The Void of nothing

Originally posted by scottishinnz
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.

The entire question "what happened before the universe?" (or "what caused the universe?) is pointless; there was no before. SCOTTY

But there was something called a "non time dependent event"...how convenient!

Originally posted by twhitehead
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 ]
And why not existence without a from? A circle is continuous without being infinite.

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.KM
As usual you totally ignore without justification: An uncaused entity with a beginning.WHITEY

I'm not ignoring it (how could I be?, I just mentioned it!) I'm just saying we have a choice between two implausible options but one of them is much more implausible than the other. I have considered an uncaused entity with a beginning but that logically implied the existence of nothingness (non existence of anything) to me and I find the idea of something from nothing totally impossible as do you.

Originally posted by twhitehead
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 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. WHITEY

I don't make any claims about nothing , I think it's a dumb idea as do you but if I am forced to talk about it then I have to use some words don't I?

Originally posted by twhitehead
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.

But that paradox doesn't exist in any scenario except your S from N hypothesis which we all agree is total nonsense.WHITEY

I only logically see two scenarios S from N (discontinuous) and eternity (continuous). It's you and scotty that come up with these 3rd option fudges about circular time , circles and non-time dependent events. I have never ever subscribed to them one jot sir!

Originally posted by twhitehead
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 ]
And why not existence without a from? A circle is continuous without being infinite.

It also solves the issue of continuity, existence comes from existence rather than non-existence.SCOTTY
And why not existence without a from? A circle is continuous without being infinite.WHITEY

I agree that the circle is continuous without being infinite but the circle has to exist in the first place.

And if the circle exists where did it come from ...nothing? In order for the circle to exist it has to either come into existence from nothing or come into existence from something or just always exist from eternity without beginning.

This is typical of your thinking style . You solve a problem mathematically and you immediately think you have solved it existentially as well .

It matters not what shapes you come up with , the causal paradox remains.

Talking of paradoxes , how the XXXX do you sort out the bold letters ?

Originally posted by knightmeister
"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 se ...[text shortened]... tart at all .....eternity to the rescue once again!!!! (trumpets)

Round and round we go, you unwilling or unable to accept the well defined and accepted theories that people way smarter than you or I put together.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Round and round we go, you unwilling or unable to accept the well defined and accepted theories that people way smarter than you or I put together.

Nice response , a bit thin on content though.

My point is that you create a rule that says nothing can exist without time ( your zero seconds argument) and that nothing can exist outside or before the universe (because that's a meaningless concept to you) but then you exempt yourself from this position when you talk about the start of the universe as being a non-time dependent event that somehow CAN exist outside of the universe after all (and non-dependent on time)

Here's a review of what you have said...

a) Time is neccessary for anything to exist ("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?"SCOTTY)

b) Any concepts concerning before /outside the universe are meaningless because there is no before or outside ("Existing for an amount of time is a pre-requisite for existing, as is possessing mass-energy." SCOTTY)


c) Causality only applies to things within the universe

d) You talk about the singularity as if it is a non-time dependent event and imply that the singularity exists outside the universe. ("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." SCOTTY)

e)"Time exists only as a dimension of the universe, and cannot be used to describe things happening within a singularity. "SCOTTY


So in review a) and d) are in direct logical contradiction with each other. In a) you have set up an absolute rule that prohibits me from talking about naything existing outside of space/time and yet in d) you talk about this singularity as if......erhem.... it is exempt from this rule. You talk about things "happening" in this singularity what's more "within" the singularity and yet you have not explained how anything can "happen within" something without your precious time.I could easily argue that it is meaningless to talk about anything happening within something like a singularity because there can be no within or happening without space/time.

In short you know you cannot place your singularity within the universe because that would not make it exempt from the absolute rule you have set up for me about space/ time so you exempt it from this rule and subtley palce it somehow outside the universe ( "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." )

For you everything depends on time (you even put the everything in itallics) execept the thing that doesn't depend on time thereby negating your absolute rule .

You must at the very least admit that d) and e) are logically inconsistent with a). Unless you are prepared to go back on a) being an absolute rule.

You cannot have an absloute rule for me but then exempt yourself from it in such a woolly way.

I know it's hard having your own logic fired back at you like this but you should have thought about it first yourself.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And yet you used them to back up one of your claims. So either you agree with them or they have no value to either of us.

All or nothing thinking . I can agree with some of it and not all of it. This is perfectly valid. Any scientist knows that you don't just dismiss EVERYTHING someone says as invalid based on a small disagreement.

Originally posted by knightmeister
It also solves the issue of continuity, existence comes from existence rather than non-existence.SCOTTY
And why not existence without a from? A circle is continuous without being infinite.WHITEY

I agree that the circle is continuous without being infinite but the circle has to exist in the first place.

And if the circle exists where did it com ...[text shortened]... ausal paradox remains.

Talking of paradoxes , how the XXXX do you sort out the bold letters ?

Talking of paradoxes , how the XXXX do you sort out the bold letters ?

look for a sneaky "[.b][.b]" (without the dots) prepended to the body of what you are quoting instead of the usual "[.b]"...also make sure that ALL "[.b]"'s have a corresponding "[./b]"

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Round and round we go, you unwilling or unable to accept the well defined and accepted theories that people way smarter than you or I put together.

Many well defined and accepted theories have been debunked before. Unlike you I do not base my assertions on popularity but logical consistency.

