Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on March 28, 2020, 07:59:46 PM
-
Did the universe pop out of nothing?
Can science even answer that if science is a matter of observation and measurement?
-
I don't know, do you? Is there such a state as nothing, anyway?
Science has posited such things as matter/anti-matter particles and the inherent instability of space. Look on the internet and find the latest research would be my advice.
I know you haven't mentioned a god in all this, but exactly the same two questions *could be asked about whichever creator god one cares to name, the only difference being that we have plenty of evidence that this universe exists, but none that I'm aware of that any god exists.
*although it could be said that it is a pointless line of questioning unless and until evidence of a god's existence is forthcoming.
-
Did the universe pop out of nothing?
Can science even answer that if science is a matter of observation and measurement?
What is nowhere? What is nothing? Can nothing ever be?
-
I don't know, do you? Is there such a state as nothing, anyway?
Science has posited such things as matter/anti-matter particles and the inherent instability of space. Look on the internet and find the latest research would be my advice.
I know you haven't mentioned a god in all this, but exactly the same two questions *could be asked about whichever creator god one cares to name, the only difference being that we have plenty of evidence that this universe exists, but none that I'm aware of that any god exists.
*although it could be said that it is a pointless line of questioning unless and until evidence of a god's existence is forthcoming.
Some think we can conceptualise something popping out of nothing but then again how would we know it didn't beam in from somewhere.
If we say something's been around for ever then that poses problems for science since it cannot be observed or measured.
So popping out of nothing or being eternal are non natural events.
If you argue that something is eternal you give up your right to criticise someone else for believing that something is eternal.
-
What is nowhere? What is nothing? Can nothing ever be?
Sorry to sound a bit flip but isn't nothing the absence of anything?
-
Sorry to sound a bit flip but isn't nothing the absence of anything?
What is that? If nothing were to exist then it would be something in which case it isn't nothing. To repeat, can nothing ever be?
-
I know you haven't mentioned a god in all this, but exactly the same two questions *could be asked about whichever creator god one cares to name, the only difference being that we have plenty of evidence that this universe exists, but none that I'm aware of that any god exists.
I haven't but you are free to detect a god in anything I subsequently say.
As far as I can see the universe was either created in other words that could merely mean it was contingent on something else that is eternal, It is eternal itself even though everything observed so far seems contingent or it popped out of nothing. It comes down to those three.
-
Response to Vlad's Post 3:
Some think we can conceptualise something popping out of nothing but then again how would we know it didn't beam in from somewhere.
All I can say about nothing is that it is the absence of something. I find it impossible to conceptualise nothing, I can only conceptualise something.
If we say something's been around for ever then that poses problems for science since it cannot be observed or measured.
One idea is that the universe goes through a continuous process of expansion and contraction. In theory, this could be ascertained and measured. I can't see why it would be a problem for science at all, especially as it has been proposed by scientists.
So popping out of nothing or being eternal are non natural events.
Assuming by 'natural' events you mean those that are investigable by science, why would you come to that conclusion? If either were true, why couldn't they be natural events/states which science has not yet discovered?
If you argue that something is eternal you give up your right to criticise someone else for believing that something is eternal.
Well that's obvious isn't it! However even if I believed that something is 'eternal' it would depend upon the exact nature of the 'eternal' that is proposed by this 'someone else'. Hence, I would reserve the right to criticise about the nature of this 'eternity'.
-
I haven't but you are free to detect a god in anything I subsequently say.
As far as I can see the universe was either created in other words that could merely mean it was contingent on something else that is eternal, It is eternal itself even though everything observed so far seems contingent or it popped out of nothing. It comes down to those three.
Or, for instance, the universe could be contingent on something else that is itself contingent on something else ad infinitum. The only eternal quality in this scenario is the process of contingency itself.
-
Response to Vlad's Post 3:
All I can say about nothing is that it is the absence of something. I find it impossible to conceptualise nothing, I can only conceptualise something.
fair enough
One idea is that the universe goes through a continuous process of expansion and contraction. In theory, this could be ascertained and measured. I can't see why it would be a problem for science at all, especially as it has been proposed by scientists.
Assuming by 'natural' events you mean those that are investigable by science, why would you come to that conclusion? If either were true, why couldn't they be natural events/states which science has not yet discovered?
Well that's obvious isn't it! However even if I believed that something is 'eternal' it would depend upon the exact nature of the 'eternal' that is proposed by this 'someone else'. Hence, I would reserve the right to criticise about the nature of this 'eternity'.
Yes it's one idea, Other ideas from equally respected scientists have it not doing that.
If it were true it would have either have started so we are back to 1) It being contingent
on something else 2) popped out of nothing or been doing it forever.
At the very least physicists believe at a big crunch or big bang the rules of physics break down and this might make scientific analysis impossible.
It might leave no remnant of the previous universe. That might make it impervious to science.
And after all that...... popping into existence, creation by something else or being eternal are not susceptible to scientific investigation.
-
Try YouTube:
A Universe from nothing Lawrence Krauss AAI 2009
And good luck if you understand it!
ippy
-
Or, for instance, the universe could be contingent on something else that is itself contingent on something else ad infinitum. The only eternal quality in this scenario is the process of contingency itself.
But I would move that you can't have contingency without a necessary.
Quick analogy. Supposing I wanted a fiver(the universe) and you agreed to lend it to me when nearly sane lent it to you......and this went back infinitely. I don't think I would ever get the fiver. Providing something is what infinites don't seem to do.
Now if I get a fiver it is because somewhere at a point in this chain somebody has put a fiver into the system(the necessary). Try YouTube:
A Universe from nothing Lawrence Krauss AAI 2009
And good luck if you understand it!
ippy
That book is a standing joke amongst many scientists. Chiefly because what Krauss describes as nothing is a something.
-
One day science might come up with the answer, if it does I doubt any god type entity will be responsible for the creation of the universe.
-
Try YouTube:
A Universe from nothing Lawrence Krauss AAI 2009
And good luck if you understand it!
ippy
To be fair if Krauss really believes that the universe came out of a literal nothing.....that would be impenetrable in terms of establishing it by the scientific process.
-
One day science might come up with the answer, if it does I doubt any god type entity will be responsible for the creation of the universe.
And that is your belief LR and I have to respect that.
Since science is about measurement and observation though in the case of the universe popping out of nothing science is going to have a huuuuuuuuuge problem observing and confirming the ''nothing'' aspect of that.
If the universe is eternal then how can that be observed and measured?
To say ''oh science will come up with something'' is scientism......a form of belief.
-
One day science might come up with the answer, if it does I doubt any god type entity will be responsible for the creation of the universe.
Are you open to the idea of the universe being created but by a non god type entity then?
-
But I would move that you can't have contingency without a necessary.
Quick analogy. Supposing I wanted a fiver(the universe) and you agreed to lend it to me when nearly sane lent it to you......and this went back infinitely. I don't think I would ever get the fiver. Providing something is what infinites don't seem to do.
Now if I get a fiver it is because somewhere at a point in this chain somebody has put a fiver into the system(the necessary). . . .
And I would say that it is just as problematic to have a 'necessary' without asking the same question of contingency about it. If you are simply going to say that it is a case of special pleading to have a necessary, then I can suggest that I can use special pleading at whatever point I wish, also. So, for me, your analogy of the 'fiver' is simply a case of special pleading.
-
Are you open to the idea of the universe being created but by a non god type entity then?
If the universe was created by any sort of entity, how was it created?
-
And I would say that it is just as problematic to have a 'necessary' without asking the same question of contingency about it. If you are simply going to say that it is a case of special pleading to have a necessary, then I can suggest that I can use special pleading at whatever point I wish, also. So, for me, your analogy of the 'fiver' is simply a case of special pleading.
To counter your line......having contingency without necessity is like there being train drivers without the invention of trains.
It is highly illogical therefore to suggest contingency without necessity.
Something therefore has to be necessary i.e. it is it's own reason and explanation and that is either the universe as a whole or there is part or an aspect of the universe which is the necessary entity or there is an external necessary.
You cannot pull the old special pleading ruse here I'm afraid.
-
If the universe was created by any sort of entity, how was it created?
I don't know but I can't rule it out.
-
And I would say that it is just as problematic to have a 'necessary' without asking the same question of contingency about it. If you are simply going to say that it is a case of special pleading to have a necessary, then I can suggest that I can use special pleading at whatever point I wish, also. So, for me, your analogy of the 'fiver' is simply a case of special pleading.
quite simply ,Vlad IS a special pleader. All his posts have one aim . Don't be duped into playing his little game
-
To counter your line......having contingency without necessity is like there being train drivers without the invention of trains.
It is highly illogical therefore to suggest contingency without necessity.
Something therefore has to be necessary i.e. it is it's own reason and explanation and that is either the universe as a whole or there is part or an aspect of the universe which is the necessary entity or there is an external necessary.
You cannot pull the old special pleading ruse here I'm afraid.
You have just illustrated your own problem with your train analogy. There are train drivers because there are trains. So why stop at the invention of trains without them being a contingency of other causes/reasons? I suggest that it's because you don't wish to go there. In other words, I suggest that you don't wish to deal with the contingency element however far one goes back. That to me is special pleading. I'll have none of it.
-
You have just illustrated your own problem with your train analogy. There are train drivers because there are trains. So why stop at the invention of trains without them being a contingency of other causes/reasons? I suggest that it's because you don't wish to go there. In other words, I suggest that you don't wish to deal with the contingency element however far one goes back. That to me is special pleading. I'll have none of it.
Enki firstly it isn't my problem if you can't follow the basic logic of necessity and contingency.
Secondly all you have ended up arguing for is an eternal universe and if that is the case there still has to be a necessary aspect for contingency. What then is it.
Thirdly you are treating my analogy like a homology.
I suppose you could eliminate all problems regarding an infinite resulting in a universe if a follows b follows c to infinity by making this circular but then you would have reinvented the perpetual motion machine.
If you are saying therefore that the universe is it's own necessity then please show what this is, where I can find it and what dimensions and properties i'm looking for.
But at the end of the day you cannot have contingency without necessity...…….period.
-
You have just illustrated your own problem with your train analogy. There are train drivers because there are trains. So why stop at the invention of trains without them being a contingency of other causes/reasons? I suggest that it's because you don't wish to go there. In other words, I suggest that you don't wish to deal with the contingency element however far one goes back. That to me is special pleading. I'll have none of it.
Can you demonstrate therefore that the universe is eternal then? That it's contingency going back infinitum?
-
Vlad,
Did the universe pop out of nowhere and nothing?
I have no idea, and nor have you. Nor as "popping out" implies a prior state and time itself is a property of the universe do I know if the question is even coherent. What I do know though is that you're attempting to insinuate the cosmological argument, which will fails because it's a particularly bad argument (admittedly from a suite of bad arguments) that some theists try to justify their belief "god(s)".
-
Vlad,
I have no idea,
Fair enough
What I do know though is that you're attempting to insinuate the cosmological argument, which will fails because it's a particularly bad argument
[/quote]
Seems ok when Neil De Grasse Tyson makes it.
-
Vlad,
I have no idea, and nor have you. Nor as "popping out" implies a prior state and time itself is a property of the universe do I know if the question is even coherent. What I do know though is that you're attempting to insinuate the cosmological argument, which will fails because it's a particularly bad argument (admittedly from a suite of bad arguments) that some theists try to justify their belief "god(s)".
Not sure I agree with most of that but once you have discounted external creation then you are left with an infinite and eternal universe or its having popped out of nothing.
-
Not sure I agree with most of that but once you have discounted external creation then you are left with an infinite and eternal universe or its having popped out of nothing.
What's the alternative?
Either God is eternal or God popped out of nothing. It seems to me you then have the same problem with God that we have with the Universe.
-
What's the alternative?
Either God is eternal or God popped out of nothing. It seems to me you then have the same problem with God that we have with the Universe.
Yes, that is correct.
But observed contingency without apparent necessity is an issue for the universe whereas not so much theology imv.
-
Enki firstly it isn't my problem if you can't follow the basic logic of necessity and contingency.
Secondly all you have ended up arguing for is an eternal universe and if that is the case there still has to be a necessary aspect for contingency. What then is it.
Thirdly you are treating my analogy like a homology.
I suppose you could eliminate all problems regarding an infinite resulting in a universe if a follows b follows c to infinity by making this circular but then you would have reinvented the perpetual motion machine.
If you are saying therefore that the universe is it's own necessity then please show what this is, where I can find it and what dimensions and properties i'm looking for.
But at the end of the day you cannot have contingency without necessity...…….period.
Firstly, Your logic is based on the premise that there has to be a necessary cause which isn't contingent on anything. I have pointed out the problem of identifying that first cause, or even identifying that such a thing exists. It is not my problem if you cannot appreciate the challenges that such a premise produces.
Secondly, I haven't argued for anything at all. I have simply given you alternatives. E.G. the continuous expansion/contraction idea or the idea of infinite contingency. I see problems in all these, just as much as your idea that you can't have contingency without a necessary.
Thirdly, then don't produce analogies which have no particular use in the context of which we were discussing by putting in an arbitrary necessary.
Finally, I have not said that I favour any of these conjectures including the 'circular' argument. Indeed I see problems in all of them. so I see no reason to argue for any of them.
-
Can you demonstrate therefore that the universe is eternal then? That it's contingency going back infinitum?
I'll repeat my first sentence in post 1:
I don't know, do you?
There's a hole in my bucket, Dear Liza, Dear liza.
-
Firstly, Your logic is based on the premise that there has to be a necessary cause which isn't contingent on anything. I have pointed out the problem of identifying that first cause, or even identifying that such a thing exists.
Logic and reason dictate it must exist but what or where it is is undemonstrable. I think we both agree on that. In other words contingency/necessity is the order of the day whether the universe has a beginning or was infinite.
I did see an idea which someone called True Contingency but I thought that what they were saying boiled down to ''Popping out of nothing''.
-
Logic and reason dictate it must exist but what or where it is is undemonstrable. I think we both agree on that. In other words contingency/necessity is the order of the day whether the universe has a beginning or was infinite.
What to do, Vlad, is study a few other universes and see if you can uncover a pattern and then let us know what you find: after all, a sample of just the one universe isn't going to be enough to be reasonably sure.
-
Yes, that is correct.
But observed contingency without apparent necessity is an issue for the universe whereas not so much theology imv.
Why? Because God is imaginary but the Universe is real?
-
Why? Because God is imaginary but the Universe is real?
God is imaginary is a positive assertion so please justify.
A universe of just contingency is the logical fantasy here.
-
What to do, Vlad, is study a few other universes and see if you can uncover a pattern and then let us know what you find: after all, a sample of just the one universe isn't going to be enough to be reasonably sure.
I keep telling you Gordon i'm not about to run any errands for you.
There is of course multiverse theory but even there some debate exists whether it can be science since you cannot actually investigate them.
-
Vlad,
Not sure I agree with most of that but once you have discounted external creation then you are left with an infinite and eternal universe or its having popped out of nothing.
No, you’re left with an eternal universe or a universe that appeared by some method – quantum borrowing for example. “Popped out of nothing” is just a descriptive poisoning of the well you’re attempting.
But observed contingency without apparent necessity is an issue for the universe whereas not so much theology imv.
That’s because theology apparently accepts “it’s magic innit” as an explanation. It isn’t though. Not even close.
There is of course multiverse theory but even there some debate exists whether it can be science since you cannot actually investigate them.
Like you can’t investigate the claim “god” you mean?
-
I keep telling you Gordon i'm not about to run any errands for you.
There is of course multiverse theory but even there some debate exists whether it can be science since you cannot actually investigate them.
I'm not the one speculating about universes though: you are, and I just wondered how much data you had at your disposal.
-
Vlad,
No, you’re left with an eternal universe or a universe that appeared by some method – quantum borrowing for example.
And how would that be different from an eternal universe? Since whence is the borrowing from?
On the other hand if a universe has to borrow from an external source that is external creation.
Don't forget Krauss made a bit of a laughing stock of himself over a universe from nothing.....but not from accounts as much as Dawkins did.
-
I'm not the one speculating about universes though: you are, and I just wondered how much data you had at your disposal.
I'm more interested in finding out what in the universe is the necessity from which all this contingency is derived. Logic dictates it....If it is ''natural'' a concept I find pretty dodgy, then science should be on the lookout for it.
-
God is imaginary is a positive assertion so please justify.
A universe of just contingency is the logical fantasy here.
......and there it fuckin is! ::)
-
......and there it fuckin is! ::)
Great son of nutty slack it's Walter!
-
I'm more interested in finding out what in the universe is the necessity from which all this contingency is derived. Logic dictates it....If it is ''natural'' a concept I find pretty dodgy, then science should be on the lookout for it.
The problem there though is what methods science could use to look out for a first cause if this first cause is outwith our universe: if, of course, anything can be outwith our universe.
-
The problem there though is what methods science could use to look out for a first cause if this first cause is outwith our universe: if, of course, anything can be outwith our universe.
There are none.....as there are none to establish whether the universe appeared out of nothing spontaneously......or any to establish whether the universe is in fact eternal. And that as far as I can see is a problem for naturalism and scientism.
-
Great son of nutty slack it's Walter!
its in my blood Vlad!
https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.minersadvice.co.uk%2Fimages%2Fshaftsinkers.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.minersadvice.co.uk%2Fhatfieldmain.htm&tbnid=QBiv-xh3to9AGM&vet=12ahUKEwiQ-7v-n8DoAhUFcxQKHXFyDO8QMyg3egUIARCHAQ..i&docid=g_i1gsj4PSfCpM&w=386&h=259&q=hatfield%20main%20pit&ved=2ahUKEwiQ-7v-n8DoAhUFcxQKHXFyDO8QMyg3egUIARCHAQ
-
its in my blood Vlad!
https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.minersadvice.co.uk%2Fimages%2Fshaftsinkers.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.minersadvice.co.uk%2Fhatfieldmain.htm&tbnid=QBiv-xh3to9AGM&vet=12ahUKEwiQ-7v-n8DoAhUFcxQKHXFyDO8QMyg3egUIARCHAQ..i&docid=g_i1gsj4PSfCpM&w=386&h=259&q=hatfield%20main%20pit&ved=2ahUKEwiQ-7v-n8DoAhUFcxQKHXFyDO8QMyg3egUIARCHAQ
I take my hat of to you.
-
I take my hat of to you.
no need . My ancestors , not I.
My dad and grandfathers and uncles all had beautiful gardens. When not down the pit they were in their gardens, sunlight and fresh air .It was as if the flowers came from nowhere !
-
NOWHERE
NOW HERE
-
There are none.....as there are none to establish whether the universe appeared out of nothing spontaneously......or any to establish whether the universe is in fact eternal. And that as far as I can see is a problem for naturalism and scientism.
Not a problem, Vlad: an issue certainly, but when it comes to science (as opposed to whatever 'scientism is in the Vlad-universe) gaining knowledge is an incremental process, so it pays to be patient.
-
God is imaginary is a positive assertion so please justify.
Nah. I don’t think I’ll bother.
A universe of just contingency is the logical fantasy here.
That’s a positive assertion. Please justify.
-
Nah. I don’t think I’ll bother.
That’s a positive assertion. Please justify.
You cannot have contingency without necessity.
-
You cannot have contingency without necessity.
Can you justify that?
-
Can you justify that?
That's just simple logic Jeremy.
Things are either explained by other things (contingent) or they are explained adequately by themselves(necessary).
-
I don't know, do you? Is there such a state as nothing, anyway?
Science has posited such things as matter/anti-matter particles and the inherent instability of space. Look on the internet and find the latest research would be my advice.
I know you haven't mentioned a god in all this, but exactly the same two questions *could be asked about whichever creator god one cares to name, the only difference being that we have plenty of evidence that this universe exists, but none that I'm aware of that any god exists.
*although it could be said that it is a pointless line of questioning unless and until evidence of a god's existence is forthcoming.
I believe most who have tried to prove no God and the universe having no creator are left with the only answer... God did it. What would be the chances of one earth appearing out of a void with life on it and everything to sustain that life? Let me know if you find another. ( SERIOUSLY HOPE EVERYONE KEEPING WELL AND INDOORS BE GOOD AND KIND TO ONE ANOTHER PRAYING YOU ALL MAKE IT THROUGH.LOVE SASSY.
-
Sorry to sound a bit flip but isn't nothing the absence of anything?
Much like there are multiple infinities, there's nothing and then there's nothing. In some contexts a total vacuum is 'nothing', but we know there are spontaneous quantum fluctuations occuring there that briefly manifest and then destroy miniscule amounts of matter, anti-matter, energy and 'anti-energy'.
We currently don't have anything that detect or measure any extra-universal effects in order to be able to validate any hypotheses about what might or might not have happened in the events leading up to the inception of the universe; we have some notions about possible multiverses and parallel universe concepts, but currently no way to test them.
In the future, who knows what we might discover. So far, science has been reliable but we're aware that it's limited in scope - we've been expanding that scope to try to answer more questions, like this one.
O.
-
Not sure I agree with most of that but once you have discounted external creation then you are left with an infinite and eternal universe or its having popped out of nothing.
Or both. Why's that a problem?
O.
-
There are none.....
We currently don't know of any - that's not the same as 'there are none' or we could effectively demonstrate there is no god by the same argument.
as there are none to establish whether the universe appeared out of nothing spontaneously......or any to establish whether the universe is in fact eternal.
