foundations of reason

Originally posted by knightmeister
What I am saying is this - time can have a beginning but it can only have a beginning if the state which we might call "nothingness" or "no time" is a reality.

Can you not see that you are extending the time dimention in order to place your nothingness in it? Can you not see that you are infact placing your nothingness in a point in time? Are you incapable of concieving of a simple circle?
Stop avoiding my posts regarding the south pole and answer these questions:
What is further south than the south pole? (along a line of longitude)
Is it possible to to have a finite line of longitude?

Originally posted by knightmeister
But, how does it logically follow from what you have said that time cannot have a beginning? Are you saying that because “it's impossible for time to not exist” that it cannot have a beginning? If so, exactly at which point in time is it impossible for time to not exist? -the answer is at no point in time can time not exist -but that doesn’t rule out a s the idea that existence is logically eternal (without beginning or end)

…. I do not see why non-existence "needs" anything to not exist in because non-existence is by very definition the absence of anything and is not contingent. …

Incorrect. If I say there is “nothing” in a box, what I mean is that at the current point in time, the space in the box has nothing in it. But if I just say “there is nothing” without specifying (or at least implying) where and when that nothing is, then that is a meaningless statement. So non-existence does "need" space and time to “exist” in (if “exist“ is the right word here).

…The idea that everything must have "a point in time" in order to exist is obviously paradoxical because how does time then begin in and of ITSELF?...… (my emphasis)

Time didn’t “begin in time” because time does not exist “in” time. According to relativity, space and time are linked in the form of a single entity called “space-time” -one cannot exist without the other. Now, everything has to be in space-time in order to exist EXCEPT space-time itself for space-time doesn’t need to exist “in“ some other “space-time“! (nor itself) -it just exists.
So there is no paradox here -everything else must have "a point in time" in order to exist with the exception of time itself (actually, this isn’t quite correct because, to be more precise, it is not merely just “time” this exception applies to but “space-time“ because the two are linked) -time itself doesn’t need "a point in time" in order to exist in.

…What I am saying is this - time can have a beginning but it can only have a beginning if the state which we might call "nothingness" or "no time" is a reality....

WHEN was this "nothingness" or "no time" a reality?

…If time has a beginning then time is not continuous and time began "from" no time.. ...

At the start of the universe, nether the universe nor time came “from” anything because, to say it “came from” something implies there must have been a “before” for that “something” (or “nothingness&rdquo😉 to exist in -else exactly WHEN did this “something” (or “nothingness&rdquo😉 that the universe and time came from exist?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…. I do not see why non-existence "needs" anything to not exist in because non-existence is by very definition the absence of anything and is not contingent. …

Incorrect. If I say there is “nothing” in a box, what I mean is that at the current point in time, the space in the box has nothing in it. But if I just say “there is nothing” withou ...[text shortened]... s “something” (or “nothingness&rdquo😉 that the universe and time came from exist?[/b]

But if I just say “there is nothing” without specifying (or at least implying) where and when that nothing is, then that is a meaningless statement. -----------hamilton--------------------

Why?

It would be paradoxical to say "when" or "where" the nothing was because that would imply the nothing was something. It's a self defeating way of describing nothing and completely meaningless because it doesn't get close to the concept of real nothingness (ie no time or space at all)

I put it to you that the only meaningful way of trying to describe nothing IS to be non-specific and describe it as the ABSENCE of everything. This is hard because all our language is based on a universe that exists in space and time. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try!!!!

It just seems silly to keep saying its "meaningless" . To me that's just a kop out from really thinking hard about existence.

I think what's happening here is that you are both uncomfortabel with the idea of eternity (because it's suggestive of God and supports a theistic way of looking at the world) BUT also you struggle logically (as you should) with the idea of no time/space and you don't like the idea of the universe just beginning for no reason from "no time".

This leaves you stuck between the rock and a hard place trying to find a way to kick the "nothing" concept into touch via semantics.

Meanwhile the universe is looking damn well like it had a beginning and it's logical to think that it either began from nothing for no reason out of no time or there was a reason for the Big Bang.

The basic options are that existence begins for no reason out of no time or existence is eternal and has no beginning.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…. I do not see why non-existence "needs" anything to not exist in because non-existence is by very definition the absence of anything and is not contingent. …

Incorrect. If I say there is “nothing” in a box, what I mean is that at the current point in time, the space in the box has nothing in it. But if I just say “there is nothing” withou s “something” (or “nothingness&rdquo😉 that the universe and time came from exist?[/b]

WHEN was this "nothingness" or "no time" a reality? ------hamilton-----------

Stop playing semantics. We both know that this is just a turn of phrase. There was no "when" or "reality" only "no time" and "non-reality". I only use these phrases to keep the discussion sane.

Because we live in a universe that exists in time and space it's impossible to use exactly the correct language and you know it. The expression of nothing will always be incomplete because it's the anti-thesis of existence. Even to call it anything is to give it the term "it" and make it somehow sound like it exists (which would be false).

The only way to adequately talk about nothing whilst remaining immune from your relentless linguistic pedantry is between these two lines below.....


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------






-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ok , had enough? It would be futile to do this. Now let's get back to a discussion that's less nit picking shall we?

