foundations of reason

Originally posted by knightmeister
You would have been better advised to have said this.
To ask "what came before the universe" MIGHT not be meaningful.

I have certainly always made it clear that my statements regarding the meaningless of 'before the big bang' are entirely dependent on the possibility that time started at the big bang. However, you have refused to admit that in that scenario, the question of 'before' is in fact meaningless. (and no it is not a MIGHT in this case, it is a FACT).
Further, you have refused to admit that it is an open possibility that time did start at the big bang.
You have given no reasoning to back up such claims yet you persist in repeating them over and over as if they were agreed fact and you never qualify them with MIGHT.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…You miss the point again. If we cannot exclude the existence of a reality beyond/outside/before this universe or of other universes then we have a problem. The existence of higher realities , branes , larger universes , further dimensions not only cannot be ruled out , they are also no less likely than the scenario that the universe is the only t ...[text shortened]... hing appears, I should regard the probability of such a hypothesis of being true to be small.

You are still missing the point. Catagorical statements are much harder to defend than inclusive ones. You seemed very catagorical that there could be no "before" the Universe.

This meant that you ruled out the possibility of any space/time existing other than our universe or seemingly any other reality where the terms "before/outside/beyond" might apply.

My point is very clear. You have no evidence or argument to be as catagorical as that. To say that the term "before" MIGHT not be meaningful seems more scientific and honest than your catagorical leap of faith.

All the scientific jiggery pokery in the world can't get you out of it. All you have to do is admit that you just don't know what MIGHT be before the universe or whether it's a meaningful idea at all. It might be , it might not.

For all you know in 1000,000,000 years when human knowledge and travel has developed beyond imagination they might say that the concept holds quite a lot of meaning.

You do not know that the Universe is the only thing in existence. You do not know what terms might be meaningful.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You are still missing the point. Catagorical statements are much harder to defend than inclusive ones. You seemed very catagorical that there could be no "before" the Universe.

This meant that you ruled out the possibility of any space/time existing other than our universe or seemingly any other reality where the terms "before/outside/beyond" might ...[text shortened]... niverse is the only thing in existence. You do not know what terms might be meaningful.

…You are still missing the POINT. Catagorical statements are much harder to defend than inclusive ones. You seemed very catagorical that there could be no "before" the Universe….(my emphasis)

This statement above and the rest of your post just ignores what I said in my 12 Sep '08 09:18 post on page 13. I already fully addressed that “POINT” in the first two paragraphs of that post but you are pretending that I haven’t.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…You are still missing the POINT. Catagorical statements are much harder to defend than inclusive ones. You seemed very catagorical that there could be no "before" the Universe….(my emphasis)

This statement above and the rest of your post just ignores what I said in my 12 Sep '08 09:18 post on page 13. I already fully addressed that “POINT” in the first two paragraphs of that post but you are pretending that I haven’t.[/b]

I do not totally exclude the possibility that there “could” be some other “kind of time” other than the kind of time that exists in our universe/all universes, but, given the fact there is currently not a shred of evidence for the existence of such a "other kind of time”, until if and when evidence for such a thing appears, I should regard the probability of such a thing existing to be vanishly small. ------------------------hammy------------------------


Yes , I saw that and it contained a logical error. We have no way of assessing the probability of any possibly reality before /beyond/outside the universe.

The idea that there is "no shred of evidence" for the existence of another kind of (or the same) time before the universe does NOT make it less of more likely because there is no shred of evidence for ANYTHING. We simply don't know but can only extrapolate.

Pointing to the lack of evidence for anyone argument is basically a truism and I'm sure you know what that is.

Therefore your catagorical statement is still unwarranted. There may well be a "before" the universe and the fact that there is "no shred of evidence" for it is neither here nor there because there is no shred of evidence for anything as far as I know.

You say that there can be no "before" the universe but there is "no shred of evidence" to support such a claim.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I do not totally exclude the possibility that there “could” be some other “kind of time” other than the kind of time that exists in our universe/all universes, but, given the fact there is currently not a shred of evidence for the existence of such a "other kind of time”, until if and when evidence for such a thing appears, I should regard the probabil "before" the universe but there is "no shred of evidence" to support such a claim.

