The Void of nothing

Originally posted by KellyJay
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

No, it's not like saying that at all. Where do you come up with these things?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
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.

Considering that there may have been a "before" the Big Bang avoids the ridiculousness and meaninglessness of claiming that a dimension (Time) can be measured with respect to itself. How high is altitude, and how heavy is weight?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Considering that there may have been a "before" the Big Bang avoids the ridiculousness and meaninglessness of claiming that a dimension (Time) can be measured with respect to itself. How high is altitude, and how heavy is weight?

Considering that there may have been a "before" the Big Bang avoids the ridiculousness and meaninglessness of claiming that a dimension (Time) can be measured with respect to itself.)

Actually, what is measured is duration, time is the unit.

Also, of course, considering that there may be an XXX [insert mythical being of your choice] avoids the ridiculousness and meaninglessness of claiming that there may have been nothing before the universe.

How high is altitude, and how heavy is weight?

X metres (or measure of length of your choice) and Y grams (or measure of mass of your choice).

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
No, it's not like saying that at all. Where do you come up with these things?

From reading stuff that you and others write, why do you ask? 🙂
Kelly

Originally posted by knightmeister
But I DID use the word "might" !!!

I had no problem with you using 'might'. I had a problem with you proceeding to add a "therefore the only possible solution" when your premise clearly states that it is not the only possible premise.
It is equivalent to saying "There 'might' be life on one of the other planets in our solar system. Therefore we can logically say that life is commonplace in the universe"
If your premise is not validated then your conclusion is merely a possibility not a necessity.

Originally posted by knightmeister
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)

otherwise it's not finite
And where on earth does that come from? Why is it not finite? You have already accepted that spacial dimensions are finite and yet you are not applying the same flawed logic to them.

Therefore , the eternity within it can't have been around forever , which is ....well.....a very very silly idea of eternity.
What do you mean by 'around forever' ? And why not? Surely it is your idea of a timescale external to the universe which is the silly one?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]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 ...[text shortened]... actics.

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

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

Do you have ANY valid questions one could ask? If not does that somehow make S from N more rational or less rational?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]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 ...[text shortened]... actics.

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

requires 3d space

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

Despite this statement you are still able to talk about a singularity "event" that exists outside of 4d space in a non-time dependent state , whilst seeing yourself as able to prohibit me from any speculation about what might have caused time or existed to initiate time.

As long as it's fair I suppose......

Originally posted by knightmeister
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 don't see why you are claiming that time is independent of existence or that space / time are redundant.
It is important for causality to be understood by you because it is the central piece of your argument.

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. [/b]
When did I admit that "the ultimate foundations of life break physical laws and lie outside of space/time"?

Originally posted by knightmeister
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.

It looks to me that your problem is that you wish to arrive at mysticism as the only possible solution and you will get there whether or not you have to throw logic out the window.
At no point are we avoiding addressing any questions. You have merely failed to show that mysticism is inevitable. In fact you have failed to show that mysticism is 'more likely', 'most sensible', 'most logical' or any of your other attempts at dodging logic.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]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 actics.

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

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

Cool , you're a mystic like me . You have no explanation for how something uncaused can actually exist but you know that it must. You probably realise by now that no rational explanation can be logically possible because a rational explanation would require a valid question to occurr.....which you seem to be ruling out. So you have finally resigned yourself to a non-explainable uncaused mystery to existence. The whole of existence rests on something that is uncaused and of which (according to you) we can probably ask no valid questions relating to conventional physical 4d space concepts.

However , I feel compelled to ask ...do you think time to be uncaused or your non-time dependent singularity to be uncaused ? Which is it?

Originally posted by knightmeister
requires 3d space

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

Despite this statement you are still able to talk about a singularity "event" that exists outside of 4d space in a non-time dependent state , whilst seeing yourself as able to prohibit me from any speculation about wh ...[text shortened]... might have caused time or existed to initiate time.

As long as it's fair I suppose......

Indeed, because current physics do not hold up to singularities.

Originally posted by knightmeister
No! It's because the questions are invalid that I refuse to tackle them.
SCOTTY

Do you have ANY valid questions one could ask? If not does that somehow make S from N more rational or less rational?

All questions pre-suppose causality.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You know....I haven't a xxxxing clue how , why or what ---it just is. SCOTTY

Cool , you're a mystic like me . You have no explanation for how something uncaused can actually exist but you know that it must. You probably realise by now that no rational explanation can be logically possible because a rational explanation would require a valid question ...[text shortened]... think time to be uncaused or your non-time dependent singularity to be uncaused ? Which is it?

All I've said is that there is no evidence for anything happening "outside" the universe. Parsimony takes over after that.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Cool , you're a mystic like me .

So admitting to not knowing the answer makes someone a mystic? Then we are all mystics or liers.

You have no explanation for how something uncaused can actually exist but you know that it must.
We all agree that it must. The only question is whether or not that is a problem.

However , I feel compelled to ask ...do you think time to be uncaused or your non-time dependent singularity to be uncaused ? Which is it?
Time must be uncaused as causation is a time defendant concept.