Absolutely, although they seem the likely conclusions from the information we do have. You're always welcome to suggest a better hypothesis if you have new information.
And that as far as I can see is a problem for naturalism and scientism.
It would seem that you choose not to see very far...
O.
-
Vlad,
And how would that be different from an eternal universe? Since whence is the borrowing from?
It doesn’t come “from” anywhere in the sense you imply. Theoretically quantum physics permits energy levels less than zero. Here’s an article (that you’ll almost certainly just ignore) to get you started:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191002102750.htm
On the other hand if a universe has to borrow from an external source that is external creation.
Only if the “external source” was itself a creator, but no matter. Quantum borrowing is just one plausible (albeit currently untestable) hypothesis to explain how the universe could have come about with no “external” anything required.
Don't forget Krauss made a bit of a laughing stock of himself over a universe from nothing.....but not from accounts as much as Dawkins did.
Don’t forget, no he didn’t. What he actually did was to posit a hypothesis – some in the field found it plausible and others did not. That’s how science works, but it doesn’t make the proponent of an argument a “laughing stock” at all
-
That's just simple logic Jeremy.
Things are either explained by other things (contingent) or they are explained adequately by themselves(necessary).
All things?
How is something explained by itself? That would seem circular to me.
-
We currently don't know of any - that's not the same as 'there are none' or we could effectively demonstrate there is no god by the same argument.
Obviously science should and will press on to investigate cosmology barging past people like Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins who proclaim that the ''universe just is''.
But the problem for science is huge in terms observing and measuring extra universe phenomena, nothing, or observing and measuring eternity. There is no mileage in terms of putting one's faith in the previous success in science SINCE THAT SUCCESS HAS ONLY BEEN IN TERMS OF OBSERVING AND MEASURING THINGS AND PROCESSES INSIDE THIS UNIVERSE.
I'm not saying that not being able to penetrate eternal universe etc proves they do not exist so I don't see any warrant for your comment ''we could effectively demonstrate there is no god by the same argument.''
-
All things?
How is something explained by itself? That would seem circular to me.
It's either an external creator or it's the universe.....Take your pick. There not being one is not an option.
-
It's either an external creator or it's the universe.....Take your pick. There not being one is not an option.
I'll take the Universe then. There is evidence that it exists.
-
I believe most who have tried to prove no God and the universe having no creator are left with the only answer... God did it. What would be the chances of one earth appearing out of a void with life on it and everything to sustain that life? Let me know if you find another. ( SERIOUSLY HOPE EVERYONE KEEPING WELL AND INDOORS BE GOOD AND KIND TO ONE ANOTHER PRAYING YOU ALL MAKE IT THROUGH.LOVE SASSY.
What has trying 'to prove no God' any relevance to what I said? I have not said that. Perhaps you need to shut up, rather than get hold of the wrong stick entirely. As for the idea that most suggesting that the earth had no creator are left with only one answer, that God did it, rubbish! There are plenty of people who don't believe that the earth was created by any god, never mind your God.
As for the idea about an earth appearing out of a 'void' whatever that means, with life and everything to sustain life on it:
1) That's a crude and simplistic notion of how it happened according to our best scientific evidence
2) However improbable it might be that such a planet might be formed, as long as the chance is above zero, then it is obviously possible
3) The only life to consider the above would be precisely on such a planet
4) It is too soon for science to show that life has evolved on other planets, but much recent work has been done which shows that it is increasingly possible
As for your second part, I echo those sentiments.
-
Vlad,
Only if the “external source” was itself a creator, but no matter. Quantum borrowing is just one plausible (albeit currently untestable) hypothesis to explain how the universe could have come about with no “external” anything required.
No external to the universe means that the universe is eternal....if these hypotheses are correct.....but again science has a huge problem in measuring and observing eternity.....where would it stand?....It is no use putting faith in the previous success of science since that has only been in the field of observing and measuring things in this universe.
-
I'll take the Universe then. There is evidence that it exists.
I thought you would but alas I have to piss on that bonfire.....Yes, the evidence exists.....but evidence for contingency....and not necessity.
-
Obviously science should and will press on to investigate cosmology barging past people like Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins who proclaim that the ''universe just is''.
I'm not aware of the context of Russell's commentary, but certainly with Professor Dawkins that's being taken grossly out of context - his comments were in relation to whether we should infer from the existence of the universe a creator, he was not talking with regards to a scientific explanation for the inception of our universe.
But the problem for science is huge in terms observing and measuring extra universe phenomena, nothing, or observing and measuring eternity. There is no mileage in terms of putting one's faith in the previous success in science SINCE THAT SUCCESS HAS ONLY BEEN IN TERMS OF OBSERVING AND MEASURING THINGS AND PROCESSES INSIDE THIS UNIVERSE.
I fail to understand what you're trying to say here - it worked before, therefore we can't presume it will continue to work? That it's worked in the past is only a justification in so much as it has worked, we can't presume it's anything more than that? Why does it need to be?
I'm not saying that not being able to penetrate eternal universe etc proves they do not exist so I don't see any warrant for your comment ''we could effectively demonstrate there is no god by the same argument.''
That was one viable interpretation of what you'd written - if that wasn't your intent then fair enough.
O.
[/quote]
-
It's either an external creator or it's the universe.....Take your pick. There not being one is not an option.
On the understanding that 'creator' in this instance may be an extra-universal correlate of physical processes, then yes - it's either an external cause or it's infinite.
O.
-
On the understanding that 'creator' in this instance may be an extra-universal correlate of physical processes, then yes - it's either an external cause or it's infinite.
O.
extra universal correlate of physical processes? Intrigued......Tell on, please.
-
Vlad,
No external to the universe means that the universe is eternal....if these hypotheses are correct.....but again science has a huge problem in measuring and observing eternity.....where would it stand?....It is no use putting faith in the previous success of science since that has only been in the field of observing and measuring things in this universe.
Nope. Science has a well-established and verifiable method to investigate phenomena. Sometimes its tools aren’t sufficient to investigate possible explanations, so they remain hypotheses – ie, propositions that are coherent, logically consistent and at least in principle testable. By contrast “god” has none of these characteristics: it’s incoherent, logically meaningless and has no means of testing even in principle (ie, the problem you always run away from). Hypotheses are in other words potentially either right or wrong; conjectures like “god” on the other hand are “not even wrong” – they’re just white noise.
In short, no matter how big you think the problem to be when science lacks the tools to investigate competing hypotheses, at least they are hypotheses and so sit within the right/wrong paradigm. “God” on the other hand is the negation of an explanation; it’s what people settle for when they’ve just thrown up their hands at the problem.
-
Vlad,
Nope. Science has a well-established and verifiable method to investigate phenomena. Sometimes its tools aren’t sufficient to investigate possible explanations, so they remain hypotheses – ie, propositions that are coherent, logically consistent and at least in principle testable. By contrast “god” has none of these characteristics: it’s incoherent, logically meaningless and has no means of testing even in principle (ie, the problem you always run away from). Hypotheses are in other words potentially either right or wrong; conjectures like “god” on the other hand are “not even wrong” – they’re just white noise.
In short, no matter how big you think the problem to be when science lacks the tools to investigate competing hypotheses, at least they are hypotheses and so sit within the right/wrong paradigm. “God” on the other hand is the negation of an explanation; it’s what people settle for when they’ve just thrown up their hands at the problem.
That makes not one iota of difference to what I said. Any success science has had is at looking at things in the universe from another part of the universe. That is irrelevant to observing and measuring eternity which presumably has to be done by being external to it.
Your faith in science is down to it becoming transcendant…...are you sure you want to go there?
-
Vlad,
That makes not one iota of difference to what I said.
Yes it does. That science sometimes lacks the methods to investigate hypotheses isn’t an argument against science.
Any success science has had is at looking at things in the universe from another part of the universe.
Yes. So?
That is irrelevant to observing and measuring eternity which presumably has to be done by being external to it.
Non sequitur. Why would an eternally old universe necessarily have needed an external agency? (I take it by the way that you didn’t bother to read the article I linked to re quantum borrowing?)
Your faith in science is down to it becoming transcendant…...
What are you even trying to say with the car crash of a sentence?
…are you sure you want to go there?
Where?
Oh, and as you just ignored it can you see the difference I just explained to you between an hypotheses (eg quantum borrowing) and white noise (eg, “god”)?
-
Vlad,
Non sequitur. Why would an eternally old universe necessarily have needed an external agency?
That's the point Hillside!!!! How can you demonstrate the universe is eternal????
Vlad Facepalms.
-
I thought you would but alas I have to piss on that bonfire.....Yes, the evidence exists.....but evidence for contingency....and not necessity.
What about reality then? I assume that our universe is real, and it is entirely possible that there are other universes also which are part of reality. God, we are often told, is real too. Hence, if that is true He is contingent on reality also. Could it be that reality is simply eternal in your scenario, that it is the necessary and simply just is. Remember also that the contingency idea is only evident within the real world.
-
Vlad,
Non sequitur. Why would an eternally old universe necessarily have needed an external agency?
If the universe is eternally old then I think we would be justified in observing that it would be like a perpetual motion machine. What is it then that keeps it going? If nothing external......what is necessary, inside the universe?
-
Vlad,
That's the point Hillside!!!! How can you demonstrate the universe is eternal?
I didn’t claim that it was. I was just saying that an eternally old universe would not imply an external agency.
Vlad Facepalms.
Blue much, much bigger facepalms.
So having watched you duck and dive again can you now grasp that the “problem” science has of lacking the tools to investigate some hypotheses (which some would call more of an opportunity in any case, but ok) is qualitatively different from and lesser than the problem theology has of offering no means at all of investigation of its claims even in principle?
-
What about reality then? I assume that our universe is real, and it is entirely possible that there are other universes also which are part of reality. God, we are often told, is real too. Hence, if that is true He is contingent on reality also. Could it be that reality is simply eternal in your scenario, that it is the necessary and simply just is. Remember also that the contingency idea is only evident within the real world.
If you are saying there has to be an ultimate yes i'd agree with you.
-
Vlad,
If the universe is eternally old then I think we would be justified in observing that it would be like a perpetual motion machine. What is it then that keeps it going? If nothing external......what is necessary, inside the universe?
Again, I wasn't proposing an eternally old universe - I was just correcting your mistake in reasoning. If the universe is eternal though, asking questions about how it works is just an implied argument from personal incredulity, or a god of the gaps. Even if the answer is "don't know", that would provide not one jot of support for the white noise contention "god".
-
Vlad,
Again, I wasn't proposing an eternally old universe - I was just correcting your mistake in reasoning. If the universe is eternal though, asking questions about how it works is just an implied argument from personal incredulity,
No, asking questions of how the universe works is science. Your approach is like the chap who was asked how something works and he replies ''exceeding well''....typical Hillsidian blustery and turdpolish.
So we have an eternal universe (not demonstrable scientifically). There is still the problem that things inside it are observed to be contingent. You have therefore locked your self into this universe with a necessary. Where is it...we ask ourselves.
-
I thought you would but alas I have to piss on that bonfire.....Yes, the evidence exists.....but evidence for contingency....and not necessity.
I didn't say there is evidence that the Universe is necessary, I said there is evidence it exists.
I agree that there is no evidence that the Universe is necessary just as I agree there is no evidence that God is necessary. The determining factor is that the Universe is known to exist.
-
Vlad,
No, asking questions of how the universe works is science.
Wrong again. Asking questions is just asking questions. Science is the application of methods and tools to find the answers to questions. It’s not difficult.
Your approach is like the chap who was asked how something works and he replies ''exceeding well''....typical Hillsidian blustery and turdpolish.
Bullshit. My “approach” is to explain to you that a complete answer, a partial answer or no answer at all tells you nothing whatever about the likelihood of “god” as the alternative. It’s not difficult.
So we have an eternal universe (not demonstrable scientifically).
No, we have just the hypothesis “eternal universe”.
There is still the problem that things inside it are observed to be contingent.
What problem?
You have therefore locked your self into this universe with a necessary. Where is it...we ask ourselves.
Gibberish. What are you even trying to say here?
-
I didn't say there is evidence that the Universe is necessary, I said there is evidence it exists.
I agree that there is no evidence that the Universe is necessary just as I agree there is no evidence that God is necessary. The determining factor is that the Universe is known to exist.
I think we've realised that but that isn't what the thread is about.
-
If the universe is eternally old then I think we would be justified in observing that it would be like a perpetual motion machine. What is it then that keeps it going? If nothing external......what is necessary, inside the universe?
If the universeGod is eternally old then I think we would be justified in observing that it would be like a perpetual motion machine. What is it then that keeps it going? If nothing external......what is necessary, inside the universeGod?
-
If the universeGod is eternally old then I think we would be justified in observing that it would be like a perpetual motion machine. What is it then that keeps it going? If nothing external......what is necessary, inside the universeGod?
God is necessary and therefore is not contingent...…...on anything to keep him going.
The universe is observed to be entirely made up of contingent things. So either God keeps the universe going.....or started the universe going or there is another necessary in the universe which is responsible for the contingency in it.
-
God is necessary and therefore is not contingent...…...on anything to keep him going.
The universe is observed to be entirely made up of contingent things. So either God keeps the universe going.....or started the universe going or there is another necessary in the universe which is responsible for the contingency in it.
GodThe Universe is necessary and therefore is not contingent...…...on anything to keep himit going.
The universeGod is observed to be ...
... oh, wait, no. God is not observed at all.
-
When you hear from people that can't even separate the difference between those that say that there isn't sufficient viable evidence available to prove this he she or it idea commonly referred to as god exists and those that assert there is no such thing as a god; why would it make anything they say or write worthy of note.
ippy
-
GodThe Universe is necessary and therefore is not contingent...…...on anything to keep himit going.
So far the universe is observed to be made up of contingent things. Demonstrate therefore what is necessary in the universe.
-
God is necessary and therefore is not contingent...…...on anything to keep him going.
The universe is observed to be entirely made up of contingent things. So either God keeps the universe going.....or started the universe going or there is another necessary in the universe which is responsible for the contingency in it.
Their's nothing like 'Star Trek' the TV series Vlad, there you go, another assertion.
ippy.
-
The universe is everything, so there's no nothing for it to pop out of. time and space began with the universe
-
So far the universe is observed to be made up of contingent things. Demonstrate therefore what is necessary in the universe.
Clearly everything in the Universe is contingent on the existence of the Universe itself.
-
When you hear from people that can't even separate the difference between those that say that there isn't sufficient viable evidence available to prove this he she or it idea commonly referred to as god exists and those that assert there is no such thing as a god; why would it make anything they say or write worthy of note.
ippy
'Ang on. I thort vis fred was abaht the youuuuuniverse?
-
Clearly everything in the Universe is contingent on the existence of the Universe itself.
Now that is circular. Still doesn't tell us where the necessary is.....again you've just given us a perpetual motion machine.
To sum your position up
The universe is the sum of all contingent things which depend on the universe which is the sum ofall contingent things which depend on the universe which is the sum of all contingent things...
-
Now that is circular.
How so?
Still doesn't tell us where the necessary is
I already did. Remember you asked me to choose between the Universe and some fictional being you dreamed up? And I chose the Universe on the grounds it exists.
Here is the clue for you: things in the Universe are not the Universe.
again you've just given us a perpetual motion machine.
But in your scenario, God is a perpetual motion machine, unless God is contingent on some creator creator.
The universe is the sum of all contingent things which depend on the universe which is the sum ofall contingent things which depend on the universe which is the sum of all contingent things...
Nope. I never said the Universe is the sum of all contingent things. Guess again.
-
Vlad,
God is necessary and therefore is not contingent...…...on anything to keep him going.
Translation: “I can’t process how the universe could be, therefore magic”. Call that the cosmological argument if you like, but it’s still BS.
The universe is observed to be entirely made up of contingent things. So either God keeps the universe going or started the universe going…
False binary. Either “the universe” is sufficient for its own explanation, or any one of a potentially infinite set of possible casual agents.
…or there is another necessary in the universe which is responsible for the contingency in it.
Like the laws of physics you mean?
-
How so?
I already did. Remember you asked me to choose between the Universe and some fictional being you dreamed up? And I chose the Universe on the grounds it exists.
Here is the clue for you: things in the Universe are not the Universe.
But in your scenario, God is a perpetual motion machine, unless God is contingent on some creator creator.
Nope. I never said the Universe is the sum of all contingent things. Guess again.
OK So the universe is more than the things in it...…...and what is left after you take away all the contingent things must be what is necessary...….Is that what you are saying?
or are you saying that the necessary is an emergent property from the contingent things in it?
-
Like the laws of physics you mean?
So the universe is contingent on the Laws Of Nature then?...…..
-
Vlad,
OK So the universe is more than the things in it...
Standard Vlad straw manning, No-one said that.
-
Vlad,
So the universe is contingent on the Laws Of Nature then?...…..
No, the universe "operates" according to the laws of physics, which is what you asked about.
-
Vlad,
Standard Vlad straw manning, No-one said that.
I'm just checking with him that that is what he means. Attempted derail noted.
-
Vlad,
No, the universe "operates" according to the laws of physics, which is what you asked about.
No i'm after what is necessary in the universe.
-
'Ang on. I thort vis fred was abaht the youuuuuniverse?
There you go Vlad, you don't even understand this post, I very much doubt you're pretending to not understand.
ippy
-
Vlad,
I'm just checking with him that that is what he means. Attempted derail noted.
Stop lying. You were misrepresenting him.
No i'm after what is necessary in the universe.
What's necessary in a deterministic universe is cause and effect. Nothing more.
-
OK So the universe is more than the things in it...…...and what is left after you take away all the contingent things must be what is necessary...….Is that what you are saying?
or are you saying that the necessary is an emergent property from the contingent things in it?
I'm simply saying that the Universe is not the things in it. Claiming that everything in the Universe is contingent is fine. Claiming that the Universe is therefore contingent is a fallacy. You're attempt to trap me in a circularity fails.
-
OK So the universe is more than the things in it...…...and what is left after you take away all the contingent things must be what is necessary...….Is that what you are saying?
or are you saying that the necessary is an emergent property from the contingent things in it?
I suspect you might wandering too close to the fallacy of composition, Vlad.
That the universe contains lots of contingent things does not necessarily mean that the universe must itself be contingent. If the universe is eternal, and I'm not saying it is, then the universe has always existed and there was never a time when the universe didn't exist and therefore the "spacio-temporal" you mentioned previously is a given, and the idea of something necessary that is outwith the universe becomes redundant.
I've heard some Christians apply this approach to their claim of God - so if it can be said that God 'just is' then it could also be said that the universe 'just is'. Of course it is too soon to say - not enough information you see.
-
I'm simply saying that the Universe is not the things in it. Claiming that everything in the Universe is contingent is fine. Claiming that the Universe is therefore contingent is a fallacy. You're attempt to trap me in a circularity fails.
So the universe is not the things in it......or not just the things in it?
That the universe is just the things in it would make the universe contingent is making the fallacy of composition?
That necessity of the universe is not an emergent property?
Have I got this right and if not are you going to tell us how things in the universe are not part of it?
-
I suspect you might wandering too close to the fallacy of composition, Vlad.
That the universe contains lots of contingent things does not necessarily mean that the universe must itself be contingent.
But we also know that it doesn't mean it definitely isn't.
My contention is actually that if all we can observe in the universe is contingent then what is necessary isn't being observed not that it isn't there. I am saying there must be more than contingent things. I am not making then the fallacy of composition.
You cannot have contingency without necessity.....that too would be fallacious, Gordon
-
But we also know that it doesn't mean it definitely isn't.
My contention is actually that if all we can observe in the universe is contingent then what is necessary isn't being observed not that it isn't there. I am saying there must be more than contingent things. I am not making then the fallacy of composition.
You would be if you presumed that since all you can observe of the universe (the part) is contingent then the universe itself (the whole) must also be contingent: it may be, but to confirm that you would need to demonstrate a 'necessary' that is, as you said yesterday, "non spacio temporal".
Moreover, if you allow that there might be a 'necessary' then why can this not be the universe itself and not your preferred 'God', and if you stick with 'God' how do you know that your preferred 'God' isn't itself contingent? An eternal universe would be far tidier, but as I said we don't have enough information as yet.
You cannot have contingency without necessity.....that too would be fallacious, Gordon
Which fallacy do you have in mind?
-
You would be if you presumed that since all you can observe of the universe (the part) is contingent then the universe itself (the whole) must also be contingent:
Yes but i'm not because I am saying that if we dismiss an external creator and spontaneous existence we are left with an eternal universe which contains both the necessary and the contingent.
I cannot be making the fallacy of composition because I am not contending that the universe is just the contingent parts.
I don't know the name of the fallacy but if you are claiming you can have contingency without necessity then you are in the wrong.
-
Yes but i'm not because I am saying that if we dismiss an external creator and spontaneous existence we are left with an eternal universe which contains both the necessary and the contingent.
No - if the universe is itself eternal then I doubt it 'contains' anything that is also eternal, where everything in it that we can know is contingent.
