05 Sep 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadNow I really wonder! Is it really so hard for you, KM, to understand such a simple thing? Why don't you just state that you express your own -religious and irrational- opinion which it derives from your faith, but you insist to push everybody to accept it as logical, radical and stable?
I 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.
[b]Isn't the term "beginning" meaningless? Surely to say that something has a beginning m ...[text shortened]... sis 1:1 in which there are no verses? (and no I am not talking about the front cover).
You know well that the first Christians were forced to study Maths and Philosophy from the Ancient Greeks in order to get a mere chance to convince them for the stable basis of their religion. Today the good Christians are forced to know a thing or two about our nowdays science, otherwise they end up in a tangled forest of common sens from which they cannot escape. BTW I wonder what Pink Floyd could say regarding this matter.
So, once more, instead of debating we get preaching. That much regarding the "foundations of reason";
05 Sep 08
Originally posted by black beetle----Something that is said to have "begun" must have logically not been or not existed----
Now I really wonder! Is it really so hard for you, KM, to understand such a simple thing? Why don't you just state that you express your own -religious and irrational- opinion which it derives from your faith, but you insist to push everybody to accept it as logical, radical and stable?
You know well that the first Christians were forced to study Ma ...[text shortened]... more, instead of debating we get preaching. That much regarding the "foundations of reason";
How is putting forward this logical argument seen by you as "preaching"?
If it is irrational then by all means feel free to smash it down.
05 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterIt is already smashed. Did you missed the previous posts by twhitehead and AH?
----Something that is said to have "begun" must have logically not been or not existed----
How is putting forward this logical argument seen by you as "preaching"?
If it is irrational then by all means feel free to smash it down.
06 Sep 08
knightmeister,
I notice that you have not responded to my last few posts. I feel that your argument has been utterly refuted and the claim that you have repeatedly made over the course of a number of months is clearly false (i.e. that finite dimensions cannot logically exist).
I would appreciate it if you would admit that you recognize that to be the case. I am concerned that you might in future suddenly repeat the claim as if it is an obvious fact.
Note that I am not claiming that time is finite nor asking you to subscribe to such a claim.
07 Sep 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadSorry , too many threads at the moment.
knightmeister,
I notice that you have not responded to my last few posts. I feel that your argument has been utterly refuted and the claim that you have repeatedly made over the course of a number of months is clearly false (i.e. that finite dimensions cannot logically exist).
I would appreciate it if you would admit that you recognize that to be the ...[text shortened]... t.
Note that I am not claiming that time is finite nor asking you to subscribe to such a claim.
I think that existence being finite implies nothingness or a state of non-existence. For me the only way nothingness can be kept at bay is if the "somethingness" is limitless. The Universe is obviously expanding and getting bigger so how can it increase in size if it is finite and what lies "outside" it to enable it to expand?
There may be a way for existence to be discontinuous and finite but it would require an explanation for how such an existence began.
My argument is that nothingness begets nothingness and that without anything at all nothingness would just "carrry on eternally being nothing" (terms used hesistantly). So for me the idea that existence (God , universe or whatever) is without beginning and eternal seems more logical by far , and as yet there has been no clear simple reason given why my position is so irrational.
Your circle seems very unsatisfactory because there is no explanation of why the circle begins to exist and it also bears little resemblance to our universe.
07 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeister…The Universe is obviously expanding and getting bigger so how can it increase in size if it is finite and what lies "outside" it to enable it to expand? …
Sorry , too many threads at the moment.
I think that existence being finite implies nothingness or a state of non-existence. For me the only way nothingness can be kept at bay is if the "somethingness" is limitless. The Universe is obviously expanding and getting bigger so how can it increase in size if it is finite and what lies "outside" it to ...[text shortened]... on of why the circle begins to exist and it also bears little resemblance to our universe.
KellyJay recently displayed this very same misunderstanding so I have adapted my reply I gave to him to explain it to you here:
The space in the universe is finite and yet unbounded. If it wasn’t for the rapid expansion of the universe, if you could make a spaceship travel in a perfect straight line in the 3D space for long enough, it will eventually arrive back to the point in space where it started. The same would apply to a beam of light.
The problem here is that you are imagining some kind of spherical “boundary” in 3 dimensions around the universe and, as this universe expands, this spherical “boundary” has to move itself into some kind of 3D space surrounding it. But, not only is here no kind of 3D space surrounding it, there is no boundary! Instead the expansion that occurs here only consists of an increase in the total 3D space contained WITHIN it.
