The Void of nothing

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well that depends on your definition of continuous existence.
If you mean that time is infinite, then why is it "the next logical step"?
If you mean that something exists external to the universe then why is it "the next logical step"?

You are convinced that something you term causality exists externally to the universe and draw far reaching conclusions without verifying or justifying your premise.

You are convinced that something you term causality exists externally to the universe and draw far reaching conclusions without verifying or justifying your premise. WHITHEAD

Nope ,but I am convinced that either existence exists externally to the universe or that nothing exists (or doesn't exist?) externally to the universe. Unless there is a thing we don't know about called non existent existence that both exists and non-exists dually then I see only two options logically. We could say this but it's only marginally more likely than the polar bear idea and self contradictory.

It matters not ...polar bears , time , God , or gods , space , 57th dimension, causality....one thing is 99.9% likely to be true.... there is either non-existence or existence. Existence implies infinity (or infinite regress which leads to eternity) - non existence implies nothing , which begs the question "why existence?". Since you do not believe S from N is a valid idea (and therefore impossible by implication) and you would agree that even if there was such a thing as complete non-existence it would just carry on non-existing I don't see where you can go (other than polar bear territory). I guess you find the idea of anything existing unless it exists in a way that you understand (time/space etc) hard to imagine.

One thing you have consistently not recognised is that this is about basic existence and not time/space etc. We can say that causality and time and 3d space and logic have no meaning externally to the universe but we soon have nothing left to say at all. The only thing we can do is extrapolate our known logic based on time and causality etc and use some of that logic to to try and figure out some things. We know the logic will break down and things will look wierd and we have to expect this , but that doesn't mean that we completely throw out every last shred of logical thinking.

However, the universe came to be it would be an amazing thing to know , but I believe that it would transcend our logic and take it to a new level but I don't see any reason why it should be utterly self contradictory.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well that depends on your definition of continuous existence.
If you mean that time is infinite, then why is it "the next logical step"?
If you mean that something exists external to the universe then why is it "the next logical step"?

You are convinced that something you term causality exists externally to the universe and draw far reaching conclusions without verifying or justifying your premise.

You are convinced that something you term causality exists externally to the universe WHITEY

I have some questions for you . Do you think that time must exist in order for anything to happen or do you think something has to happen in order for time to exist?

Do you think something has to have a 3d space to exist in before anything can happen to it.?

Is the singularity at the heart of the big bang existing in "time" or is it timeless? Is it spaceless? Did it need 3 dimensions
to exist in ? Or did it exist in no dimensions? Did the big bang create 3dimensional space /time? , if so did the singularity exist in some form of non space/time. ? If the process of moving from the singularity to the bang was a caused process what caused it? If nothing caused it then why bang ? Bang for no reason? If the singularity wasn't always there and was not eternal then did it just pop into existence ? If the singularity is a timeless state than something can exist before time? If it does exist in time then how did the time get there if time depends on causality? Maybe time doesn't depend on causality , maybe they are both interdependent , what then? Do they both depend on something else? Maybe 3d space came first ? Was it always there or did it just pop out of nothing? Maybe space/ time and causality all depend on each other and none of them came first , they created each other simultaneously ? Did the universe bring itself into existence? Does the universe have a beginning? If so does the concept of a beginning imply time or space?

Originally posted by knightmeister
You are convinced that something you term causality exists externally to the universe WHITEY

I have some questions for you . Do you think that time must exist in order for anything to happen or do you think something has to happen in order for time to exist?

Do you think something has to have a 3d space to exist in before anything can happen to ...[text shortened]... es the universe have a beginning? If so does the concept of a beginning imply time or space?

the surface of an event horizon is equal to boltzmans constant times the velocity of light cubed divided by 4 times the gravitation constant times h-bar times the black holes entrophy.

OK now , stop hawking your personal views and talk some sense.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Nope ,but I am convinced that either existence exists externally to the universe or that nothing exists (or doesn't exist?) externally to the universe. Unless there is a thing we don't know about called non existent existence that both exists and non-exists dually then I see only two options logically. We could say this but it's only marginally more likely than the polar bear idea and self contradictory.

The problem is that you take as a given that something you term 'external to the universe' exists and therefore contains something or nothing. My claim is that there is no reason to believe that there is an 'external to the universe' and to presume that it exists is unfounded.

It matters not ...polar bears , time , God , or gods , space , 57th dimension, causality....one thing is 99.9% likely to be true.... there is either non-existence or existence.
Don't get into probability claims, as they are totally meaningless without supporting facts.