I cannot be making the fallacy of composition because I am not contending that the universe is just the contingent parts
If you recognise that parts of the universe are contingent and then you conclude that the whole universe is contingent, which you would have do if you also claimed a 'necessary' that is external to the universe (the non spacio temporal you mentioned - like 'God'), then you could well be committing the fallacy of composition by denying that the universe could not be an eternal but your choice of 'God' must be.
I don't know the name of the fallacy but if you are claiming you can have contingency without necessity then you are in the wrong.
I'll always concede the possibility that I might be wrong, and I can see that the dichotomy of contingency vs necessity looks nailed-on and in a sense comforting for those who would like of First Cause called 'God'. However, there remains the issue of how to even conceptualise something that is eternal or a necessary is "non spacio temporal", and of course it is important to recognise that there may be some relevant 'unknown unknowns' down the road somewhere that we might one day discover, or maybe not discover, that in some ways extend beyond the assumption that the only options are contingency vs necessity.
Perhaps we should progress on this at some future point - say 500 years or so from now.
-
No - if the universe is itself eternal then I doubt it 'contains' anything that is also eternal, where everything in it that we can know is contingent.
And yet again I have to inform you that what we know does not affect whatever IS in any shape or form.
Secondly, To have contingency without necessity is illogical and irrational. Are you illogical and irrational Gordon?
-
So the universe is not the things in it......or not just the things in it?
It's pretty clear which of those two things I said.
That the universe is just the things in it would make the universe contingent is making the fallacy of composition?
No. You are making the fallacy of composition when you claim that everything in the universe being contingent makes the universe contingent.
That necessity of the universe is not an emergent property?
You tell me. I'm not claiming that the necessity of the Universe (if it is indeed necessary) is an emergent property.
Have I got this right
Have you got anything right?
and if not are you going to tell us how things in the universe are not part of it?
I didn't say things in the Universe are not part of the Universe.
-
If you recognise that parts of the universe are contingent and then you conclude that the whole universe is contingent, which you would have do if you also claimed a 'necessary' that is external to the universe (the non spacio temporal you mentioned - like 'God'), then you could well be committing the fallacy of composition by denying that the universe could not be an eternal but your choice of 'God' must be.
We have not actually eliminated the possibility of external creation or spontaneous appearance.
If we do not know the necessity in the universe that has no bearing on the existence of the necessity.
-
Yes but i'm not because I am saying that if we dismiss an external creator and spontaneous existence we are left with an eternal universe which contains both the necessary and the contingent.
Wrong.
It would be necessary and contain the contingent.
-
Wrong.
It would be necessary and contain the contingent.
OK, show me the necessary.
-
extra universal correlate of physical processes? Intrigued......Tell on, please.
No idea, we have no information (that I'm aware of, at least) on which to base an understanding.
O.
-
OK, show me the necessity.
Why? That the universe is necessary is an assumption we have been working under. I have no idea if it really is or not.
The point is that your arguments are fallacious and you have failed to exclude the possibility that the Universe is necessary.
-
And yet again I have to inform you that what we know does not affect whatever IS in any shape or form.
I'd say the real issue here is what we don't know, Vlad.
Secondly, To have contingency without necessity is illogical and irrational. Are you illogical and irrational Gordon?
No doubt at times I am, not being perfect, but I am also circumspect when it comes to issues like this, and the nature of the universe is a pretty big issue. I'm not as certain as you seem to be, Vlad, and since you mentioned Russell earlier I refer you to his advice: "Do not feel absolutely certain of anything".
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-nature-nurture-nietzsche-blog/201509/bertrand-russells-ten-commandments-0
-
If the universe is eternally old then I think we would be justified in observing that it would be like a perpetual motion machine. What is it then that keeps it going? If nothing external......what is necessary, inside the universe?
The apparent fact that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered in form...
O.
-
I didn't say things in the Universe are not part of the Universe.
So they are PART of the universe...…..Where and what is the rest ?
-
The apparent fact that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered in form...
O.
So energy is the necessary?
-
God is necessary and therefore is not contingent...…...on anything to keep him going.
Based on... what, exactly? How did you come to the conclusion that a god is dependent solely upon itself? Where did the god come from?
The universe is observed to be entirely made up of contingent things. So either God keeps the universe going.....or started the universe going or there is another necessary in the universe which is responsible for the contingency in it.
Or there is a broader extra-universal physics to reality, in which our universe manifests.
O.
-
So they are PART of the universe...…..Where and what is the rest ?
I have no idea.
-
So energy is the necessary?
Energy is, at least in our universe, and it seems to conform to the law of conservation of energy. If this is a broader facet of reality at large then our universe's possible eternal nature is simply an expression of that, possibly cyclic possibly not.
O.
-
If necessity were an emergent property of contingent things it would be contingent on them and therefore could not be necessary.
The necessity of the universe could not therefore be emergent.
We must look elsewhere.
-
Based on... what, exactly? How did you come to the conclusion that a god is dependent solely upon itself? Where did the god come from?
He is necessity itself and not an abstract one at that.
-
If necessity were an emergent property of contingent things it would be contingent on them and therefore could not be necessary.
The necessity of the universe could not therefore be emergent.
We must look elsewhere.
Who said that, as regards the universe, necessity was an emergent property?
-
Energy is, at least in our universe, and it seems to conform to the law of conservation of energy. If this is a broader facet of reality at large then our universe's possible eternal nature is simply an expression of that, possibly cyclic possibly not.
O.
But surely energy is contingent in the sense that it's form and the magnitude and location of it are contingent on other things.
-
Who said that, as regards the universe, necessity was an emergent property?
I just put it up to keep you guys on the straight and narrow. We still have to find out, if Jeremy is saying that contingent things are part of the universe, what the other presumably non contingent things are.
-
He is necessity itself and not an abstract one at that.
Again, based on what?
O.
-
I just put it up to keep you guys on the straight and narrow. We still have to find out, if Jeremy is saying that contingent things are part of the universe, what the other presumably non contingent things are.
So, and leaving aside your natural playfulness, what non-contingent things would you envisage Jeremy (or indeed anyone else) might advise you of?
-
But surely energy is contingent in the sense that it's form and the magnitude and location of it are contingent on other things.
Energy is. Whether it's contingent, and what it might be contingent upon, aren't relevant if you're looking for an explanation of how the universe could be eternal without an external input. Energy is mutable, but not destructible, and therefore could viably have been forever.
O.
-
Again, based on what?
O.
Based on the ultimate necessary being non contingent. You have put forward that energy might fulfil this, that all is dependent on it.
-
So, and leaving aside your natural playfulness, what non-contingent things would you envisage Jeremy (or indeed anyone else) might advise you of?
Having ''dismissed'' God we are still looking for the necessary so I don't know. But then we can hypothesise possibilities Outrider has put forward energy. We know that we don't know because as yet it is unobservable. Is that because it is far away? or does it suffuse everything or because it once existed and now doesn't. Is it by reasons that technically because it should be unchangeable it is obscured from physics? I think we need to explore this.
-
Vlad,
Based on the ultimate necessary being non contingent. You have put forward that energy might fulfil this, that all is dependent on it.
The “ultimate necessity” as you put it for the universe might be itself if the quantum borrowing hypothesis is correct, or it might be some other but currently unknown process. Calling the answer “god” is just relocating the problem somewhere else (what was necessary for this god?), and special pleading this god to be exempt from the problem (“basically, “it’s magic innit”) is no answer at all. That’s why the cosmological argument you’re trying to sneak in always fails.
-
Energy is. Whether it's contingent, and what it might be contingent upon, aren't relevant if you're looking for an explanation of how the universe could be eternal without an external input. Energy is mutable, but not destructible, and therefore could viably have been forever.
O.
Yes that's possible that energy has been around forever.
The problem is though energy would have to change itself for the universe to be realised if energy is the necessary...…..or there is a changer. A particle perhaps. A changion which is unchanged itself perhaps?
-
Vlad,
The “ultimate necessity” as you put it for the universe might be itself if the quantum borrowing hypothesis is correct, or it might be some other but currently unknown process. Calling the answer “god” is just relocating the problem somewhere else (what was necessary for this god?), and special pleading this god to be exempt from the problem (“basically, “it’s magic innit”) is no answer at all. That’s why the cosmological argument you’re trying to sneak in always fails.
I thought we had for the purposes of discussion dismissed God and yet here you are dragging the G word in.
I think you have deep trouble with God and this is affecting your behaviour.
-
Based on the ultimate necessary being non contingent. You have put forward that energy might fulfil this, that all is dependent on it.
Why presume there is an ultimate necessary - why is an infinite reality not viable?
For clarity, I've not posited energy as an 'ultimate necessary', merely as an explanation for how can envision an eternal universe - we don't even know if the concept of energy, as we understand it in our four-dimensional backwater of reality is a viable concept outside of our universe.
O.
-
Yes that's possible that energy has been around forever. The problem is though energy would have to change itself for the universe to be realised if energy is the necessary...…..or there is a changer. A particle perhaps. A changion which is unchanged itself perhaps?
Why would it? Energy hits plants (condensed energy) and gets converted from sunlight and component parts to a chemical compound in which biologically accessible energy is stored... it's all energy, nothing outside of energy involved. Why is that not an example of what could be a larger (perhaps more complex, but perhaps not) system of energy interactions which resulted in a universe?
O.
-
Vlad,
The “ultimate necessity” as you put it for the universe might be itself if the quantum borrowing hypothesis is correct, or it might be some other but currently unknown process. Calling the answer “god” is just relocating the problem somewhere else (what was necessary for this god?), and special pleading this god to be exempt from the problem (“basically, “it’s magic innit”) is no answer at all. That’s why the cosmological argument you’re trying to sneak in always fails.
Iseem to remember a time when you thought the Kalam Cosmological argument was the only cosmological argument.
How I laughed at that one.
-
Vlad,
I thought we had for the purposes of discussion dismissed God and yet here you are dragging the G word in.
I think you have deep trouble with God and this is affecting your behaviour.
Like rats in the sewer, your faux seriousness here doesn’t hide what you’re trying to sneak in. Even if every answer to the origin of the universe question is “don’t know”, the cosmological argument is still a crock. Give it up.
-
Vlad,
Iseem to remember a time when you thought the Kalam Cosmological argument was the only cosmological argument.
How I laughed at that one.
No you don't, and all variants of the cosmological arguments suffer the same logical flaws that hole them below the water line.
-
Vlad,
Like rats in the sewer, your faux seriousness here doesn’t hide what you’re trying to sneak in. Even if every answer to the origin of the universe question is “don’t know”, the cosmological argument is still a crock. Give it up.
If you think it is a crock demonstrate it is one.....hint. The Kalam cosmological argument is not the only one but it would be nice to just once see you demolish it.
Not holding ma breath though.
Nuther hint.
I don't know, but it ain't God is nota very good look.
-
Vlad,
No you don't, and all variants of the cosmological arguments suffer the same logical flaws that hole them below the water line.
Feel free to demonstrate.
-
Vlad,
If you think it is a crock demonstrate it is one.....hint. The Kalam cosmological argument is not the only one but it would be nice to just once see you demolish it.
Not holding ma breath though.
You know full well the flaws with cosmological argument (and its variants) because they’ve been explained to you many times before now albeit that you either ignore or misrepresent the explanations. Now we’ve smoked out what you’re really up to though, to varying degrees:
1. It’s an argument from personal incredulity fallacy: “I can’t imagine how the universe happened, therefore god”.
2. It’s a god of the gaps fallacy: “No-one can answer my question, therefore god”.
3. It just assumes that determinism within the universe must also be necessary for there to be a universe.
4. It ignores (or is ignorant of) various competing hypotheses that could answer the origin of the universe question.
5. It just transfers the problem of causation somewhere else, then relies on magic to get that something else off the same hook.
6. At best it’s an argument for a causal agent, but not for a necessarily deistic one.
7. Even if you could find a way to argue for a deistic cause that tells you nothing about which deity – ie, it’d be an argument for deism but not for theism.
Just for fun, imagine a Norseman said, “OK, explain thunder then” and was given:
1. A complete scientific explanation; or
2. A partial explanation but with some gaps; or
3. No explanation at all.
Which of these would provide a rationale for Thor would you say?
Is it sinking in yet? Anything?
Nuther hint.
I don't know, but it ain't God is nota very good look.
No, it probably wouldn’t be if anyone ever actually said that. As it’s one of your favourite straw men though, here’s its rebuttal once again: "no good reason to think it’s god" is NOT the same thing as "it isn’t god".
Now write that down 1,000 times, or at least as many times as it takes for you to stop lying about it.
-
Vlad,
Feel free to demonstrate.
I just did.
-
1. It’s an argument from personal incredulity fallacy: “I can’t imagine how the universe happened, therefore god”. THIS ISN'T A COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
2. It’s a god of the gaps fallacy: “No-one can answer my question, therefore god”. NEITHER IS THIS
3. It just assumes that determinism within the universe must also be necessary for there to be a universe.GIBBERISH
4. It ignores (or is ignorant of) various competing hypotheses that could answer the origin of the universe question. COMPETING ARGUMENTS OFTEN DO THAT. THAT'S WHY THEY ARE CALLED COMPETING ARGUMENTS. I THINK YOU ARE CONFLATING THEORISTS FOR THEORIES HERE.
5. It just transfers the problem of causation somewhere else, then relies on magic to get that something else off the same hook. Magic is a world where you have contingency without Necessity.
6. At best it’s an argument for a causal agent, but not for a necessarily deistic one.
7. Even if you could find a way to argue for a deistic cause that tells you nothing about which deity – ie
IF YOU ADMIT THAT A DEISTIC DEITY MIGHT BE A CAUSAL AGENCY AND YOU DO BY SAYING IT'S NOT NECESSARILY ONE THEN YOU'VE Grudgingly accepted that THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT is not fallacious. The cosmological argument......Which never appeared once in your failed demolition of it.
-
2. It’s a god of the gaps fallacy: “No-one can answer my question, therefore god”.
How can it be a ''God of the Gaps argument'' when it seeks to explain the whole universe!!!!!!???????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....God of the Gaps argument indeed.
-
Having ''dismissed'' God we are still looking for the necessary so I don't know. But then we can hypothesise possibilities Outrider has put forward energy. We know that we don't know because as yet it is unobservable. Is that because it is far away? or does it suffuse everything or because it once existed and now doesn't. Is it by reasons that technically because it should be unchangeable it is obscured from physics? I think we need to explore this.
So, as regards necessary agents, the universe, and everything else, you don't know - join the club.
-
http://www.religiouseducation.co.uk/school/alevel/philosophy/cosmological/Kalam_summary.htm
-
Vlad,
I see that you edited out the “…to varying degrees” before the list. The cosmological argument and its variants touches on each of these rebuttals but I didn’t say that each (or any) of them WAS the cosmological argument.
THIS ISN'T A COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
In part it is.
NEITHER IS THIS
In part it is.
GIBBERISH
Which part of the perfectly clear statement “It just assumes that determinism within the universe must also be necessary for there to be a universe” is confusing you?
COMPETING ARGUMENTS OFTEN DO THAT. THAT'S WHY THEY ARE CALLED COMPETING ARGUMENTS. I THINK YOU ARE CONFLATING THEORISTS FOR THEORIES HERE.
I’ve already explained to you the difference between hypotheses and white noise. Why have you just ignored that?
Magic is a world where you have contingency without Necessity.
“Magic” is just the BS the cosmological argument to relies on to get god(s) off the hook of itself not requiring a prior cause.
IF YOU ADMIT THAT A DEISTIC DEITY MIGHT BE A CAUSAL AGENCY…
No-one denies a “might be” – deities and leprechauns alike. What was actually being explained was that, even if you could overcome all the previous problems, there’s no reason to arrive at a deity as the causal agent.
AND YOU DO BY SAYING IT'S NOT NECESSARILY ONE THEN YOU@VE AGREED WITH THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
Bullshit. The cosmological argument is an argument for a god, not for something else. Moreoever, you’ve conveniently excised the part about overcoming the prior problems with it – you haven’t managed to do that though so you’ve yet to arrive at a first cause of any type.
…ever appeared once in your failed demolition of it.
Demolitions don’t fail just because you ignore or straw man their content.
-
So, as regards necessary agents, the universe, and everything else, you don't know - join the club.
I cannot demonstrate scientifically. Shockingly though none of the alternatives is particularly ''natural''. But I think the moral panic amongst some atheists is to preserve the unconsciousness of whatever done it.
-
Vlad,
How can it be a ''God of the Gaps argument'' when it seeks to explain the whole universe!!!!!!???????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....God of the Gaps argument indeed.
Because, obviously, it relies on (perceived) gaps in the available explanations for the origin of the universe to rationalise the insertion of "god". It's the same construction as, "you can't explain thunder, therefore Thor".
-
Vlad,
I see that you edited out the “…to varying degrees” before the list. The cosmological argument and its variants touches on each of these rebuttals but I didn’t say that each (or any) of them WAS the cosmological argument.
In part it is.
In part it is.
Which part of the perfectly clear statement “It just assumes that determinism within the universe must also be necessary for there to be a universe” is confusing you?
I’ve already explained to you the difference between hypotheses and white noise. Why have you just ignored that?
“Magic” is just the BS the cosmological argument to relies on to get god(s) off the hook of itself not requiring a prior cause.
No-one denies a “might be” – deities and leprechauns alike. What was actually being explained was that, even if you could overcome all the previous problems, there’s no reason to arrive at a deity as the causal agent.
Bullshit. The cosmological argument is an argument for a god, not for something else. Moreoever, you’ve conveniently excised the part about overcoming the prior problems with it – you haven’t managed to do that though so you’ve yet to arrive at a first cause of any type.
Demolitions don’t fail just because you ignore or straw man their content.
I think you'd have helped your cause by being far more professional and serious and less emotional.
What you should have done is laid the points out and then attacked them point for point.
-
Vlad,
I cannot demonstrate scientifically.
No, you cannot demonstrate AT ALL. That's why you always run away when asked for a method to distinguish your claims from just guessing. Remember?
Shockingly though none of the alternatives is particularly ''natural''.
Alternatives to what? All the hypotheses I know of are naturalistic. "God" can't be an alternative until and unless you find some way to elevate it from white noise.
But I think the moral panic amongst some atheists is to preserve the unconsciousness of whatever done it.
Bizarre assertion. What "moral panic" do you think you've found?
-
Vlad,
I think you'd have helped your cause by being far more professional and serious and less emotional.
Avoidance noted.
What you should have done is laid the points out and then attacked them point for point.
There was nothing to attack. Ignoring the arguments or straw manning them does not equal counter-arguments. Try again...
...on second thoughts though...
-
http://www.religiouseducation.co.uk/school/alevel/philosophy/cosmological/Kalam_summary.htm
-
Vlad,
Avoidance noted.
There was nothing to attack. Ignoring the arguments or straw manning them does not equal counter-arguments. Try again...
...on second thoughts though...
More projection than a chain of cinemas
-
Vlad,
Because, obviously, it relies on (perceived) gaps in the available explanations for the origin of the universe to rationalise the insertion of "god"multiverse, Simulated universe, infinite universe, spontaneous universe..... It's the same construction as, "you can't explain thunder, therefore Thor".
There cleared that up for you.
-
Vlad,
http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/kalam.html
-
Vlad,
Because, obviously, it relies on (perceived) gaps in the available explanations for the origin of the universe to rationalise the insertion of multiverse, Simulated universe, infinite universe, spontaneous universe..... It's the same construction as, "you can't explain thunder, therefore Thor".
The first six words of the article YOU linked to are: “The cosmological argument for God's existence…
Let me repeat that last three as they seem to have escaped you: “…for God’s existence…”. I’ll correct it back for you:
Because, obviously, it relies on (perceived) gaps in the available explanations for the origin of the universe to rationalise the insertion of “god”. It's the same construction as, "you can't explain thunder, therefore Thor".
Such fun when you think you’ve scored a point only for you it to blow up in your face. Can I suggest that you stop making a habit of it though? It’s not a good look.
-
Vlad,
The first six words of the article YOU linked to are: “The cosmological argument for God's existence…
Let me repeat that last three as they seem to have escaped you: “…for God’s existence…”. I’ll correct it back for you:
Such fun when you think you’ve scored a point only for you it to blow up in your face. Can I suggest that you stop making a habit of it though? It’s not a good look.
Yes and you were invited to demolish the argument not you conflating the argument with the arguers.
-
If you are saying there has to be an ultimate yes i'd agree with you.
However I'm not saying that of course. I've already suggested scenarios where your premise of a necessary cause does not apply. I just thought it might be interesting to follow your idea that there has to be a necessary cause and make a suggestion as to what that necessary might be. The idea of reality being the necessary cause would encompass whatever reality contains. I have no particular bias in favour of any of the suggestions put forward in this topic at all.
-
I cannot demonstrate scientifically.
You don't say.
Shockingly though none of the alternatives is particularly ''natural''.
So what alternatives don't feel "particularly natural" to you? Remember too that there may be more to the natural than is currently known, so I'd suggest it would be wiser to adopt a 'we await more information' stance.
But I think the moral panic amongst some atheists is to preserve the unconsciousness of whatever done it.
You may think that: I couldn't possibly comment, largely because I've no idea what you are trying to say here.
-
“Magic” is just the BS the cosmological argument to relies on to get god(s) off the hook of itself not requiring a prior cause.
Dear oh dear.