In practical terms, if it wasn’t for the continues expansion of the universe, if you shone a beam of light in one direction and it continued unobstructed for long enough, it would arrive back at the point in space where it was shone from! -But the point here is that the more 3D space there in in the universe, the longer it would take for that bean of light to arrive back to its origin.
ALL of 3D space is contained within the universe and the universe expands because the 3D space itself expands. So you don‘t need an "outside" it to enable it to expand for you don’t need it to expand onto “new areas” of space. Instead, for it to expand, the 3D space ITSELF within the universe expands -that is all!. There is no space “just outside” the universe.
…Your circle seems very unsatisfactory because there is no explanation of why the circle begins to exist and it also bears little resemblance to our universe.,…
1, there was a point in time when there was “no before” meaning there was no points in time that came before it which means at no point in time did our universe “did not exist“. Therefore, no “explanation of why” the universe began is required (as you suggest) because there is no requirement to “explain” the process of going from “not existing” to “existing” because at no point in time did the universe “not exist”.
2, a circle bears resemblance to our universe at least in one respect:
The circumference of a circle is finite in length and yet unbounded in one dimensions for the circumference line has no end.
The space in the universe is finite in 3D volume and yet unbounded in 3 dimensions for the 3D volume has no end.
07 Sep 08
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton1, there was a point in time when there was “no before” meaning there was no points in time that came before it which means at no point in time did our universe “did not exist“. Therefore, no “explanation of why” the universe began is required (as you suggest) because there is no requirement to “explain” the process of going from “not existing” to “existing” because at no point in time did the universe “not exist”. [WORD TOO LONG]
[b]…The Universe is obviously expanding and getting bigger so how can it increase in size if it is finite and what lies "outside" it to enable it to expand? …
KellyJay recently displayed this very same misunderstanding so I have adapted my reply I gave to him to explain it to you here:
The space in the universe is finite and yet unbounded. ...[text shortened]... verse is finite in 3D volume and yet unbounded in 3 dimensions for the 3D volume has no end.[/b]
I do partially understand what you are trying to say. Bear in mind that I do not believe in "time" as such , I believe that time is a human concept used to describe consecutive events and motion. So for me to talk about time as if it were substantial (like a rock or magnetism ) is a bit meaningless.
That aside if you say the following............
**** " there is no requirement to “explain” the process of going from “not existing” to “existing” because at no point in time did the universe “not exist”.******
...my immediate thought is that it's not the existence or non-existence of time (whatever this mysterious time is) that makes me feel that an explanation is required. The question that still remains is "why is there existence at all?" OR "why is it there (as opposed to not there)".
The scientific details of time / space etc do not take away from this question and do not diminish the requirement. For example , if the universe had mass but was frozen in time (or let's say time did not exist) the question "why is there a universe at all?" could still be asked meaningfully.
Please try and understand that it's not about "time" for me , I only use time based expressions.There is no reason at all why space/time might just form part of a large number of extra dimensions (Brian Greene imagines 11 I think) and space/time exists within these dimensions. Time (or different forms of time) could also exist outside the universe since we simply do not know what's out there or beyond or "before". We don't even know if the universe just forms a tiny fraction of a much bigger reality of unimaginable dimensions , but you seem certain that this universe is all that there is? What evidence do you have for this?
This is my beef with the circle idea or your idea. The question "why is there a circle?" OR "why is there a universe?" is still valid. This philosophical question does not go away because of your science.
However , you could say there is no "why?" because the universe did not begin and if it did not begin then it is the supreme uncaused foundation of all reality that is eternal without beginning or end.
The problem is you ARE saying that it DID begin but at the same time trying to evade the requirement to ask the question "why did it begin?" . Saying that this is not required just because of some neat time theory is just not on and I think you know this.
So , why does the universe exist? Or is this just not a "meaningful" question?
07 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterLets take it step by step.
Sorry , too many threads at the moment.
I think that existence being finite implies nothingness or a state of non-existence. For me the only way nothingness can be kept at bay is if the "somethingness" is limitless. The Universe is obviously expanding and getting bigger so how can it increase in size if it is finite and what lies "outside" it to ...[text shortened]... on of why the circle begins to exist and it also bears little resemblance to our universe.
