The Void of nothing

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]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.
Wh ...[text shortened]... not? Surely it is your idea of a timescale external to the universe which is the silly one?[/b]

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. WHITEY

You have completely lost me here. I thought that if something was finite then it had boundaries and was not infinitely continuous and would have at least a beginning and probably an end . This is not the same as eternity. How something with boundaries can contain something that has no boundaries (even time boundaries) is beyond me.

Something that is finite is something that has been around for a limited amount of time whereas eternity defines being around for unlimited time without beginning. Containing eternity within a finite amount of time is logically impossible.Trying to tape a 100000 hour programme on a 1 hour video tape would be easy in comparison because etrnity would always out "last" or out "begin" finite time. Eternity cannot be contained in a finite system because however long eternity went round and round in this circle of yours would always be dictated to by the finite amount of time the system itself existed.

No wonder we are having problems... you have no idea what eternity really is ( or finite time for that matter).

Originally posted by twhitehead
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 i r premise is not validated then your conclusion is merely a possibility not a necessity.

I will concede some ground here to you whitey. I am very forceful in my argument and we cannot know for sure what is possible and what isn't. Philosophically we can't even prove for sure we exist. So my certainty is unfounded in this sense. What I would say is that my logical starting point is with the concept of absolute nothingness.

It seems logical to infer the extreme likelihood that non-existence would lead to continued non-existence. I see every logical reason to assume non-existence of existence would negate existence altogether and that nothing would ever have happened at all. Non-existence of any existence is the ultimate anti-logic and negation of rationality and existence itself. But the most simple and parsimoniuos approach is--- From nothing , nothing can come.

Now , this is the ace on which all my cards rest. Knock it down and I'm beaten. But I feel fairly secure and certain about it because no-one seems to be able to come close to showing why it's likely that non-existence would do anything else than just continue in non-existing.

In the absence of any proof or evidence of this I feel justified in maintaining my default position of "from nothing , nothing can come".

Maybe you agree with my ace , but if you do then you are saying "there can be no state of non-existence (because if there was we wouldn't be here)" which to me would logically imply that existence must always exist => eternity.

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]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.
Wh ...[text shortened]... not? Surely it is your idea of a timescale external to the universe which is the silly one?[/b]

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? WHITEY

YOU obviously don't need a timescale external to the universe to define something as finite do you? How do you do it? How do YOU go about saying that the universe is finite without using a "time scale external to the universe" ? I'm all ears!

You must be using a timescale not external to the universe then ?
You might be saying that it's impossible to say that the universe is finite at all because one would logically need an external timescale to define it. BUT you don't seem to have any problem in saying that the universe is finite do you? So why is it a problem for me to say it is finite?

Maybe saying the universe is finite is one of those invalid concepts that scotty talks about. To ask "Is the universe finite ?" is maybe an invalid , meaningless question because it invokes an external timeline to the universe? But that would mean you have been using an invalid concept all along.........

🙄

Originally posted by knightmeister
You have completely lost me here. I thought that if something was finite then it had boundaries and was not infinitely continuous and would have at least a beginning and probably an end . This is not the same as eternity. How something with boundaries can contain something that has no boundaries (even time boundaries) is beyond me.

I see why you are lost. You do not understand basic concepts of mathematics. Where is the beginning of a circle? I have asked that one before. Finite does not imply a beginning and end. I repeat, you accept space is finite and yet you cannot show me the begging and end of space.
You are also incorrect in supposing that having a beginning directly implies the existence of a point on the 'other side' of the beginning.

Something that is finite is something that has been around for a limited amount of time whereas eternity defines being around for unlimited time without beginning.
Actually I don't think we did define eternity. Certainly not in terms of time.

No wonder we are having problems... you have no idea what eternity really is ( or finite time for that matter).
So it is you that gets to decide what eternity and time are. That explains everything.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Now , this is the ace on which all my cards rest. Knock it down and I'm beaten. But I feel fairly secure and certain about it because no-one seems to be able to come close to showing why it's likely that non-existence would do anything else than just continue in non-existing.