If you are prepared to accept the universe has no cause and is eternal then you have no warrant to suggest that nothing else can be eternal. That is special pleading.
-
Dear oh dear.
If you are prepared to accept the universe has no cause and is eternal then you have no warrant to suggest that nothing else can be eternal. That is special pleading.
In which case it would be, and by the same token, special pleading by anyone who claimed that the only eternal first-cause must be the thing they refer to as 'God' - yes?
-
"IF YOU ADMIT THAT A DEISTIC DEITY ..." as opposed to a theistic theity?
-
What came before the Big Bang....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8-oocxPwlM
-
I think you'd have helped your cause by being far more professional and serious and less emotional.
What you should have done is laid the points out and then attacked them point for point.
And have you come back with 'well obviously not THAT version of the cosmological special pleading argument!'. Why don't you formulate the argument as you like it, and then we'll point out the extremely well-established fundamental flaws with it?
O.
-
http://www.religiouseducation.co.uk/school/alevel/philosophy/cosmological/Kalam_summary.htm
Let's begin with (1): the universe either had a beginning or did not have a beginning. Craig offers three arguments in support of a universe with a beginning. Two are philosophical; one is scientific. Here is the first philosophical argument:
1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2. A beginningless series of events in time is an actual infinite.
3. Therefore, a beginningless series of events in time cannot exist.
Premise One
In contemporary set theory, an actual infinite is a collection of things with an infinite number of members, for example, a library with an actually infinite set of books or a museum with an actually infinite set of paintings. One of the unique traits of an actual infinite is that part of an actually infinite set is equal to whole set. For example, in an actually infinite set of numbers, the number of even numbers in the set is equal to all of the numbers in the set. This follows because an infinite set of numbers contains an infinite number of even numbers as well as an infinite number of all numbers; hence a part of the set is equal to the whole of the set. Another trait of the actual infinite is that nothing can be added to it. Not one book can be added to an actually infinite library or one painting to an actually infinite museum.
This fundamentally misrepresents set theory by conflating two infinities as being equal - like zero, infinity is not a number it's a mathematical concept, and there are different infinities. This fails to establish that an infinite series is impossible, and therefore fundamentally undermines the first premise.
While these counter-intuitive paradoxes might make sense at the level of mathematical theory, they do not make much sense in the real world of books and libraries.
This particular line seems disengenuous to me - we aren't talking about the everyday, we're talking about the entirety of existence and the potential for an all-powerful creator - these are outside of the boundaries of the day-to-day intellectual short-cuts and estimates that normally suffice.
Having given three arguments to show that the universe had a beginning, we can move on to the second dilemma posed by the KCA: if the universe had a beginning, the beginning was either (a) caused or (b) uncaused. Before discussing the (a) option, we should consider what is becoming a common response to this dilemma from those critical of the cosmological argument. Some theorists speculate that before Plank's time (10 to the negative 43 seconds after the universe began) the universe came into existence out of a quantum mechanical fluctuation. Hence some argue that the universe came out of nothing. Moreland, however, rightly points out that identifying nothingness with something, in this case a mechanical fluctuation, is a mistake; nothingness does not cause anything, let alone fluctuate or bring a universe into existence. Astronomer Hugh Ross notes that one of these theorists, Alan Guth, remarked that "such ideas are speculation squared." Put more concretely, there are three main problems with the quantum fluctuation speculation: it is based upon (1) a non existent theory of quantum gravity, (2) the use of imaginary numbers, and (3) the assumption that the universe was in a quantum state in its early beginning and thus had an indeterminate beginning.
Oh boy. Actually, quantum theory, and experimental observation, supports the contention that something can, and indeed does, come from nothing on a regular basis. At least part of the flaw, here, is seeing 'nothing' as some sort of ground state from which every 'something' is up. Nothing is the balance point, and can be split into equal parts matter and anti-matter - no net change, but localised and specific differences. Something (and anti-something, which is still not nothing) spontaneously emerging.
All of which is to fail to appreciate that the contention the universe 'came from nothing' is a shorthand for 'came from nothing within the universe', which is the current limit of science's remit. It says nothing about what might or might exist outside of the universe, or how that might have been involved in the start of any universes.
Under the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics, there needs to be someone to observe the quantum fluctuation that produced the universe.
Another misunderstanding, not confined to Lane-Craig - the 'observer' in this depiction doesn't need to be a conscious, or even living, thinking being. The observer is whatever 'device' is measuring in the experiment, and when translated to behaviour in relating correlates with whatever physical interaction comes next in the chain - it could be an electron waiting to either change energy levels and emit a photon or remain where it is, it's the 'observer'.
Further, this entire section is a 'gaps' argument - there are questions about various scientific interpretation of a natural cause for a universe, but nothing actually supporting the idea of a conscious creator, just scepticism about the current (or in the case of Professor Hawking's quote, a very dated) scientific commentary. At best that reduces to 'we still don't know' - specifically:
Put more concretely, there are three main problems with the quantum fluctuation speculation: it is based upon (1) a non existent theory of quantum gravity, (2) the use of imaginary numbers, and (3) the assumption that the universe was in a quantum state in its early beginning and thus had an indeterminate beginning.
That we don't have a theory of quantum gravity yet doesn't mean there isn't one.
If the use of imaginary numbers discounts science, why doesn't the use of imaginary gods discount religion? Imaginary numbers are well-validate, well-established part of the mathematical framework that operate in more than the four-dimensional space we currently intellectually operate in; that said, I don't actually see any reference to imaginary numbers in the account, I think this is a misunderstanding of the concept of infinity only being partially operable as a number.
There are a number of promising ideas that are based on the extrapolation back from our earliest information on the state of the universe which lead to ideas around a quantum state, but until there's a break-through that's just one type of hypothesis.
First, what does it mean to say that the cause of the universe is a natural one? Natural causes exist within the universe, not outside of it. If something preceded the universe, then by definition it is not a natural cause, because the laws of nature came into existence after whatever preceded the universe.
Do they? None of Oxford, Merriam-Webster or Cambridge online dictionaries mention 'the universe' (or a synonym) in their definition of 'natural'. Natural causes do exist within the universe, but there is nothing to say they are limited to it. That we, in normal conversation, tend to mean it to refer to things within the universe is an artefact of the fact that we reside entirely within the universe, not as a deliberate attempt to differentiate.
Second, if the cause of the universe is a sufficient cause, meaning that the existence of the cause alone guarantees the existence of the universe, the universe would always have existed.
Depending on whether you see Block Time as valid, the universe may have always existed for it's full extent, but regardless of that... there is a presumption in this that the extra-universal reality is static, somehow - perhaps it is, but we have no way to know. If Block Time is invalid, then the universe has still 'always' existed to the extent that particular dimension of time that we're referring to is part of the universe and came into existence with the universe - it's literally exactly as old as time itself.
This fails to establish why only a conscious necessary agent is not static; it's a failed argument, but even then it's still an argument against a particular theory of a natural cause and not an argument in favour of a conscious one.
Overall, this particular framing evades the most egregious special pleading variants that William Lane-Craig's typical variations do, but it's still flawed at every single stage.
O.
-
In which case it would be, and by the same token, special pleading by anyone who claimed that the only eternal first-cause must be the thing they refer to as 'God' - yes?
In the version of the Kalam cosmological argument I gave the reference for, one of the premises acknowledges that the eternal first cause could be either personal or impersonal and then I believe goes on to argue for the personal. So no special pleading as such.
On the other hand others from Aristotle through to Aquinas and to Feser today have 'claimed' that the first cause is what we call God. Basically Classic theism staked a claim. Why they did so is probably an extended argument and why different religions claim a different version is I move down to different arguments.
-
"IF YOU ADMIT THAT A DEISTIC DEITY ..." as opposed to a theistic theity?
I actually don't know why Hillside didn't go as far theistic theity although I have come across atheists who grudgingly admit the possibility of a deistic God IMO because a deistic God isn't worried about things like atheism….or people for that matter. A deistic God leaves a universe confortably God Free.
-
In the version of the Kalam cosmological argument I gave the reference for, one of the premises acknowledges that the eternal first cause could be either personal or impersonal and then I believe goes on to argue for the personal. So no special pleading as such.
On the other hand others from Aristotle through to Aquinas and to Feser today have 'claimed' that the first cause is what we call God. Basically Classic theism staked a claim. Why they did so is probably an extended argument and why different religions claim a different version is I move down to different arguments.
Vlad
The KCA is special pleading par excellence, from start to finish, and especially as peddled by the odious Lane Craig.
See Outrider's excellent recent post.
-
And have you come back with 'well obviously not THAT version of the cosmological special pleading argument!'. Why don't you formulate the argument as you like it, and then we'll point out the extremely well-established fundamental flaws with it?
O.
Why don't you? I'm not about to tell Hillside he should have taken on the Kalam and then taken on each point and let you go scot free.
If there are extremely well-established fundamental flaws then they shouldn't be difficult to point out.
I hope you are not suggesting though The old chestnut ''Everything has a cause'' leading to '' all right then what caused God''......not even Lane Craig argues that.
-
Vlad
The KCA is special pleading par excellence, from start to finish, and especially as peddled by the odious Lane Craig.
See Outrider's excellent recent post.
The KCA that Craig proposes does not begin ''everything has a cause'' Gordon. How is it special pleading?
-
Vlad
The KCA is special pleading par excellence, from start to finish, and especially as peddled by the odious Lane Craig.
See Outrider's excellent recent post.
I am commencing my demolition of it in due course.
-
The KCA that Craig proposes does not begin ''everything has a cause'' Gordon. How is it special pleading?
I didn't say it did, Vlad, but cosmological arguments like the KCA are flawed anyway, as O's recent post highlights.
Lane Craig's tweaking of it, which starts 'The universe has a cause', is just a rearrangement designed to open the door for a causal agent who happens to be his preferred "uncaused, personal Creator of the universe" - hooda thunkit, eh.
When you are doing your "demolition" of Outider's post perhaps you could also say something about Kant's concern that the cosmological argument does lean on the flawed ontological argument.
-
This fundamentally misrepresents set theory by conflating two infinities as being equal - like zero, infinity is not a number it's a mathematical concept, and there are different infinities. This fails to establish that an infinite series is impossible, and therefore fundamentally undermines the first premise. Infinity is a mathematical concept and those who argue for a universe which is infinite spatio temporally, the same yesterday today and tomorrow need to somehow get from infinity being a mathematical concept to a physical reality. A problem some multiverse proposers share. The problem remains ''How can an actual infinity be observed and measured.'' I understand the jury is still out on whether an actual infinity is possible Gauss and Poincare thought not Cantor did.
This particular line seems disengenuous to me - we aren't talking about the everyday, we're talking about the entirety of existence and the potential for an all-powerful creator - these are outside of the boundaries of the day-to-day intellectual short-cuts and estimates that normally suffice.
I thought we were talking about an infinite universe not an all powerful creator. If the universe is infinite then we are talking about the day to day because as I understand it the universe is in many respects the same today as yesterday and tomorrow or to put it mathematically the set represents the infinity.
If what you say is true that there should be no intellectual shortcuts for talking about the entirety of existence then that goes against Hillside equating God creating the universe and Thor making thunder so this paragraph has been somewhat of a win/win for me.
Oh boy. Actually, quantum theory, and experimental observation, supports the contention that something can, and indeed does, come from nothing on a regular basis. At least part of the flaw, here, is seeing 'nothing' as some sort of ground state from which every 'something' is up. Nothing is the balance point, and can be split into equal parts matter and anti-matter - no net change, but localised and specific differences. Something (and anti-something, which is still not nothing) spontaneously emerging.
This nothing of yours sounds suspiciously like a something to me. Nothing IS a balancing point? Nothing is split? Into matter and anti-matter. Unwarranted definition of the concept of nothing there. If you will
All of which is to fail to appreciate that the contention the universe 'came from nothing' is a shorthand for 'came from nothing within the universe', which is the current limit of science's remit. It says nothing about what might or might exist outside of the universe, or how that might have been involved in the start of any universes.
Another misunderstanding, not confined to Lane-Craig - the 'observer' in this depiction doesn't need to be a conscious, or even living, thinking being. The observer is whatever 'device' is measuring in the experiment, and when translated to behaviour in relating correlates with whatever physical interaction comes next in the chain - it could be an electron waiting to either change energy levels and emit a photon or remain where it is, it's the 'observer'.
That is plainly unfair. The article acknowledges in it's version of the Kalam that the first cause or first observer could be impersonal. Craig Lane certainly does make an argument for a personal cause why would he need to do this if he was not aware of the impersonal alternative?
Further, this entire section is a 'gaps' argument - there are questions about various scientific interpretation of a natural cause for a universe, but nothing actually supporting the idea of a conscious creator, just scepticism about the current (or in the case of Professor Hawking's quote, a very dated) scientific commentary. At best that reduces to 'we still don't know' - specifically:
That we don't have a theory of quantum gravity yet doesn't mean there isn't one.
If the use of imaginary numbers discounts science, why doesn't the use of imaginary gods discount religion? Imaginary numbers are well-validate, well-established part of the mathematical framework that operate in more than the four-dimensional space we currently intellectually operate in; that said, I don't actually see any reference to imaginary numbers in the account, I think this is a misunderstanding of the concept of infinity only being partially operable as a number.
There are a number of promising ideas that are based on the extrapolation back from our earliest information on the state of the universe which lead to ideas around a quantum state, but until there's a break-through that's just one type of hypothesis.
Do they? None of Oxford, Merriam-Webster or Cambridge online dictionaries mention 'the universe' (or a synonym) in their definition of 'natural'. Natural causes do exist within the universe, but there is nothing to say they are limited to it. That we, in normal conversation, tend to mean it to refer to things within the universe is an artefact of the fact that we reside entirely within the universe, not as a deliberate attempt to differentiate.
Depending on whether you see Block Time as valid, the universe may have always existed for it's full extent, but regardless of that... there is a presumption in this that the extra-universal reality is static, somehow - perhaps it is, but we have no way to know. If Block Time is invalid, then the universe has still 'always' existed to the extent that particular dimension of time that we're referring to is part of the universe and came into existence with the universe - it's literally exactly as old as time itself.
This fails to establish why only a conscious necessary agent is not static; it's a failed argument, but even then it's still an argument against a particular theory of a natural cause and not an argument in favour of a conscious one.
Overall, this particular framing evades the most egregious special pleading variants that William Lane-Craig's typical variations do, but it's still flawed at every single stage.
O.
Again with all claims of an infinite universe how are you going to observe and measure this? A natural cause of the universe? External to it? That just extends the universe....besides the kalam argument as made in the article does recognise that the external creator is either personal or impersonal. I agree science is currently not remitted for an external creator.That you are bent on it being impersonal is due to a commitment to a belief rather than where the argument takes us.
-
If necessity were an emergent property of contingent things it would be contingent on them and therefore could not be necessary.
The necessity of the universe could not therefore be emergent.
We must look elsewhere.
Nobody except you has said necessity is an emergent property.
-
Nobody except you has said necessity is an emergent property.
And rapidly poo pooed the idea to be fair.
The fallacy of composition is for example. A wall is made up of small bricks therefore the wall is small.
But the walls largeness emerges from it's bricks.(right)
The universe is made up of contingent things therefore the universe is contingent (fallacy of composition)
But the necessity of the universe emerges from it's contingency(wrong). Wrong because if necessity emerges it cannot be necessary.
But that leaves us with the question. where is the necessity of the universe?
-
I see there's no progress with Vlad then, round and around lots of you must be feeling giddy by now.
You never get anywhere with Vlad, what's that expression? A lost cause?
ippy
-
I see there's no progress with Vlad then, round and around lots of you must be feeling giddy by now.
You never get anywhere with Vlad, what's that expression? A lost cause?
ippy
You 'ere again Ippy...Causing bother and that?
-
You 'ere again Ippy...Causing bother and that?
Verify, 'Vacuous', Vlad.
ippy
-
Again with all claims of an infinite universe how are you going to observe and measure this? A natural cause of the universe? External to it? That just extends the universe....besides the kalam argument as made in the article does recognise that the external creator is either personal or impersonal. I agree science is currently not remitted for an external creator.That you are bent on it being impersonal is due to a commitment to a belief rather than where the argument takes us.
Is this meant to be your "demolition" of O's post?
-
Is this meant to be your "demolition" of O's post?
All right then ''making radical alterations''. You seemed to take it uncritically as a kind of lullaby for atheists IMHO.
-
Vlad,
I am commencing my demolition of it in due course.
Ooh, I think I feel a premonition coming on – no you won’t. Not even close. You’ll duck and dive, divert, straw man, fundamentally misunderstand or misrepresent everything he said etc but the one thing you categorically will not do is to demolish it.
Let’s see if I’m right shall we?
Still, on the bright side at least we've exposed that you had no intention of discussing the origin of the universe at all but instead wanted to sneak in the cosmological argument. So that's progress of a kind I suppose.
-
Infinity is a mathematical concept and those who argue for a universe which is infinite spatio temporally, the same yesterday today and tomorrow need to somehow get from infinity being a mathematical concept to a physical reality. A problem some multiverse proposers share. The problem remains ''How can an actual infinity be observed and measured.'' I understand the jury is still out on whether an actual infinity is possible Gauss and Poincare thought not Cantor did.
This is a philosophical argument, not a scientific proof, so I don't need to measure infinity - I'm not positing a position, I'm highlighting the failings of the Cosmological argument, I'm showing the theoretical validity of the alternative that the argument is trying to discredit.
I thought we were talking about an infinite universe not an all powerful creator. If the universe is infinite then we are talking about the day to day because as I understand it the universe is in many respects the same today as yesterday and tomorrow or to put it mathematically the set represents the infinity.
None of us, on a day-to-day basis, are dealing with the entirety of existence, and so to fall back to 'common sense' impressions is to rely on cognitive biases and shortcuts that haven't been developed to operate at that scale, which is why they're misleading.
If what you say is true that there should be no intellectual shortcuts for talking about the entirety of existence then that goes against Hillside equating God creating the universe and Thor making thunder so this paragraph has been somewhat of a win/win for me.
Hillside is making his own points - we may have disagreements on some elements, agreements on others, but his argument stands or falls by the points he makes, not the points I make, and vice versa.
This nothing of yours sounds suspiciously like a something to me.
That's the current paradigm of 'nothing' - it's entirely possible that the classical contention of 'nothing' doesn't actually exist.
Nothing IS a balancing point? Nothing is split? Into matter and anti-matter. Unwarranted definition of the concept of nothing there.
No, that's the reality of nothing - if you're stuck in a pre-quantum, purely positive energy/matter understanding of physics then you may struggle to accept that. Do you accept that antimatter is a thing? If equal parts anti-matter and matter coincide they eliminate each other and you are left with... That process works in reverse, too.
That is plainly unfair. The article acknowledges in it's version of the Kalam that the first cause or first observer could be impersonal. Craig Lane certainly does make an argument for a personal cause why would he need to do this if he was not aware of the impersonal alternative?
I'm not sure how that's a criticism of the point that I made, I'm fully aware that Craig includes that point in his formulation. In this summary of Craig's position whomever is writing cites the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory and misunderstands the nature of the posited 'observer' in the formulation.
Again with all claims of an infinite universe how are you going to observe and measure this?
Again, for the purposes of this, I don't need to - I just to establish that it's viable, because this formulation of the cosmological argument is attempting a false dichotomy; establishing that even one of the possible alternatives is viable means that the logic fails to flow to support the claim.
A natural cause of the universe? External to it? That just extends the universe....
Right? The limitations of our universe that are highlighted by observation (an apparent start point, the inception of time) lead to the conclusion that it's finite in at least one direction, but that doesn't preclude it being part of something larger. The counterpoint here, a deity external to the universe, already relies on something extra-universal being viable; why should that be a deity but not an alternate physics?
besides the kalam argument as made in the article does recognise that the external creator is either personal or impersonal.
But, critically, fails to provide any support for that idea; it's focussed on attempting to invalid other possibilities, but unless it can identify all the possible alternative explanations, it's always going to fail. It's not a proof of anything, even if it worked, it's merely a revertion to 'we don't know for sure'.
I agree science is currently not remitted for an external creator.
Our current science is limited by practicality rather than ideology to events within the universe; there is no reason to presume that limitation is absolute, nor that anything is beyond science's remit. If there is an external creator, that is a cause that has measurable effects which can therefore be tested.
That you are bent on it being impersonal is due to a commitment to a belief rather than where the argument takes us.
This argument isn't intended to show that there isn't a personal deity, it's to show that this particular formation of an argument intended to show that there is is invalid.
O.
-
Vlad,
Ooh, I think I feel a premonition coming on – no you won’t. Not even close. You’ll duck and dive, divert, straw man, fundamentally misunderstand or misrepresent everything he said etc but the one thing you categorically will not do is to demolish it.
Let’s see if I’m right shall we?
Still, on the bright side at least we've exposed that you had no intention of discussing the origin of the universe at all but instead wanted to sneak in the cosmological argument. So that's progress of a kind I suppose.
The tragedy was that Outrider seemed fated as you all seem to be to follow the error of Krauss's fatal redefinition of nothing and to wrongly characterise the cosmological argument as ''everything has a cause''.
The jury is still out regarding actual spatio temporal infinities but whether they are impossible or not they are not measurable.
