The Void of nothing

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]Your argument is based on a logic which does not, can not, under these conditions operate.SCOTTISHNZ

On what logic do you base this assertion? None at all?

Are you making a logical assertion about what can and cannot be logically said under these conditions ? If so I would be interested to know what logic this might be based on? Are you conf ...[text shortened]... xist before the universe came into existence, and your entire argument crumbles in on itself.

The conditions for logical inferences only exist within a time-space environment. Causality, for example, can only operate where time is in existence. In an environment where time doesn't exist, then neither does causality. ---Scottishnz

So you make a valid assertion based on observations and logic from within our 4d universe. Good. So based on logic and observations from within our 4d universe I also assert that things don't come from nothing - there is always a cause of some sort. You might say "ahhh ...but that might not apply regarding the beginnings of the universe" to which I would respond " Ok then....causality could exist independent of time"

By the way.....are you saying causality is dependent on pre-existing time? If so what does time depend on?

Originally posted by knightmeister
" Ok then....causality could exist independent of time"

By the way.....are you saying causality is dependent on pre-existing time? If so what does time depend on?

You could say that, but then you'd have to substantially re-write modern physics!

Why does time need to be dependent on anything? Is length dependent on something else?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Please note that I was not actually making claims in that section but merely speculating. However here is a scientific fact:
A light particle (photon) leaves point A and arrives at point B. There are two possible paths it could take. If it does not interact with any other particles on its journey then it takes both paths simultaneously even if they are l sions? You mention motion as real and yet that is merely movement of energy through dimensions.

You have repeatedly implied that a metre for example does not exist but that is only a measurement. Energy can similarly be measured. Do magnetic fields, electric fields and gravity exist?TWHITHEAD

You've got this one way off. If I measure a piece of wood to be a metre long then it is obviously the piece of wood that exists and the metre which is the conceptual unit of measurement. An electric field is not a measurement but the thing being measured. You have got confused between the thing being measured and the unit of measurement. Electricity is real , an amp is a unit of measurement , piece of wood -real , metre not real , etc etc. So of course magnetic fields etc exist. They are the things being measured. The thing being measured is not the same as the measurement. The 3 spatial dimensions are the measurement of space and we use them to describe height length . width depth etc. Have you ever seen , felt , heard a width?

To measure a metre you would have to place a ruler over a thing called a metre. But you can measure a metre of wood.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You could say that, but then you'd have to substantially re-write modern physics!

Why does time need to be dependent on anything? Is length dependent on something else?

You could say that, but then you'd have to substantially re-write modern physics! SCOTTY

My strong guess is that you will have to do that anyway to prove and explain a something from nothing theory. !! I thought physicists were already resigned to a virtual breakdown of all laws of physics within a big bang singularity.

Do you really think that physics can get there ? First of all they would have to find "nothingness" (which would prove that it couldn't be nothing because nothing can't be anywhere) and then show how something can just pop out of it? They could never explain "how" this could happen because how implies a reason and a reason implies some kind of cause to exist (but in nothing there is nothing so there can be no cause).

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You could say that, but then you'd have to substantially re-write modern physics!

Why does time need to be dependent on anything? Is length dependent on something else?

Why does time need to be dependent on anything? Is length dependent on something else? SCOTTY

Now you really are in a twist aren't you. You said that causality can't exist without time , so you must believe time to exist objectively as a real thing (and not just a concept like morality) and yet you also then compare time to something like length which doesn't exist (any more than a metre exists) . Everything that exists depends on something else existing to cause it - going right back to the big bang.

In a way length does depend on something - you need things to exist in order to measure them for length.

Maybe time (if it exists) is uncaused and started itself ticking along .....no time ....no...time.....TIME! Why? No reason.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Why does time need to be dependent on anything? Is length dependent on something else? SCOTTY

Now you really are in a twist aren't you. You said that causality can't exist without time , so you must believe time to exist objectively as a real thing (and not just a concept like morality) and yet you also then compare time to something like length whi ...[text shortened]... ncaused and started itself ticking along .....no time ....no...time.....TIME! Why? No reason.

Oh, go away and read a book!

Time is a dimension, EXACTLY the same as length!

Causality requires things to happen one after the other, and that requires time.

Have a think, come back.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You missed my point altogether. I was saying that your logic is flawed as logic when used withing this universe. If you make a false or unproven assumption and then make a 'logical' conclusion based on that assumption then your conclusion is also false or unproven.

I have no problem with 'speculating' about what may or may not exist outside of the univ ...[text shortened]... sted.
1. is speculation about something we know nothing about. 2. is simply a false claim.

If you make a false or unproven assumption and then make a 'logical' conclusion based on that assumption then your conclusion is also false or unproven.TWHITEHEAD

But you have been making claims all along that my claims are invalid (like my idea that there must either be something or nothing before/outside/beyond the universe) You stated very strongly that certain concepts like before the universe were impossible or invalid which sounds like a claim to me. It's impossible to counter a claim strongly unless you have a counter claim to make yourself. Your claim has always been that 4d logic makes absolutely no sense regarding these things and yet this claim is unproven also.

In any case I have always said that both scenarios are to be considered and tried to make a case for one being less illogical than the other.