..Yes , I saw that and it contained a logical error. We have no way of assessing the probability of any possibly reality before /beyond/outside the universe. ..…

Wrong! But before explaining why, I must make it clear what I mean by “probability”:

If somebody throws a dice and doesn’t show me what number was thrown, then I would regard the “probability” of it being a six to be one-in-six chance. But what I do NOT mean by the “probability” of it being a six is that there is a one-in-six chance of it being a six IN PHYSICAL REALITY! -obviously that cannot be true because in physical reality it either was thrown a six or it wasn’t -no probability there!
What I DO mean by the “probability” of it being a six is that, if I was totally rational, I should have a one-in-six level of certainty that it is a six.

Now, applying that to the “probabilities” of various thing existing outside our universe, what we should mean by “probabilities” in this context is NOT “probabilities” in physical reality but rather how certain we should be of each hypothesis of what is outside our universe. Now I hope you would agree that if there was no more reason to believe a hypothesis than to disbelieve it, then we should regard the “probability” of it being true as being exactly 50% because, if you are totally rational, you should have a 50% certainty that it is true because you would have no more reason to believe it true than to believe it false. -are we in agreement so far?

-Assuming we are sill in agreement: what this does NOT mean is that EVERY hypothesis that has neither evidence for or against it has a 50% probability of being true! -and here is a proof of an example of that:
what is the probability of there existing something (literally anything -even if that something is merely the “outside“ of the universe!) “outside” our universe ? I hope you can see that such a hypothesis has a 50% probability of being true because there is absolutely no more reason to believe that this is true than to believe that it is false.

But what about this slightly more “complex” hypothesis:
what is the probability of there existing exactly six things (and no more than six) “outside” our universe?
Now it gets more interesting because, not only this hypothesis assumes there exists something “outside” our universe (which we should agree has a 50% probability of being true) but it also it assumes that there is exactly six of these things and therefore the probability of this more complex hypothesis being true must be less than 50%.
In addition, since there is no more reason to believe that there is exactly six such things as there is reason to believe there is exactly seven such things etc (and these alternative hypothesis cannot ALL have a probability of 50%! -for if they did then the sum of the probabilities would add up to more than 100% and that would be logically absurd!) the probability of there being exactly six and no more than six things outside of our universe must be vanishly small. -are we still in agreement so far?

Therefore, this proves that we CAN know the “probabilities” of various things existing or not existing outside our universe -we can calculate these “probabilities” using reason just like in the examples above and taking into account the total absence of physical evidence for or against each hypothesis. It can be shown that the more “complex” such a hypothesis, the less probable it is of being true. That is the “complexity” of each hypothesis in this context is defined as the number of unproven assumptions that it makes. And, even the simplest sounding hypothesis can implicitly make a huge number of assumptions with each one of them can be shown to have 50% probability or less of being true and, with such a hypothesis, the probability of it being true can be calculated to be vanishingly small. For example, in my post on page 13 of this thread, I responded to your hypothesis that:

…the universe could exist inside a larger universe like a bubble within a bubble.. .

by pointing out that it implicitly assumes these assumptions:

1, it assume other universes exist.
2, it assumes that it is meaningful to talk about the “position” of a universe relative to the “position” of another universe -whether that relative “position” is “next to” or “outside but not next to” or “inside” etc.
3, it assumes that the “position” of a universe CAN be “inside” the position of another universe.
4, it assumes OUR universe is inside another.

And each one of these assumptions are themselves a hypothesis and some of these hypothesises may implicitly assume yet more hypothesises and so on and so on…

So therefore, I pointed out we should regard your said hypothesis as having a quite small probability of being true. -do you agree? -if not, then please explain the flaw in my logic here.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b] ..Yes , I saw that and it contained a logical error. We have no way of assessing the probability of any possibly reality before /beyond/outside the universe. ..…

Wrong! But before explaining why, I must make it clear what I mean by “probability”:

If somebody throws a dice and doesn’t show me what number was thrown, then I would regard ...[text shortened]... robability of being true. -do you agree? -if not, then please explain the flaw in my logic here.[/b]

I agree entirely , but we both know that my bubble idea was simply an example of a whole range of possibilities.