I could have gone further. His comparison of Imaginary numbers with imaginary gods was at least poetry, nice but not appropriate in a discussion about imaginary numbers in science.
-
I see there's no progress with Vlad then, round and around lots of you must be feeling giddy by now.
You never get anywhere with Vlad, what's that expression? A lost cause?
ippy
Funny. That’s exactly how I feel when talking to you on the Brexit thread.
-
The tragedy was that Outrider seemed fated as you all seem to be to follow the error of Krauss's fatal redefinition of nothing and to wrongly characterise the cosmological argument as ''everything has a cause''.
The jury is still out regarding actual spatio temporal infinities but whether they are impossible or not they are not measurable.
I could have gone further. His comparison of Imaginary numbers with imaginary gods was at least poetry, nice but not appropriate in a discussion about imaginary numbers in science.
What was Krauss’s definition of nothing?
-
Vlad,
The tragedy was that Outrider seemed fated as you all seem to be to follow the error of Krauss's fatal redefinition of nothing and to wrongly characterise the cosmological argument as ''everything has a cause''.
So now all you have to do is to demonstrate that Krauss’s definition was in error. Good luck with it. (I’ll leave aside too your habit of relentlessly re-defining terms like “materialism” so as to complain that no-one can justify them.)
The jury is still out regarding actual spatio temporal infinities but whether they are impossible or not they are not measurable.
Gibberish.
I could have gone further. His comparison of Imaginary numbers with imaginary gods was at least poetry, nice but not appropriate in a discussion about imaginary numbers in science.
I’ll leave you to your private grief about whatever point it is that you think you’re making here.
-
The tragedy was that Outrider seemed fated as you all seem to be to follow the error of Krauss's fatal redefinition of nothing and to wrongly characterise the cosmological argument as ''everything has a cause''.
Whether I cleave to that definition isn't relevant - it seems sensible to me, but regardless... All I need to show is that it's viable to show that the Cosmological argument cannot dismiss it out of hand.
The jury is still out regarding actual spatio temporal infinities but whether they are impossible or not they are not measurable.
And, again, if I were making a claim that would be important, but as I'm only showing that it's viable that's not a problem.
I could have gone further. His comparison of Imaginary numbers with imaginary gods was at least poetry, nice but not appropriate in a discussion about imaginary numbers in science.
I'm not sure what the idea was that was intended to be communicate, but imaginary numbers are a specific mathematical concept, and doesn't apply to whatever it was was being said here.
O.
-
What was Krauss’s definition of nothing?
Krauss refers variously to nothing as empty space, the quantum vacuum and speculates a 'deeper' nothing where there is no space. Which one is his actual nothing?......as Hillside says ''good luck with that''
-
Whether I cleave to that definition isn't relevant - it seems sensible to me, but regardless... All I need to show is that it's viable to show that the Cosmological argument cannot dismiss it out of hand.
And, again, if I were making a claim that would be important, but as I'm only showing that it's viable that's not a problem.
I'm not sure what the idea was that was intended to be communicate, but imaginary numbers are a specific mathematical concept, and doesn't apply to whatever it was was being said here.
O.
I was surprised that you concentrated on the infinity /not infinity premises in the given version of Kalam. I think that led you talking at cross purposes to the actual argument. The definitions of nothing and what constitutes the universe are not actually standard in both your argument and the KCA. we are meant to take Krauss's redefinition in your argument But arguments for alternatives often do that I suppose.
-
I was surprised that you concentrated on the infinity /not infinity premises in the given version of Kalam. I think that led you talking at cross purposes to the actual argument.
That was the point I was trying to make, is that there are different concepts of infinity, and presuming because one infinity isn't compatible with a particular take on set theory doesn't therefore mean that reality can't be infinite - the crossed-purposes are in the original premise because it fails to differentiate between two different infinities.
The definitions of nothing and what constitutes the universe are not actually standard in both your argument and the KCA. We are meant to take Krauss's redefinition in your argument But arguments for alternatives often do that I suppose.
It's not so much that I (or even Krauss) can define 'nothing' in a different way, as that what we understand nothing to be has been updated. That concept of some sort of inert 'nothing' doesn't appear to be viable within the universe - outside of it, who knows, but that lack of definitive understanding works to my benefit here, because I only need to establish that it's a possibility to show the cosmological argument doesn't work.
O.
-
It's not so much that I (or even Krauss) can define 'nothing' in a different way, as that what we understand nothing to be has been updated. That concept of some sort of inert 'nothing' doesn't appear to be viable within the universe
And that i'm afraid is something irrelevant to the origin of the universe though.
We all know that where there is something there can no longer be nothing. So what.
Who are you deriving your statement that actual infinities possibly exist from?
-
That was the point I was trying to make, is that there are different concepts of infinity, and presuming because one infinity isn't compatible with a particular take on set theory doesn't therefore mean that reality can't be infinite - the crossed-purposes are in the original premise because it fails to differentiate between two different infinities.
It's not so much that I (or even Krauss) can define 'nothing' in a different way, as that what we understand nothing to be has been updated. That concept of some sort of inert 'nothing' doesn't appear to be viable within the universe - outside of it, who knows, but that lack of definitive understanding works to my benefit here, because I only need to establish that it's a possibility to show the cosmological argument doesn't work.
The cosmological argument though is not about things in the universe it is about the origin of the universe. How then if you are going on about what's in the universe possibly demonstrating that the cosmological theory does not work.
Your redefinition or update of the word nothing is just a piece of intellectual dishonesty.
You Krauss and the whole celebrity atheist bandwagon who take to the football pitch with paintbrushes and whitewash ready to draw new lines.
-
Vlad,
Krauss refers variously to nothing as empty space, the quantum vacuum and speculates a 'deeper' nothing where there is no space. Which one is his actual nothing?......as Hillside says ''good luck with that''
No, what he actually does is to explain a plausible method by which the universe could have originated. The job of the theist who would dismiss it is to explain why it isn’t plausible. What “nothing” means is a philosophical as much as a practical definitional question, but “with no particles in it” is the one he uses. Here it is in his own words in an article from The Atlantic (which you’ll doubtless ignore as you ignore everything else, but you shouldn’t – it’s a well-written exposition of what he actually said):
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-religion-obsolete/256203/
Of course once you have your materialist “nothing” you can fill it with whatever immaterial conjectures you like – gods, leprechauns, you name it – but you could equally argue that then you no longer have “nothing” either - just a “no material nothing”, which gives you another definitional problem.
Oh by the way – what happened to your “demolition” of Outy’s falsification of WLC? As I correctly prophesised that you would do no such things do I truly have the power of foresight do you think?
-
And that i'm afraid is something irrelevant to the origin of the universe though. We all know that where there is something there can no longer be nothing. So what.
The point isn't, though, that where there is something there can no longer be nothing, it's that mathematically we can demonstrate that even where there is nothing there is still a background rate of that nothing breaking down into equal parts of something and anti-something. It might be that at some point in the future we find out something that updates the maths, but for now that's the understanding.
Who are you deriving your statement that actual infinities possibly exist from?
I'm not making the case, I'm contending that this claim that actually infinite regression isn't possible is founded on a miscategorisation of some of the various types of inifinity.
O.
-
Vlad,
The cosmological argument though is not about things in the universe it is about the origin of the universe. How then if you are going on about what's in the universe possibly demonstrating that the cosmological theory does not work.
It doesn't work because it relies on a string of premises that it cannot justify. If my unqualified premise is that there are pots of gold at the ends of rainbows, my argument for leprechauns works too.
-
Vlad,
It doesn't work because it relies on a string of premises that it cannot justify. If my unqualified premise is that there are pots of gold at the ends of rainbows, my argument for leprechauns works too.
Leave it out Hillside...….You're just a PR man for atheism.
-
Leave it out Hillside...….You're just a PR man for atheism.
I take that as a retreat in total disarray.
-
it's that mathematically we can demonstrate that even where there is nothing there is still a background rate of that nothing breaking down into equal parts of something and anti-something. It might be that at some point in the future we find out something that updates the maths,
O.
Citation please.
-
Vlad,
Leave it out Hillside...….You're just a PR man for atheism.
This from The Return of "If WLC Says It It Must Be True" Vlad? The irony!
Anyway, which part of "the cosmological argument fails because it cannot justify its premises" confused you such that you had to run away from the problem?
-
I take that as a retreat in total disarray.
And it might be credible if Hillside had actually taken the trouble to take the Kalam Cosmological Argument apart point by point instead of his usual contentless rambles.
You're a mathematician Jeremy.....Can you have an actual infinity?
-
Citation please.
Browne, Malcolm W. (1990) New Direction in Physics: Back in Time
"According to quantum theory, the vacuum contains neither matter nor energy, but it does contain fluctuations, transitions between something and nothing in which potential existence can be transformed into real existence by the addition of energy. (Energy and matter are equivalent since all matter ultimately consists of packets of energy.) Thus, the vacuum's totally empty space is actually a seething turmoil of creation and annihilation, of which to the ordinary world appears calm because the scale of fluctuations in the vacuum is tiny and the fluctuations tend to cancel each other out. Even though they appear calm, they are in a state of restlessness, looking for compatible matter or fluctuations."
Lawrence Krauss' own book that you don't appear to value particularly also covers it some depth.
Mani Lal Bhaumik's 'Comprehending Quantum Theory from Quantum Fields' (2013) also covers it in passing.
O.
-
Vlad,
This from The Return of "If WLC Says It It Must Be True" Vlad? The irony!
Anyway, which part of "the cosmological argument fails because it cannot justify its premises" confused you such that you had to run away from the problem?
I'm a Feser man though and the Prof is highly dubious about the KCA. Though not as highly dubious as he is about the philosophical acumen of the Celebrity atheists.
-
Browne, Malcolm W. (1990) New Direction in Physics: Back in Time
"According to quantum theory, the vacuum contains neither matter nor energy, but it does contain fluctuations, transitions between something and nothing in which potential existence can be transformed into real existence by the addition of energy. (Energy and matter are equivalent since all matter ultimately consists of packets of energy.) Thus, the vacuum's totally empty space is actually a seething turmoil of creation and annihilation, of which to the ordinary world appears calm because the scale of fluctuations in the vacuum is tiny and the fluctuations tend to cancel each other out. Even though they appear calm, they are in a state of restlessness, looking for compatible matter or fluctuations."
Lawrence Krauss' own book that you don't appear to value particularly also covers it some depth.
Mani Lal Bhaumik's 'Comprehending Quantum Theory from Quantum Fields' (2013) also covers it in passing.
O.
Ah, works describing things IN the universe.
-
Vlad,
This from The Return of "If WLC Says It It Must Be True" Vlad? The irony!
My actual line Hillside is the universe is either eternal, arose spontaneously, or had an external creator. At present Outrider has merely stated that actual infinities are possible and has talked at length and in complete irrelevance about how the universe is and then not even that....how it might be.
That is the state of play. So, not exactly a cheerleader for the so called obnoxious WLC. But you are a cheerleader for the obnoxious LK who was recently pulled up about his conduct I understand.
-
Ah, works describing things IN the universe.
Have you read them? Works extrapolating mathematically from inside the universe to possible generalities.
O.
-
My actual line Hillside is the universe is either eternal, arose spontaneously, or had an external creator. At present Outrider has merely stated that actual infinities are possible and has talked at length and in complete irrelevance about how the universe is and then not even that....how it might be.
Outrider has demonstrated that each stage of the representation of the cosmological argument that you cited failed in its claim, and that therefore the underlying allegation that the claim of a creator deity is proven is flawed. That was the task requested - you keep trying to turn my piece into an active claim of something, which it isn't. It's merely a demonstration that the cosmological argument is - and has for a long time been - fundamentally flawed in a number of ways.
That is the state of play.
Exactly...
O.
-
And it might be credible if Hillside had actually taken the trouble to take the Kalam Cosmological Argument apart point by point instead of his usual contentless rambles.
Instead of critiquing his argument, you just insulted him.
You're a mathematician Jeremy.....Can you have an actual infinity?
The possibility is not excluded according to the laws of nature as we know them. It's possible that the Universe is infinite.
-
I see the combined efforts are making headway in giant steps on this one, does it matter let him think whatever he likes, I'm sure you all must know who I mean.
ippy.
-
Vlad,
And it might be credible if Hillside had actually taken the trouble to take the Kalam Cosmological Argument apart point by point instead of his usual contentless rambles.
I did take it apart in shorthand form (because it’s been done so often before), only for you to duck and dive in response. If you really want it set out more fully though, here it is once again:
The standard Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of “god” as I understand it comes in six parts:
1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
This is the first premise, and it fails for two reasons:
1) It provides no grounds for its assumption that the universe began. Just assuming that because, say, a PC had a beginning then so must the universe have had a beginning is called the fallacy of equivocation.
2) Even if you ignore the first unfounded assumption that does not mean that the universe must have had a cause external to it for it to begin. There are various plausible hypotheses for how a non-externally caused universe could have occurred, and the cosmological argument makes no attempt to disqualify them.
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Another unfounded assumption. No-one knows whether the universe began to exist or if it has "always" existed in some form. Nor do we know for example whether “this” universe began but that it’s also part of a larger, meta universe that itself need not necessarily have begun.
3. Thus the universe has a cause of its existence.
This conclusion (“thus”) is invalid because its two premises are invalid. While the premises are possible, that’s all they are – possibilities. We’re in “it’s possible there are pots of gold at the ends of rainbows, therefore leprechauns” territory again.
4. This first uncaused cause must transcend physical reality.
That’s quite a leap. Having arrived at an "uncaused cause" (albeit fallaciously), the argument just jumps to it “transcending physical reality” (whatever that means) without bothering to define or demonstrate such a thing, even in principle. Even if there was a cause outside “this” universe, that’s not to say that a meta universe might not have very different iteration of “physical reality” that wouldn’t have to have been “transcended” for it to exist. It would though still be “natural” rather than “supernatural”, which essentially remains white noise until someone manages to make an argument for it rather than just an assertion about it.
You can of course hypothesise anything you like – something “transcending physical reality” included – if you want to, but hypotheses cannot be relied on as premises for logical arguments because they have not been shown to be true (the same problem with whole cosmological argument by the way).
5. This uncaused cause that transcends physical reality is the description of God.
Even if all the prior arguments weren’t fallacious, this step says nothing at all. It just attaches a label to an unknown – for “god” you could equally say “the metaverse” (or anything else) and it would be equally “valid”. Worse still, the term “god” carries associated meanings baggage – that it’s self-aware for example – for which there’s no justification at all, whereas other possibilities are less freighted with additional assumptions. Occam’s razor has something to say about that.
6. Therefore God exists.
You could equally say "therefore the metaverse exists" with the same validity (ie, none at all). Essentially this part of the argument is circular: "God” is what caused the universe to exist, therefore god exists." Swap “god” for anything else that takes your fancy and it’s just as (in)valid. (Nor incidentally does this (mis-) step tell you anything about whether it's a theistic rather than a deistic god, and nor whether it's the Christian god or any other god.)
In short, the cosmological argument is folkloric, assumption-based, and dependent on logically false arguments. Demolition over.
So, do you (ok, WLC then) have anything in the locker less obviously broken than the cosmological argument?
-
jeremy,
Instead of critiquing his argument, you just insulted him.
Standard Vlad operating procedure:
1. Ignore the arguments that falsify me
2. Misrepresent the arguments that falsify me
3. Insult the person making the argument falsify me
4. Never, ever though actually engage honestly with the arguments that falsify me
5. When I can no longer sustain steps 1 – 4, run away
-
Vlad,
I did take it apart in shorthand form (because it’s been done so often before), only for you to duck and dive in response. If you really want it set out more fully though, here it is once again:
The standard Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of “god” as I understand it comes in six parts:
1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
This is the first premise, and it fails for two reasons:
1) It provides no grounds for its assumption that the universe began. Just assuming that because, say, a PC had a beginning then so must the universe have had a beginning is called the fallacy of equivocation.
But Lane Craig does. The impossibility of Actual spatio temporal infinities (Hilbert) and scientific work of vilenkin and Guth.
2) Even if you ignore the first unfounded assumption that does not mean that the universe must have had a cause external to it for it to begin. There are various plausible hypotheses for how a non-externally caused universe could have occurred
All of which must state that the universe created itself which is illogical.
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Another unfounded assumption. No-one knows whether the universe began to exist or if it has "always" existed in some form. Nor do we know for example whether “this” universe began but that it’s also part of a larger, meta universe that itself need not necessarily have begun.
Again spatio temporary actual infinities are impossible Hilbert et al
3. Thus the universe has a cause of its existence.
This conclusion (“thus”) is invalid because its two premises are invalid
your invalidations have been debunked While the premises are possible, that’s all they are – possibilities.
Outrider claims it's possibilities that make his debunking of KCA sound. You have just rendered that special pleading. WLC it is said is merely trying to win the probability argument. You are helping him with your illogicalities
4. This first uncaused cause must transcend physical reality.
Not sure this is standard. Slipping this in debunks you.
However it must since it is the physical which is being created. It is sound.
5. This uncaused cause that transcends physical reality is the description of God.
This is not WLC's next step which is to argue that it is personal. When the scholastics do it that's fair enough
6. Therefore God exists.
OK
In short, the cosmological argument is folkloric, assumption-based, and dependent on logically false arguments. Demolition over.
You were observed to use illogicalities Hillside so you are debunked
So, do you (ok, WLC then) have anything in the locker less obviously broken than the cosmological argument?
There is more than one cosmological theory Hillside...………. another debunking then.
-
Instead of critiquing his argument, you just insulted him.
The possibility is not excluded according to the laws of nature as we know them. It's possible that the Universe is infinite.
Citation?
What about actual infinities throwing up absurdities though?
-
Citation?
https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-is-the-geometry-of-the-universe-20200316/
What about actual infinities throwing up absurdities though?
What absurdities?
-
https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-is-the-geometry-of-the-universe-20200316/What absurdities?
Hilbert's hotel paradox, infinite tug of war team paradox, infinite lollipop paradox
Also wouldn't the universe be infinitely expanded by this time? And have achieved heat death an infinitely long time ago?
-
Outrider claims it's possibilities that make his debunking of KCA sound.
The argument presented by you relies on the claim that an infinite reality is impossible - if I demonstrate that it's possible, the argument fails. I don't need to demonstrate that it's true, only that it's possible. Your argument, by contrast, fails if it's possible, because you're attempting to logically deduce from absolutes. That's not special pleading, that's how logic works.
O.
-
Hilbert's hotel paradox, infinite tug of war team paradox, infinite lollipop paradox
Also wouldn't the universe be infinitely expanded by this time? And have achieved heat death an infinitely long time ago?
All of which come about because you try to perform strict arithmetic procedures with a concept not a number - they aren't 'paradoxes' they are demonstrations of why infinity can't be treated strictly as a number. It's like trying to perform arithmetic with 'some' apples. How many apple do I need to add to 'some' apples before I have 'lots' of apples? That's not a paradox, that's trying to perform arithmetic with concepts rather than numbers.
O.
-
Hilbert's hotel paradox, infinite tug of war team paradox, infinite lollipop paradox
OK I've heard of the hotel paradox. It's got very little to do with this.
Can you explain the other two paradoxes, why they would preclude an eternal universe and why they would not preclude an eternal god?
Also wouldn't the universe be infinitely expanded by this time? And have achieved heat death an infinitely long time ago?
Well it is beyond doubt that the observable Universe started at a finite time in the past. It hasn't had time to expand infinitely.
-
Well it is beyond doubt that the observable Universe started at a finite time in the past. It hasn't had time to expand infinitely.
At the risk of doing Vlad's work for him, my understanding is that whilst the majority opinion is currently that the universe probably had a finite origin, there are some hypotheses that the singular condensed point of energy/matter that was in place prior to the Big Bang may - because time only came into existence during the early stages - have functionally been eternal as time was not passing then.
That's enough to twist my head, to be frank, trying to conceive of existence outside of a time reference, it's just fundamentally undermines every conception of physics that I have, and I struggle to really grasp the implications, but it's a possibility.
O.
-
At the risk of doing Vlad's work for him, my understanding is that whilst the majority opinion is currently that the universe probably had a finite origin, there are some hypotheses that the singular condensed point of energy/matter that was in place prior to the Big Bang may - because time only came into existence during the early stages - have functionally been eternal as time was not passing then.
That's enough to twist my head, to be frank, trying to conceive of existence outside of a time reference, it's just fundamentally undermines every conception of physics that I have, and I struggle to really grasp the implications, but it's a possibility.
O.
The point I was making was to answer only Vlad's point that that the Universe should have expanded infinitely. There was a finite time in the past where the Universe was in an extremely hot (infinitely?) dense state. What was before that - or even if there was a before that - is currently unknown.
-
Vlad,
Me:
I did take it apart in shorthand form (because it’s been done so often before), only for you to duck and dive in response. If you really want it set out more fully though, here it is once again:
The standard Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of “god” as I understand it comes in six parts:
1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
This is the first premise, and it fails for two reasons:
1) It provides no grounds for its assumption that the universe began. Just assuming that because, say, a PC had a beginning then so must the universe have had a beginning is called the fallacy of equivocation.
You:
But Lane Craig does. The impossibility of Actual spatio temporal infinities (Hilbert) and scientific work of vilenkin and Guth.