You cannot say that everything that exists MUST exist in 4d space and then exempt something from that very rule. Either the rule is not absolute or the exemption is false and contradictory. If you do not hold yourself accountable to your very own logic then you are impossible to debate with.

Just admit you've been caught with your pants down and move on. Your position will be much stronger than what you are trying to do here by appealing to "popularity" and "smarter" people. You are trying to win the argument on consensus of opinion and what's more you are implicitly admitting you don't really know what you are talking about because it's too smart for you. (which is becoming quite obvious)

What's more for smart I would insert sophistry.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
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.

The problem that you have, is because you are all hooked up on causality.SCOTTY

Yes , it is a problem because causality is the foundation stone of all logic and reasoning. Once we depart from it we throw reason to the wind and go into mysticism.

Now I have no problem with mysticism (for eternity is mysterious too) but I do have a problem with unowned mysticism.

If you propose the universe to be an uncaused entity then you need to realise the mystical grandeur of what you are saying and not dress it up as some scientific , "rational" explanation because with something from nothing there can be no explanation by definition.

All your talk of time and dimensions (and whitey's talk of circles) can't resolve the essential paradox of how something can just "be" without any reason at all and with no cause at all. If you say existence is dependent on time then the question is always what is time dependent on . If you say that a singularity is timeless then what is the singularity dependent on (itself?)? The paradox is still the same and forces you embrace the mysterious idea of the uncaused cause of all existence (this applies to eternity and S from N).

Now the key here is to realise that to dress the uncaused cause (whether singularity or God) up in pseudo-scientificl language is disingenuous. Both are profoundly paradoxical ideas that require some departure from logic and reason.

In your responses you can't quite bring yourself to admit this because unconsciously you realise that to depart from causality is a tremendously profound step to make and is completely outside our experience (even though you mention it so casually). Instead you drive yourself into a hole of logical contradiction to try and avoid this paradox and make it look like it "makes sense". This leaves me trying to expose the contradictions in your argument so you can see them for what they are. Whitey does it too with his mathematical theories about circles and continuous infinite time being circular , without ever seemingly thinking how did the circle get there in the first place. You also talk in absolutes about how nothing can exist outside a 4d universe which is not scientific because it would be more accurate to say "nothing may or may not exist outside the universe".

So where does that leave us? You dismiss the questions by invalidating the semantics in an attempt to keep yourself from tripping over the paradox of existence. But trip you still do. It's not something you can avoid , but you can postpone it by not following the theory through to the very end. In the end one is left with two paradoxical ideas and the only logic we can apply is parsimony , inference , consistency/continuity and observation.

Parsimony tells me that (like much science) on a basic level existence exists and it doesn't not exist. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, there is as yet no such thing as nothingness.

Inference tells me that things being caused seem to be associated 100% with things being finite or having a beginning. If you told me that there was something that exists independently of time then I wouldn't be at all surprised if it also existed independently of 3d space as well. In the same way something that is free of causality seems likely to me to be also free of needing to have a "beginning" since the only things I know of that need beginnings are all caused things.

Continuity and consistency tells me that along with the problem of having to imagine something uncaused the S from N argument also presents the difficulty of why nothingness would not just continue not existing. The transition between nothingness and somethingness doesn't feel right as there is no continuity to the universe's beginning. It feels like a complete departure from logic and causality rather than just a major departure. Eternity offers a continuous transition in comparison because you haven't got the S from N problem only the uncaused cause paradox (but you're going to have to have that anyway!)

Observation tells me that the universe looks a hell of a lot like something that has been initiated by something else. Even the idea of a bang suggests this. If you saw a phenomena a bit like this occurring in deep space you would think "I wonder what's causing that bang". The fact that it seems to be running down or dissipating as well is dissappointing . I would expect a bit more from something that was able to exist without reason or cause.

In short we can either have a partially logical mysticism that transcends causality but maintains consistency of existence or an illogical mysticism that cuts right across logic .

You see the problem I always have with S from N is that it posits that there is something uncaused that has a beginning. And to me something that has a beginning and is finite is very very suggestive of something that might be caused , since everything I know of that has a beginning also has a cause. I see no reason why something so incredible as an uncaused cause of all existence would have any logical need to have a beginning at all if it's incredible enough not to need anything else to exist or cause it.

Eternal , continuous existence posits that the reason why existence is uncaused is because it has no beginning . Only finite things have any need to be caused , but if you have always been around forever there's no need for a cause. Eternity means that there was no point , or time or state when existence didn't exist. Existence has always been , continuously in some form or another. There is no awkward jump from nothingness into somethingness , just continuity of existence. There's no question of "how did it get there?" because you only need to ask this question if it has a beginning. The answer to the "how did it get there?" question is "it's always been there".

This is different from the S from N situation because something that has a beginning does beg the question "how did it get there?"

Originally posted by knightmeister
Nice response , a bit thin on content though.

My point is that you create a rule that says nothing can exist without time ( your zero seconds argument) and that nothing can exist outside or before the universe (because that's a meaningless concept to you) but then you exempt yourself from this position when you talk about the start of the universe a ...[text shortened]... ack at you like this but you should have thought about it first yourself.

Okay, (a) should have had a quantifier of "within the universe".

Originally posted by KellyJay
Greetings!
Well if people who are smart believe in something from nothing, it must be true. 🙂
Kelly

What? Like God?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
What? Like God?

No, truth is truth, it doesn't matter how smart, or wise we are, or think we are, it doesn't change reality only the way we look at it, and ourselves.
Kelly