The Void of nothing

Originally posted by knightmeister
It's a cop out, a "I don't know", and it isn't logically valid SCOTTY

I agree about the logical invalidity of speculating about something that has no beginning and exists forever. However , it is not a cop out due to the fact that the logical alternative (S from N) is equally, if not more, illogical and invalid.

Your charge to me is that saying " ...[text shortened]... d yourself that it's still "rational".

Has the penny dropped yet?

twhitehead is completely correct in the post after your one. You don't understand time properly. You don't understand causality properly. There are many, mnay things you don't seem to understand properly, and will not take my, or anyone else's, advice on the matter. I, at least, will take advice on physics from physicists.

Originally posted by knightmeister
So at which point in the circle did it 'appear'? WHITEY

So I ask you how your circle could just appear without causation and......your response is "at which point in the circle did the circle appear?" This implies that your circle is contained within itself . Not only the things that exist in time within your circle but the circle itself exists wi ...[text shortened]... cle of time that appears within your circle of time!!!

A case of circular reasoning? LOL

At least that type of logic is better than the square and rectangular logic so often applied here. 🙂
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
twhitehead is completely correct in the post after your one. You don't understand time properly. You don't understand causality properly. There are many, mnay things you don't seem to understand properly, and will not take my, or anyone else's, advice on the matter. I, at least, will take advice on physics from physicists.

You know how everything came from nothing?
Kelly

Originally posted by frogstomp
So what , something always existed in an infinite universe, big deal.
Tell me, how many big bangs are there?
What is our big banjs spacial position in the universe?
Don't use science though, science only deals in what we can measure or the effects that it causes on stuff.
Don't be afraid to say you don't know , since nobody else knows those answers either.

So what , something always existed in an infinite universe, big deal.
FROGGY

I think it would be a big deal and I'm glad you have embraced the ultimate mystery of life that transends known logic. You are right , I don't know how such an eternal thing could be. Maybe because there is no "how" only " is " .

I don't know how many big bangs there might be , only one? , it matters not , either there was a first big bang (wierd) from nothing or there life has been banging eternally without beginning (also wierd).

Have you fully taken in the awesomeness of this? Or is it just a coffee table thought experiment for you? If it's not a big deal for you it should be.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
twhitehead is completely correct in the post after your one. You don't understand time properly. You don't understand causality properly. There are many, mnay things you don't seem to understand properly, and will not take my, or anyone else's, advice on the matter. I, at least, will take advice on physics from physicists.

You don't understand time properly. You don't understand causality properly.SCOTTY

I understand causality well enough my friend to realise that ultimately causality has to be transcended otherwise we are left with an infinite regress of causality. The buck has to stop somewhere with something uncaused (are we agreed on this?)

This time thing is very confusing though , it exists but has no matter or energy apparently. Everything depends on it to "happen" but things like singularities can still have timeless "events" within them so time can't be fundamental to everything. You can put it in a circle but you can't travel back through it (even though you might well end up back at the beginning some day). It's circular even though everything we know about time suggests timelines not circles. It seems time can also be independent of causality and exist in it's own right in and of itself from nothing , or was that the singularity I can't remember? But you can't have a before the universe because there was no time (apart from the "start" of the universe that can exist outside of time and not precede the universe but still initiate it with a non-time dependent "event" that must have been motionless because motion would need time to happen in ) It's also got this special property that means you can make it do anything you want it to if you want to make uncaused existence look "rational". In this way it behaves like the flying spaghetti monster

Of one thing we are agreed - I have absolutely no idea what time is. How stupid I must be!

You see you have already admitted that it's possible to have a timeless uncaused event that exists not within the universe (your singularity). By admitting this you have implied that causality and space/ time are both redundant and not needed for existence. What are you left with? If causality and time are redundant why is it so important to you that they are understood by me ?

I'll take your advice once you stop defering to received wisdom and continue with the logical conclusions of what you are saying. Physics can tell us about the physical world but you have already admitted that the ultimate foundations of life break physical laws and lie outside of space/time. That places it in the realm of philosophy and pure logic just as much as physics.

If I just take it "on advice" then that's faith based on someone else's knowledge surely . That would be doing exactly what you guys are always knocking us theists for --- accepting something as true on authority even though it makes no sense. It's something I've never done with the Bible so I'm not going to start now with the "high priests" of physics. You accept S from N on faith if you like , I'll carry on thinking for myself thanks all the same.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You don't understand time properly. You don't understand causality properly.SCOTTY

I understand causality well enough my friend to realise that ultimately causality has to be transcended otherwise we are left with an infinite regress of causality. The buck has to stop somewhere with something uncaused (are we agreed on this?)

This time thing is ...[text shortened]... are redundant why is it so important to you that they are understood by me ?

NO! You keep asking the question "what happened before time?" You don't seem to realise that "before" is a time dependant idea.

The problem is nothing other than neither your line of reasoning nor, in fact, your question make sense.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
NO! You keep asking the question "what happened before time?" You don't seem to realise that "before" is a time dependant idea.

The problem is nothing other than neither your line of reasoning nor, in fact, your question make sense.