We have already knocked it down quite conclusively. Your concept of nothing 'existing' is a meaningless concept and so any claims based on it such as 'nothing must continue existing' are invalid from the start.

Originally posted by knightmeister
YOU obviously don't need a timescale external to the universe to define something as finite do you? How do you do it? How do YOU go about saying that the universe is finite without using a "time scale external to the universe" ? I'm all ears!

We both agree that spacial dimensions are finite and yet you seem to have no such problem with them. (Except that you don't think they exist 🙂 )
Something being finite does not automatically imply an external timescale.

You must be using a timescale not external to the universe then ?
You might be saying that it's impossible to say that the universe is finite at all because one would logically need an external timescale to define it.
No I am not saying that. You can find out that something is finite without going outside it and without it having an outside.

BUT you don't seem to have any problem in saying that the universe is finite do you? So why is it a problem for me to say it is finite?
It is not a problem unless you say that that is the only possibility.

Maybe saying the universe is finite is one of those invalid concepts that scotty talks about. To ask "Is the universe finite ?" is maybe an invalid , meaningless question because it invokes an external timeline to the universe? But that would mean you have been using an invalid concept all along.........
There is nothing invalid about it as it doesn't invoke an external timeline. It is you that invokes the external timeline without justification.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
All questions pre-suppose causality.

All questions pre-suppose causality.SCOTTY

Good , we have an agreed idea then. There is little point in asking any questions (and expecting an explanatory answer) relating to causality regarding something which is uncaused because by definition it is not caused by anything. However , the question still needs to be asked to find out that it can't be answered , that's what makes it valid. We are now agreed on an uncaused cause of all existence. Can you give me confirmation of this?

Now.... are there any other kinds of questions you think might be permissible?

Originally posted by twhitehead
We both agree that spacial dimensions are finite and yet you seem to have no such problem with them. (Except that you don't think they exist 🙂 )
Something being finite does not automatically imply an external timescale.

[b]You must be using a timescale not external to the universe then ?
You might be saying that it's impossible to say that the u ...[text shortened]... an external timeline. It is you that invokes the external timeline without justification.

BUT you don't seem to have any problem in saying that the universe is finite do you? So why is it a problem for me to say it is finite? KM
It is not a problem unless you say that that is the only possibility.WHITEY

I think the problem is here is that you won't pin your colours to the mast. Either you believe that the universe is finite or you don't . But you won't allow yourself to be drawn too specifically. All I am asking you to do is to consider what the universe being finite implies and then follow that argument through to the end. It's Ok you know , you won't get lost and you can always come back again but if you stay at the cross roads you won't figure out much.

So back to basics , let's assume the universe is either a) finite or b) not finite. Surely that's not too great a leap of logic to make?

Originally posted by twhitehead
We both agree that spacial dimensions are finite and yet you seem to have no such problem with them. (Except that you don't think they exist 🙂 )
Something being finite does not automatically imply an external timescale.

[b]You must be using a timescale not external to the universe then ?
You might be saying that it's impossible to say that the u ...[text shortened]... an external timeline. It is you that invokes the external timeline without justification.

Something being finite does not automatically imply an external timescale. WHITEY

Ok , I'll go with that for the time being , but what DOES it imply for you ? How would you draw a distinction between something finite and infinite? How would you know the difference?

Originally posted by twhitehead
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.

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. WHITEY

We are already throwing plenty of logic out of the window mate , or had you not noticed? Mysticism is just a position of realising that some things are beyond rational inquiry and are never likely to be expalined , only contemplated. There's no logical reason to assume that everything in existence should be understandable in a rational sense anyway. You have got no closer to understanding why existence exists than me and I doubt you ever will.

Originally posted by twhitehead
We have already knocked it down quite conclusively. Your concept of nothing 'existing' is a meaningless concept and so any claims based on it such as 'nothing must continue existing' are invalid from the start.

