eternity - a clarification

Originally posted by knightmeister
At least you have seen the logic in my argument. I'm too exhausted trying to explain basic logic and philosophy to ConrauK to answer right now......ZZZZZZZ

I agree we need different words ...any suggestions?

What I have said is in complete accordance with what BBAR has said. Now that's saying something.

I suspect you have no grasp of basic philosophy and logic.

Originally posted by frogstomp
the bigger problem is that the concept of time as a bi-polar dimension, extending to infinity in both the positive and negative direction, is that there would be no point in the timeline for anything to have been created without first creating time itdelf.
Of course, if you take into account super-strings you may be able to define the creation of mass ...[text shortened]... e with energy, was created. AND , superstrings are neutral in the issue of the existence of god.

So God creates matter and energy , sets the whole thing going and time happens as a result , no problem there. Time's no big deal, like you said it's a consequence of matter and energy. You don't need time for eterntiy to exist , infact the idea would be paradoxical anyhow. I only use time based concepts because of the limits of language. You could equally say eternity is a boundless field of unimaginable limitless energy with no beginning or end (ie timeless)

Originally posted by Conrau K
Vaccums have nothingness in them. Just because there are a few gluons does not mean that the whole vaccum is full. What I would say is that we have "patches" of nothingess which are interspersed with particles. What you say sounds like vaccuums are completely sated in gluons. Which is not true, light would refract in a strange way. And since light does not ...[text shortened]... y we have a speculative nothingness. There is no reason why something cannot come out of this.

But surely Sir.....has not the whole journey of physics in this area been one of discovery? As we probe deeper and deeper into molecules then atoms , then protons and quarks to ever smaller particles the same thing keeps happening. We end up finding new smaller , stranger things/particles the further we go , the more we discover...and it's not over (as experiments like Brookhaven suggest). Just when we think we have got to the fundamental base of all matter and energy , something else pops up. You are confusing a definition of 'nothing' with 'we just haven't detected or understood what's there yet' (eg dark matter). If you look around there is a mass of debate on this subject with lots of interpretations of the evidence but you treat the whole thing as if it's a closed book.

I've got to play some chess now so I might be away for a couple of days, in the meantime I'll leave you with some more gibbering scientists...

" Vacuum--the very name suggests emptiness and nothingness---is actually a realm rife with potentiality , courtesy of the laws of quantum electrodynamics.."

(Physics News Update - American Institute of Physics - Phil Schewe/Ben Stein March 2006)

Originally posted by Conrau K
What I have said is in complete accordance with what BBAR has said. Now that's saying something.

I suspect you have no grasp of basic philosophy and logic.

So BBAR says it -therefore its logical - like your reasoning! Another circular argument.

Originally posted by knightmeister
So God creates matter and energy , sets the whole thing going and time happens as a result , no problem there. Time's no big deal, like you said it's a consequence of matter and energy. You don't need time for eterntiy to exist , infact the idea would be paradoxical anyhow. I only use time based concepts because of the limits of language. You could equ ...[text shortened]... is a boundless field of unimaginable limitless energy with no beginning or end (ie timeless)

Methinks you've completely misunderstood what I wrote.

edit for additional comment:

You could equally say whatever you like, but as soon as you say "there was energy" I'm gonna equally say "there was time"

Originally posted by frogstomp
Methinks you've completely misunderstood what I wrote.

edit for additional comment:

You could equally say whatever you like, but as soon as you say "there was energy" I'm gonna equally say "there was time"

Great , so out of eternity springs matter , energy and time simultaneously. Still not a problem.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Where is there nothing? hmmmm.... let me think....vaccums? they are defined by having nothing in them.

Now I should warn you. There are a few philosphers on this site. They have tried to correct you that "something out of nothing" is not logically inconsistent. They have also posted that there is no such thing as causal logic. The idea of causality only ...[text shortened]... out of nothing anyway.

Also, the phenomenon of something out of nothing HAS been observed.