I do know that to talk about the universe coming "out of nothing" is contradictory , but since I am a realist it's the best I can do. Just because the language is limited does not mean that the concept is invalid or meaningless. If that was the case then half the experimental quantum physicists in the world would be talking meaningless rubbish. Ever heard Brian Greene on string theory? I think it's only because I am a theist that you are being so obstructive. You obvioulsy don't like where the argument is taking you.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…. I do not see why non-existence "needs" anything to not exist in because non-existence is by very definition the absence of anything and is not contingent. …

Incorrect. If I say there is “nothing” in a box, what I mean is that at the current point in time, the space in the box has nothing in it. But if I just say “there is nothing” withou ...[text shortened]... s “something” (or “nothingness&rdquo😉 that the universe and time came from exist?[/b]

Now, everything has to be in space-time in order to exist EXCEPT space-time itself for space-time doesn’t need to exist “in“ some other “space-time“! (nor itself) -it just exists.---hamilton----------

So if space/time can just "exist" then why can't the absence of space/time not exist? You said that non existence needs space/time to "not exist" in. But why should something that isn't something need anything to exist in if space/time can "just exist" as you say?

You seem to be saying that space/time is eternal (?) and cannot "not exist". The problem is that if space/time has a beginning then it has to not exist at some undefinable , unimaginable point of nothingness.

Originally posted by knightmeister
WHEN was this "nothingness" or "no time" a reality? ------hamilton-----------

Stop playing semantics. We both know that this is just a turn of phrase. There was no "when" or "reality" only "no time" and "non-reality". I only use these phrases to keep the discussion sane.

Because we live in a universe that exists in time and space it's impossible ...[text shortened]... o obstructive. You obvioulsy don't like where the argument is taking you.

KM,

your assumptions are wrong and, if you check the matter out as twhitehead pointed to you, you will understand that your hypothesis is scientifically refuted. Also we know that a paradox, like the issue we are talking, is not in any case forcing us to resume that is is caused by a supernatural creature -not in the 21st century.

Also I remind you that the antropic theory gives satistactory explanations, which are not in contradiction with the science. Of course the issue remains open, but in time we will know more. When you finish your discusion with twhitehead you can check the anthropic theory too.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…. I do not see why non-existence "needs" anything to not exist in because non-existence is by very definition the absence of anything and is not contingent. …

Incorrect. If I say there is “nothing” in a box, what I mean is that at the current point in time, the space in the box has nothing in it. But if I just say “there is nothing” withou ...[text shortened]... s “something” (or “nothingness&rdquo😉 that the universe and time came from exist?[/b]

At the start of the universe, nether the universe nor time came “from” anything because, to say it “came from” something implies there must have been a “before” for that “something” (or “nothingness&rdquo😉 to exist in -else exactly WHEN did this “something” (or “nothingness&rdquo😉 that the universe and time came from exist?==============hamilton====================

I use the term "came from" in a philosophical way not purely scientifically. And I think you know it.

Despite everything you say if existence itself has a beginning then that beginning only makes sense against a logical backdrop of non-existence. Otherwise it cannot be a beginning. It would be better to say existence is beginningless (eternal) because it's impossible for nothingness to non-exist. However, a beginning only makes meaningful sense if there is a point where existence was not.

Using your own logic against you I could say that it's meaningless to talk about the universe "beginning" because the word "beginning" implies that there must have been nothing at some undefinable point. To say time "began" without accepting the non-existence of time is meaningless by your logic.

Something that has always existed cannot have a beginning. Only something temporary can have a beginning. But something temporary cannot prevent nothingness from existing. If existence is only temporary then nothingness must be some unimaginable reality (or non reality)

Originally posted by black beetle
KM,

your assumptions are wrong and, if you check the matter out as twhitehead pointed to you, you will understand that your hypothesis is scientifically refuted. Also we know that a paradox, like the issue we are talking, is not in any case forcing us to resume that is is caused by a supernatural creature -not in the 21st century.

Also I remind yo ...[text shortened]... now more. When you finish your discusion with twhitehead you can check the anthropic theory too.

I don't think you are thinking about it hard enough. Also , I am hardly mentioning the God word here. This is not about God at this point. It's about logic.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Can you not see that you are extending the time dimention in order to place your nothingness in it? Can you not see that you are infact placing your nothingness in a point in time? Are you incapable of concieving of a simple circle?
Stop avoiding my posts regarding the south pole and answer these questions:
What is further south than the south pole? (along a line of longitude)
Is it possible to to have a finite line of longitude?

Can you not see that you are extending the time dimension in order to place your circle in it? Can you not see that you are infact placing your circle in a point in time?

I am incapable of concieving of a simple circle that is not in space/time.

What is further south than the south pole? ---whitey----------

Nothing! That's the whole point!!!!

Originally posted by knightmeister
At the start of the universe, nether the universe nor time came “from” anything because, to say it “came from” something implies there must have been a “before” for that “something” (or “nothingness&rdquo😉 to exist in -else exactly WHEN did this “something” (or “nothingness&rdquo😉 that the universe and time came from exist?==============hamilton================= is only temporary then nothingness must be some unimaginable reality (or non reality)

…. Despite everything you say if existence itself has a beginning then that beginning only makes sense against a logical backdrop of non-existence.. …

Only if there is a “before”

…. However, a beginning only makes meaningful sense if there is a point where existence was not....…

Again, only if there is a “before”.