We have already knocked it down quite conclusively. Your concept of nothing 'existing' is a meaningless concept and so any claims based on it such as 'nothing must continue existing' are invalid from the start. WHITEY

GREAT! You've gone further than me ! You are saying that nothing existing is a ridiculous meaningless concept ! I agree wholeheartedly sir!!! Non-existence is not an option! No way hose! It cannot exist . It can't be possible! The Void of nothing cannot be! I agree it's a dumb idea , there can be no state of nothingness. Nothingness is an impossibility! Good ....now let's think what logically that leaves us with.....drum roll......somethingness!.....Only permanent somethingness!! Somethingness is , always has been always will be.

There can't never ever ever not be at least SOMETHING in existence .........because if there wasn't that would mean in the absence of something there's nothingness and you have just implied that's impossible (because if it was possible my terminology could still be valid and meaningful)

You see nothing existing implies the total absence of something(anything) existing so in order to prevent nothing existing (which we agree is impossible) you've got to have something at least around to stop the void of nothing existing . But for how long would something have to exist for to stop nothingness existing ? A trillion , trillion years or may be a bit more ? If something had a beginning would it be able to prevent nothingness? , I think not. If something had an edge or boundary would that do the trick? I don't think so because it would have an edge with something or other... or nothing(but we can't have that it's meaningless , it can't exist!) more somethingness then ad infinitum.

Of course after having said all this you may think that it's possible for nothing to "non-exist" , or for it to be possible to have a "non-existence" of "non-existence." Are these meaningful concepts? My guess is though you won't pin your colours to the mast ------except accidentally when trying to knock my ace down. LOL

Originally posted by twhitehead
I see why you are lost. You do not understand basic concepts of mathematics. Where is the beginning of a circle? I have asked that one before. Finite does [b]not imply a beginning and end. I repeat, you accept space is finite and yet you cannot show me the begging and end of space.
You are also incorrect in supposing that having a beginning directly ...[text shortened]... .[/b]
So it is you that gets to decide what eternity and time are. That explains everything.[/b]

You do not understand basic concepts of mathematics. Where is the beginning of a circle?WHITEY

But we are not having a mathematical debate . we ARE having a debate about existence however and where does this circle exist other than in your mathematical model? Existential logic trumps maths everytime in the real world. It's possible to come up with all sorts of fantastical secenarios in abstract maths that bear little relation to the real world. Everything we know about time suggests it is in a continuous line not a circle. Physics suggests that time/space will just continue in a timeline dissipating into the heat death of the universe which doesn't sound much like your circle. A time circle implies that we should be able to go back in time (Einstein had a big problem with that) back to the point in time we started at like a huge cosmic Groundhog Day. Oh no , that means in theory we could have this debate all over again! Again though no observational evidence to back this idea up.

I would say the beginning of the circle would be the point at which the circle began to exist . It would be just the same with a line , or a square or a bowl of blancmange. The point at which it began to exist would be it's beginning. No different with a circle. Once the circle existed then time could go round and round with no beginning , unless the circle had never not been there.

What I really want to know what your circle is supposed to represent and what on earth it's got to do with the real world?

Originally posted by knightmeister
We are now agreed on an uncaused cause of all existence.

I agree that this is possible, and there is no evidence for anything else, although that may not be a problem in this context, even though it seems odd to us.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]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 ...[text shortened]... metres (or measure of length of your choice) and Y grams (or measure of mass of your choice).[/b]

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

So time doesn't exist after all! It's duration now then . Duration of what may I ask? Duration of time? They can't BOTH be units of measurement one has to exist the other one is just a unit of measurement.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]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 ...[text shortened]... metres (or measure of length of your choice) and Y grams (or measure of mass of your choice).[/b]

Time is the dimension. Seconds, hours, etc are the units.

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.

There's nothing ridiculous or meaningless about claiming there was nothing before the universe. It is ridiculous and meaningless to claim that the dimension of time is measurable with respect to time.

You think the concept of altitude has a certain, unspecified number of meters associated with it? Does that mean that of two airplanes flying at different distances aboive the ground, only one of them or more likely neither of them has an altitude?