eternity - a clarification

Originally posted by amannion
Again, I'm not so sure about this.
I think it's dangerous to discount the possibility of us determining knowledge about something that is, at present, unexplainable.

Currently we don't know anything about events that might have occured 'outside' or 'before' the universe (and I use these terms knowing that they give rise to problems over their definition ...[text shortened]... and they'll probably try to make a fool of you. Scientists have done this many times.

Let me rephrase what I said. We cannot know what happened before that universe that preceded this one, or the one before that one (if there are such universes) or the one before that one, etc.

It is thus meaningless to attempt to explicate them.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Let me rephrase what I said. We cannot know what happened before that universe that preceded this one, or the one before that one (if there are such universes) or the one before that one, etc.

It is thus meaningless to attempt to explicate them.

But that's my very point.
It might indeed be possible to know about these things.
We just can't do it yet.

Originally posted by amannion
But that's my very point.
It might indeed be possible to know about these things.
We just can't do it yet.

It might be possible to know what caused this universe into existence.
That is entirely plausible. However, it misses the point. All we've done is redefined the "beginning". It is pointless to think in terms of causality on this subject.

For an analogy. We want to know the origin of life. Your argument [to me] translates to "yes, but life might have come to Earth from somewehere else". This then begs the question, "but where is this 'somewhere else'?"

If we think in terms of causality for the universes we have to accept an infinite regression of universes before this one ("the universe that caused this universe, the universe which caused the universe which caused this universe"...) which would be absurd since time up until this point must be finite. I think what Scotty was saying about time is much more compelling (that time is a property of this universe- or perhaps can only be known to be a property of this universe).

Originally posted by no1marauder
How do you know this?? Are you aware of the laws of things OUTSIDE the universe??

can't have an "outside this universe". The universe includes everything. Time is a property of the universe. Even if you had an 'outside', which you don't, it wouldn't have time as we understand it here.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Nope....it's past you by that one ..did I say eternity was 'something from nothing'...can I clarify again ( and again and again) Eternity ALWAYS HAS BEEN ..therefore does not have to 'come from' anything. Only things that have beginnings have to 'come from' somewhere. You have yet to understand the true definition of eternity which is why I started th ...[text shortened]... h you are sitting on. Are you saying you want me to be less logical....curious?!?

Eternity has always been, huh?

Well, the universe likewise has existed for all time. Time only happens inside the universe. The fact that we can guess how long that is in no way negates it.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I would prefer saying that causality is sometimes a property of this universe (whether or not it exists outside I don't know).

The important thing to recognize is that we can't know anything about before the universe and it is meaningless to speculate about things before it (I think thats the crux of your argument)

indeed. causality, whilst not necessarily something that always occurs within this universe (although on thr macro-scale it does), isn't something that works "before" the universe. And you can't have anything outside the universe, because the universe is everything.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b And you can't have anything outside the universe, because the universe is everything.[/b]

This sounds interesting. I guess what people mentally picture is that our universe is some kind of sphere included in an even larger sphere (/universe). What your saying is that this larger sphere would also be part of the universe.

Originally posted by Conrau K
This sounds interesting. I guess what people mentally picture is that our universe is some kind of sphere included in an even larger sphere (/universe). What your saying is that this larger sphere would also be part of the universe.

indeed, the universe includes everything, forever.

I've spent the evening counting seeds as they germinate (for an experiment) and thinking about relativity. Here's my thoughts.

Immediately after the bang the was a huge amount of energy going in all of the rapidly unfolding dimensions. As time went on this cooled and condensed and gave us matter - this was quite fortunate for us. Before that however, the proto-universe was in a state that, had someone from now been able to look at it, we wouldn't comprehend. Neither matter nor energy existed, what existed was something that would give rise to both these things (call it god if you like, but this in no way gives it any sentience). This stuff existed for both an immeasurably small amount of time, and a huge expanse of time too, if there were anything such as time for it to exist in. At this point there was no time, mass, energy, nothing. Likewise in this ultimate high energy state, the rules of the universe (which is just what cause and effect etc are) didn't exist either. Anything could happen, and eventually did, when the universe came into existance. I think the Ancient Greeks were closest on this one.