What evidence do you have for assessing the probability of a "before" the universe to be 0%?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I agree entirely , but we both know that my bubble idea was simply an example of a whole range of possibilities.

What evidence do you have for assessing the probability of a "before" the universe to be 0%?

I believe all what I described in the last post was a means of calculating the probability of a hypothesis accurately ONLY when there is no evidence for or against that hypothesis. But if there IS evidence for or against that hypothesis, then obviously that evidence must effect what probability we should attach to the hypothesis.

Now, applying this to the hypothesis that “there was a “before” the big bang” (bearing in mind that the big bang was the start of our universe, I think this is a fairly “simple” hypothesis) - IF there was no evidence for or against this hypothesis, then I would say the probability of it being true was 50% because there is no more reason to believe it true than to believe it false and this is a relatively “simple” hypothesis. But, and this is there important point, although there is no evidence that there was a “before” the big bang, there IS evidence that there was NO “before” the big bang -and therefore we should attach a probability of less than 50% to this hypothesis.

I already explained the evidence that there was NO “before” the big bang on my 09 Sep '08 20:22 post currently on page 12 of this thread.
Given this good evidence, I attach a very low probability of there being a “before” a big bang but not quite 0% but rather, according by my own personal judgement with my finite knowledge; ~0% -I.e. closer to 0% than 1%.
But, of course, I cannot give a precise percentage because, when assessing evidence, there is no non-arbitrary criteria that I know of that would allow me to exactly calculate probabilities -and there is uncertainty in my uncertainty!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I believe all what I described in the last post was a means of calculating the probability of a hypothesis accurately ONLY when there is no evidence for or against that hypothesis. But if there IS evidence for or against that hypothesis, then obviously that evidence must effect what probability we should attach to the hypothesis.

Now, applying thi ...[text shortened]... would allow me to exactly calculate probabilities -and there is uncertainty in my uncertainty!

I already explained the evidence that there was NO “before” the big bang on my 09 Sep '08 20:22 post currently on page 12 of this thread. ------hammy---------



This evidence showed was that it was highly likely that the "time" (x) that we know of in the Universe began at the Big Bang. So it's probable that there was no "time" (x) before the Universe because "time" (x) actually began there. There could be no "time" (X) before "time" (x) began.

Ok, so we agree on that. Do you see the problem here? It's all based on what's happening within the KNOWN universe.

If we pre-assume that "time" (x) is the only kind of time (or space/time) possible then we are saying that "time" (x) is actually ALL Time (y) or an all exclusive kind of time.

However, we have no idea whether the kind of space/time (x) in this Universe is a derivative of a larger space/time or an off shoot of another Universe etc etc. Or it could be the only kind of time possible.

I think the cognitive error you have made is to assume that "time" (X) is some kind of ALL Time (y) and that ANY kind of time cannot exist before the Universe.

I mean what is time after all? It's just an expression of causality and events. What you are saying is that it's virtually impossible for there to have been any kind of event or causality before the Big Bang.

But the only evidence you have is based on the idea that OUR space/time cannot pre-exist the Big Bang. however, you have no idea whether our curremnt space/time is ALL that there is or if it is just part of a greater reality.

In short you seem to be saying , there can be no before the Universe because the Universe is all that there is. It's basic circular reasoning.

What evidence of argument do you have to show that it's highly likely that the Universe is all that there is? If you have no argument or evidence for that then how can you say that there can be no before?

Do you think it's meaningful to ask , "is the Universe all that there is?"

Originally posted by knightmeister
I already explained the evidence that there was NO “before” the big bang on my 09 Sep '08 20:22 post currently on page 12 of this thread. ------hammy---------



This evidence showed was that it was highly likely that the "time" (x) that we know of in the Universe began at the Big Bang. So it's probable that there was no "time" (x) before the Unive u think it's meaningful to ask , "is the Universe all that there is?"

….Ok, so we agree on that. Do you see the problem here? It's all based on what's happening within the KNOWN universe. .…

In what way is that a “problem”? and what other choice have we got but to base it on what's happening within the KNOWN universe! ? -I mean, we cannot base it on what's happening within a UNKNOWN universe! -can we -because such a universe is unknown to us!

