did too ...and furthermore , we know stuff actually exists so why do we need something gossameric to have created it?
Think more of ...[text shortened]... and energy.
This could have occur in Galilean as well as Einsteinian Relativistic Spacetime.
24 Apr 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOK , REVISION OF CLAIM - Something from nothing is bloody unlikely due to reasoned observation of the universe. In my mind that's close to being impossible. I can't say that unicorns coming out of custard is logically impossible but I'd like to see you try and convince me! When I started the thread I didn't quite make myself clear. I am not a philosopher or expert on logic ,I'm more of a phenomenologist. I draw my logic from life not abstract concepts of formal logic. However I do know where the burden of proof is when I see it. The burden of proof is on you to show me how the claim of something from nothing should be regarded as anything other than bloody unlikely. The universe has countless trillions of examples of things happening for a reason (caused) and not one conclusive example of anything else. Equally, I can say that there are countless examples of unicorns not coming out of custard and not one conclusive example of anyhting else.
If you want to convince bbarr of your claim that it is logically impossible for something to come into existence from nothing, it is your burden to construct a proof in which a contradiction is derived from the premise "something can come into existence from nothing."
The observation that no instance of this premise has ever been observed to be tr ...[text shortened]... e, which was your claim.
Perhaps you should revise your claim to one that is not as strong.
The problem with formal logic is it is a set of rules within a set system . In a set game of chess a queen cannot move like a knight unless you violate set laws of the game. In the real world you could say anything was possible , anything at all! This is because we don't have set rules and we don't know what the game is. All we have therefore is probability and reasoned guesses. Anyone can make any claim in the real world and you can never say it's logically impossible , only unlikely. However , we all assume certain things to be true and one of those things is that causes and effects go together. Science , being in the real world and not in an abstract world , also has assumed this and continues to do so , to the point where 'logically impossible' and 'bloody unlikely' (rationally improbable) start to merge anyway.
I'm off to look for unicorns now!
24 Apr 06
Originally posted by knightmeisterOk then , mass and energy didn't need to be "created" because it's stuff.
You have not read the thread properly. I do not say that stuff needed a cause , I said that 'all stuff that has a BEGINNING has a cause'. The argument is more subtle than the traditional 'well what caused God then?' debate.
Is that subtle enough for you?
24 Apr 06
Originally posted by knightmeisterLook for them in probabilities of quantum field theory. It is a Big universe , ya know. Don't despair that science doesn't prove the existence of God, it doesn't disprove Him either.
OK , REVISION OF CLAIM - Something from nothing is bloody unlikely due to reasoned observation of the universe. In my mind that's close to being impossible. I can't say that unicorns coming out of custard is logically impossible but I'd like to see you try and convince me! When I started the thread I didn't quite make myself clear. I am not a philosoph ...[text shortened]... rationally improbable) start to merge anyway.
I'm off to look for unicorns now!