eternity - a clarification

Originally posted by scottishinnz
bull. You cannot use science to examine something outside of the universe, in the same way we can't use science to investigate whether god exists or not. Logic is based upon things which happen within the universe, if there is anything outside the universe to which logic could possibly apply (i.e. something which exists in time and space), then it'd a ...[text shortened]... and be subject to logic.

Stop trying to open this packing case with the crowbar inside it!

Who are you to say what science can and cannot do? According to you , if it exists then it is 'within' the universe and therefore within some kind of logic. Your continued assertion that nothing can possibly exist outside of what we know as 'time and space' is unproven and up for grabs. Your other assertion that any dimensions outside of time and space are not subject to any investigation or any scientific logic is also unsubstantiated. It's a good job that scientists in the past showed a much more enterprising spirit than this! You obviously prefer a non-speculative reality for yourself and have tried to restrict , sabotage , and frustrate this thread from the start. That's fine , but don't do it in the name of 'science'. If you have a point to make, be scientific, and back it up with reasoned argument rather than start off with an assumptive premise.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Who are you to say what science can and cannot do? According to you , if it exists then it is 'within' the universe and therefore within some kind of logic. Your continued assertion that nothing can possibly exist outside of what we know as 'time and space' is unproven and up for grabs. Your other assertion that any dimensions outside of time and space ...[text shortened]... and back it up with reasoned argument rather than start off with an assumptive premise.

"We must inquire generally, whether eternal things can consist of elements. If they do, they will have matter; for everything that consists of elements is composite. Since, then, even if a thing exists for ever, out of that of which it consists it would necessarily also, if it had come into being, have come into being, and since everything comes to be what it comes to be out of that which is it potentially (for it could not have come to be out of that which had not this capacity, nor could it consist of such elements), and since the potential can be either actual or not,-this being so, however everlasting number or anything else that has matter is, it must be capable of not existing, just as that which is any number of years old is as capable of not existing as that which is a day old; if this is capable of not existing, so is that which has lasted for a time so long that it has no limit. They cannot, then, be eternal, since that which is capable of not existing is not eternal, as we had occasion to show in another context. If that which we are now saying is true universally-that no substance is eternal unless it is actuality-and if the elements are matter that underlies substance, no eternal substance can have elements present in it, of which it consists." Aristotle 350 B.C.E.

Please show me the proof that mass/energy could have ever not existed, in one form or the other.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Who are you to say what science can and cannot do? According to you , if it exists then it is 'within' the universe and therefore within some kind of logic. Your continued assertion that nothing can possibly exist outside of what we know as 'time and space' is unproven and up for grabs. Your other assertion that any dimensions outside of time and space ...[text shortened]... and back it up with reasoned argument rather than start off with an assumptive premise.

what a load of crap. I am not going to debate my scientific credentials with you, but science has to be based in reality - that's just what you seem unwilling (or unable) to understand. You think there's something outside the universe?? Go on then, prove it.

Originally posted by frogstomp
"We must inquire generally, whether eternal things can consist of elements. If they do, they will have matter; for everything that consists of elements is composite. Since, then, even if a thing exists for ever, out of that of which it consists it would necessarily also, if it had come into being, have come into being, and since everything comes to be what ...[text shortened]... ease show me the proof that mass/energy could have ever not existed, in one form or the other.

I can't prove that and neither would I want to because I don't believe the 'something out of nothing' idea. I'm quite comfortable with the idea of matter/energy always having to exist in some form or other. My starting point is that existence has always existed , or that there never was a 'time' of total non-existence. There has always been something around , always. Existence in some form or another is eternal. If there had ever been 'non-existence' (nothing) then it would just carry on eternally being nothing (since there would have been nothing to make anything happen). As long as you agree with this I'm a happy bunny . Eternal matter , eternal energy , eternal blancmange , makes no difference to me , as long as you recognise the irrationality behind the claim that existence comes from non-existence.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I can't prove that and neither would I want to because I don't believe the 'something out of nothing' idea. I'm quite comfortable with the idea of matter/energy always having to exist in some form or other. My starting point is that existence has always existed , or that there never was a 'time' of total non-existence. There has always been something a ...[text shortened]... recognise the irrationality behind the claim that existence comes from non-existence.

Finally, some sense!

irrational. That's exactly what it is! "Rational" is simply a synonym for 'logical'. The start of the universe doesn't require to follow the rules of logic, since it was the beginning of everything, even the rules, such as time, which are pre-requisites for logic.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Finally, some sense!

irrational. That's exactly what it is! "Rational" is simply a synonym for 'logical'. The start of the universe doesn't require to follow the rules of logic, since it was the beginning of everything, even the rules, such as time, which are pre-requisites for logic.

"Time is a prerequisite for logic"? What does that mean?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
what a load of crap. I am not going to debate my scientific credentials with you, but science has to be based in reality - that's just what you seem unwilling (or unable) to understand. You think there's something outside the universe?? Go on then, prove it.

