The Beginning

Originally posted by amannion
You've missed my point - and got way too hung up on my Jesus riff which I admit was a touch flippant.
I'm not saying my argument is right, or wrong.
I'm merely saying that just because you can find someone who supports your particular viewpoint, it doesn't therefore follow that this is correct.

And just what does 'erreligious' mean?[/b]

Okay. I got way too hung up on the Jesus riff.

Here are the alternative views that I am aware of which theorize a universe without a beginning to space and time in contrast to the Big Bang model:

Steady State Model

One or two Oscillating Models

Vacuum Fluctuation Model

Oscillating Cyclical Model

Chaotic Inflationary Model

Quantum Gravity Model

Which one of these do you support ? Or do you have a new theory no one has yet considered ?

Originally posted by jaywill
Okay. I got way too hung up on the Jesus riff.

Here are the alternative views that I am aware of which theorize a universe without a beginning to space and time in contrast to the Big Bang model:

Steady State Model

One or two Oscillating Models

Vacuum Fluctuation Model

Oscillating Cyclical Model

Chaotic Inflationary Model

Quantu ...[text shortened]...

Which one of these do you support ? Or do you have a new theory no one has yet considered ?

What the hell do I know, I'm just a science teacher.
I don't support anything, and I certainly don't claim to have any new theories - I'll leave that to the younger people out there.
I'm just very cautious about making global statements - we know this, this must be true, this is impossible, and so on. (Although I know, you'll throw my own global statements against religion at me.)

Originally posted by twhitehead
Agreed.
But that is not in any way equivalent to saying 'something from nothing' or your argument about nothing never giving rise to something.

[b]What evidence?
Quantum mechanics strongly suggests that most events in the universe are uncaused. Further it strongly suggests that particles do 'magically' appear throughout space-time.

...then ...[text shortened]... o, that does not follow. I am saying that forever is finite (at least in one direction).

And that is what I dispute. At no point do I propose any such 'state' as to have a 'state' you must have space time yet the claim is that spacetime is finite.
--------------------whitey------------------------

How do you know that such a state requires space/time? Why do you say "must"? I can only imagine that you have an unexamined assumption that " all things require space/time". If that is so then you are into a paradox because one could say that the beginning of formation of space/time requires space /time. It then gets a bit "chicken or egg" really. You cannot say that "everything that happens or exists requires space/time" because that would eliminate the formation/beginning of space/time itself.

However , you still claim that space/time has a beginning thereby implying that space/time is finite and has not been around forever. I'm fine with that. But if you then claim that the big bang is the beginning of "Everything" then that must logically imply a boundary between existence and non-existence. You are then unable to say " nothingness is not possible , it cannot exist (non-exist) " because if nothingness is impossible then existence must be limitless. It would be like trying to draw a white square and define the boundary of the square in a room with no light. One could not say what white was or what the square was without defining the absence of white (black) .Even with the lights on you would still need to have a non-white background to the square for it to be defined.

To say existence has a beginning makes no sense unless you can define non-existence.

I think you sidestep these problems by not thinking about them philosophically and just focussing on the wordplay of physics and maths.

Originally posted by amannion
What the hell do I know, I'm just a science teacher.
I don't support anything, and I certainly don't claim to have any new theories - I'll leave that to the younger people out there.
I'm just very cautious about making global statements - we know this, this must be true, this is impossible, and so on. (Although I know, you'll throw my own global statements against religion at me.)

=========================
What the hell do I know, I'm just a science teacher.
===============================

I understand. But perhaps you think I am out to prove a beginning.

I am really not out to prove a Beginning with a mathematical certitude. I simply want to point out the reasonably strong evidence we currently have and where it points.

I believe in a beginning. What can we prove absolutely? Maybe not too much we can prove absolutely. We would have to know everything there is to know to absolutely prove something.


===========================
I don't support anything, and I certainly don't claim to have any new theories - I'll leave that to the younger people out there.
==============================

But you are at least guiding them how to think if you are a teacher.

==================================
I'm just very cautious about making global statements - we know this, this must be true, this is impossible, and so on. (Although I know, you'll throw my own global statements against religion at me.)
===============================

I am cautious also.

Someone asked about the theorists that propose a mathematical objection to a beginningless time. There are three co-authors whose names I have heard in lecture but I have to see them in print before I can spell them.

One of these authors was previously a supporter of one of the models. According to Dr. Craig the co-authorship of these people have either shown the competing theories to the Big Bang mathematically inconsistent or they actually do imply a beginning. Craig claims that the data itself has falsified each one of the competing models to the Big Bang.

Maybe someone will come up with a competitor in the future. I think at present my belief in the following seems confirmed by the present level of research:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1)

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=========================
What the hell do I know, I'm just a science teacher.
===============================

I understand. But perhaps you think I am out to prove a beginning.

I am really not out to prove a Beginning with a mathematical certitude. I simply want to point out the reasonably strong evidence we currently have a ...[text shortened]... search:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1) [/b]

Yes indeed, I am guiding my students about how to think ... but not what to think. For that I'll leave it to them to make up their own minds. I don't hide my own position - ie. I'm an atheist - but nor do I disparage or reject out of hand other positions - eg. religious - except as they relate to my particular discipline; science.