Existence implies infinity (or infinite regress which leads to eternity) -
This is the very claim I am disputing. You keep repeating the claim but that does not make it true, logical or valid.

non existence implies nothing , which begs the question "why existence?".
Now you are just tying yourself in a knot. If there is only non existence then there is no question "why existence?".

Since you do not believe S from N is a valid idea (and therefore impossible by implication) and you would agree that even if there was such a thing as complete non-existence it would just carry on non-existing I don't see where you can go (other than polar bear territory). I guess you find the idea of anything existing unless it exists in a way that you understand (time/space etc) hard to imagine.
Yes I find it hard to imagine and I think most people do. I do not deny it is a possibility, only that it is not a necessity.

One thing you have consistently not recognised is that this is about basic existence and not time/space etc. We can say that causality and time and 3d space and logic have no meaning externally to the universe but we soon have nothing left to say at all. The only thing we can do is extrapolate our known logic based on time and causality etc and use some of that logic to to try and figure out some things. We know the logic will break down and things will look wierd and we have to expect this , but that doesn't mean that we completely throw out every last shred of logical thinking.
The logic does break down and that is no excuse to start making things up.

However, the universe came to be it would be an amazing thing to know , but I believe that it would transcend our logic and take it to a new level but I don't see any reason why it should be utterly self contradictory.
And here again is your central theme "the universe came to be". This is an unfounded assumption.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I have some questions for you . Do you think that time must exist in order for anything to happen or do you think something has to happen in order for time to exist?

Happening is a time dependent concept. So for something to happen, time must exist.

Do you think something has to have a 3d space to exist in before anything can happen to it.?
It has to have space, whether 3D or nD, as movement is a component of 'happening'.

Is the singularity at the heart of the big bang existing in "time" or is it timeless? Is it spaceless? Did it need 3 dimensions
to exist in ? Or did it exist in no dimensions?
It is called a singularity because it is so hard to understand and because it has some apparently strange properties. It is a totally different type of singularity from black holes. My guess is this: it is a point in space and time. I don't think anyone knows enough about space and time to really know all about it. I know too that there are more than 3 dimensions in the universe, gravity bends space in a 4th dimension.
However a point in time is not timeless. For example the point in time that you first set eyes on this post had no size in the time dimension but that does not make it timeless. Similarly a point in space is not spaceless. However, as we don't really know much about basic things like light, gravity and quantum physics, I think it would be wrong to claim to be certain about how the big bang singularity (if it existed at all) would have behaved.

Did the big bang create 3dimensional space /time? , if so did the singularity exist in some form of non space/time. ? If the process of moving from the singularity to the bang was a caused process what caused it? If nothing caused it then why bang ? Bang for no reason?
see above.

If the singularity wasn't always there and was not eternal then did it just pop into existence?
Now you are going off on your external time line hypothesis.

If the singularity is a timeless state than something can exist before time? If it does exist in time then how did the time get there if time depends on causality? Maybe time doesn't depend on causality, maybe they are both interdependent, what then? Do they both depend on something else? Maybe 3d space came first ? Was it always there or did it just pop out of nothing? Maybe space/ time and causality all depend on each other and none of them came first , they created each other simultaneously ?
Actually space/time is causality.

Did the universe bring itself into existence?
No

Does the universe have a beginning?
Possibly.

If so does the concept of a beginning imply time or space?
It does not imply time and space external to the universe. Nor does it imply a "before" or a "from".

Originally posted by frogstomp
the surface of an event horizon is equal to boltzmans constant times the velocity of light cubed divided by 4 times the gravitation constant times h-bar times the black holes entrophy.

OK now , stop hawking your personal views and talk some sense.

I'm soooooo impressed! Have you just proved something can come from nothing?

Originally posted by twhitehead
The problem is that you take as a given that something you term 'external to the universe' exists and therefore contains something or nothing. My claim is that there is no reason to believe that there is an 'external to the universe' and to presume that it exists is unfounded.

[b]It matters not ...polar bears , time , God , or gods , space , 57th dimen ...[text shortened]... is your central theme "the universe came to be". This is an unfounded assumption.

The problem is that you take as a given that something you term 'external to the universe' exists and therefore contains something or nothing. My claim is that there is no reason to believe that there is an 'external to the universe' and to presume that it exists is unfounded. TWHITEHEAD

No I have not taken it as a given that something exists external to the universe . I HAVE taken it as a given that either something exists or there is non-existence. Non-existence would not contain anything at all.... you are applying a physics term to my concept even though you know that the language I must use is limited. By definition non-existence cannot be contained by anything since that would imply that something existed to contain it in which would mean there was something there. Nothing can have no size or shape or 3D dimensionality. If you are thinking about nothing and non existence in a way that you feel you would need external space for it to "exist" in then you have got the wrong idea about nothing.

