03 Sep 08
3 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonTo say it was “CREATED” implies a cause for its beginning
[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 tion” (“explanations” of beginnings are just descriptions of the causes of those beginnings).[/b]
-------hamilton-----------------------------
Just as for me when you say it has a beginning that implies nothingness. You cannot find a beginning if something is eternal and its only if existence is eternal that will keep nothingness at bay.
You phrase it one way ("there was no before , it can't come from anything" )
I phrase it another (it came from nothing) , but the semanitic are not the issue here. The phenomenon is. And that phenomenon is irrational and paradoxical.
My general feeling is that although you challenge the phrase "existence comes from nothing" on the basis that it is scientifically inaccurate , I actually think you don't like it because it more directly expresses the central paradox.
Saying , "it didn't come from nothing , because there was no from or before" may sound great but essentially it is the same truth expressed in an indirect way. It's like the man who says "I didn't lie , technically I witheld the truth".
I think you don't like the idea that the universe began from nothing because it's much more than counter- intuitive , it's actually irrational. Saying it began from nothing is more direct and simple and makes us think more about what a shocking thing it would be.
03 Sep 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThat “THERE” is in continuous space and therefore the analogy doesn’t work.--------------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]
Most analogies work some ways and not others. You have found the way it doesn't now look at the way it does.
04 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterI am trying to help you to understand the concept and all you can do is try to derail the explanation? I thought you were better than that.
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.
1. You have claimed that a finite dimension cannot exist as it would imply the existence of nothing beyond its boundary.
2. I have countered by providing a concrete example of a finite dimension that is known to exist. And further queried whether or not noting exists beyond its boundary.
3. You have admitted that nothing exists beyond its boundary and have not denied the existence of my finite dimension example.
4. I therefore claim the case close, and the best you can do is say 'duh?' and repeat the argument that has been proven flawed. Methinks it is mind-reading time. What motivation do you have for holding onto an argument that has been proven flawed?
04 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeister…. You phrase it one way ("there was no before , it can't come from anything" )
To say it was “CREATED” implies a cause for its beginning
-------hamilton-----------------------------
Just as for me when you say it has a beginning that implies nothingness. You cannot find a beginning if something is eternal and its only if existence is eternal that will keep nothingness at bay.
You phrase it one way ("there was no before , i ...[text shortened]... rect and simple and makes us think more about what a shocking thing it would be.
I phrase it another (it came from nothing) ,
…
One does not mean the other.
"there was no before , it can't come from anything" = “it did NOT “came from nothing” ”
There is no paradox here.
Also, my “wants” and what may or may not “shock” me has no influence on my analysis (as you subsequently implied) and, in any case, I am not “shocked” by any of the suggestions being put forward here.
04 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterThat is simply not true.
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.
1. There is no rational reason for applying the internal rules of a system to the system itself. More importantly, you are confusing two very different classes of things simply because they are often labbeled with the same word 'beggining'. In reality, they do not have in common the very attribute that you wish to use to apply the observed rules of one to the other.
2. Your claim "A beginning is always accompanied by a cause." is not proven and infact you have provided no evidence for it whatsoever, and despite being challenged on it many times, you still repeat it as if it is known and agreed fact.
At best, current physics claims that there are many beginings which either have no cause or no known cause and that if there is a cause then that cause is unknowable.
04 Sep 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere is no rational reason for applying the internal rules of a system to the system itself.--------------whitey---------------
That is simply not true.
1. There is no rational reason for applying the internal rules of a system to the system itself. More importantly, you are confusing two very different classes of things simply because they are often labbeled with the same word 'beggining'. In reality, they do not have in common the very attribute that you wish to use to apply t ...[text shortened]... have no cause or no known cause and that if there is a cause then that cause is unknowable.
And there's no rational reason to not apply them either. But since they are the only rules we have and the only rationale we have it seems reasonable to apply them otherwise we might as well say anything goes.
04 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonNevertheless you are a human being who has emotions and biases.
[b]…. You phrase it one way ("there was no before , it can't come from anything" )
I phrase it another (it came from nothing) ,
…
One does not mean the other.
"there was no before , it can't come from anything" = “it did NOT “came from nothing” ”
There is no paradox here.
Also, my “wants” and what may or may not “shock” me has ...[text shortened]... ed) and, in any case, I am not “shocked” by any of the suggestions being put forward here.[/b]
Let me ask. How do you know that the Universe has a beginning anyway? Isn't the term "beginning" meaningless? Surely to say that something has a beginning means that there was a time was it was not there.
Maybe semantically the universe is eternal , but then science says it is 12 billion years old.
05 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeister…. Nevertheless you are a human being who has emotions and biases….
Nevertheless you are a human being who has emotions and biases.
Let me ask. How do you know that the Universe has a beginning anyway? Isn't the term "beginning" meaningless? Surely to say that something has a beginning means that there was a time was it was not there.
Maybe semantically the universe is eternal , but then science says it is 12 billion years old.
Don’t confuse the two: “emotions” does not equal “biases”.
I have emotions AND I am capable of thinking objectively and “objectively” means “without bias”.
Do you deny that it is possible to think objectively?
…. Let me ask. How do you know that the Universe has a beginning anyway?….
Science.
…Isn't the term "beginning" meaningless? Surely to say that something has a beginning means that there was a time was it was not there. ......
Not if there was no “before” -and that isn’t a matter of semantics -it is a matter of logic.
05 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterWhat a load of crap and you know it. I have just pointed out that there is in fact no rationale for applying the rules. It is you that wants an 'anything goes' scenario, so long as that 'anything' is your particular thing.
And there's no rational reason to not apply them either. But since they are the only rules we have and the only rationale we have it seems reasonable to apply them otherwise we might as well say anything goes.
Lets try out your logic on your favorite book.
1. Every verse in the Bible can be referenced by book, chapter and verse.
2. Every verse has a preceding verse, open the book anywhere you like and you will see that is true.
3. But Genesis 1:1 doesn't seem to have a preceding verse. That is impossible as there is nothing before Genesis 1:1 and we all know that nothing is a stupid concept.
4. Therefore the Bible must be infinite.
5. Further, since the rule holds withing the Bible, we must be able to apply it to the Bible itself i.e. there must have been a preceding Bible ad infinitum.
Obviously the above is the only rationale we have so it seems reasonable otherwise we might as well say anything goes!
05 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterI personally don't. But that is not important. You are seeking to prove that it is impossible, which although it would be proven false should the universe be known to have a beginning, but would not be proven true if the universe was known to not have a beginning.
Let me ask. How do you know that the Universe has a beginning anyway?
Isn't the term "beginning" meaningless? Surely to say that something has a beginning means that there was a time was it was not there.
Not at all. I looked it up in a dictionary and found no such rule in any of the definitions. On a finite dimension, it is perfectly possible for a beginning to have no 'before'. I have already given two perfectly valid and undeniable examples of this so you have no excuse for repeating the mistake. The beginning of a line of longitude is at 90 degrees south. There is nothing further south than the south pole. You have admitted as such. The beginning of the Bible is Genesis 1:1 which is usually translated as starting with "In the beginning..." has no prior verses. i.e. no 'before'. Is there a part of the Bible prior to Genesis 1:1 in which there are no verses? (and no I am not talking about the front cover).