I haven't thought it all through yet, but it's implicit in Einstein's theory. I could be wrong, but it'd require Professor Einstein to be wrong too....

Originally posted by scottishinnz
can't have an "outside this universe". The universe includes everything. Time is a property of the universe. Even if you had an 'outside', which you don't, it wouldn't have time as we understand it here.

What a parochial, one might say a "religious" view! Blanket assertions without any evidence at all. It's like talking to dj2becker.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What a parochial, one might say a "religious" view! Blanket assertions without any evidence at all. It's like talking to dj2becker.

yeah, them dictionaries, huh?!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
yeah, them dictionaries, huh?!

No, you're apparently using "universe" in a non-standard way. I've heard cosmologists talk about multiverses and alternative universes; when they use the term universe they are referring to the physical reality we can experience. Further, there is no reason to suppose that the same physical laws would apply in other parts of the multiverse or in alternative universes. So you're simply wrong.

EDIT: Read and learn: http://www.templeton.org/humble03/index.html

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, you're apparently using "universe" in a non-standard way. I've heard cosmologists talk about multiverses and alternative universes; when they use the term universe they are referring to the physical reality we can experience. Further, there is no reason to suppose that the same physical laws would apply in other parts of the multiverse or in alternat ...[text shortened]... you're simply wrong.

EDIT: Read and learn: http://www.templeton.org/humble03/index.html

The concept of the 'multiverse' is merely speculation, nothing more. My definition of 'universe' is quite standard, simply everything that exists.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
The concept of the 'multiverse' is merely speculation, nothing more. My definition of 'universe' is quite standard, simply everything that exists.

Obviously that definition is not standard, unless Stephen Hawking, Martin Rees and a bunch of other scientists need to buy YOUR dictionary. And you obviously didn't even bother to look at the link when you say that the multiverse concept is "speculation, nothing more". You've been hanging around the fundies too much; you're picking up their bad habits.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Obviously that definition is not standard, unless Stephen Hawking, Martin Rees and a bunch of other scientists need to buy YOUR dictionary. And you obviously didn't even bother to look at the link when you say that the multiverse concept is "speculation, nothing more". You've been hanging around the fundies too much; you're picking up their bad habits.

I did look at the link. How can it be anything BUT speculation? It cannot be even a scientific hypothesis since it is completely untestable, and unobservable by definition.

It's not my dictionary. Feel free to look up "universe" on Wiki.

Originally posted by Conrau K
What is with the obession with causaility. Some events are random- implying that there was no causality- so why can't the universe be a random occurence. Scientists have observed (in a very liberal sense) the random occurence of particles emerging out of nothing. In fact, some scientists speculate that the universe might be a fluctuation of nothing into so ...[text shortened]... ell (if as Scotty says that there is no time outside the universe- this would be plausible).

...Infact scientists have observed that particles 'apparently' come out of nothing , but the definition of 'nothing' in this case actually means that they don't know where they are coming from yet (this could easily be dark matter for example). A moments reflection would tell you that it is logically impossible to observe that anything comes out nothing because to observe it coming out of nothing you would have to be able to see nothing or at least give nothing a place in space/ time or the universe which by definition would make nothing into something. Where have they seen this nothing? As soon as you say 'here!' then you give it a place in space/ time and make it something.If someone said to you they had seen a man who didn't exist and had no matter, dimension or no time in which to exist..what would you say?

It's not my obsession with causality it's science's. If you give me permission to bypass causal logic and basic reasoning I will be able to rip apart any scientific theory or argument you care to mention. For example, it is scientific to speculate that the stars in the sky are similar in many ways to our own sun because we believe in causal logic. We hold the universe to be rationally consistent in some way. Therefore , if our solar system has a massive hydrogen/helium reaction at it's centre it is reasonable to extrapolate that those stars are also similar and are subject to gravity etc. But we could say that these stars are fuelled by mars bars if we like and there is nothing you can say to refute this unless you invoke the same logic I am using to say 'things that have beginnings don't come out of nothing'