01 Feb 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou cannot go there, and that's Ok , you don't have to,... the way out is an eternal beginningless universe ...take it quick! KM
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?
Another way out is to accept the fact that a finite universe does not require the existence of nothing.WHITHEAD
Does a finite universe for you mean a universe that has a beginning? If you do and you also believe that the universe is "all there is" then a timeless , matterless , energyless , dimensionless non-existent "state" is implied by the only logic we can ever apply to anything.
I've got one important question for you on logic.
Would you say that any logical argument or term that we use to describe either the non-existence of the universe , or what was around /not around "before" the universe, or "how" the universe came to be , or what might be "external" to the universe, or "what" might cause the universe to "begin" , or even the logic that says there must be either something or nothing ,.....is invalid because it is based on a logic derived from our universe of space/time/causality etc? So basically anything we say is invalid because it is rooted in a logic based on space/time/matter/causality/4 dimensions etc?
01 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterNow you makie the point of atheists
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.
01 Feb 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe real question to be asked here is: Does the future exist and does the past exist?WHITHEAD
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?
Since I do not give time the same substantial properties you do (since no-one seems to have any idea what it's made of) that's a difficult one. I would have thought that more fundamental questions might be how much has the universe expanded and how big is it now? If the expansion reversed would the universe dissappear altogether? Has the universe always been in motion or or has it progressed from a motionless state to a universe in motion? Since we know what we call time is strongly related to motion and speed , the question "is a motionless , speedless (ie timeless) universe possible?" raises it's head.
I would say though the past exists now because whatever matter and energy was around then is still around now even if it's in a different form. The universe hasn't lost anything , it's all still here right now , it's just changed that's all and got bigger and moves faster. Whatever did exist , still exists. Time doesn't exist to me , it just describes the motion of energy and matter and forces.
01 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterhowever there was quite a debate a few years back , arising 0ut of that formula I gave you. Seems like it predicted the total disappearence of matter and energy, or maybe it didn't.
The real question to be asked here is: Does the future exist and does the past exist?WHITHEAD
Since I do not give time the same substantial properties you do (since no-one seems to have any idea what it's made of) that's a difficult one. I would have thought that more fundamental questions might be how much has the universe expanded and how big is ...[text shortened]... e doesn't exist to me , it just describes the motion of energy and matter and forces.
01 Feb 07
Originally posted by frogstompIf all matter/energy did dissappear would you expect it to reappear? If so why?
however there was quite a debate a few years back , arising 0ut of that formula I gave you. Seems like it predicted the total disappearence of matter and energy, or maybe it didn't.
01 Feb 07
Originally posted by frogstompYes , that's what I believe ,complete nothingness is nonsense. It's eternal existence for me. Life is either continuous nothing or continuous something , but since we are here the continuous nothing possibility has gone.
since somethings here ,it follows from you point that it always was here.
02 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterSo you believe in the conservation of mass/energy ,,,big deal, who doesn't.
Yes , that's what I believe ,complete nothingness is nonsense. It's eternal existence for me. Life is either continuous nothing or continuous something , but since we are here the continuous nothing possibility has gone.
I mean why make such a fuss over a simple scientific law, i.e. unless you're stephen hawking?
02 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterNo it is not implied by any logic. If you still believe it is then please explain, because I cannot see where you are getting the implication from.
Does a finite universe for you mean a universe that has a beginning? If you do and you also believe that the universe is "all there is" then a timeless , matterless , energyless , dimensionless non-existent "state" is implied by the only logic we can ever apply to anything.
Keep in mind here that when I say that the universe has a beginning I mean that there is a time zero for which there is no prior time/events in the universe. It does not mean the existence of an external timeline in which the universe did not exist at time T and did exist at time T+1.
I've got one important question for you on logic.
Would you say that any logical argument or term that we use to describe either the non-existence of the universe , or what was around /not around "before" the universe, or "how" the universe came to be , or what might be "external" to the universe, or "what" might cause the universe to "begin" , or even the logic that says there must be either something or nothing ,.....is invalid because it is based on a logic derived from our universe of space/time/causality etc? So basically anything we say is invalid because it is rooted in a logic based on space/time/matter/causality/4 dimensions etc?
I do not know whether it is totally impossible to logically discuss those things but I would definitely say that your attempted use of logic is seriously flawed as you consistently make false/unproven assumptions in your statements and that is bad logic even within space time.
02 Feb 07
There are two interesting concepts I would like to introduce here.
1. What is existence.
Knightmeister has implied that the existence of the past is verified by our observation of its results in the present.
a. Does this mean that if two possible pasts are indistinguishable from the outcomes, that they both existed?
b. If the information has not yet reached us (for example an even on the sun will only reach us 6 minutes later) does it exist yet? The concept of entanglement implies that particles do not exist or at least do not have a definite position until they interact with something else.
2. Are the spacial dimensions infinite or finite?
Why have physicists assumed that because space is expanding it is therefore finite? Is it something that has been proven or just an assumption?
02 Feb 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadI do not know whether it is totally impossible to logically discuss those things but I would definitely say that your attempted use of logic is seriously flawed as you consistently make false/unproven assumptions in your statements and that is bad logic even within space time.WHITEHEAD
No it is [b]not implied by any logic. If you still believe it is then please explain, because I cannot see where you are getting the implication from.
Keep in mind here that when I say that the universe has a beginning I mean that there is a time zero for which there is no prior time/events in the universe. It does not mean the existence of ...[text shortened]... unproven assumptions in your statements and that is bad logic even within space time.[/b]
Nice side step , you knew that if you said yes then I would ask you how you might logically validate this position.
It's the old "we can't be certain of anything"...(reply) "are you certain?" philosophical trick. It's fool's mate stuff but worth try.
However , you have said that my use of logic is flawed therefore you must by implication believe that some logical deductions about these things are more flawed than others. May I ask what logic you are using to distinguish my flawed logic from your obviously superior logic? It couldn't be a logic based on concepts within 4d space/time could it? That would make it invalid and illogical by the same criteria you have been judging my logic. So , there must be more to it than that because otherwise you would have to chuck your own logic out with mine!!
You are using some logic or rationale in order to distinguish flawed logic from good logic , but you have said that my logic is flawed because I make assertions about these things based on a 4d space/time logic and causality. You say I am wrong to make any unproven assertions but this in itself is an assertion by you that you can't prove.
If you say that there is nothing we can say with any likelihood about what is or isn't beyond the universe , I might ask you how likely you think this is? What you have missed is that even a negative assertion is still an assertion. I assert that the 4d logic we have in this universe may well bear some resemblance to the logic we could use to speculate about what is "beyond" , you assert that it doesn't . But both these positions are assertions nevertheless and neither one is proven.
However , I logically assert that our 4d logic may have some relevance to these things and I can do so because I am prepared to sit on a semblance of 4d logic. I might ask what logic is your assertion sitting on . Surely it can't be a logic rooted in dimensions beyond the universe? If it's 4d logic then why not discount it along with my "flawed" logic.
Maybe your position rests on no logic or on a logic that bears no resemblance to any logic that exists within our 4d universe.????
So , I assert that the logic we have within the universe allows us to speculate about what is "outside" (term used philosophically not physically) the universe. I assert that either there is something existing (of which we may know extremely little or nothing) or absolutely nothing "non-existing". I assert this because all the logic we have tells us that existence exists , the anithesis of this is non-existence. You can have fudges in between but then you have to depart from being ruthless with your logic.