There is no reason to say that there isn't an external to the universe...but if there isn't then that would mean there was absolutely nothing external to the universe..which is precisely my point ...namely that there is either nothing or something external to the universe. If you are refering to nothing...you can't even say that there is an "external" to the universe I agree with you on this.
BUT if you say the universe is finite and a temporary phenomenon then you can logically trace the universe back in time to a point where the universe doesn't exist. If you then combine this with your idea that nothing can exist external to the universe you are left with the absolute non-existence of anything whatsoever.

You have already said that non-existence is an invalid idea and I have shown that if it is invalid then you should therefore believe that it's impossible for there to be a "state" of non-existence of anything. You have also said that non-existence cannot progress to existence because you would need time for that to happen , so this logically implies that non-existence would be stuck in non-progression for eternity which begs the question "how is the universe here , if it had a beginning?"

Originally posted by knightmeister
BUT if you say the universe is finite and a temporary phenomenon then you can logically trace the universe back in time to a point where the universe doesn't exist.

We are more or less in agreement until you make the above unproved assertion. A finite universe with finite time does not imply the existence of a point in time with no universe. In fact, as time is a property of the universe it specifically forbids such an idea unless you are referring to a totally different time line or time concept which you have so far not defined or justified.[/b]

Originally posted by twhitehead
We are more or less in agreement until you make the above unproved assertion. A finite universe with finite time does not imply the existence of a point in time with no universe. In fact, as time is a property of the universe it specifically forbids such an idea unless you are referring to a totally different time line or time concept which you have so far not defined or justified.[/b]

The problem is that whatever phrase I used would be inadequate in some way for you because it would be a phrase or concept that is based on our reasoning from within the universe. However , you equate inadequate with invalid because you hold an absolute and dogmatic approach that says that unless a phrase is precise and adequate in every respect scientifically then it is meaningless. Where's the philosopher in you?

So how about if I said that if you traced the universe back to the point of no time or 3d space then the universe didn't or doesn't exist? Would you at least accept the concept that the universe being finite implies the discontinuity of the universe ( so that there may not be a point in time but there is a point of "no time" and "no space" ) ? Would you accept that there is logically some kind of interface between "no time" and "time"? I know you don't believe that the universe has been around forever eternally so why are you so resistant to the idea of the universe not existing? Could it be that you find the idea of non-existence (of anything) impossible and invalid? This could lead you to draw other conclusions about the likelihood of an infinite existence with no beginning. I sense you know philosophically where this path is leading so you frantically move your king around and search for a stalemate in order to avoid putting yourself in a logical and philosophical bind. You frustrate any clear conclusions using semantics because those conclusions might contradict each other. You cannot go there, and that's Ok , you don't have to,... the way out is an eternal beginningless universe ...take it quick!

I have three simple questions
"What do you think a finite universe with a beginning implies if your premise (unproven) is that the universe contains all that exists?"

"How does it not lead to conclude that some kind of non-existence (whether describable or not) of life itself is possible and valid?" (because you would be contradicting yourself?)

"Is there anything that can be said with reasonable certainty about the existence and non-existence of the universe?"

Originally posted by knightmeister
I'm soooooo impressed! Have you just proved something can come from nothing?

you ought to be impressed , jeez.. I was under the impression that a know it all like you would have recognized it , even in it's altered form.

Originally posted by frogstomp
you ought to be impressed , jeez.. I was under the impression that a know it all like you would have recognized it , even in it's altered form.

I actually had no idea what you were on about. I doubt whether have claimed to be a know it all really , all I have done is stuck firmly to the idea that S from N is highly unlikely based on basic non contradictory logic. To me it feels like a game of emperor's new clothes , you can come up with all the physics you like , it's still unconvincing, I still find the idea of something from nothing completely contradictory and I think Whitey agrees in a way.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I actually had no idea what you were on about. I doubt whether have claimed to be a know it all really , all I have done is stuck firmly to the idea that S from N is highly unlikely based on basic non contradictory logic. To me it feels like a game of emperor's new clothes , you can come up with all the physics you like , it's still unconvincing, I s ...[text shortened]... he idea of something from nothing completely contradictory and I think Whitey agrees in a way.

lol
I find it rather amusing that you use the shorthand from magnetic fields which incidently do cancel each other and become a null field.
How can you be so sure that they couldnt have arisen from a Null field in the first place.