The present level of research confirms your belief in a god. How's that? I fail to see how an inability to come up with a viable model for the origin of the universe leads to the conclusion that the universe must therefore have been created by a supernatural being.
I don't deny you your belief. Clearly you believe. But to claim that lack of a scientific explanation for something is the foundation of your belief is ludicrous.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Agreed.
But that is not in any way equivalent to saying 'something from nothing' or your argument about nothing never giving rise to something.

[b]What evidence?
Quantum mechanics strongly suggests that most events in the universe are uncaused. Further it strongly suggests that particles do 'magically' appear throughout space-time.

...then ...[text shortened]... o, that does not follow. I am saying that forever is finite (at least in one direction).

Quantum mechanics strongly suggests that most events in the universe are uncaused. Further it strongly suggests that particles do 'magically' appear throughout space-time.
---------whitey--------------------------------------

We don't know they appear out of nothing though. There is no place in the universe where you can find a void of nothing anywhere near perfectly empty of "stuff" so as to be able to claim this. You can also only say with certainty that an event is uncaused if you can eliminate all possible causes. But it's not possible to do this because we don't understand it all.

You are being dissingenous and seeing what you want to see.

Quantum physics has shown that particles behave in ways that cannot be predicted and they also appear in ways that seem inexplicable. The appearances might be uncaused or they might be caused by something we don't yet understand.

However , this all occurs within a pre-existing space/time fabric probably full of many things we don't understand (eg dark matter) . It's not an empty void of nothing but highly contaminated. Show me quantum particles "magically" appearing out of a TRUE void of nothingness where there is an absolute absence of anything that could cause them to do so and I will be highly impressed.

Until science does that then the charge will still remain that something coming from nothing is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof. To claim you know of evidence of this is a bit of a stretch.

Quantum physics has shown us many things but it's not shown you what you think it has because I don't think you really understand what "nothing" really means.

Originally posted by knightmeister
And that is what I dispute. At no point do I propose any such 'state' as to have a 'state' you must have space time yet the claim is that spacetime is finite.
--------------------whitey------------------------

How do you know that such a state requires space/time? Why do you say "must"? I can only imagine that you have an unexamined assumption tha ...[text shortened]... t them philosophically and just focussing on the wordplay of physics and maths.

Look buddy! We'll do whatever we NEED to do to keep a Divine Foot from getting in the door. Okay ??

Ya wanna sing hymns and pass the plate for the rest of your life ?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I don't think that really follows. A point in future time would have to be a finite time away. What would actually be true would be that there exists an infinite NUMBER of future points in time. They would all be a finite time from now but by the same token there would be an infinite number of them.

You could be right, I need to think about that. The question then is whether it can be applied to the past. If every point in the future is a finite distance from us, then every point in the past must be too. Are you therefore challenging jaywills claim?

Originally posted by knightmeister
We don't know they appear out of nothing though. There is no place in the universe where you can find a void of nothing anywhere near perfectly empty of "stuff" so as to be able to claim this. You can also only say with certainty that an event is uncaused if you can eliminate all possible causes. But it's not possible to do this because we don't understand it all.

According to quantum mechanic, there is no such thing as empty space. However there is also no such thing as direct causality on the quantum scale - everything is essentially random.
But I fully agree with you that we simply don't know, however your argument makes the claim that we do know, mine only claims that we don't. My argument therefore stands and yours does not.

You are being dissingenous and seeing what you want to see.
I never claimed to see anything.

It's not an empty void of nothing but highly contaminated. Show me quantum particles "magically" appearing out of a TRUE void of nothingness where there is an absolute absence of anything that could cause them to do so and I will be highly impressed.
So, you make the claim more specific, yet once again, it is your claim that 'nothing comes from nothing' based on observation of the universe, yet you now exclude any such observations from the evidence basket because they don't support your claim. That leaves your claim totally and utterly baseless does it not?

Until science does that then the charge will still remain that something coming from nothing is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof.
Yes it would be an extraordinary claim - one which I have not made. I have merely claimed that it is possible. You on the other hand have made the extraordinary claim that it is impossible - so it is you that is left to give extraordinary proof.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Just because we cant imagine something doesn't make it impossible. That is why jaywill withdrew that word from his claim.
There are countable infinities and uncountable infinities so don't get us confused by equating infinity with uncountable. (yes I know, the kids don't know better).
And for this reason, infinite is not shorthand for n+1.

[b]'Infinity' only works in a loop.
I don't understand.[/b]

The 'just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean it's impossible' approach doesn't hold any water, as you know.

I'm beginning all over again with mathematics, so I am pretty much like a kid in the classroom. An oversized kid with preconceived ideas.