…Using your own logic against you I could say that it's meaningless to talk about the universe "beginning" because the word "beginning" implies that there must have been nothing at some indefinable point.....

Again, only if there is a “before”.

I think you just cannot handle this concept of there not being a “before” even if you don’t realise it.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Nothing! That's the whole point!!!!

So you admit that nothing can and does exist? There goes your whole argument!

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you admit that nothing can and does exist? There goes your whole argument!

What , because of the south pole? Duh?

Anyway , I don't believe in nothingness. I believe in eternity as the only logical option because nothingness is dumb. If there ever was nothing then there would be nothing now . There must have always been something = eternity.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…. Despite everything you say if existence itself has a beginning then that beginning only makes sense against a logical backdrop of non-existence.. …

Only if there is a “before”

…. However, a beginning only makes meaningful sense if there is a point where existence was not....…

Again, only if there is a “before”.

…Usin just cannot handle this concept of there not being a “before” even if you don’t realise it.

I accept there is no before in the concept of nothingness. However, there must also be no beginning. How is it meaningful to talk about a beginning if time has always been? You must believe that time "began" . To have a beginning of something you don't need a "before" do you.

If I say that a line of bricks has a beginning then I can only say this meaningfully if I can identify a point where the first brick is , yes?

BUT (and this is key) I can only identify the first brick if the brick next to it isn't there (to use a turn of phrase). If the brick is there then I can't talk about a "beginning" . Therefore , I don't need a brick , I just need a "non" brick.

With the beginning of time , I can only say that time begins if I accept the concept of no time. I do not need a "before" for no-time any more than I need a brick next to my first brick to define a non brick. It would be perverse of me to say that I cannot have a non brick next to my first brick (beginning) because there is no brick there???????? Of course there would be no brick ( and no "there" ) Why would one say "only if there was a brick" ??? An absence of a brick does not need a brick to exist in.All it needs is to not be a brick. To not even be an it infact.

What's the logic behind saying "only if there is a before"? You seem to have a dogmatic belief that nothing can exist outside of time or independently of time , not even a non existing no- time. The problem with this is that space/time itself is one thing that can exist (for you) independently. For you space /time must have just created itself somehow or just "began" for no explanation whatsoever.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I accept there is no before in the concept of nothingness. However, there must also be no beginning. How is it meaningful to talk about a beginning if time has always been? You must believe that time "began" . To have a beginning of something you don't need a "before" do you.

If I say that a line of bricks has a beginning then I can only say this m ...[text shortened]... ust created itself somehow or just "began" for no explanation whatsoever.

…. BUT (and this is key) I can only identify the first brick if the brick next to it isn't THERE (to use a turn of phrase). … (my emphasis)

That “THERE” is in continuous space and therefore the analogy doesn’t work. What if there was no “THERE” for a brick to either exist in or not exist in? -that would be the correct analogue in this case because that hypothetical “beginning of space” would then be analogous to there being a “beginning of time”.

…. For you space /time must have just CREATED itself somehow ....… (my emphasis)

It wasn’t “CREATED” by anything, -it just “began“. To say it was “CREATED” implies a cause for its beginning and a “cause” of an effect implies that that “cause” came before that effect -but, remember, in this case, there is no “before” and therefore there cannot be any cause and therefore it cannot be “created” -it can only begin.

…or just "began" for no explanation whatsoever......

This beginning is unique because it is the only “beginning” that has no cause! And, because it has no cause, it requires no “explanation” (“explanations” of beginnings are just descriptions of the causes of those beginnings).

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…. BUT (and this is key) I can only identify the first brick if the brick next to it isn't THERE (to use a turn of phrase). … (my emphasis)

That “THERE” is in continuous space and therefore the analogy doesn’t work. What if there was no “THERE” for a brick to either exist in or not exist in? -that would be the correct analogue in this case ...[text shortened]... tion” (“explanations” of beginnings are just descriptions of the causes of those beginnings).[/b]

Not only does it require no explanation , it has no explanation. It is irrational , inpenetrable and mysterious. The foundation of existence resting on an irrational , inexplcable and paradoxical mystery. Indirectly it's also the foundation of your rationality too via a causal chain.

Anyway. regarding beginnings , things don't "begin" for no reason. A beginning is always accompanied by a cause. Even the Big Bang itself is suggestive of many beginnings (explosions and expansions) that we know of in the universe. Logical and rational deduction should lead you to think that a beginning like a big bang would be unlikely to be uncaused. It's also illogical to think that there was no before and no nothing because nothing would have no reason to be anything. 0+0 is always 0 , if you only have 0 you cannot make anymore of it. Give me 0.000001 and I can multiply it into anything given enough time.

So what we are talking about is a truely remarkable event that breaks every known logical and scientific law. It obviously can't create itself , because that's dumb. So it must be uncreated and immensly unique and powerful.