You have in the past demonstrated a lack of understanding of dimentions. Lets try and clear that up a bit.
In a given space (this is all abstract), a dimention is like a ruler in that for any point in the given space, the point has one and only one value on the given dimention. A dimention is not unique in that one can often find many other 'rulers' that behave similarly.
Some spaces require more than one dimention to uniquely define the position of a point hence we get one dimentional, two dimentional, three dimentional, four dimentional etc spaces.
The set of points along a line is a one dimentional space.
The set of points along the path of a circle is a one dimentional space. (see definition above).
The set of point on the surface of a sphere is a two dimentional space.
Now given the above, would you agree that:
1. Finite dimentions can and do exist.
2. asking what is 'beyond' a finite dimention eg "what is beyond the end of a circle" is a meaningless question.
3. Reality is known to have at least three spacial dimentions and 1 time dimention.
4. It is not a known fact that time is not a finite dimention.
5. It is not a known fact that the spacial dimentions are not finite.
07 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeister…question that still remains is "why is there existence at all?. …
1, there was a point in time when there was “no before” meaning there was no points in time that came before it which means at no point in time did our universe “did not exist“. Therefore, no “explanation of why” the universe began is required (as you suggest) because there is no requirement to “explain” the process of going from “not existing” to “ex ...[text shortened]... oes the universe exist? Or is this just not a "meaningful" question?
…
…
…"why is there a universe at all?" …
…
1, I don’t think that either question can be rationally answered by anyone including I for there is no real “why” here.
2, To say “the answer is god” is not an answer.
…Time (or different forms of time) could also exist outside the universe since we simply do not know what's out there or beyond or "before".
How do you know that there is something “out there”? or “beyond”?
…We don't even know if the universe just forms a tiny fraction of a much bigger reality of unimaginable dimensions , but you seem certain that this universe is all that there is? What evidence do you have for this? .…
the relevant criterion I am using here is that that we must always assume that the probability that something X exists when there is insufficient evidence for its existence to be vanishingly small -even if you cannot prove that X does not exist. The reason for this is because, without this criterion, I would have to conclude that there is a 50% probability that Santa exists because I cannot either prove or disprove Santa’s existence -that would be, of course, a silly conclusion. So I have no evidence that there does not exist anything outside our universe but neither have I have any evidence that things DO exist outside our universe -so using my criterion (for the reason given) I must assume the probability of there something existing outside our universe to be small although I do not totally discount the possibility entirely.
…However , you could say there is no "why?" because the universe did not begin
......
Err.. No. The universe DID begin. -it just didn’t have a cause and there was no “before” -to say there was a point in time when there was no “before” implies that it began at that point in time.
…. The problem is you ARE saying that it DID begin but at the same time trying to evade the requirement to ask the question "why did it begin?"
….
How can I be “invading” the question "why did it begin?" when I don’t think there is any reason why it began?
07 Sep 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonHow do you know that there is something “out there”? or “beyond”?
[b]…question that still remains is "why is there existence at all?. …
…
…
…"why is there a universe at all?" …
…
1, I don’t think that either question can be rationally answered by anyone including I for there is no real “why” here.
2, To say “the answer is god” is not an answer.
…Time (or different forms of time) could also exis ...[text shortened]... e question "why did it begin?" when I don’t think there is any reason why it began?
--------hamilton-----------------------
I did not say I know , and you don't know either , but in saying that questions like these are meaningless you are implying you do know , and you don't. I admire your faith though.
07 Sep 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonErr.. No. The universe DID begin. -it just didn’t have a cause and there was no “before” -to say there was a point in time when there was no “before” implies that it began at that point in time.
[b]…question that still remains is "why is there existence at all?. …
…
…
…"why is there a universe at all?" …
…
1, I don’t think that either question can be rationally answered by anyone including I for there is no real “why” here.
2, To say “the answer is god” is not an answer.
…Time (or different forms of time) could also exis ...[text shortened]... e question "why did it begin?" when I don’t think there is any reason why it began?
------------------------hamilton--------------------
Easy , it began roughly 12 billion years ago , I can say pretty much when it began , and by implication you believe that it just began for no cause from no time , it's just that you don't like the sound of it.
07 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI don’t think there is any reason why it began?
[b]…question that still remains is "why is there existence at all?. …
…
…
…"why is there a universe at all?" …
…
1, I don’t think that either question can be rationally answered by anyone including I for there is no real “why” here.