I couldn't resist one last piece of gibberish from theoretical physicist Henning Genz (Univ. of Karlsruhe)....(from book review of Nothingness-The science of Empty Space)

" The point Genz hammers home through this history lesson is that vacuums were once thought to be impossible , then thought to be probable , and are just now (during the last 100 years of experimentation and obsevation ) known to be impossible. He states on page 207 that "there is no such thing as absolutely empty space. All space contains fluctuating fields and particles. Even in the emptiest space that the laws of nature permit , there are enegy levels about which the energies of the fields and particles fluctuate , these energy levels are never sharply defined" ' ooops!

Now who am I believe? I'll take the gibbering nonsense of a theoretical physicist over your 'reasoned logic' anytime.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Great , so out of eternity springs matter , energy and time simultaneously. Still not a problem.

You can't create a definition of eternity that is timeless or "outside of time" neither could God since He would have had no time to do it in.
If time is equal to zero than there cannot be eternity.

Originally posted by frogstomp
You can't create a definition of eternity that is timeless or "outside of time" neither could God since He would have had no time to do it in.
If time is equal to zero than there cannot be eternity.

Why can't I?

"The maths behind string theory suggest 10 dimensions to existence.." Brian Greene , Harvard Physicist , interview re- "Fabric of the cosmos, Space time and the texture of reality."

Time is only a fourth dimension of ten if string theory is correct. It may or may not be correct but I am good scientific company if I posit that there could be more to existence than just time/space. as I have said before eternity is not 'a bloody long time' but timeless and without beginning. Thus if an eminent Physicist can have a definition of an extra 6 dimensions surely you might grant me the possibility of just one timeless dimension , or do you think Mr Greene is off his rocker?

Originally posted by Conrau K
What I have said is in complete accordance with what BBAR has said. Now that's saying something.

I suspect you have no grasp of basic philosophy and logic.

Look, it's been obvious for pages now that this fellow doesn't know anything about logic. He claimed, absurdly, that some principle of sufficient causation was part of formal logic. Now he claims that something's coming into existence from nothing is logically impossible. But, of course, that's absurd too. So, given that you are arguing with a person that doesn't understand logic, and is antecedently convinced in that he has the correct account of the history of the universe, what do you hope to accomplish in this thread?

Originally posted by bbarr
Look, it's been obvious for pages now that this fellow doesn't know anything about logic. He claimed, absurdly, that some principle of sufficient causation was part of formal logic. Now he claims that something's coming into existence from nothing is logically impossible. But, of course, that's absurd too. So, given that you are arguing with a person that d ...[text shortened]... rect account of the history of the universe, what do you hope to accomplish in this thread?

I had a feeling you might show up sometime...Oh master of all things logical..

Let me clarify - something coming from nothing is 'maybe' possible and exists as a concept (but as I am trying to show via physics, it's far, far from proved) However, reasonable observation of the universe would suggest it to be incredibly unlikely. Do you think that a unicorn coming out of a jar of custard is logical (or likely if you prefer)? If not explain why and how you arrive at your conclusion.

The fact that I mixed my metaphors regarding causal logic does not logically make my reasoning absurd. If I had misspelt New York (Knew yorke) but my directions still got you there would my sense of direction be any less valid?

So far you have not provided any evidence that my reasoning is incorrect other than using circular reasoning. I am being illogical because I am being illogical (lol) , I expected more after reading your argument from evil thread.

I'll grant you I don't always use precise terminology and dot all of my i's but can you honestly say , hand on heart , that the idea of something coming out of absolutely nothing , without cause or initiation is not absurd to you in anyway? Do you think that quantum physics shows that something comes out of nothing? Only if you define nothing using assumed classical concepts about matter and energy but I thought the whole point of quantum physics was to look deeper into reality than that.!

As far as being antecedently convinced , I have tried keeping God out of it as best I can , the thread is about eternity and why I find the idea much more likely than something from nothing. I wager a fair bet that you are antecedently convinced in many things you argue on. So what point are you making?

More illogical gibberish for Conrau... (what happened to scottishnz?)

