09 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterBut you repeatedly claim that everything must have a cause. What is special about eternity that does not apply to the universe?
There was no cause to eternity , it is uncaused.
It didn't start because it has no beginning.
So starting is contingent upon a begging. What if time is circular. No beginning, no start, no need for a cause?
There is nothing outside of it, it is infinite in all directions.
Even in imaginary dimensions? What if some of the dimensions are finite? (we know space is). Then do you somehow extend these infinitely beyond their finiteness?
I agree this is implausible but then we have a choice to make between an uncaused entity that has no beginning or an uncaused entity that has a beginning.
As usual you totally ignore without justification: An uncaused entity with a beginning.
I see no reason why an uncaused entiity might need to have a beginning at all since having a beginning suggests it being contingent on something else.
No it does not 'suggest' any such thing except apparently to you who is stuck in spacetime and convinced that the laws of spacetime apply outside spacetime.
Eternity solves the logical paradox of trying to explain why total nothingness would not just "continue" being nothing (given there would be no reason or substance for anything to exist).
But that paradox doesn't exist in any scenario except your S from N hypothesis which we all agree is total nonsense. I still don't know how you can simultaneously claim that nothing is truly nothing and yet it is still capable of 'continuing' or even existing in the first place.
It also solves the issue of continuity, existence comes from existence rather than non-existence.
And why not existence without a from? A circle is continuous without being infinite.
09 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterI don't think any experiments relating to the phenomena in question rely on a perfect vacuum. Of course you were just trying to skirt round the problem with your claim that a perfect vacuum does not exist. The claim was not whether or not scientist can create and measure a perfect vacuum but whether or not it can exist in the universe. And it came from the discussion of dimensions and not from the discussion of S from N.
You are claiming that a few microwaves in a bell jar can totally fill all the space contained in it at all timesWHITEY
No not at all , the point is a philosophical one based on good science. If we are making the extraordinary claim of something from nothing (which means the something is uncaused) then we must be watertight in our conditions. The mic ...[text shortened]... ust admit it it's science trumped up into faith. Nothing is an ABSOLUTE term , get used to it .
09 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterWell, no, not really. The problem that you have, is because you are all hooked up on causality. You just keep plugging away with "but it must have a cause". This is only true of things that exist within the universe, but not true to the start of the universe, since it was not a time dependent event.
Why is a zero time paradoxical? SCOTTY
It's not zero time that's problematic it's zero existence. If, as you claim, all existence itself is dependent on time then zero time implies zero anything at all. If I said that all existence was contingent on God and then also said that there once was zero God or non- God you might quite rightly ask "well ho ...[text shortened]... athematical constructs to appreciate the basic philosophical paradox of existence.
The entire question "what happened before the universe?" (or "what caused the universe?) is pointless; there was no before.
09 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterPlease read that bit of logic again several times.
However , using the most parsimonious approach we can see that there are all sorts of finite things around us that are obviously not uncaused which could suggest that something uncaused might well be infinite.
There is nothing parsimonious or logical in making the claim that the only uncaused thing you know must be infinite because everything else you know is finite and caused.
09 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterIt is amazing that you repeatedly try to use this argument to back up your position. We both agree that S from N is not rational. What we disagree on is whether your solution is the only one. So claiming that your solution solves it, is in no way evidence that your solution is the only one.
Ultimately, the other advantage of the uncaused something with no beginning is that the whole something from nothing problem is eliminated. You don't have the problem of explaining ( in futility ) why nothingness would not just continue in nothingness (since there would be no reason for it not to) because there never was nothingness but always somethin ...[text shortened]... then explain the transition , it's just a smooth transition of something to something else.
09 Feb 07
Originally posted by scottishinnza non-existent hunk of matter just kinda exploded and created this somehow, with all the puzzles very conveniently coming into place somehow😕
Well, no, not really. The problem that you have, is because you are all hooked up on causality. You just keep plugging away with "but it must have a cause". This is only true of things that exist within the universe, but not true to the start of the universe, since it was not a time dependent event.
The entire question "what happened before the universe?" (or "what caused the universe?) is pointless; there was no before.
09 Feb 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut you repeatedly claim that everything must have a cause. What is special about eternity that does not apply to the universe?WHITEY
But you repeatedly claim that everything must have a cause. What is special about eternity that does not apply to the universe?
[b]It didn't start because it has no beginning.
So starting is contingent upon a begging. What if time is circular. No beginning, no start, no need for a cause?
There is nothing outside of it, it is infinite in all ...[text shortened]... ]
And why not existence without a from? A circle is continuous without being infinite.