….If we pre-assume that "time" (x) is the only kind of time (or space/time) possible then . ..…

If WE pre-assume ? -I didn’t! When working out the probabilities, I don’t “pre-assume that "time" (x) is the only kind of time (or space/time) possible” BEFORE calculating the probability of that!

…we are saying that "time" (x) is actually ALL Time (y) or an all exclusive kind of time. …

I am not sure what you mean by that so please clarify. IF what you mean by:

“we are saying that "time" (x) is actually ALL Time (y) ”
is:
“we are saying that the kind of "time" (x) that exists in our universe is actually the only kind of time that can exist (in our universe and, if they exist, “other“ universes)“

-then that was NOT my ASSUMPTION BEFORE my analysis of probabilities but rather it was the CONCLUTION AFTER my analysis of probabilities -it wasn’t used in any way as a premise of an argument.

… …In short you seem to be saying , there can be no before the Universe BECAUSE the Universe is all that there is. It's basic circular reasoning. .. .(my emphasis)

Nop. That wasn’t the reason I put forward at all and neither did I imply that -read my post again.

…What evidence of argument do you have to show that it's highly likely that the Universe is all that there is? If you have no argument or evidence for that then how can you say that there can be no before?…

I already answered that and you know it. I gave my argument.

…Do you think it's meaningful to ask , "is the Universe all that there is?"…

Of course it is “meaningful” -and that mere fact that it is “meaningful” doesn’t give us the probabilities.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b] ….Ok, so we agree on that. Do you see the problem here? It's all based on what's happening within the KNOWN universe. .…

In what way is that a “problem”? and what other choice have we got but to base it on what's happening within the KNOWN universe! ? -I mean, we cannot base it on what's happening within a UNKNOWN universe! -can we -bec and that mere fact that it is “meaningful” doesn’t give us the probabilities.[/b]

In what way is that a “problem”? and what other choice have we got but to base it on what's happening within the KNOWN universe! ? -I mean, we cannot base it on what's happening within a UNKNOWN universe! -can we -because such a universe is unknown to us!
----------------hammy ====(statement a)--------------------------

Ok , now this is going to get interesting here because I do actually agree with this. BUT if you stick to this another problem emerges immediately.

If you stand by statement (a) then that means that we should model our understanding of existence on our own known Universe right? But in our Universe things don't begin or happen for no reason from nothing do they. The idea of something coming from nothing is ridiculous and irrational if we go with statement (a).

Our Universe is full of events that are based on cause and effect where a cause precedes an event. Therefore , we should really (of statement a is correct) conclude that an event like the Big Bang must have a cause because that's the evidence of our Universe. We can conclude that something must have precipitated or caused or preceeded the Big Bang.

If a smaller but similar Big Bang happened within our Universe we would logically ask "what preceeded that event to cause that to happen?" . So , I'm quite comfortable with statement (a) really because I think it does your position much more harm than mine.

Originally posted by knightmeister
In what way is that a “problem”? and what other choice have we got but to base it on what's happening within the KNOWN universe! ? -I mean, we cannot base it on what's happening within a UNKNOWN universe! -can we -because such a universe is unknown to us!
----------------hammy ====(statement a)--------------------------

Ok , now this is going to ge with statement (a) really because I think it does your position much more harm than mine.

….If you stand by statement (a) then that means that we should model our understanding of existence on our own known Universe right? But in our Universe things don't begin or happen for no reason from nothing do they..…

Actually, according to quantum physics, they do all the time an a quantum scale. Quantum physics predicts Hawkins radiation and other random quantum events have clearly been observed in various experiments. Although it is possible to state the probability of a certain quantum event occurring in a specified time period and in a specified volume of space given the conditions there, it is impossible to predict exactly when a particular quantum event will occur because each particular single quantum event occurs where and when it occurs for no reason!

….Our Universe is full of events that are based on cause and effect where a cause precedes an event. ..…

This is not quite true for all events, because where and when a particular quantum event occurs has no “cause”.