OK, I've learned that there are various kinds of infinities. Maybe I'll get to looking into them once I've got a handle on complex numbers ... Anyhow: I think we're dealing with a specific notion of infinity here, the classic notion of linear time as an infinite series of natural numbers (counting from t=0). For that notion, I think n+1 (...) is a good notation: because the series is inexhaustible, you can never stop counting, although you never 'reach infinity' either. One crocodile, two crocodile ...

Maybe you had a different idea of time in mind.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Maybe you had a different idea of time in mind.

Zeno's tortoise and hare paradox relies on the claim that time is infinitely divisible similar to the real numbers. If jaywill is correct and it is impossible to traverse an infinity, then Zeno's paradox proves that time is not infinitely divisible.
I haven't however heard of any mathematical claims before regarding time and am extremely skeptical of jawills claim as if it was anything more than speculation it would I think have hit the headlines - and it hasn't.
I see two major errors in his claim:
1. the traversal of time from past to future is an illusion and so the need to travel across an infinity of time is not there.
2. if there is an infinity of time then we would have an infinity of time to get here - to claim that an infinity cannot be traversed is faulty logic.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You could be right, I need to think about that. The question then is whether it can be applied to the past. If every point in the future is a finite distance from us, then every point in the past must be too. Are you therefore challenging jaywills claim?

I don't really know what jaywill's claim is . Mind you , that's what I like about you whitey - you are at least one of the few people prepared to say "you could be right ".

Originally posted by twhitehead
According to quantum mechanic, there is no such thing as empty space. However there is also no such thing as direct causality on the quantum scale - everything is essentially random.
But I fully agree with you that we simply don't know, however your argument makes the claim that we do know, mine only claims that we don't. My argument therefore stands and ...[text shortened]... ary claim that it is impossible - so it is you that is left to give extraordinary proof.

Yes it would be an extraordinary claim - one which I have not made. I have merely claimed that it is possible. You on the other hand have made the extraordinary claim that it is impossible - so it is you that is left to give extraordinary proof
----whitey---------------------------------------

I don't think that follows. Since we live in a world where we observe tirllions things happening for a reason(causality) and so far there is not one single proven event that conclusively shows that something can happen from "nothing" for "no reason" then it is extraordinary to claim that it is possible. Neither do I claim that it is impossible - just that it doesn't make logical sense.

All my logic and all my observation of existence tells me that an eternal nothingness would just be eternal nothing because there would be no reason for anything to get going in the first place. It just seems very unlikely and counter to everything we know because even quantum physics offers no proof of "something from nothing".

Originally posted by twhitehead
According to quantum mechanic, there is no such thing as empty space. However there is also no such thing as direct causality on the quantum scale - everything is essentially random.
But I fully agree with you that we simply don't know, however your argument makes the claim that we do know, mine only claims that we don't. My argument therefore stands and ...[text shortened]... ary claim that it is impossible - so it is you that is left to give extraordinary proof.

However there is also no such thing as direct causality on the quantum scale - everything is essentially random.

----------whitey----------------

But since we cannot say that quantum particles are "uncaused" in any meaningful way (because we cannot rule out indirect causality) then we have to go with the predominant observation of the way things work (ie causallity) until shown otherwise.

It's bit like the miracle issue. A miracle is only miraculous because it breaks the norm and goes against the logic that we normally observe. What we normally observe is water staying water and not turning into wine. It's highly unlikely that water will spontaneuously turn into wine. Claiming that water was turned into wine by Jesus is an extraordinary claim.

Similarly claiming that life, everything and the universe just spontaneously "began" for no reason from nothing is also extraordinary because normally things are not observed to do this and not one case of this has been proven to exist. All we know is the strange behaviour of quantum particles in contaminated space (not nothing) and this gets turned into some evidence that everything can just "start" all by itself??????

Originally posted by twhitehead
According to quantum mechanic, there is no such thing as empty space. However there is also no such thing as direct causality on the quantum scale - everything is essentially random.
But I fully agree with you that we simply don't know, however your argument makes the claim that we do know, mine only claims that we don't. My argument therefore stands and ary claim that it is impossible - so it is you that is left to give extraordinary proof.

it is your claim that 'nothing comes from nothing' based on observation of the universe

----whitey----------

Clutching at straws. My assertion is based on sound observation and logical extrapolation. If I observe many trillions cases of "something coming from something " (eg - plants growing in fertile soil or stars going supernova to produce elements) then I can make a probable assumption that "nothing will come from nothing" .

I do not need to observe "nothing from nothing " to logically predict that that is the most likely scenario. Just like I don't need to observe the planets around other stars in the sky to logically assume there must be many of them. Basic science I would have thought.

What you need to do is show me where I am going wrong. So far you have cited inconclusive "evidence" regarding quantum particles that behave strangely in so called "vaccuums". And that is about it. For what reason should I abandon the sound logic or my argument that nothingness would have no reason to give rise to something.

Why would life start anyway? Would there be a particular point in the nothingness timeline that would make life beginning more probable? LOL Was it always inevitable that life would just , "poof" , begin? Or might it never have happened?
Is it possible in your conception all that all that we know or all that could ever exist might NOT have existed at all?