True enough , science is about reality but is it not also about exploration and discovery? If science stops at the fringes of our knowledge and then says 'no further can we go' , what's that about? According to your argument Brian Greene is not being a scientist by talking about string theory. Maybe your argument is with the likes of him not me. Anyway , there is little point in saying 'science has to be based on reality' since it's the nature of reality that is up for grabs. Quantum physics has shown us that the nature of what we think is 'reality' might be a lot different than we thought. Brookhaven shows us that we can investigate 'reality' in experimental ways.The search is on , so don't look if you don't want to. It's self evidently not up to me to prove there is something outside the universe anymore than it is up to you to prove there isn't . Some scientists would agree with you , some wouldn't but I would argue that we might need a slightly different kind of science to look at these things and we don't need to be afraid of this.

Originally posted by knightmeister
True enough , science is about reality but is it not also about exploration and discovery? If science stops at the fringes of our knowledge and then says 'no further can we go' , what's that about? According to your argument Brian Greene is not being a scientist by talking about string theory. Maybe your argument is with the likes of him not me. Anyway ...[text shortened]... kind of science to look at these things and we don't need to be afraid of this.

And we'd need a slightly different type of science to prove or disprove god too. Some things are unprovable - that's simply the long and short of it. If someone submitted a research grant to investigate the existance of god they'd be laughed out of the committee room - it's just not possible. It's the same trying to look "pre-big bang", it just isn't possible. Relativity precludes that one I'm afraid.

Originally posted by bbarr
"Time is a prerequisite for logic"? What does that mean?

Without time, there is no reality for the logical inferrence of. 1+1 would still equal two, but then again, without time, neither of those "1s" would exist.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Without time, there is no reality for the logical inferrence of. 1+1 would still equal two, but then again, without time, neither of those "1s" would exist.

Oh, sure. Inference requires time, that's right. Mathematical and logical truths are independent of time; nothing in their truth conditions makes reference to time. Why is the existence of abstract objects (e.g., numbers, sets, etc.) at all dependent on the existence of time?

Originally posted by bbarr
Oh, sure. Inference requires time, that's right. Mathematical and logical truths are independent of time; nothing in their truth conditions makes reference to time. Why is the existence of abstract objects (e.g., numbers, sets, etc.) at all dependent on the existence of time?

For something to exist it must have mass-energy and exist in time-space. Even abstract concepts such as numbers have a physical basis, they exist in our minds, as chemical and electrical signals. If there were no people there'd be no numbers, in the same way that without people English wouldn't exist. They are both (a) languages for describing the universe, and (b) anthropogenic constructs (i.e. ideas only). I can understand your point, but numbers are just labels that WE give to things.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
For something to exist it must have mass-energy and exist in time-space. Even abstract concepts such as numbers have a physical basis, they exist in our minds, as chemical and electrical signals. If there were no people there'd be no numbers, in the same way that without people English wouldn't exist. They are both (a) languages for describing the un ...[text shortened]... ideas only). I can understand your point, but numbers are just labels that WE give to things.

Why should anybody grant you that claim? Whether physicalism is true is debatable; it is certainly not settled by mere stipulation. If abstract entities only existed when instantiated in some physical substrate, then it was false prior to minds existing that 1 + 1 = 2. Since that entailment is false, it is also false that abstract entities can only exist as instantiated in minds.

Originally posted by knightmeister
True enough , science is about reality but is it not also about exploration and discovery? If science stops at the fringes of our knowledge and then says 'no further can we go' , what's that about? According to your argument Brian Greene is not being a scientist by talking about string theory. Maybe your argument is with the likes of him not me. Anyway ...[text shortened]... kind of science to look at these things and we don't need to be afraid of this.

"Einstein extended the principle of relativity by proposing that the laws of physics are the same regardless of inertial frame of reference. According to Einstein, whether you are in the hold of Galileo's ship or in the cargo bay of a space ship going at a large fraction of the speed of light the laws of physics will be the same."

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity:_Principle_of_Relativity

Originally posted by bbarr
Why should anybody grant you that claim? Whether physicalism is true is debatable; it is certainly not settled by mere stipulation. If abstract entities only existed when instantiated in some physical substrate, then it was false prior to minds existing that 1 + 1 = 2. Since that entailment is false, it is also false that abstract entities can only exist as instantiated in minds.

Fine. You show me two of something and I'll show you multiple copies of one. That's all two is. Two is a concept. Two is a human grouping. No two things are ever completely identical, no two elephants, for example, are completely the same - they're made from different atoms, even if they're genetically identical.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I can't prove that and neither would I want to because I don't believe the 'something out of nothing' idea. I'm quite comfortable with the idea of matter/energy always having to exist in some form or other. My starting point is that existence has always existed , or that there never was a 'time' of total non-existence. There has always been something a ...[text shortened]... recognise the irrationality behind the claim that existence comes from non-existence.

good, we are on the same page. and now to another question:
Since Quantum Mechanics doesn't require intelligent intervention and mass/energy always existed , just what do you thinkan intelligent agent created?