2, To say “the answer is god” is not an answer.
…Time (or different forms of time) could also exis e question "why did it begin?" when I don’t think there is any reason why it began?
-----hamilton-----------------
At last you admit that it is a great unexplainable mystery , inpenetrable to science or rationality. The foundations of existence itself are utterly beyond reason and explanation. No reason or rationale for it. We could never understand it in 1000,0000 trillion years. Science (given enough time) will flounder on the shores of the Big Bang.
Cool. Maybe mysticism/spirituality is not such a bad way of looking at reality after all?
08 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterCool. Maybe mysticism/spirituality is not such a bad way of looking at reality after all
I don’t think there is any reason why it began?
-----hamilton-----------------
At last you admit that it is a great unexplainable mystery , inpenetrable to science or rationality. The foundations of existence itself are utterly beyond reason and explanation. No reason or rationale for it. We could never understand it in 1000,0000 trillion years. S ...[text shortened]... .
Cool. Maybe mysticism/spirituality is not such a bad way of looking at reality after all?
I'm sorry, but what does this even mean? If, for example, we conclude that there are currently no "satisfactory" answers or warranted positive beliefs concerning cosmological origins, then where do you think that leaves us, again? Forgive me, but I always get confused by your grand conclusion in this area because it's not clear to me what you are trying to say.
Presumably, I guess you are trying to say that we shouldn't be so hard on the theist who just chalks up "the foundations of existence" to some god concept. But, all you seem to be doing is rendering such a god concept meaningless. If, as you claim, "the foundations of existence itself are utterly beyond reason and explanation"; and if one just sort of vaguely equates such things with "god"; then their god concept is utterly beyond reason and explanation. Pretty meaningless concept in terms of propositional content.
So, if someone wants to vaguely just chalk up all the mysteries of existence and call it "god", then whatever: their "god" is meaningless.
Why not just remain silent where we are not in a position to make justified claims? Of course we can use mysticism/spirituality as vehicles for non-cognitive expression and still "remain silent". That's what I prescribe. But I wouldn't necessarily call that a "way of looking at reality".
08 Sep 08
Originally posted by LemonJelloHi LJ and everybody🙂
[b]Cool. Maybe mysticism/spirituality is not such a bad way of looking at reality after all
I'm sorry, but what does this even mean? If, for example, we conclude that there are currently no "satisfactory" answers or warranted positive beliefs concerning cosmological origins, then where do you think that leaves us, again? Forgive me, but I always ...[text shortened]... cribe. But I wouldn't necessarily call that a "way of looking at reality".[/b]
KM simply asks the good ole big "Why", just like as the ancient good ole philosophers used -and the nowdays ones use- to do. But, my friend KM, your hypothesis does not fulfill the 8 philosophical principles due to which is determined if an argument has or has not philosophical potential, so we see that your argument is falling in bits under the hammer of the critic mind. Before you suggest that I am blind please keep in mind that, for example, philosopher Anaximandrus took over from his great teacher Thales trying to improvise and proposed that the Earth has the shape of a cylinder. Yes, today we Know and we accept (Science!) that the Earth is not as Anaximandros supposed it was, however from this false but logical idea evolved the theory of Copernicus. So from a false yet philosophical hypothesis we may finally find the truth (when our philosophical "Why" looks stable and holds water, then bit by bit, with the trial and error process and thanks to the scientific finds and evidence we may manage to find out the "How", which of course emerges only through the Science).
Dear KM, the point here is that your thesis is profoundly theological instead of philosophical, because it clearly faills if we examine it under the 8 philosophical aspects, which they help us to determine if there is any philosophical value in a specific opinion like ie yours.
On the other hand, Science today does not back up at all your theological thesis because it clearly fails due to our scientific finds and evidence, no matter if you or me or everybody else in person can or cannot understand this fact.
Therefore your thesis (not "hypothesis" anymore because it is apocalyptical instead of philosophical) has not the slightest practical (scientific) or philosophical value, as it was expected from the very begining of his thread. Your thesis, and your beliefs deriving from this specific thesis, is merely based on your religion and it is as rational as the thesis: "Let's suppose that Zeus, the king of the Gods, had a headache. So he had a headache, which was cured after His Head was wid open and from its interior springed his daughter Athena, with her armour and all". How can you expect that such a thesis could be acceptable today?