If one said "the ultimate truth about the origin of existence is either going to be rationally understandable or not rationally understandable" then I don't think this is a major leap of faith.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Oh, go away and read a book!

Time is a dimension, EXACTLY the same as length!

Causality requires things to happen one after the other, and that requires time.

Have a think, come back.

Doh! I agree entirely . Time is a dimension. I have spent hours arguing with agerg that you can't locate anything in the universe without refering to the dimension of time. However , just because I , like you, believe that time is a dimension doesn't mean I think it exists . Time is like length , it's a dimension, but can you tell me what length is made of (or time for that matter) ? When you are measuring a mountain then length is made of rock? Measure a car and it's made of metal?

Time like length , is a dimension or concept that we use mentally and mathematically to describe the world around us. That's why no-one has ever found a "bit" of time to experiment on. What happens is we psychologically reify the concept of time and dimensions to such an extent that they seem to become real things without us ever having a clue what they are. It's a bit like what marauder does with the concept of morality (I saw most of that debate) Time measures speed and motion. Even motion doesn't exist (as whitey quite rightly corrected me on) but the things that are moving , they exist. That's what the concept of time helps us to do--- measure stuff moving.

Causality requires things to happen one after the other, and that requires time. SCOTTY

One thing happening after another requires matter , energy and forces like electricity and gravity etc etc You are talking chemical , physical reactions , involving heat and particles and quantum mechanics. Thats all you need for things to happen one after the other..... and we call it time. Look up reification.

But did the matter and energy bring itself into existence ?

Originally posted by knightmeister

But did the matter and energy bring itself into existence ?

Did you bring yourself into existence? Of course not, so why must you insist that matter and energy would have had to?

Originally posted by knightmeister
In any case I have always said that both scenarios are to be considered and tried to make a case for one being less illogical than the other.

I think the problem is I come from a mathematics background where logic does not have 'less' or 'more' values. A proof is either valid or not. A theorem is either proven or not.
A much better word in this case it parsimony which scottishinnz likes to use.
Whatever the case, if you are using logic at all you must agree that your conclusion that finite time implies the existence of nothing 'before' the universe (and hence S from N), is only a valid conclusion if your premise that such a thing as 'before' the universe exists is a valid premise. All I am saying is that you have so far given no evidence at all that such a premise is valid.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You've got this one way off. If I measure a piece of wood to be a metre long then it is obviously the piece of wood that exists and the metre which is the conceptual unit of measurement. An electric field is not a measurement but the thing being measured. You have got confused between the thing being measured and the unit of measurement. Electricity is ...[text shortened]... u would have to place a ruler over a thing called a metre. But you can measure a metre of wood.

It is not nearly as 'obvious' as you claim.
A spacial dimension is not a measurement. Neither is time.
A particle has properties, these include mass, velocity and position in space/time. In string theory particles are nothing more than dimensions tied up in knots.
Also keep in mind that your nice little existing particles can convert from particles to other forms of energy such as momentum. Does momentum actually exist or is it also as insubstantial as your dimentions?

Just to go back to quantum physics, which I find rather interesting and it applies quite heavily on the current thread.
Does a particle have an unknown exact location or no exact location? I think the latter is the case. Does this apply also to its location in time?
If so does this mean that the very early universe actually did not have an exact location in time?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Doh! I agree entirely . Time is a dimension. I have spent hours arguing with agerg that you can't locate anything in the universe without refering to the dimension of time. However , just because I , like you, believe that time is a dimension doesn't mean I think it exists . Time is like length , it's a dimension, but can you tell me what length is m ...[text shortened]... . Look up reification.

But did the matter and energy bring itself into existence ?

Ask yourself this, do zero elephants exist?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Ask yourself this, do zero elephants exist?

Ask yourself is it the zero that makes the elephants not exist or is it just an absence of elephants that is defined as "zero elephants".

If I said there goes a troop of elephants , does this thing called a "troop" exist? If I take out the troop does it really make a difference? If I take out the elephants it certainly does.

So , these things you call dimensions that you think exist as real , if you looked inside a "dimension" would you find matter, energy , electrical charges, quantum particles? Have you any idea at all?? How much does a zero weigh? If I set fire to length would it burn? Can I bump into time and hurt myself?

Originally posted by frogstomp
Did you bring yourself into existence? Of course not, so why must you insist that matter and energy would have had to?

I think the idea that anything "can bring itself into existence" completely illogical. It would have to exist first before it could bring itself into existence. (???) It's a rhetorical question , I'm taking the XXXXX

Originally posted by knightmeister
So , these things you call dimensions that you think exist as real , if you looked inside a "dimension" would you find matter, energy , electrical charges, quantum particles? Have you any idea at all?? How much does a zero weigh? If I set fire to length would it burn? Can I bump into time and hurt myself?

How much does a photon weigh? If you set fire to it would it burn? Why are those your criteria for existence? Isn't what you are really asking "Can I interact with it?" The answer is yes, you can interact with dimensions. In fact you cannot avoid it.
Can you not have a position in space time? If its all imaginary then why cant you avoid it?

Now ask yourself whether or not potential energy or momentum exist.