You don't seem to realise that "before" is a time dependant idea. SCOTTY

Of course I know that "before" is a time dependent idea. I just want to ask how time got there , did it create itself? You will then say there is no "there" because that requires 3d space and I will ask "why is there time?" and you will say there is no why because why implies a reason and if there's a reason there must be a cause and outside the universe causality ends ....yes yes yes...I know all this but the question still has to be asked. I don't ask the question because I don't understand , I ask because want to hear you say "You know....I haven't a xxxxing clue how , why or what ---it just is". This is why you don't want to address these questions , it's semantic avoidance tactics. And what you are trying to avoid is the inevitability of mysticism.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
NO! You keep asking the question "what happened before time?" You don't seem to realise that "before" is a time dependant idea.

The problem is nothing other than neither your line of reasoning nor, in fact, your question make sense.

My understanding is that when time is said to have "begun", what has actually "begun" are events that can be detected by humans. That doesn't mean there wasn't anything before, simply that we can't determine what it was.

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't see why my argument is illogical. You haven't pointed out any logical flaws in it.

[b]I'm surprised you missed it. I feel like I have been saying this all along . But then you have not got to the point of resignation yet because you still believe in the 3rd option fudge.
The 3rd option is not a fudge but a viable option that your refuse to ...[text shortened]... y illogical as you have provided no valid reasoning that suggests it to be the case.[/b]

I think the real problem is your failure to understand the concept of finite time. You insist that there is a timescale external to the universe such that if time is finite then there was something before it.
WHITEY

If time is finite then how do you know that something cannot exist non-dependently of time? Are you saying that without time nothing can exist? How do you prove this? We have no idea what may or may not exist outside the universe. There may be 500 types of time you couldn't imagine!
However , I use time and causality based concepts to ask philosophical questions - they're the only concepts we have.The only way one can assume these concepts to be completely invalid is if you have a preassumed premise that there can be no form of non-spatial/temporal existence whatsoever that corresponds in any way at all to what we know within the universe. This is a premise that may or may not be true.

If you are right and I am wrong then the concepts I use will be shown to be absolutely meaningless. If you are wrong then they won't . But in a debating context that's the equivalent of saying "I'm right because I'm right" . Your assertion of the invalidity of my concepts are based on your pre-assumed premise. You are back to circles again ironically enough!

Originally posted by twhitehead
The key word there is 'might' and yet you keep on insisting 'must' which is unfounded.

But I DID use the word "might" !!!

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
My understanding is that when time is said to have "begun", what has actually "begun" are events that can be detected by humans. That doesn't mean there wasn't anything before, simply that we can't determine what it was.

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that ...[text shortened]... could measure what happened at them.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html

That is like saying life began on earth because of outer space roaches came to earth and left their droppings (old book I read a long time ago, forget the name), and have that settle the how life began question. Well no, it really doesn't answer anything, because life began some where or at some time, or it is eternal life. If all matter began at some point, it then isn't eternal as far back the past goes, it either was caused, or not.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't see why my argument is illogical. You haven't pointed out any logical flaws in it.

[b]I'm surprised you missed it. I feel like I have been saying this all along . But then you have not got to the point of resignation yet because you still believe in the 3rd option fudge.
The 3rd option is not a fudge but a viable option that your refuse to ...[text shortened]... y illogical as you have provided no valid reasoning that suggests it to be the case.[/b]

You cant seem to understand that the eternity you talk about can still exist within a finite space/time. WHITEY

Too right mate , I can't . It's probably because it's not the eternity I'm talking about but the pseudo mathematical eternity you dreamt up for yourself. If eternity exists within a finite space/time then there must have been a point when said finite space/time wasn't around (otherwise it's not finite) Therefore , the eternity within it can't have been around forever , which is ....well.....a very very silly idea of eternity.

Originally posted by knightmeister
So what , something always existed in an infinite universe, big deal.
FROGGY

I think it would be a big deal and I'm glad you have embraced the ultimate mystery of life that transends known logic. You are right , I don't know how such an eternal thing could be. Maybe because there is no "how" only " is " .

I don't know how many big bangs there ...[text shortened]... a coffee table thought experiment for you? If it's not a big deal for you it should be.

Alas, that I have a satisfactory explaination of things, however I'm not going to tell you it.
Just out of spite, son, just out of spite.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You don't seem to realise that "before" is a time dependant idea. SCOTTY

Of course I know that "before" is a time dependent idea. I just want to ask how time got there , did it create itself? You will then say there is no "there" because that requires 3d space and I will ask "why is there time?" and you will say there is no why because why implies a ...[text shortened]... ce tactics. And what you are trying to avoid is the inevitability of mysticism.

requires 3d space

No! 4-D space. This is where you go wrong, you are stuck in Euclidean dimensions. Soooo last millennia!

I just want to ask how time got there

This is couched in the assumption that time requires an explanation - which would require causality - which would require time. Your ideas are circular.

I know all this but the question still has to be asked.

Not if (and it is) the question is not logically valid.

"You know....I haven't a xxxxing clue how , why or what ---it just is"


You know....I haven't a xxxxing clue how , why or what ---it just is.
I do know those questions aren't valid though.

This is why you don't want to address these questions , it's semantic avoidance tactics.

No! It's because the questions are invalid that I refuse to tackle them.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
My understanding is that when time is said to have "begun", what has actually "begun" are events that can be detected by humans. That doesn't mean there wasn't anything before, simply that we can't determine what it was.

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that ...[text shortened]... could measure what happened at them.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html

And you'd still be left with the scenario that nothing that happened in any previous universes could possibly affect, or effect, this one. The "bottleneck" of the singularity would preclude that - hence, it's not worth considering. Indeed, considering a universe prior to this one is akin to considering fairies at the bottom of the garden - no evidence, so parsimony says...... Well, you know.