The impossibility of a begin of time

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by heusdens
I just made my point that causality is a universally applied law which has no exceptions.

Thats fine, but irrelevant. Like I said, we're talking about something that did not happen in the observable universe. Its not that its an exception to the rule, its just that the rule doesn't apply.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by heusdens
Since neither of you can or want to provide any proof for your baseless assumption that a 'first' cause and a begin of time is conceivable, your only point is that 'logic does not forbid it'.

Actually, that is my entire point! If logic does not forbid it, then it is logically possible. Hence, the claim that a beginning to time is impossible, has been demonstrated to be false.

So, I will provide you some 'logic' reasons, why this can't be the case.

My claim is that:
Either causality exists in the way I explained, or it does not exist. there is no 'half' causality.

False dichotomy. The definitoion of a collection of cause and effect events is not changed by an intital event.

How can there be a cause to anything outside of the existence of causality itself?

Who says there is?

Can you see my logic point?

Negative. Oops, sorry. Too many Terminator movies.

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by heusdens
My claim is that:
Either causality exists in the way I explained, or it does not exist. there is no 'half' causality.

WHY not?

Try to think it this way: can you think of a 'cause' for causality itself?

Nope. Thats why we are forced to say that causality itself is acausal.

How can there be a cause to anything outside of the existence of causality itself?

there can't. Thats why we say that outside causality is .. acausal.

Can you see my logic point?

Yepp, your point is that you define that there can't be anything acausal. Then I ask, what was the cause for causality?
You see, you have PoE here on hands You effectively defined impossibility of begin of time, isn't it logical fallacy?

You didn't see my point though. Causality has borders. Every single causal event is its border. Whenever there happens acausal event, it means that border is crossed, acausal comes to existence, like causality itself. And it is immediately subsumed by causality, just because it now exists. Acausal can't be caused and causal can't be acausal, but they do not exclude each other, they can coexist. Weird, yes, but most weird is that we exist at all.

Clearly the world cannot be completely causal else it could not exist. Neither can it be completely acausal for this would invalidate logic. Therefore, the universe must exist in two mutually contradictory states at once.
contradiction resolved with brute force

2. that matter itself is indestructable and uncreatable

Here is room for "finetuning" - matter cannot be created nor destroyed .. by causal means. Matter can only appear or disappear .. acausally.

The explenation as that 'things appear to begin, without there being a cause' is to me as mystical an explenation as saying that 'God did it'.

Yepp, and that's precisely what majority of mankind does Eh could say, this isn't logically inconsistent

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by heusdens
Who is to shift?

Originally posted by heusdens
To wimms and eh:

Since neither of you can or want to provide any proof for your baseless assumption that a 'first' cause and a begin of time is conceivable, your only point is that 'logic does not forbid it'.

You are making the claim of no beginning of time, no first cause. One that does tend to go against the more accepted theories, therefore you bear the burden of proof - in the above paragraph, you ask for proof of a first cause. This is classic shifting the burden of proof

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Heusden
I just made my point that causality is a universally applied law which has no exceptions.

Since the BB is the most accepted theory for the start of the universe, I contend that your claim that causality is universally applied with no exceptions is universally accepted is obviously incorrect.

I base this on the fact that there

1. Is a objective, material world
2. that matter itself is indestructable and uncreatable

3. that matter is in motion always; matter without motion same as motion without matter is unseen

This is somewhat absurd. Motion is always determined relative to other matter - therefore any particular object could be said to be motionless with respect to the rest of the universe.

4. matter is the primary stuff that is independend of anything else.
5. matter is the notion of how the world exist in an objective way;
consciousness is the notion of how the world exist in a subjective way.
6. matter is primary; consciousness is secondary
(there can be matter without conscuousness, but not consciousness without matter)

The above points neither support nor reject causality. Red Herring argument point.

All events we see, we always base on material phenomena. Never we just assume that 'things happen for no appearant reason'.
Even if they are for some time unknown.

...

By the above arguments (i.e. observed experience) real infinities cannot exist either. Since your basic proposition concludes time is infinite...

Since we perform science, our intuition always was right.

EXCUSE ME! Virtually nothing in particle physics has been intuitively right. Intuition would normally tell me that physical matter has some color (white/black/color - or combination thereof), yet electrons do not have a color. Intuition tells me that if one twin left Earth on a space ship, close to the speed of light, coming back 10 years laters, that he/she would be the same age as their twin. This is not the case. Intuition tells me that it doesn't take an observer to collapse a quantum probability into reality, but this isn't correct.

If we would have thought there were no grounds for causality and logic, why would we ever have gone discovering all those physical and chemical and biological and cosmological phenomena?