"Empty space is awash with energy fields if you look hard enough" Scott La Fee - Science writer Union Tribune

" Quantum mechanics shows that there is no such thing as empty space , there are always particles popping in and out of existence..fields fluctuating up and down , so in the microworld there is this tumult , this frenzied activity...so the very laws of nothingness are completely re-written...." BRIAN GREENE, Phycisist

NASA Wilkinson Microwave Anistropy Probe (WMAP) - Research findings on 'space' --4% atoms , 23% dark matter , 73% dark energy. (km - this adds up to 100% - 0% available left for 'nothing'😉

ZZZZZ gibber , gibber....ZZZZ Do your flies up guys!

Originally posted by knightmeister
I had a feeling you might show up sometime...Oh master of all things logical..

Let me clarify - something coming from nothing is 'maybe' possible and exists as a concept (but as I am trying to show via physics, it's far, far from proved) However, reasonable observation of the universe would suggest it to be incredibly unlikely. Do you think that ...[text shortened]... ilable left for 'nothing'😉

ZZZZZ gibber , gibber....ZZZZ Do your flies up guys!

It's not that you've mixed your metaphors, but that you've made claims about formal logic and possibility that a) you don't understand and b) are false. This is why you are being illogical (though I've never claimed that prior to know, contrary to your claim above).

Something's coming from nothing is, as far as anybody can tell, logically possible. Nobody has been able to derive a contradiction from the supposition that something came from nothing. If you're convinced of some principle of sufficient causation, then of course you'll think that it is impossible for something to come from nothing.

Whether it is likely or not for the universe to have come into existence from nothing isn't determined by armchair thought experiments about custards. Presumably, one reason why it is very unlikely that unicorns leap from custards is because our universe is governed by natural laws that preclude such things. Such considerations are irrelevant to the question of the likelihood of the universe itself coming into existence from nothing.

Originally posted by bbarr
It's not that you've mixed your metaphors, but that you've made claims about formal logic and possibility that a) you don't understand and b) are false. This is why you are being illogical (though I've never claimed that prior to know, contrary to your claim above).

Something's coming from nothing is, as far as anybody can tell, logically possible. Nobod ...[text shortened]... e question of the likelihood of the universe itself coming into existence from nothing.

I've never seen a unicorn come out of custard , nor has anyone else that I know of.

I've never seen something come out of nothing (except on a David Copperfield show) , and apparently it's far from conclusive that any physicists have (ref- recent quotes).

Until I hear of someone saying they have seen something come out of nothing (remember I'm rigorously logical and consistent about the term nothing) then it's still going to sound as unlikely because I can think of thousands and thousands of examples of things coming from something but no evidence of the opposite apart from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which , as I am demonstrating using quotes , is up for grabs anyway.

To add to this I can think of examples where scientists didn't understand at first where something was coming from (eg magnetism , radiation) only to discover later where it came from and what caused it. The Brookhaven experiments seems to be going the same way?

It sounds like your reasoning is drawn from some abstract world of formal logic rather than the real world of experiments and phycisists and life.Your logic is only as good as the real world in which it resides. Show me this 'something from nothing'. I'm there to be shot down , go on have a pop!

Originally posted by knightmeister
Show me this 'something from nothing'. I'm there to be shot down , go on have a pop!

If you want to convince bbarr of your claim that it is logically impossible for something to come into existence from nothing, it is your burden to construct a proof in which a contradiction is derived from the premise "something can come into existence from nothing."

The observation that no instance of this premise has ever been observed to be true does not constitute a demonstration that the premise is logically impossible, which was your claim.

Perhaps you should revise your claim to one that is not as strong.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
If you want to convince bbarr of your claim that it is logically impossible for something to come into existence from nothing, it is your burden to construct a proof in which a contradiction is derived from the premise "something can come into existence from nothing."

The observation that no instance of this premise has ever been observed to be tr ...[text shortened]... e, which was your claim.

Perhaps you should revise your claim to one that is not as strong.

Isn't "something from nothing" a violation of the logical law of non-contradiction?