You’ve got to be joking right? Hilbert’s Hotel is a semantic game. It conflates a non-numerical conceptual term (“infinity”) with numerical terms (numbers of rooms, guests etc) as if they were the same category of idea. They’re not though – not at all. I may as well argue that infinity is possible because of Zeno’s paradox – no matter how small the units of distance the arrow traverses I can always halve them…therefore an infinite number of points in space to traverse… therefore the arrow never arrives.
As for Vilenkin and Guth, neither so far as I’m aware argue that infinity is impossible outside of classical spacetime - ie, that it operates under quantum theory. And in any case, at best the Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem is just that - a plausible theroem, but no more. We’ve debunked WLC’s false reasoning (ie, that one plausible theorem necessarily renders other plausible theorems impossible) before, but if you insist on revisiting it set out why you think otherwise (aside from the confirmation bias of just selecting the theorem that confirms a religious belief you hold a priori).
Me:
2) Even if you ignore the first unfounded assumption that does not mean that the universe must have had a cause external to it for it to begin. There are various plausible hypotheses for how a non-externally caused universe could have occurred
You:
All of which must state that the universe created itself which is illogical.
Of course they don’t. It’s precisely because they ARE logically plausible that they stand as hypotheses. Remember, no-one has to show that the hypotheses are true - just that they are plausible. And plausibility is all that’s needed for the cosmological argument (essentially an argument from necessity) to fail.
Me:
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Another unfounded assumption. No-one knows whether the universe began to exist or if it has "always" existed in some form. Nor do we know for example whether “this” universe began but that it’s also part of a larger, meta universe that itself need not necessarily have begun.
You:
Again spatio temporary actual infinities are impossible Hilbert et al
Again Hilbert is a semantic legerdemain, not a logical proof.
Me:
3. Thus the universe has a cause of its existence.
This conclusion (“thus”) is invalid because its two premises are invalid
You:
your invalidations have been debunked
Not even close. See above.
Me:
While the premises are possible, that’s all they are – possibilities.
You:
Outrider claims it's possibilities that make his debunking of KCA sound. You have just rendered that special pleading. WLC it is said is merely trying to win the probability argument. You are helping him with your illogicalities
You’re hopelessly out of your depth here. WLC’s attempt at the Kalam relies fundamentally on the naturalistic alternatives being logically impossible. That’s his positive statement, and the burden of proof for it is all his. He does this by misunderstanding or misrepresenting (Hilbert etc) the arguments that show various naturalistic alternatives to be possible.
And as plausible possibilities are all that’s necessary to pull the rug from under him (and you), his argument fails.
Me:
4. This first uncaused cause must transcend physical reality.
You:
Not sure this is standard. Slipping this in debunks you.
It’s standard in the versions I’ve read. As you won’t tell us which version you like, we have to guess about that.
You:
However it must since it is the physical which is being created. It is sound.
Of course it isn’t. You can’t call an argument that relies on a speculation (“non-material”) that has no definition, no means of identification, no means of investigation etc “sound”, any more than “leprechauns” is sound, and in any case there’s no need for it when logically plausible hypotheses that are at least coherent (quantum borrowing etc) are available.
Me:
5. This uncaused cause that transcends physical reality is the description of God.
You:
This is not WLC's next step which is to argue that it is personal. When the scholastics do it that's fair enough
Again, I just looked up "Kalam cosmological argument”. If WLC or you have a different version, tell us what it is. If he/it varies only here though, he’s in very deep already in logical mistakes (see above). You’re basically arguing for unicorns here, and six steps in complaining that I said the horns are white when you actually said that they’re gold.
Me:
6. Therefore God exists.
You:
OK
Only if by “OK” you mean “a disastrous failure in reasoning”. You may have heard that rubbish in tends to produce rubbish out…
Me:
In short, the cosmological argument is folkloric, assumption-based, and dependent on logically false arguments. Demolition over.
You:
You were observed to use illogicalities Hillside so you are debunked
I may or may not have used illogicalities, but if I have you haven’t so far managed to identify any. You (and WLC) remain debunked therefore.
Me:
So, do you (ok, WLC then) have anything in the locker less obviously broken than the cosmological argument?
You:
There is more than one cosmological theory Hillside...………. another debunking then.
And now you’re changing horses mid-stream: “OK, this version of the argument is in pieces but I’m a proponent for a different version of it (only I’m not going to tell you what it is), therefore the argument stands”. It’s the same tactic as those who say, “yes you’ve falsified the arguments for god, but that’s not the god I believe in” and then never get around to telling is which god it is they believe in so the arguments for that god can be examined too.
If you think there’s a more robust version of the Kalam than the standard tissue paper version then tell us what it is and we’ll look at it. As things stand though, you’ve been hit out of the park.
Again.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-52113946
-
Vlad,
Me:
You:
You’ve got to be joking right? Hilbert’s Hotel is a semantic game. It conflates a non-numerical conceptual term (“infinity”) with numerical terms (numbers of rooms, guests etc) as if they were the same category of idea. They’re not though – not at all. I may as well argue that infinity is possible because of Zeno’s paradox – no matter how small the units of distance the arrow traverses I can always halve them…therefore an infinite number of points in space to traverse… therefore the arrow never arrives.
As for Vilenkin and Guth, neither so far as I’m aware argue that infinity is impossible outside of classical spacetime - ie, that it operates under quantum theory. And in any case, at best the Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem is just that - a plausible theroem, but no more. We’ve debunked WLC’s false reasoning (ie, that one plausible theorem necessarily renders other plausible theorems impossible) from their work before, but if you insist on revisiting it set out what they actually said than then set out what WLC infers from that and we’ll see.
Me:
You:
Of course they don’t. It’s precisely because they ARE logically plausible that they stand as hypotheses. Remember, no-one has to show that the hypotheses are true - just that they are plausible. And plausibility is all that’s needed for the cosmological argument (essentially an argument from necessity) to fail.
Me:
You:
Again Hilbert is a semantic legerdemain, not a logical proof.
Me:
You:
Not even close. See above.
Me:
You:
You’re hopelessly out of your depth here. WLC’s attempt at the Kalam relies fundamentally on the naturalistic alternatives being logically impossible. That’s his positive statement, and the burden of proof for it is all his. He does this by misunderstanding or misrepresenting (Hilbert etc) the arguments that show various naturalistic alternatives to be possible.
And as plausible possibilities are all that’s necessary to pull the rug from under him (and you), his argument fails.
Me:
You:
It’s standard in the versions I’ve read. As you won’t tell us which version you like, we have to guess about that.
You:
Of course it isn’t. You can’t call an argument that relies on a speculation (“non-material”) that has no definition, no means of identification, no means of investigation etc “sound”, any more than “leprechauns” is sound, and in any case there’s no need for it when logically plausible hypotheses that are at least coherent (quantum borrowing etc) are available.
Me:
You:
Again, I just looked up "Kalam cosmological argument”. If WLC or you have a different version, tell us what it is. If he/it varies only here though, he’s in very deep already in logical mistakes (see above). You’re basically arguing for unicorns here, and six steps in complaining that I said the horns are white when you actually said that they’re gold.
Me:
You:
Only if by “OK” you mean “a disastrous failure in reasoning”. You may have heard that rubbish in tends to produce rubbish out…
Me:
You:
I may or may not have used illogicalities, but if I have you haven’t so far managed to identify any. You (and WLC) remain debunked therefore.
Me:
You:
And now you’re changing horses mid-stream: “OK, this version of the argument is in pieces but I’m a proponent for a different version of it (only I’m not going to tell you what it is), therefore the argument stands”. It’s the same tactic as those who say, “yes you’ve falsified the arguments for god, but that’s not the god I believe in” and then never get around to telling is which god it is they believe in so the arguments for that god can be examined too.
If you think there’s a more robust version of the Kalam than the standard tissue paper version then tell us what it is and we’ll look at it. As things stand though, you’ve been hit out of the park.
Again.
To me, to you... (https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2018/08/05/09/chuckle-brothers.jpg?w968h681)
-
Did the universe pop out of nothing?
Assuming you mean literally nothing, then no.
The idea isn't even logically self-consistent. There can't possibly have been a time at which nothing existed for anything to have popped out of it because time (space-time) is a something.
This is simplistic Newtonian thinking anyway. The best theory we have of the universe as a whole is general relativity and that gives us the picture of a "block universe". The whole space-time manifold just exists and time is a (observer-dependent) direction through it and hence entirely internal to it. The manifold just exists. Looking at the past time-like direction through it to find out why it exists doesn't make any sense.
There are other hypotheses (of quantum gravity) but the very existence of this one picture illustrates perfectly how daft trying to argue for a god from a "first cause" or "cosmological" type arguments is.
Even if we were to ignore that (and all the other fallacies they are riddled with), we clearly don't understand everything about the physical world and that is all these arguments could possible tell us.
We may never know why the universe exists but its existence is no less unexplained and mysterious that the existence of some sort of god that we might posit to "explain" it. It just replaces one mystery with a bigger one.
-
Who cares, ffs?
-
At the risk of doing Vlad's work for him, my understanding is that whilst the majority opinion is currently that the universe probably had a finite origin, there are some hypotheses that the singular condensed point of energy/matter that was in place prior to the Big Bang may - because time only came into existence during the early stages - have functionally been eternal as time was not passing then.
That's enough to twist my head, to be frank, trying to conceive of existence outside of a time reference, it's just fundamentally undermines every conception of physics that I have, and I struggle to really grasp the implications, but it's a possibility.
O.
That's probably because Time doesn't exist at all. Only change exists. When change is measured by an observer, Time comes into existence....because then there is automatically a past, present and a future.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2017/06/24/time/
-
That's probably because Time doesn't exist at all. Only change exists. When change is measured by an observer, Time comes into existence....because then there is automatically a past, present and a future.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2017/06/24/time/
The differential behaviour of atomic clocks at varying speeds shows that time both exists and our rate of movement through it can be varied. Mathematically it's well established that it's part of four-dimensional space-time - to say that time doesn't exist is akin to saying that reality doesn't have any depth, that we all live on a flat plane and imagine height.
A point of note in your article; you suggest that Einstein's theory of special relativity suggest that time is relative to the observer, and that's not quite the case. The rate at which time passes - that is to say the rate at which we move through time - is relative to speed of the observer, but time itself is simply time.
O.
-
That's probably because Time doesn't exist at all. Only change exists. When change is measured by an observer, Time comes into existence....because then there is automatically a past, present and a future.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2017/06/24/time/
::) Simplistic, ill-thought out drivel that goes against the plentiful evidence we have that time cannot be separated from space and what actually exists is space-time.
-
Stranger,
::) Simplistic, ill-thought out drivel....
Yes, but apart from that what did you think of his argument? ; - )
-
::) Simplistic, ill-thought out drivel that goes against the plentiful evidence we have that time cannot be separated from space and what actually exists is space-time.
c'mon , give him some credit. At least he got his name right .
-
The differential behaviour of atomic clocks at varying speeds shows that time both exists and our rate of movement through it can be varied. Mathematically it's well established that it's part of four-dimensional space-time - to say that time doesn't exist is akin to saying that reality doesn't have any depth, that we all live on a flat plane and imagine height.
A point of note in your article; you suggest that Einstein's theory of special relativity suggest that time is relative to the observer, and that's not quite the case. The rate at which time passes - that is to say the rate at which we move through time - is relative to speed of the observer, but time itself is simply time.
O.
Time exists because change exists. Space and change cannot be separated. Time is merely rate of change in space.
If space exists, change exists and therefore time exists.
-
A point of note in your article; you suggest that Einstein's theory of special relativity suggest that time is relative to the observer, and that's not quite the case. The rate at which time passes - that is to say the rate at which we move through time - is relative to speed of the observer, but time itself is simply time.
Actually a frame of reference that is traveling relative to another actually regards different directions through space-time to be their space and time. It's like a rotation of axes but the geometry isn't Euclidean, so their space and time both move towards the light cone.
Here is an image: special relativity frames of reference (https://quicklatex.com/cache3/4b/ql_cc1541bbaf7d73868080aa25bc32034b_l3.png).
It just shows one dimension of space - and the red ct' and x' axes are the moving frame's version of space and time compared to the blue (ct and x axes). The black lines are the light cone (the path light would take).
-
Sriram (Reply 227): “That's probably because Time doesn't exist at all.”
Sriram (reply 232): “If space exists, change exists and therefore time exists.”
So apparently time both doesn’t exist and does exist. Schrödinger’s time maybe?
Hmmm…
-
Time exists because change exists. Space and change cannot be separated. Time is merely rate of change in space.
If space exists, change exists and therefore time exists.
On the one had we have the vast amounts of evidence that support the theories of space-time, and on the other we have your scientifically illiterate assertions.
Tricky.
... err, oh, no it isn't, I was right, you're still talking simplistic, ill-thought out drivel...
-
Time exists because change exists. Space and change cannot be separated. Time is merely rate of change in space.
If space exists, change exists and therefore time exists.
Change exists because time exists - without time in which change could happen, change would not exist. You could (theoretically) have a static universe with nothing changing, but time would still exist - indeed, that's the heat-death of the universe scenario. You can have time without change, but you can't have change without the time for that change to happen in - you've got these round the wrong way.
O.
-
Change exists because time exists - without time in which change could happen, change would not exist. You could (theoretically) have a static universe with nothing changing, but time would still exist - indeed, that's the heat-death of the universe scenario. You can have time without change, but you can't have change without the time for that change to happen in - you've got these round the wrong way.
O.
That is what we usually think, intuitively. That is because we have evolved to observe change and measure it. We are time dependent.
However, if nothing changes...where is time? It doesn't exist at all. Only when change happens do past, present and future come into existence.
Space exists and change is inherent in space. When this change is observed and measured, time comes into existence.
-
That is what we usually think, intuitively. That is because we have evolved to observe change and measure it. We are time dependent.
However, if nothing changes...where is time? It doesn't exist at all. Only when change happens do past, present and future come into existence.
Space exists and change is inherent in space. When this change is observed and measured, time comes into existence.
Still evidence- and reasoning-free, scientifically illiterate assertions. Why do you think anybody should take your baseless assertions seriously? ::)
-
Vlad,
You’ve got to be joking right? Hilbert’s Hotel is a semantic game. It conflates a non-numerical conceptual term (“infinity”) with numerical terms (numbers of rooms, guests etc) as if they were the same category of idea. They’re not though
That just shows that although infinities are OK in maths they do not translate to the real world.
Of course they don’t. It’s precisely because they ARE logically plausible that they stand as hypotheses. Any hypothesis starting with the universe or starting with physics is irrelevant in an explanation for where physics came from.
If you think there’s a more robust version of the Kalam than the standard tissue paper version then tell us what it is and we’ll look at it. As things stand though, you’ve been hit out of the park.
Since theories about the physical universe(nature) start with nature are not relevant to the question from whence nature came from the only challenge to the Kalam is another Cosmological argument.
Theism has Cosmological arguments Science it seems has none.
-
That just shows that although infinities are OK in maths they do not translate to the real world.
Utter nonsense. Infinities are entirely self-consistent (otherwise you couldn't deal with them mathematically), so there is no reason to conclude that they cannot exist in reality. In fact, the possibilities that the universe may be infinite in spacial extent and have an infinite future time-like extent are fairly standard, as is the idea of a space-time being a continuum, which involves another sort of infinity (actually a bigger infinity than the kind needed for the Hilbert Hotel).
Since theories about the physical universe(nature) start with nature are not relevant to the question from whence nature came from...
You have exactly the same problem with any god(s) you may dream up to "explain" it. As I said before, the existence of a universe for no known reason is no more mysterious and unexplained than the existence of a god who created a universe who just happens to exist for no known reason. The difference being that we know that physics and the universe do actually exist and no reason at all to think that any gods exist.
...the only challenge to the Kalam is another Cosmological argument.
Theism has Cosmological arguments Science it seems has none.
Did this make some sense to you before you actually typed it?
-
Utter nonsense. Infinities are entirely self-consistent (otherwise you couldn't deal with them mathematically), so there is no reason to conclude that they cannot exist in reality. In fact, the possibilities that the universe may be infinite in spacial extent and have an infinite future time-like extent are fairly standard, as is the idea of a space-time being a continuum, which involves another sort of infinity.
You have exactly the same problem with any god(s) you may dream up to "explain" it. As I said before, the existence of a universe for no known reason is no more mysterious and unexplained than the existence of a god who created a universe who just happens to exist for no known reason. The difference being that we know that physics and the universe do actually exist and no reason at all to think that any gods exist.
Did this make some sense to you before you actually typed it?
There is a difference between infinity of being and an infinity of events in a spatio temporal setting if time goes back infinitely it would never arrive as it were. There is just also heat death which would have occurred by now if a universe were limitless.
-
There is a difference between infinity of being and an infinity of events in a spatio temporal setting if time goes back infinitely it would never arrive as it were. There is just also heat death which would have occurred by now if a universe were limitless.
Drivel
-
Utter nonsense. Infinities are entirely self-consistent (otherwise you couldn't deal with them mathematically), so there is no reason to conclude that they cannot exist in reality. In fact, the possibilities that the universe may be infinite in spacial extent and have an infinite future time-like extent are fairly standard
Surely the latter is an infinity with a beginning though. What about the paradox of Tristram Shandy?
-
Drivel
Alright supposing I asked you for a Fiver and you said you can't have it until I get it from Hillside who has to wait until Gordon gets a fiver from Sassy who....you get the picture.
Would you get your fiver if it was an infinite wait?
-
There is a difference between infinity of being and an infinity of events in a spatio temporal setting if time goes back infinitely it would never arrive as it were. There is just also heat death which would have occurred by now if a universe were limitless.
More nonsense. For one thing, you're mistaking an infinite series of events going back forever, with no start, with a start an infinite time ago. There is absolutely nothing logically inconsistent with an infinite past.
In fact, in physics there really is no idea of the "present" - "now" has no more significance than "here". As I also said before, general relativity, suggests a "block universe" that just is - there is really no difference logically with its past time-like dimension being infinite and its future one.
-
More nonsense. For one thing, you're mistaking an infinite series of events going back forever, with no start, with a start an infinite time ago. There is absolutely nothing logically inconsistent with an infinite past.
Did you just say start there?
-
Alright supposing I asked you for a Fiver and you said you can't have it until I get it from Hillside who has to wait until Gordon gets a fiver from Sassy who....you get the picture.
Would you get your fiver if it was an infinite wait?
More drivel.
-
Did you just say start there?
It was your implication that the universe would somehow have to run through all of its past, from an infinite time ago: "if time goes back infinitely it would never arrive as it were".
Fascinating as infinities are, they really aren't very relevant because, as I've already explained, whether the universe has an infinite past or not is of little relevance to thinking about why it exists or any arguments for any god (that's just Newtonian thinking).
-
Vlad,
You’ll never admit it, but it should by now be apparent to you that WLC’s validation of the Kalam cosmological arguments is in tatters. There is though another, perhaps deeper problem even with the attempt when you claim that “Theism has Cosmological arguments Science it seems has none”. Aside from being a gross inversion of the facts (cosmology IS science, theism/theology is faith), that would mean that WLC (and you) should have no need of faith because the science does the work for you.
Why not then just have the argument peer reviewed by people versed in science, and then publish the "WLC-Vlad god theorem" in the relevant scientific journal? What need then would you have for faith?
-
It was your implication that the universe would somehow have to run through all of its past, from an infinite time ago: "if time goes back infinitely it would never arrive as it were".
Fascinating as infinities are, they really aren't very relevant because, as I've already explained, whether the universe has an infinite past or not is of little relevance to thinking about why it exists or any arguments for any god (that's just Newtonian thinking).
Not sure I agree with you there.
Infinities do not produce anything. If there is anything in an infinity it has to be put there.
-
Infinities do not produce anything. If there is anything in an infinity it has to be put there.
Evidence please.
-
Evidence please.
The old Five pound paradox Jeremy. If I am reliant on something physical derived from no beginning I am never going to get it unless some thing introduced somewhere it into the system.
So any infinity in some imaginary time itself will not produce the goods.
-
Not sure I agree with you there.
Infinities do not produce anything. If there is anything in an infinity it has to be put there.
I think you're missing the point. Be it infinite in the past (or future or space-like extent) or not, the space-time manifold exists. Time is internal to it, so looking to base some sort of argument on any "start" of time is spurious.
The existence of the space-time is no more unexplained or mysterious than would the existence of any god you propose might have magicked it into existence. The idea of a god explains nothing of the fundamental question of existence.
-
I think you're missing the point. Be it infinite in the past (or future or space-like extent) or not, the space-time manifold exists. Time is internal to it, so looking to base some sort of argument on any "start" of time is spurious.
The existence of the space-time is no more unexplained or mysterious than would the existence of any god you propose might have magicked it into existence. The idea of a god explains nothing of the fundamental question of existence.
I don't think I am. The infinity we want which rules out the universe having a start is one which doesn't have one. Can a universe which doesn't start actually be...or be anything but a mathematical paradox?
How cana universe which doesn't start be anything......It's a complete non-starter.
-
The old Five pound paradox Jeremy. If I am reliant on something physical derived from no beginning I am never going to get it unless some thing introduced somewhere it into the system.
So any infinity in some imaginary time itself will not produce the goods.
If God is eternal and has existed for infinite time, when could he have created the Universe?