I do not claim this , I claim that the idea of something occuring from nothing at all is bizarre. I believe that we are resigned to having to believe in something that is uncaused either way it goes (have you got at least that far yet?) . The difference with eternity is that although you have the uncaused bit , you don't have the something from nothing bit . You need to understand the subtle but significant distinction between uncaused existence that has a beginning and uncaused existence that has no beginning.
09 Feb 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt didn't start because it has no beginning.
But you repeatedly claim that everything must have a cause. What is special about eternity that does not apply to the universe?
[b]It didn't start because it has no beginning.
So starting is contingent upon a begging. What if time is circular. No beginning, no start, no need for a cause?
There is nothing outside of it, it is infinite in all ...[text shortened]... ]
And why not existence without a from? A circle is continuous without being infinite.
So starting is contingent upon a begging. What if time is circular. No beginning, no start, no need for a cause? WHITEY
So you DOOOOO think eternity possible? Time would be eternal if it had no beginning or start . It's just been going round and round forever and ever with no beginning at all (and presumably no end in sight.) Or maybe you imagine there was a point where it started going round and round? But that would be a beginning surely! Also , you would be going back on your idea that time/space is finite.
If time is circular or not , it would still have to exist. If time exists it has either always existed or it hasn't. If it hasn't then it started from nothing , if it has it's eternal. There's no escaping it however hard you wriggle.
You might say that you must have time in order for anything to exist but that would not explain how time exists. You would still have to exempt time from this rule (or is it scotty's rule?)
09 Feb 07
Perhaps within the context of our own existence your arguments and questions are valid and sound. But if we were multi-dimensional beings looking at the same universe, I think we would see beyond the paradoxes of eternity, nothingness, creation and destruction in a universe that contains both nothing and everything. A one dimensional being could only theorize abstractly about the existense of a 2nd dimension, but have that same being profess the existense of yet another dimension..a 3rd! He would be labled a new-age crackpot and lynched. We are that one dimensional being.
09 Feb 07
Questions of Being and Nothing-ness are just existential logic puzzles that can never be answered from within the framework of our existence. Creation from Nothing is a topic that Quantum Physicists are all too familiar with, having witnessed sub-atomic particles 'pop' into physical existence from out of nowhere. They are only recently acknowledging the implications of such an event, that the mysterious particle had to come from somewhere, but where? Another dimension perhaps? We may never know, then again, we may find other dimensions and start booking vacations to them and start wearing their logos on our t-shirts and hats.
09 Feb 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am simply saying that an we know only of things that are caused and finite. Therefore something uncaused takes us completely out of this realm of thinking.It's a logical speculation. If something exists outside time it might well exists outside 3d space as well , if something is outside of causality then it might also transcend time and space and thus be infinite.
Please read that bit of logic again several times.
There is nothing parsimonious or logical in making the claim that the only uncaused thing you know must be infinite because everything else you know is finite and caused.
09 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnz"The point is that everything that exists, must exist within 4 dimensional space, and must have all those dimensions. If something exists for zero seconds, does it exist? Does a line with a length of 0cm (or metres or kilometres, or whatever) exist? No! Existing for an amount of time is a pre-requisite for existing, as is possessing mass-energy. You seem to want to talk about [edit; causality] independent of time, but that's not feasible." SCOTTY
Well, no, not really. The problem that you have, is because you are all hooked up on causality. You just keep plugging away with "but it must have a cause". This is only true of things that exist within the universe, but not true to the start of the universe, since it was not a time dependent event.
The entire question "what happened before the universe?" (or "what caused the universe?) is pointless; there was no before.
HMMMMMM...me senses a contradiction here.......
"This is only true of things that exist within the universe, but not true to the start of the universe, since it was not a time dependent event."SCOTTY
So the start of the universe does not exist within the the universe then? Is this "start of the universe" thing supernatural? The start of the universe exists outside of time? Starts to sound spooky ! This thing you call "the start of the universe" sounds like a miniature god or an uncaused cause. You see , even you need a start or cause to be around , you're just as hooked on causality as me you just don't admit it.
Here's your mantra...
"Everything that exists has to exist in time (because there can be no "before" the universe)
If time doesn't exist nothing can exist (because it's pointless even asking the question)
But wait !.....There is one thing that doesn't need time to exist , that's the start of the universe , it exists independent of time and it's not part of the universe!!! Yippee! A timeless non spatial "thing" called the "start of the universe" initiated the universe! It wasn't caused by anything , and it has no reason to be there it just is. What's more it's from nothing! It caused the universe to exist but it didn't exist before it because it was timeless.Problem solved. "
I can see how this makes sooo much more sense than eternity!! LOL
There's a way out even now! You can say the universe doesn't have a start at all .....eternity to the rescue once again!!!! (trumpets)