The same arguments about Newtonian mechanics could have been used when Einsteins theories were proposed. We've only seen reality act one way, so testing Einsteins absurd theories is a waste of time.

The problem with all the above arguments is simple. It has been stated already. It's based on somewhat normal conditions, conditions we cannot count on at T^{10^-43} seconds post BB.

As mentioned before, we formed the ideas about causality based on the observed universe. Just as Newton based his ideas of mechanics on his observed universe. At conditions outside of our and his experience, things may no longer apply. Considering we have never observed an actual infinity, your theory requires one, which makes it, also, outside our observed universe.

We could then as well have said : 'God did it' and leave it with that.

Except for that pesky Occam and his damned razor...

Personally, I always say "Harold did it". Though I don't know a Harold, it's always given me a certain visceral satisfaction to say so.

Note:
Matter is used here as a philosophical notion as that which exist outside, apart from and independend of consciousness.

[the physical notion of matter is something else, since that are just the particles. The philosophical term therefore denotes all existence forms of matter, like particles, fields, energy, photons, atoms, molecules, enzymes, organisms, etc.]

Hmm, had I read this sooner, I wouldn't have had to go back and take out many of my replies...

Hmmmm. And did you measure the physical properties of the universe at that time?

No? So, how do you know that extreme things occurred at that time?

Again, Shifting the Burden of Proof - not my job.

Have you measured - demonstated an infinity?

[Re: Causality]
Right. It isn't an event, it's an eternal process.

Actually, it's a description of how we see things happen.

[Explanations of what causality is: removed]

Another question:

Why do we assume that the laws of gravity are UNIVERSAL, and that if we were to see any REAL anomaly, we have to reconsider all of our gravity laws (like we had to reconsider Newtons' laws and change to Einsteins)?

How do you think that gravity could exist, if not also causality were something universal?
Don't you think that gravitation to be universally applied, it must be based on causality, which therefore must also be universally applied. That is without ANY exception.

Just think about that.

One assumption every scientist has to make, and should have in the back of his/her mind is that we assume all laws, constants, et. al. are the same at distant points in the universe and in time, as they are now, unless shown otherwise.

Normally, we would have to accept causality as a default existing mechnism at or around the time of the BB. However, yet another thing we have never experienced, observed, or know to exist is a real infinity.

Since the implications of applying causality principles to all theories concerning the beginning of the universe implies no beginning, it also implies an infinity in time. This, too, is outside what we consider to be actual.

Originally posted by Heusden
I see.
I assume I did not make myself clear then.

Same question I asked to russ_waters to you:

Where was the world before you were born?

Perhaps a too trivial question, but at least it can be said you don't know from own experience there was a world before you were born.
Why don't you adopt your hypothesis then that with the emergence of your consciousness, time began?

On the basis of what do you conclude that there was a world before you were born?

Please tell me exactly how is it that you know that!

This addresses the Bifurcation argument flaw I already addressed - i.e. that causality seen in common experience also is required to in regions where the laws of normal physics start to break down, where common experience no longer applies. Just because it exists where we have made observations doesn't mean it has always existed in all conditions.

To further reiterate:
Causality is a term used to describe observed reality. In all we have seen (with the possible exception of quantum particle formation) requires a cause. The trouble with this is it is based on common experience - not areas outside the conditions said to have existed near the BB. Prior to Einstein, nobody had witnessed time dialation, therefore time was considered the same for all observers. At certain extreme conditions, this was considered incorrect.

Just as we have never experienced uncaused events, we have also not experienced a real (vs conceptual) infinity. Since your argument requires a real infinity (of time), you also have a point that is outside observed behaviour, just as uncaused events are outside observed behaviour. How is it you assign one to be more probably than the other. What mechanism do you use to calculate the probability of each?



Humans have evolved to accept causality at a very deep level. It has helped enable us to survive, so evolutionarily, is considered a good thing. Humans also have a deep urge to know the 'purpose' and 'reason' for everything. Certain religious folk are notorious for bringing up the ideas of purpose and reason for existence up, in discussing faith vs atheism - but that doesn't imply it is required to exist. Though the acceptance of causality would be a default position, so would the absence of infinities. Both cannot be correct. While your arguments do have merit, the problems I've stated are enough for me to disregard what you've said, as a proof.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by radagast
You are making the claim of no beginning of time, no first cause. One that does tend to go against the more accepted theories, therefore you bear the burden of proof - in the above paragraph, you ask for proof of a first cause. This is classic shifting the burden of proof

No. My thread is about providing arguments against some very popular arguments in favour of a begin of time.