-
I don't think I am. The infinity we want which rules out the universeGod having a start is one which doesn't have one. Can a universegod which doesn't start actually be...or be anything but a mathematical paradox?
How cana universegod which doesn't start be anything......It's a complete non-starter.
-
If God is eternal and has existed for infinite time, when could he have created the Universe?
God is outside time and space.
-
God is outside time and space.
well fuck me ,its taken all this time to get to THAT ::)
-
You'll all more than likely go past infinity before you'll ever ding any sense at all into________
ippy.
-
That's probably because Time doesn't exist at all. Only change exists. When change is measured by an observer, Time comes into existence....because then there is automatically a past, present and a future.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2017/06/24/time/
It just shows you, you can come out with something sensible now and again Sriram, the trick is to keep it up.
Regards, ippy.
-
That is what we usually think, intuitively. That is because we have evolved to observe change and measure it. We are time dependent.
However, if nothing changes...where is time?
If I don't move, depth doesn't disappear - that it's only made apparent to us in certain circumstances doesn't mean that it's not there when we aren't paying attention. Time is, without time we couldn't have anything. Existence is time-dependent - without change you have stasis, but stasis is also a description with respect to time. Time is.
O.
-
There is a difference between infinity of being and an infinity of events in a spatio temporal setting if time goes back infinitely it would never arrive as it were.
Only if you're selective in your interpretation
There is just also heat death which would have occurred by now if a universe were limitless.
Only if it's infinite in both directions. As it is, it seems it's only infinite in one direction... there's one to try and get your head around!
O.
-
I don't think I am. The infinity we want which rules out the universe having a start is one which doesn't have one. Can a universe which doesn't start actually be...or be anything but a mathematical paradox?
Firstly, can we please start differentiating between the universe (had a Big Bang early on, involves observable space-time) and the broader (possible) reality of which we can't verify anything at this point. The different uses of 'universe' are starting to make this difficult to track.
An infinite history to reality is in no way a mathematical paradox, you just need to imagine that it's in a dynamic balance - much as, say, the Earth's weather patterns - and suddenly existence at any point along that eternal balance of forces is absolutely just a manifestation of that dynamic balance.
How can a universe which doesn't start be anything......It's a complete non-starter.
How can a universe god which doesn't start be anything... it's a complete non-starter? That we struggle to conceive of it is our limitation, not reality's - it's an argument from incredulity.
O.
-
I don't think I am. The infinity we want which rules out the universe having a start is one which doesn't have one.
I don't want any sort of infinity, have no idea if the universe (or some larger context in which it may exist) had a start or not, and see no relevance at all to the question of any gods.
Can a universe which doesn't start actually be...or be anything but a mathematical paradox?
How cana universe which doesn't start be anything......It's a complete non-starter.
You still seem to be missing the point and thinking of the passage of time, rather than the idea of a block universe (which is what the evidence we currently have is telling us).
God is outside time and space.
Which is an exactly equivalent (non-)problem. The space-time manifold (as a whole) is "outside" time and space because it contains time and space. The space-time as a whole (at least according to the theory I've been discussing) is timeless and unchanging: it just is - much like the "god outside of time and space" concept would just be.
However, the universe exists and we still have no reason to think that any gods do.
-
If I don't move, depth doesn't disappear - that it's only made apparent to us in certain circumstances doesn't mean that it's not there when we aren't paying attention. Time is, without time we couldn't have anything. Existence is time-dependent - without change you have stasis, but stasis is also a description with respect to time. Time is.
O.
'Depth' could just be a human concept to describe relative position in space. If you are static and look at the night sky are you observing deep into space or high into space? When the observing mind disappears so does the concept. Similarly, time could just be a concept used to indicate and compare relative changes e.g. the decay of a caesium particle or the movement of a clock hand or a photon. Stasis is another concept which implies absence of change. If this were to be absolute then time as a concept ceases to have meaning and existence would be changeless and non time-dependant.
-
God is outside time and space.
That makes no sense since 'is' is a temporal concept, and 'outside' is a spatial concept.
-
God is outside time and space.
How could God do things if it is outside space and time?
-
On the one had we have the vast amounts of evidence that support the theories of space-time, and on the other we have your scientifically illiterate assertions.
Tricky.
... err, oh, no it isn't, I was right, you're still talking simplistic, ill-thought out drivel...
St Augustine of Hippopotamus argued that only the present exists: The past only exists as present memory, and the future as present anticipation.
-
St Augustine of Hippopotamus argued that only the present exists: The past only exists as present memory, and the future as present anticipation.
And we should take somebody who knew nothing at all about modern physics and the evidence for space-time seriously on this subject, because...?
Relativity tells us quite the opposite, that there is simply no such thing as the present. Even without the fact that "now" seems to have no more physical significance that "here", it's anyway an entirely observer dependent notion. See: Relativity of simultaneity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity).
-
And we should take somebody who knew nothing at all about modern physics and the evidence for space-time seriously on this subject, because...?
Relativity tells us quite the opposite, that there is simply no such thing as the present. Even without the fact that "now" seems to have no more physical significance that "here", it's anyway an entirely observer dependent notion. See: Relativity of simultaneity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity).
I feel moved to ask then where is the past so we may observe it and measure it.
-
I feel moved to ask then where is the past so we may observe it and measure it.
Irrelevant and idiotic question
-
And we should take somebody who knew nothing at all about modern physics and the evidence for space-time seriously on this subject, because...?
Relativity tells us quite the opposite, that there is simply no such thing as the present. Even without the fact that "now" seems to have no more physical significance that "here", it's anyway an entirely observer dependent notion. See: Relativity of simultaneity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity).
Surely that just tells us that there is no absolute present not that the observer or things don't have a present.
-
And we should take somebody who knew nothing at all about modern physics and the evidence for space-time seriously on this subject, because...?
Relativity tells us quite the opposite, that there is simply no such thing as the present. Even without the fact that "now" seems to have no more physical significance that "here", it's anyway an entirely observer dependent notion. See: Relativity of simultaneity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity).
I was just mentioning what he said - which, you must admit, sounds surprisingly modern, even if it was wrong.
-
Vlad,
Perhaps you missed this?
Vlad,
You’ll never admit it, but it should by now be apparent to you that WLC’s validation of the Kalam cosmological arguments is in tatters. There is though another, perhaps deeper problem even with the attempt when you claim that “Theism has Cosmological arguments Science it seems has none”. Aside from being a gross inversion of the facts (cosmology IS science, theism/theology is faith), that would mean that WLC (and you) should have no need of faith because the science does the work for you.
Why not then just have the argument peer reviewed by people versed in science, and then publish the "WLC-Vlad god theorem" in the relevant scientific journal? What need then would you have for faith?
So, what with you having science on your side if your claim is to believed when can we expect the "WLC-Vlad god theorem" to be published? I'm thinking New Scientist, but maybe Scientific American if WLC is the lead author. What do you think?
-
I was just mentioning what he said - which, you must admit, sounds surprisingly modern, even if it was wrong.
And it, with much of the discussion here, has echoes of the divide between Heraclitus and Parmenides.
-
'Depth' could just be a human concept to describe relative position in space.
Depth is a purely human concept, that developed in an arena where it was conceived there was an absolute 'up/down' in relation to what transpired to be a purely local gravitational effect. Over time we've adopted the term as a convenient bit of terminology to use in depicting three orthogonal physical direction which we tend to apply in a purely relative fashion in the absence of any overall directional constant.
If you are static and look at the night sky are you observing deep into space or high into space?
That rather depends on how you set up your reference frame - the point is though, not whether or not it should be called 'depth' but rather if I close my eyes does it disappear. Sriram was suggesting that time was illusory, and change was the reality, I invoked 'depth' (and put in quotes to show it was a particular usage) as a corollary. It's an imperfect analogy, of course, but then most analogies are.
When the observing mind disappears so does the concept.
Yes, but the underlying reality that the concept crystallises in our though processes doesn't. Distance doesn't cease to exist because we aren't looking any more.
Similarly, time could just be a concept used to indicate and compare relative changes e.g. the decay of a caesium particle or the movement of a clock hand or a photon.
It could be, but in periods of no change we still have time passing. In cases where we move at different speeds, constant rate of change processes change at different relative rates - that requires an independent time variable, it can't be solely change happening because it's happening differently with respect to...?
Stasis is another concept which implies absence of change. If this were to be absolute then time as a concept ceases to have meaning and existence would be changeless and non time-dependant.
How would it? We might know, because our mental activity would mean that there wasn't stasis, but why would stasis mean time didn't exist. If time didn't exist, how could the stasis have anything to exist within?
O.
-
Stranger,
And it, with much of the discussion here, has echoes of the divide between Heraclitus and Parmenides.
Yes I know, but while Heraclitus make the flashy signings to get to the European championships Parmenides always do better in a penalty shoot-out.
Or have I misunderstood something?
-
(1) It could be, but in periods of no change we still have time passing.
(2) How would it? We might know, because our mental activity would mean that there wasn't stasis, but why would stasis mean time didn't exist. If time didn't exist, how could the stasis have anything to exist within?
(1) Assuming that there are periods of no change, how do you measure the passing of time?
(2) As an absolute It could be self existent, eternal, timeless, omnipresent and changeless, and 'time' as a mental concept to measure change would only be relevant to the mental activity you mention, but in such stasis the mental activity would not exist and in its place another omni ... omniscience.
-
(1) Assuming that there are periods of no change, how do you measure the passing of time?
That I don't have a means to measure it doesn't mean it's not there.
As an absolute It could be self existent, eternal, timeless, omnipresent and changeless, and 'time' as a mental concept to measure change would only be relevant to the mental activity you mention, but in such stasis the mental activity would not exist and in its place another omni ... omniscience.
As an absolute what could be self-existent?
O.
-
If I don't move, depth doesn't disappear - that it's only made apparent to us in certain circumstances doesn't mean that it's not there when we aren't paying attention. Time is, without time we couldn't have anything. Existence is time-dependent - without change you have stasis, but stasis is also a description with respect to time. Time is.
O.
How do you know? We use time as a tool to measure change. But why do you say that something absolute called Time continues...on and on...regardless of change and observer?
-
Sriram,
How do you know? We use time as a tool to measure change. But why do you say that something absolute called Time continues...on and on...regardless of change and observer?
First, it’s spacetime – not just time.
Second, surely the more pertinent question is why wouldn’t it?
-
How do you know? We use time as a tool to measure change. But why do you say that something absolute called Time continues...on and on...regardless of change and observer?
It's not about knowing, it's about the fact that, on the one hand we have your totally unsupported and scientifically illiterate assertions, and on the other we have extremely well tested scientific theories.
To a rational mind, it's really not hard to decide which is more likely to be the closest to reality...
-
How do you know? We use time as a tool to measure change. But why do you say that something absolute called Time continues...on and on...regardless of change and observer?
It's the point of reference - change occurs WITH RESPECT TO TIME... no time, no change. No change, maybe time maybe not... one is required for the other, but that doesn't work in reverse.
O.
-
And it, with much of the discussion here, has echoes of the divide between Heraclitus and Parmenides.
I saw that Parmenides down the Dog and Duck a few months ago - he was pissed, as usual.
-
It's the point of reference - change occurs WITH RESPECT TO TIME... no time, no change. No change, maybe time maybe not... one is required for the other, but that doesn't work in reverse.
O.
We don't see Time anywhere. We only see matter & energy. Matter and energy are in constant flux and change. To an observer that creates an impression of time.
No change...no time. Time is a mental construct. Change and observer are necessary for time to exist.
-
We don't see Time anywhere.
We don't see gravity, but people don't seem to be floating away...
We only see matter & energy.
We don't see sound. We don't see temperature. There are a number of things that we don't see that we have other senses for, and a number of things that we don't have any senses for - magnetic fields, for instance. Why should the fact we don't have a sensory apparatus for it preclude its existence?
Matter and energy are in constant flux and change. To an observer that creates an impression of time.
And to a physicist that requires time in which to happen - you can't have change without time. You have state A, and a change to state B - the separation between those two states is a measurement of time. Change makes it apparent, but change doesn't create it, change happens within it.
No change...no time.
No. No change, no evidence of time, but space-time is regardless of whether we're here to watch it or not.
Time is a mental construct. Change and observer are necessary for time to exist.
No. There is time, and there is our conception of time; one of them is independent of us (because we exist in it) and the other is dependent upon us (because it exists within us).
O.
-
Time is a mental construct.
Sorry, but as soon as someone uses "construct" as a noun, I know they're talking pretentious bollocks, and stop listening.
-
I'd have thought that the need for GPS technology to compensate for relativistic effects would indicate that time isn't just a "mental construct".
-
I'd have thought that the need for GPS technology to compensate for relativistic effects would indicate that time isn't just a "mental construct".
Could you explain that more expansively, Gordon. By 'relativistic effects' do you mean relative change? How does the technology use 'time' to compensate?
-
We only see matter & energy.
No, we don't. You can't see energy because (as has been explained to you before) it isn't stuff. Energy is a property of stuff. Things have energy, they can't be energy.
There are also many, many things that we have solid scientific evidence for that we don't see - or even that the average person never even sees the effects of. For example, every second about 100 billion solar neutrinos pass through every square centimetre of your body. Basing what you think exists on what you can directly see (or otherwise sense directly) is totally absurd in the 21st century.
No change...no time. Time is a mental construct. Change and observer are necessary for time to exist.
More totally unsupported assertions. The existence of space-time is scientifically well established and backed up by plentiful evidence. Your assertions are backed up by nothing.
It's really odd how common this particular bit fuckwittery is on forums - and not always from the religious either. I guess saying that "time doesn't exist, only change", sounds profound in a way, so people who know nothing of the science can pretend, to similarly unformed people, that they've had some great insight.
-
Could you explain that more expansively, Gordon. By 'relativistic effects' do you mean relative change? How does the technology use 'time' to compensate?
Time, as measured by a clock, appears to pass faster on Earth than it does on the atomic clocks in the GPS satellites that are moving faster and are less affected by gravity that clocks on Earth (such as the Sat-Nav device in your car), and although the amounts of time are small they increment quickly enough to make GPS unusable unless compensated for.
But in a relativistic world, things are not simple. The satellite clocks are moving at 14,000 km/hr in orbits that circle the Earth twice per day, much faster than clocks on the surface of the Earth, and Einstein's theory of special relativity says that rapidly moving clocks tick more slowly, by about seven microseconds (millionths of a second) per day.
Also, the orbiting clocks are 20,000 km above the Earth, and experience gravity that is four times weaker than that on the ground. Einstein's general relativity theory says that gravity curves space and time, resulting in a tendency for the orbiting clocks to tick slightly faster, by about 45 microseconds per day. The net result is that time on a GPS satellite clock advances faster than a clock on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day.
But at 38 microseconds per day, the relativistic offset in the rates of the satellite clocks is so large that, if left uncompensated, it would cause navigational errors that accumulate faster than 10 km per day! GPS accounts for relativity by electronically adjusting the rates of the satellite clocks, and by building mathematical corrections into the computer chips which solve for the user's location. Without the proper application of relativity, GPS would fail in its navigational functions within about 2 minutes.
https://www.physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will.cfm
-
Could you explain that more expansively, Gordon. By 'relativistic effects' do you mean relative change? How does the technology use 'time' to compensate?
Detail here: Real-World Relativity: The GPS Navigation System (http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html).
The basic point, however, is that each satellite carries a very accurate clock and the system needs to compensate for the effects of both special and general relativity. In other words the calculations take into account that the satellites' time dimension is "skewed" relative to earth because of its relative speed (see image in my post #233 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17325.msg792354#msg792354)). It also needs to take account of the fact that space-time around earth is curved (gravity). All this is based on a unified space-time manifold in which each "observer" sees time as a different direction through space-time.
-
We don't see gravity, but people don't seem to be floating away...
We don't see sound. We don't see temperature. There are a number of things that we don't see that we have other senses for, and a number of things that we don't have any senses for - magnetic fields, for instance. Why should the fact we don't have a sensory apparatus for it preclude its existence?
And to a physicist that requires time in which to happen - you can't have change without time. You have state A, and a change to state B - the separation between those two states is a measurement of time. Change makes it apparent, but change doesn't create it, change happens within it.
No. No change, no evidence of time, but space-time is regardless of whether we're here to watch it or not.
No. There is time, and there is our conception of time; one of them is independent of us (because we exist in it) and the other is dependent upon us (because it exists within us).
O.
Now you are being silly. When I said 'see' I didn't mean only about literally visual phenomena only. I meant experience of it.
We 'experience' time flowing only in terms of the changes that we experience.....not something called Time in itself. It is only through changes around us that we know of 'time'. If changes don't happen time cannot exist.
And if there is some sort of an absolute time flowing on and on...relativistic aspects connected to time cannot be possible. Only because time is connected to change that its measurement changes with changing situations. Time is relative only because it is not absolute.
-
Sorry, but as soon as someone uses "construct" as a noun, I know they're talking pretentious bollocks, and stop listening.
Even though I don't agree with Sriram at all on this topic, why would you say the use of 'construct' as a noun is necessarily pretentious?
-
We don't see Time anywhere. We only see matter & energy. Matter and energy are in constant flux and change. To an observer that creates an impression of time.
No change...no time. Time is a mental construct. Change and observer are necessary for time to exist.
We don't see energy. Energy isn't "stuff", it's an accounting number.
-
Even though I don't agree with Sriram at all on this topic, why would you say the use of 'construct' as a noun is necessarily pretentious?
It's usually used, in phrases such as "social construct" and "mental construct", by people who don't know what they're tslking about, but want to sound fashionably cynical. I once saw a graffitto on a flyover support that said "Love is a social construct". Ffs!
-
It's usually used, in phrases such as "social construct" and "mental construct", by people who don't know what they're tslking about, but want to sound fashionably cynical. I once saw a graffitto on a flyover support that said "Love is a social construct". Ffs!
Fair enough, but as far as I can see Sriram was emphasising the idea that time is a mental concept. This seems to me a perfectly valid use of the word, even though, as I said, I completely disagree with him.
-
Now you are being silly. When I said 'see' I didn't mean only about literally visual phenomena only. I meant experience of it.
And we do experience time, even if we don't experience change...
We 'experience' time flowing only in terms of the changes that we experience...
If I sit in a sensory deprivation chamber there is no change, but I'm aware of time passing.
..not something called Time in itself.
We don't detect magnetism ourselves, only through its effects on other things, that doesn't make it any less real.
It is only through changes around us that we know of 'time'.
How we know about it isn't the same thing as what it functionally is. Time is, it's part of a four-dimensional space-time in which we exist. If there was no time, there would be no us.
If changes don't happen time cannot exist.
Even if it required change in order for us to become aware of time, that doesn't mean that time follows the change - post hoc ergo propter hoc and all that...
And if there is some sort of an absolute time flowing on and on...relativistic aspects connected to time cannot be possible.
Time doesn't flow, we flow through time - and the rate at which we do so changes depending on the local gravity and our physical speed through that gravity.
Time is relative only because it is not absolute.
Time is absolute - it's our movement through it that's relative.
O.
-
And if there is some sort of an absolute time flowing on and on...relativistic aspects connected to time cannot be possible. Only because time is connected to change that its measurement changes with changing situations. Time is relative only because it is not absolute.
Drivel.
The reason time is relative to different frames of reference is because of the geometry of space-time, which means that different frames of reference regard different slices through space-time to be their time and space coordinates.
There is no absolute time or space because they aren't separate things. The thing that is "absolute" is the space-time manifold.
Again: I am not giving you my opinion - this is what the best tested theory (general relativity) we have is telling us, so it is backed up by plentiful evidence.
-
Time doesn't flow, we flow through time - and the rate at which we do so changes depending on the local gravity and our physical speed through that gravity.
Time is absolute - it's our movement through it that's relative.
This is incorrect for the reasons given in my last post. Because of the geometry of space-time, different frames of reference consider different directions through space-time to be their time axes. Hence if we look at another frame of reference using our time axis, the length of our seconds may well be different to the length of a second along the other frame's own time axis.
There is no concept of the flow of time in relativity.
-
This is incorrect for the reasons given in my last post. Because of the geometry of space-time, different frames of reference consider different directions through space-time to be their time axes. Hence if we look at another frame of reference using our time axis, the length of our seconds may well be different to the length of a second along the other frame's own time axis.
There is no concept of the flow of time in relativity.
The use of 'flow' was poetic - I specified that movement rate through time was dependent upon our local conditions and activity.
O.
-
And we do experience time, even if we don't experience change...
If I sit in a sensory deprivation chamber there is no change, but I'm aware of time passing.
We don't detect magnetism ourselves, only through its effects on other things, that doesn't make it any less real.
How we know about it isn't the same thing as what it functionally is. Time is, it's part of a four-dimensional space-time in which we exist. If there was no time, there would be no us.
Even if it required change in order for us to become aware of time, that doesn't mean that time follows the change - post hoc ergo propter hoc and all that...
Time doesn't flow, we flow through time - and the rate at which we do so changes depending on the local gravity and our physical speed through that gravity.
Time is absolute - it's our movement through it that's relative.
O.
How can we experience time without experiencing change? Even in a chamber you have your thoughts, your blood is flowing, your biology is undergoing change. The outside world is changing and you know it. The sun is rising and setting, the weather is changing, days are changing.