And even if it was true that “every event has a cause” since the beginning of time, the fact remains that for that to be true for every event there has to be a “before” every event -but if there was no “before" the big bang then obviously that is reason to believe that this must be the exception to that rule because it would mean there could be no cause for the big bang even if everything else had a cause -and I already explained the reason to beleive there was no "before" the big bang.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b] ….If you stand by statement (a) then that means that we should model our understanding of existence on our own known Universe right? But in our Universe things don't begin or happen for no reason from nothing do they..…

Actually, according to quantum physics, they do all the time an a quantum scale. Quantum physics predicts Hawkins radia d a cause -and I already explained the reason to beleive there was no "before" the big bang.[/b]

Did you really , really envisage that I hadn't thought of this? When I wrote my post I just knew you would come up with the quantum stuff.

There is no evidence that I know of that proves that a quantum effect happens for no reason at all. Presumably you are also thinking of vaccums where quantum events are supposed to appear "out of nothing"? Let's go down that route if you like.

Could you tell me what the proof is that there are causeless events happening in our universe? Just because an event is unpredictable or random does not prove it is causeless.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Did you really , really envisage that I hadn't thought of this? When I wrote my post I just knew you would come up with the quantum stuff.

There is no evidence that I know of that proves that a quantum effect happens for no reason at all. Presumably you are also thinking of vaccums where quantum events are supposed to appear "out of nothing"? Let ...[text shortened]... r universe? Just because an event is unpredictable or random does not prove it is causeless.

I would agree that there might be causes for quantum events, but:
1. That is not proven, so you cannot claim that causes are a known fact - as you have repeatedly tried to do.
2. There is no reason to believe that if such causes do exist then they are within the universe and occur before the effect on the timeline. Quantum effects may be being caused by events in the future or events in some other dimension/ universe - who knows and who cares. It still remains a fact that when you claim that all events in the universe are known to have a cause then you are a liar - ie you are knowingly stating a falsehood.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I would agree that there might be causes for quantum events, but:
1. That is not proven, so you cannot claim that causes are a known fact - as you have repeatedly tried to do.
2. There is no reason to believe that if such causes do exist then they are within the universe and occur before the effect on the timeline. Quantum effects may be being caused by ...[text shortened]... iverse are known to have a cause then you are a liar - ie you are knowingly stating a falsehood.

It still remains a fact that when you claim that all events in the universe are known to have a cause then you are a liar - ie you are knowingly stating a falsehood.------------whitey--------------

Ouch! That's a bit strong don't you think. My point is that throughout man's investigation of our Universe men have been exploring events and finding causes for them. From magma all the way to supernovas, from microbiotics through to asteroid belts . It's all the study of cause and effect. Stuff happens and it happens for a reason. This is the raw meat of science.

The events of today can be traced back in a huge chain to the events of our early universe.

Now quantum physics is a new science and has found something which may be interesting. As far as we know we can't see a pattern or cause to quantum events but the prevailing message our Universe sends us is still "things happen for a reason".

I may have phrased things clumsily but I'm no liar.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Did you really , really envisage that I hadn't thought of this? When I wrote my post I just knew you would come up with the quantum stuff.

There is no evidence that I know of that proves that a quantum effect happens for no reason at all. Presumably you are also thinking of vaccums where quantum events are supposed to appear "out of nothing"? Let r universe? Just because an event is unpredictable or random does not prove it is causeless.

….There is no evidence that I know of that proves that a quantum effect happens for no reason at all. ..…

So do you know of ANY possible “reason” why quantum events happen?

Do you believe that ALL types of events MUST have a “cause” and, if so, what is the premise for this belief?
-Bear in mind that the concept of cause and effect is quite a subtle and implicitly complex one that makes a number of implicit assumptions and only one of these assumptions has to be false in one physical context for cause and effect to not be totally universal.

….Presumably you are also thinking of vacuums where quantum events are supposed to appear "out of nothing"? ..…

Nop. I don’t think anything appears “out of nothing” because “nothing” cannot “cause” something to appear.
Events may occur in a vacuum but, according to modern physics, a vacuum is NOT “nothing”!
According to quantum physics, certain quantum events just “appear” -NOT out of “nothing”. Quantum physics says that certain quantum events have a certain probability of occurring in a specified time period in a specified volume of space given the conditions there -no mention of the event/particle “coming out of “nothing” ” there!

…Just because an event is unpredictable or random does not prove it is causeless.…

A “unpredictable” event may have a cause but a truly “random” event cannot have a cause else it wouldn’t be really truly “random” -it would be pseudo-random.