Originally posted by knightmeister
So how about if I said that if you traced the universe back to the point of no time or 3d space then the universe didn't or doesn't exist?

I am still convinced that your use of 'trace' and 'point' are demanding the existence of something external to the universe. You are insisting that it is possible to go to a point external to the universe and then when you do so and find nothing you claim it is a contradiction.

Would you at least accept the concept that the universe being finite implies the discontinuity of the universe ( so that there may not be a point in time but there is a point of "no time" and "no space" ) ?
No I would not accept that concept and you have as yet given no argument as to why anyone should. You keep claiming that it is a logical conclusion but it is not. Unless your meaning of 'logical' is also more philosophical than the normal understanding of the word?

Would you accept that there is logically some kind of interface between "no time" and "time"?
No I would not.

I know you don't believe that the universe has been around forever eternally so why are you so resistant to the idea of the universe not existing?
I do not believe that the universe is finite. I only believe that it is a valid possibility for it to be finite or infinite.

Could it be that you find the idea of non-existence (of anything) impossible and invalid?
Yes

This could lead you to draw other conclusions about the likelihood of an infinite existence with no beginning.
No it couldn't.

I sense you know philosophically where this path is leading so you frantically move your king around and search for a stalemate in order to avoid putting yourself in a logical and philosophical bind.
I suspect it is you doing the king shuffling.

You frustrate any clear conclusions using semantics because those conclusions might contradict each other.
If the conclusions are so clear why don't you explain them as you continually state them with no backing at all.

You cannot go there, and that's Ok , you don't have to,... the way out is an eternal beginningless universe ...take it quick!
Another way out is to accept the fact that a finite universe does not require the existence of nothing.

I have three simple questions
"What do you think a finite universe with a beginning implies if your premise (unproven) is that the universe contains all that exists?"
I didn't claim it as a premise, merely as a possibility. I do not think it implies anything in particular.

"How does it not lead to conclude that some kind of non-existence (whether describable or not) of life itself is possible and valid?" (because you would be contradicting yourself?)
It simply does not lead to that conclusion and no it is not a self contradiction.

"Is there anything that can be said with reasonable certainty about the existence and non-existence of the universe?"
The universe exists. So do time, space and matter.

The real question to be asked here is: Does the future exist and does the past exist?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am still convinced that your use of 'trace' and 'point' are demanding the existence of something external to the universe. You are insisting that it is possible to go to a point external to the universe and then when you do so and find nothing you claim it is a contradiction.

[b]Would you at least accept the concept that the universe being finite imp ...[text shortened]... on to be asked here is: Does the future exist and does the past exist?

Could it be that you find the idea of non-existence (of anything) impossible and invalid?KM
Yes WHITEHEAD

This is where I think the cheese has slid off your cracker.Let's see what you have said so far...

1) You reject the idea of the non-existence of nothing at all as impossible and invalid.

2) You consistently state that the idea of anything at all existing apart from the universe is invalid (which implies that the universe is all that there is)

3) You say the universe has a beginning and is finite (but could be infinite , whatever this means to you)

3a) However , you reject the idea of eternity or the idea of the universe having no beginning ( infinite continuous existence) or at least I think you do , because you do not say whether an infinite universe for you implies that it is without a beginning , an end or both)

4) You seem to say that the universe hasn't been around forever (eternity) , but you still reject the idea of a "state" of nothingess that might have ever "existed"

5) You reject any notion that any of these statements might be contradictory or incompatible???? Is there any logic that you will hold yourself to in this debate? Are you so desperate to avoid the concepts of eternal nothingness or eternal somethingness?

It seems to me like you are saying that it's possible for the universe (and for you that means everything) to have not existed in a way that allows it to also exist as well so as to prevent there being nothing at all (because that's impossible for you). Existence and non-existence cannot be absolute terms for you.

Is anyone else getting this ?

Originally posted by frogstomp
lol
I find it rather amusing that you use the shorthand from magnetic fields which incidently do cancel each other and become a null field.
How can you be so sure that they couldnt have arisen from a Null field in the first place.

How can you be so sure that they couldnt have arisen from a Null field in the first place.FROGSTOMP

They could have but a null field is something not nothing . You don't understand the absolute nature of the philosophical terms being used here. Nothing is nothing and that excludes the existence of a null field.