That creates the idea of time.
-
How can we experience time without experiencing change?
Even in a chamber you have your thoughts, your blood is flowing, your biology is undergoing change. The outside world is changing and you know it. The sun is rising and setting, the weather is changing, days are changing.
That creates the idea of time.
No, our experience of time creates the idea of time. How can I have thoughts if there isn't time in which those thoughts can sequence - without time there would be a single instantaneous mass of consciousness with no order? How can my blood flow if there isn't a space-time for it to change position within? How can the outside world change if there is not time - change without time is not change.
O.
-
No, our experience of time creates the idea of time. How can I have thoughts if there isn't time in which those thoughts can sequence - without time there would be a single instantaneous mass of consciousness with no order? How can my blood flow if there isn't a space-time for it to change position within? How can the outside world change if there is not time - change without time is not change.
O.
I think Sriram agrees that time is an idea but that it is experience of change which creates the idea. Thoughts and ideas are just changing events just like the tick of a clock out of which an idea of time passing arises. In dreams the idea of time can evaporate until you wake up. Your blood will flow as long as there is unimpeded space and its rate of flow could be said to be related to the efficiency of the circulatory system rather then the need for an entity called time. Nanoseconds was a term used in the GPS article. Isn't it based upon a second which seems to be based upon the second, which I understand is defined by measuring the electronic transition frequency of caesium atoms i.e. change of movement.
-
I think Sriram agrees that time is an idea but that it is experience of change which creates the idea. Thoughts and ideas are just changing events just like the tick of a clock out of which an idea of time passing arises. In dreams the idea of time can evaporate until you wake up. Your blood will flow as long as there is unimpeded space and its rate of flow could be said to be related to the efficiency of the circulatory system rather then the need for an entity called time. Nanoseconds was a term used in the GPS article. Isn't it based upon a second which seems to be based upon the second, which I understand is defined by measuring the electronic transition frequency of caesium atoms i.e. change of movement.
The particular units that we use are an abstraction that is meaningful to us because of our unique position on Earth - we have years because of our orbital time around the sun, hours because of the rotational period of the Earth, Months, weeks,hours, minutes and seconds as fractions of those. This is exactly the same as having metres or kilograms - they define how measure length or mass, but they don't define length or mass.
Sriram is suggesting that change is real, and our perception of time is a misunderstanding of that change - the fact is, though, that you can't have change without a 'space' to have that change in. You can't change position without dimensions to move in. You can't change from one state to another without there being at least two discrete positions along a temporal frame for that change to manifest between. You need to have time - as a part of space-time - for change to exist.
O.
-
The particular units that we use are an abstraction that is meaningful to us because of our unique position on Earth - we have years because of our orbital time around the sun, hours because of the rotational period of the Earth, Months, weeks,hours, minutes and seconds as fractions of those. This is exactly the same as having metres or kilograms - they define how measure length or mass, but they don't define length or mass.
Sriram is suggesting that change is real, and our perception of time is a misunderstanding of that change - the fact is, though, that you can't have change without a 'space' to have that change in. You can't change position without dimensions to move in. You can't change from one state to another without there being at least two discrete positions along a temporal frame for that change to manifest between. You need to have time - as a part of space-time - for change to exist.
O.
I am not talking of any misunderstanding of change. I am merely saying that measurement of change is Time. Change exists but Time is just a tool.
-
The particular units that we use are an abstraction that is meaningful to us because of our unique position on Earth - we have years because of our orbital time around the sun, hours because of the rotational period of the Earth, Months, weeks,hours, minutes and seconds as fractions of those. This is exactly the same as having metres or kilograms - they define how measure length or mass, but they don't define length or mass.
Sriram is suggesting that change is real, and our perception of time is a misunderstanding of that change - the fact is, though, that you can't have change without a 'space' to have that change in. You can't change position without dimensions to move in. You can't change from one state to another without there being at least two discrete positions along a temporal frame for that change to manifest between. You need to have time - as a part of space-time - for change to exist.
O.
I understand what you are saying...!
-
Vlad,
Perhaps you missed this?
So, what with you having science on your side if your claim is to believed when can we expect the "WLC-Vlad god theorem" to be published? I'm thinking New Scientist, but maybe Scientific American if WLC is the lead author. What do you think?
I think Neil DeGrasse Tyson's version of the God Hypothesis would be more fitting don't you?
-
I think Neil DeGrasse Tyson's version of the God Hypothesis would be more fitting don't you?
Why? What is it?
-
Why? What is it?
There isn't one. It's Vlad making basic logical mistakes again.
-
Vlad,
I think Neil DeGrasse Tyson's version of the God Hypothesis would be more fitting don't you?
There isn't one. Why have you just run away from the question?
-
Vlad,
There isn't one. Why have you just run away from the question?
No I answered your stupidity.
-
No I answered your stupidity.
Whileyou're on line, please answer my question. What is Tyson's version of the god hypothesis?
-
No I answered your stupidity.
The stupidity (and it really is heroically stupid) is equating the simulated universe conjecture with theism. It's utterly and totally idiotic for reasons that have been explained to you multiple times by multiple people.
-
The stupidity (and it really is heroically stupid) is equating the simulated universe conjecture with theism. It's utterly and totally idiotic for reasons that have been explained to you multiple times by multiple people.
The explanation was insufficient. As Chalmers says....Its a God hypothesis.
-
The explanation was insufficient.
It's literally as daft - because it's exactly the same sort of mistake - as claiming that dining tables are tigers because they both have four legs.
And by the way, this is obviously a distraction tactic because you've now totally shifted the idea of a creator from something that fundamentally explains existence and doesn't suffer from needing the same sort of explanation as the universe to something that quite obviously does need such an explanation.
As soon as one lot of idiocy is addressed and you run out of answers you switch to another sort of idiocy entirely.
-
It's literally as daft - because it's exactly the same sort of mistake - as claiming that dining tables are tigers because they both have four legs.
And by the way, this is obviously a distraction tactic because you've now totally shifted the idea of a creator from something that fundamentally explains existence and doesn't suffer from needing the same sort of explanation as the universe to something that quite obviously does need such an explanation.
As soon as one lot of idiocy is addressed and you run out of answers you switch to another sort of idiocy entirely.
Vlad doing the rounds and never answering, no, that can't be!!
ippy.
-
Vlad doing the rounds and never answering, no, that can't be!!
ippy.
Hypocrisy alert!
-
It's literally as daft - because it's exactly the same sort of mistake - as claiming that dining tables are tigers because they both have four legs.
Yes...…..dining tables are tigers because they both have four legs is the same as Simulated universe is the God hypothesis because they both have
Universe possibly with design.
Universe with purpose.
personal creation.
Creator external to the Universe.
Creator not dependent for existence on that universe.
………………..I don't think so.
-
Yes...…..dining tables are tigers because they both have four legs is the same as Simulated universe is the God hypothesis because they both have
Universe possibly with design.
Universe with purpose.
personal creation.
Creator external to the Universe.
Creator not dependent for existence on that universe.
………………..I don't think so.
Exactly so.
The external creator is not supernatural (SU is explicitly based on naturalistic assumptions), not necessarily singular, not necessarily good, not omnipotent, not omniscient, uses technology, is mortal...
It's also obviously a distraction tactic because you are using totally different concepts of "God" in different arguments here. It's like you're desperately scrabbling around for something or anything you might possibly slap the label "God" onto, no matter how absurd it is.
The "God" argued for by your mate Feser couldn't be more different from a technological universe simulator, yet both are absurd in their own way.
Don't you think it would be more honest to tell us your own definition of "God" and provide an actual argument you are prepared to get behind?
-
Exactly so.
The external creator is not supernatural (SU is explicitly based on naturalistic assumptions), not necessarily singular, not necessarily good, not omnipotent, not omniscient, uses technology, is mortal...
It's also obviously a distraction tactic because you are using totally different concepts of "God" in different arguments here. It's like you're desperately scrabbling around for something or anything you might possibly slap the label "God" onto, no matter how absurd it is.
The "God" argued for by your mate Feser couldn't be more different from a technological universe simulator, yet both are absurd in their own way.
Don't you think it would be more honest to tell us your own definition of "God" and provide an actual argument you are prepared to get behind?
Sorry but you can't get away from the ''personal creator bit'' nor the other ingredients which make up a cosmological argument. Technology? what technology have you got to make the Universe? Technology just means the means to make something. As for supernatural that just means it doesn't share the same nature as nature and /or is it susceptible to natural investigation. Good or singular Who said a God has to be good? Singular? Have you not heard of a Pantheon?.....the external creator is still in the SU theory personal whether it's one or lots.
As for omnipotent ……...as far as this Universe is concerned it would be.
And finally you need to learn that a ''not necessarily'' is not the same as a ''definitely isn't''.
-
Sorry but you can't get away from the ''personal creator bit'' nor the other ingredients....
If you want to go on making yourself look like a complete moron with this utter idiocy, don't let me stand in your way. I can't be arsed any more - it's by far the most utterly absurd and transparently and pathetically desperate attempt at a "god" argument I've ever heard of in my entire life.
-
If you want to go on making yourself look like a complete moron with this utter idiocy, don't let me stand in your way. I can't be arsed any more - it's by far the most utterly absurd and transparently and pathetically desperate attempt at a "god" argument I've ever heard of in my entire life.
Al I'm arguing here is how Niel De Grasse Tyson made the God hypothesis. And I've provided the reasons. Chalmers thought so. Myers thought it was intelligent design creationism.
-
Al I'm arguing here is how Niel De Grasse Tyson made the God hypothesis. And I've provided the reasons. Chalmers thought so. Myers thought it was intelligent design creationism.
If you want to address the other points I made about your desperation to slap the label "god" on pretty much anything you happen to think you might get away with at the time, or want to accept the challenge of actually defining how you think "god" is defined and come up with an argument that you can get behind, or even get back to the subject of the thread, then go ahead. However, if you're just going to continue to make a fool of yourself over this simulated universe nonsense, then you're on your own. On that subject you don't need anybody else to make it look absurd, desperate, and illogical.
-
If you want to address the other points I made about your desperation to slap the label "god" on pretty much anything you happen to think you might get away with at the time, or want to accept the challenge of actually defining how you think "god" is defined and come up with an argument that you can get behind, or even get back to the subject of the thread, then go ahead. However, if you're just going to continue to make a fool of yourself over this simulated universe nonsense, then you're on your own. On that subject you don't need anybody else to make it look absurd, desperate, and illogical.
Stranger ,
I knew from the start what his little game was , that's why i kept out of it , save for a couple of digs at him . And here we are , what 'dispicary'.
-
If you want to address the other points I made about your desperation to slap the label "god" on pretty much anything you happen to think you might get away with at the time, or want to accept the challenge of actually defining how you think "god" is defined and come up with an argument that you can get behind, or even get back to the subject of the thread, then go ahead. However, if you're just going to continue to make a fool of yourself over this simulated universe nonsense, then you're on your own. On that subject you don't need anybody else to make it look absurd, desperate, and illogical.
The point is that the components of Tyson's proposal match a cosmological argument. Craig Lane in his Kalam Cosmological Argument covers the same ground ending with a personal creator just like Tyson. They are essentially identical.
if you disagree fine but each of your objections has been rebutted although you cannot seem to see that and an eminent philosopher and biologist and atheist agree so I am not swayed by your objections. I think it was you who revived this exchange anyway.
-
The point is that the components of Tyson's proposal match a cosmological argument. Craig Lane in his Kalam Cosmological Argument covers the same ground ending with a personal creator just like Tyson. They are essentially identical.
Unmitigated drivel.
I think it was you who revived this exchange anyway.
Nope, you did in #308 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17325.msg792726#msg792726). The idea that I'd bring up this idiocy is even more idiotic than the idea itself.
Your avoidance of my other points, is noted, and confirms my earlier assumption that this is just a distraction tactic anyway.
-
Did the universe pop out of nothing?
Can science even answer that if science is a matter of observation and measurement?
What science can do is tell us what didn't happen. The Cambrian explosion would appear to disprove molecules-to-man evolution, for example, and point more towards a global flood. So if the Bible apparently gets that right, maybe it's right about the vine that sprang up overnight (Jonah 4), and hence plants growing on Day 3 of creation week?
-
The Cambrian explosion would appear to disprove molecules-to-man evolution, for example, and point more towards a global flood.
How does it do that?
-
What science can do is tell us what didn't happen.
Six day creation and the global flood being amongst those things it tells us didn't happen.
The Cambrian explosion would appear to disprove molecules-to-man evolution, for example, and point more towards a global flood.
No. Precisely the opposite.
So if the Bible apparently gets that right
It doesn't.
maybe it's right about the vine that sprang up overnight (Jonah 4), and hence plants growing on Day 3 of creation week?
It isn't.
-
The Cambrian explosion would appear to disprove molecules-to-man evolution, for example, and point more towards a global flood.
No, it would not. Where did you get that utterly absurd idea from?
-
Six day creation and the global flood being amongst those things it tells us didn't happen.
Irreducible complexity, demonstrated by science, points to six day creation.
How does it do that?
Do we observe fossils forming on the sea floor today? The fossils in general speak of a global flood. The Cambrian explosion is the sudden appearance of complex creatures in the lower strata, without ancestry.
-
Irreducible complexity, demonstrated by science, points to six day creation.
Do we observe fossils forming on the sea floor today? The fossils in general speak of a global flood. The Cambrian explosion is the sudden appearance of complex creatures in the lower strata, without ancestry.
Idiotic drivel
-
Irreducible complexity, demonstrated by science, points to six day creation.
False.
Do we observe fossils forming on the sea floor today? The fossils in general speak of a global flood. The Cambrian explosion is the sudden appearance of complex creatures in the lower strata, without ancestry.
Scientifically illiterate.
-
I am not talking of any misunderstanding of change. I am merely saying that measurement of change is Time. Change exists but Time is just a tool.
Measurement of change is not time, measurement of change is measurement of whatever change you're measuring - what it's changing with respect to, is time. Time is not a tool, time is part of the fabric of existence that the change is happening in.
O.
-
Irreducible complexity, demonstrated by science, points to six day creation.
I don’t know where you got that idea from. Science does not demonstrate irreducible complexity, quite the opposite, in fact. Even if it did, which it doesn’t, that would not imply six day creation.
Do we observe fossils forming on the sea floor today? The fossils in general speak of a global flood. The Cambrian explosion is the sudden appearance of complex creatures in the lower strata, without ancestry.
No. Fossils refute the global flood. The Cambrian explosion lasted for 25 million years by the way.
-
that Cambrian Explosion?
It'll all be over by Christmas 8)
-
Irreducible complexity, demonstrated by science, points to six day creation.
Irreducible complexity, mischaracterised as science by pseudoscientists, fundamentally misunderstands/misrepresents the difference between information and data that is inherent in information theory which is one of the reasons it fails.
Do we observe fossils forming on the sea floor today?
Possibly, we'll have to wait and see, it's a long process.
The fossils in general speak of a global flood.
The distribution of the fossils in general speaks against a global flood. The absolute lack of anywhere near enough water speaks against a global flood. The absolute lack of any consistent reporting of floods from cultures around the world speaks against a global flood. The geological record speaks against a global flood, and a literal six day creation. The existence of BUILDINGS that pre-date the calculated 'start of the world' according a literalist six-day young Earth creation doesn't just speak against it, it sings the whole rendition of the retard song accompanied by a balalaika!
The Cambrian explosion is the sudden appearance of complex creatures in the lower strata, without ancestry.
No, the Cambrian explosion is the geologically significant increase in the rate of emergency of variations of life, in some instances where we can't absolutely define ancestry but whom DNA analysis shows are related.
-
Irreducible complexity, demonstrated by science, points to six day creation.
An example of irreducible complexity?
-
An example of irreducible complexity?
Could the honourable gentleman go online and google it? My objective was to highlight Jonah 4, as I did initially, which says that God can make plants grow to maturity overnight. Hence day 3 is possible.
-
Could the honourable gentleman go online and google it? My objective was to highlight Jonah 4, as I did initially, which says that God can make plants grow to maturity overnight. Hence day 3 is possible.
The Bible says a lot of silly things! ::)
-
Could the honourable gentleman go online and google it? My objective was to highlight Jonah 4, as I did initially, which says that God can make plants grow to maturity overnight. Hence day 3 is possible.
The Bible also says that Jonah, survived being swallowed by a whale. You really should be more sceptical of what it says.
-
An example of irreducible complexity?
It used to be mouse-traps, but countered by Kenneth Miller in his book Only a Theory, see Wiki on irreducible complexity.
-
An example of irreducible complexity?
spitballs mate, spitballs!
-
The Bible says a lot of silly things! ::)
It's not the only one...
-
Did the universe pop out of nothing?
Can science even answer that if science is a matter of observation and measurement?
Maybe
-
BlueHillside on Necessity
Vlad,
The “ultimate necessity” as you put it for the universe might be itself if the quantum borrowing hypothesis is correct, or it might be some other but currently unknown process.
-
Vlad,
The “ultimate necessity” as you put it for the universe might be itself if the quantum borrowing hypothesis is correct, or it might be some other but currently unknown process. Calling the answer “god” is just relocating the problem somewhere else (what was necessary for this god?), and special pleading this god to be exempt from the problem (“basically, “it’s magic innit”) is no answer at all. That’s why the cosmological argument you’re trying to sneak in always fails.
Tell us about quantum borrowing.
-
Tell us about quantum borrowing.
Do you mean the continuous break-down and recombination of matter and antimatter particles for short durations from the background neutral state of a quantum vacuum, and how it could potentially be part of the explanation of how the universe came to be?
If so, there's some good basic bits and pieces in this article in Science Daily https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191002102750.htm (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191002102750.htm), and wikipedia's take on it seems a reasonable primer too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state)
O.
-
Do you mean the continuous break-down and recombination of matter and antimatter particles for short durations from the background neutral state of a quantum vacuum, and how it could potentially be part of the explanation of how the universe came to be?
If so, there's some good basic bits and pieces in this article in Science Daily https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191002102750.htm (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191002102750.htm), and wikipedia's take on it seems a reasonable primer too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state)
O.
I am not putting the argument that this is the ultimate necessity nor the explanation for the universe. BlueHillside is. Why nobody seems to want to disturb him on a theory he is offering and yet are on me for daring to bring it up I don't know....but it certainly makes atheists behaviourally interesting.
For me it shows me he gets the jist of what I mean by ultimate necessity and how you can be your own explanation.
If particles have been created and broken by quantum fluctuations for ever though and quantum field fluctuations are the ultimate then it means that contingent particles have been around forever and so has their necessary explanation and cause.
In other words the particles still need a necessity even though they have been around for ever. So you see contingency and necessity conceptually not dependent on time.
If quantum fields however waited forever to create the universe once only That demonstrates remarkable self control.
-
I am not putting the argument that this is the ultimate necessity nor the explanation for the universe. BlueHillside is. Why nobody seems to want to disturb him on a theory he is offering and yet are on me for daring to bring it up I don't know....but it certainly makes atheists behaviourally interesting.
Is he putting that argument forward, or is he pointing out that this is another account which is viable, as counterpoint to someone else's claim?
For me it shows me he gets the jist of what I mean by ultimate necessity and how you can be your own explanation.
He might, I'm not sure that I do.
If particles have been created and broken by quantum fluctuations for ever though and quantum field fluctuations are the ultimate then it means that contingent particles have been around forever and so has their necessary explanation and cause.
No, it might mean (might) that we can fathom the proximate cause of those quantum fluctuations, but that doesn't in any way show that something was necessary for 'quantum' to be.
In other words the particles still need a necessity even though they have been around for ever. So you see contingency and necessity conceptually not dependent on time.
No, one of the requirements of quantum fluctuations like that is time; the equations do not work unless you have a time component. It may be that there is an equivalent 'dimension' or concept in extra-universal physics for an equivalent to occur, it may not, we don't know.
O.
If quantum fields however waited forever to create the universe once only That demonstrates remarkable self control.
[/quote]
-
Is he putting that argument forward, or is he pointing out that this is another account which is viable, as counterpoint to someone else's claim?
How do we know it to be viable?
No, it might mean (might) that we can fathom the proximate cause of those quantum fluctuations, but that doesn't in any way show that something was necessary for 'quantum' to be.
That would make ''quantum'' the necessary.
No, one of the requirements of quantum fluctuations like that is time; the equations do not work unless you have a time component.
if something is the ultimate reason that thing is the necessary time is irrelevent to the appelation of the necessary. It may be that there is an equivalent 'dimension' or concept in extra-universal physics for an equivalent to occur, it may not, we don't know.
O.
-
How do we know it to be viable?
Because there's not been, so far as I've seen, a decisive argument against it.
That would make ''quantum'' the necessary. if something is the ultimate reason that thing is the necessary time is irrelevent to the appelation of the necessary.
Except that 'quantum' could well be a facet of further underlying forces/concepts etc. on and down, further and smaller.
O.
-
Because there's not been, so far as I've seen, a decisive argument against it.
I think i've seen a reason why quantum borrowing can produce virtual particles but not universes. I'll get back to you on that.
Except that 'quantum' could well be a facet of further underlying forces/concepts etc. on and down, further and smaller.
I'm not sure smaller can be used in terms of concepts but point taken