I showed that these arguments don't hold water.

It is you which shifts the burden of proof to me now.

Please refrain from popular theories which f.e. claim that BB is the theory of the 'begin of time', since that idea is not intrinsical to the BB theory at all.

There are so called 'pre BB hypothesis' of which one seemingly claims a 'begin of time' but on the same time does not state that at all...

You are making some popular ideas about scientific theories into something that it is not.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by radagast
Since the BB is the most accepted theory for the start of the universe, I contend that your claim that causality is universally applied with no exceptions is universally accepted is obviously incorrect.

Wrong. Where does BB theory state that the BB is the begin of everything?

It doesn't. It's a popular misconception.

Read the cosmology FAQ on the http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm" , and determine for yourself that BB theory does NOT say that.

Check for yourself that the BB theory does not claim to be the beginning of time.

This is somewhat absurd. Motion is always determined relative to other matter - therefore any particular object could be said to be motionless with respect to the rest of the universe.

'motion' is a generalized philosophical concept for any change, transformation or motion that occurs.
Atoms only exist in the form of motion/change (for example in the nucleus itself, protons and neutrons constantly interchange gluons, causing protons to become neutrons and vice versa, etc)

The above points neither support nor reject causality. Red Herring argument point.


By the above arguments (i.e. observed experience) real infinities cannot exist either. Since your basic proposition concludes time is infinite...

How do you define 'real infinite'. Something apart from a measured one?
We can indeed never measure infinity. Place two points on the infinite time line and measure the distance between them. The outcome is always a finite amount.

That is why we can never perceive infinity.
Infinity never becomes 'actual' or 'observed'.

EXCUSE ME! Virtually nothing in particle physics has been intuitively right. Intuition would normally tell me that physical matter has some color (white/black/color - or combination thereof), yet electrons do not have a color. Intuition tells me that if one twin left Earth on a space ship, close to the speed of light, coming back 10 years laters, that he/she would be the same age as their twin. This is not the case. Intuition tells me that it doesn't take an observer to collapse a quantum probability into reality, but this isn't correct.

Don't take my words out of context. I was talking about the intuition that when there are phenomena that contradict a general or universal law, that we always find causes for that, like some new observed phenomena in nature, or the existence of a new object.

We knew gravitational laws. From that we calculated that uranus was 'misbehaving'. We did not adapt to some 'uncaused' phenomena in gravitational law itself, but found a cause: neptune and pluto(charon).

This is in general how science is conducted. We don't leave the situation that we accept some 'acausal' behaviour, but find causes for that behaviour. This has been the case in every particular situation. And my intuition tells me, that that will be always the case. It is what we call 'scientific progress'.

The same arguments about Newtonian mechanics could have been used when Einsteins theories were proposed. We've only seen reality act one way, so testing Einsteins absurd theories is a waste of time.

The problem with all the above arguments is simple. It has been stated already. It's based on somewhat normal conditions, conditions we cannot count on at T^{10^-43} seconds post BB.

As mentioned before, we formed the ideas about causality based on the observed universe. Just as Newton based his ideas of mechanics on his observed universe. At conditions outside of our and his experience, things may no longer apply. Considering we have never observed an actual infinity, your theory requires one, which makes it, also, outside our observed universe.

Correct. But seem my remarks below.

Except for that pesky Occam and his damned razor...

Personally, I always say "Harold did it". Though I don't know a Harold, it's always given me a certain visceral satisfaction to say so.


Hmm, had I read this sooner, I wouldn't have had to go back and take out many of my replies...

Again, Shifting the Burden of Proof - not my job.

Have you measured - demonstated an infinity?

No, and neither it can't.

But see my remarks below.

Actually, it's a description of how we see things happen.

One assumption every scientist has to make, and should have in the back of his/her mind is that we assume all laws, constants, et. al. are the same at distant points in the universe and in time, as they are now, unless shown otherwise.

Normally, we would have to accept causality as a default existing mechnism at or around the time of the BB. However, yet another thing we have never experienced, observed, or know to exist is a real infinity.

Since the implications of applying causality principles to all theories concerning the beginning of the universe implies no beginning, it also implies an infinity in time. This, too, is outside what we consider to be actual.



This addresses the Bifurcation argument flaw I already addressed - i.e. that causality seen in common experience also is required to in regions where the laws of normal physics start to break down, where common experience no longer applies. Just because it exists where we have made observations doesn't mean it has always existed in all conditions.

To further reiterate:
Causality is a term used to describe observed reality. In all we have seen (with the possible exception of quantum particle formation) requires a cause. The trouble with this is it is based on common experience - not areas outside the conditions said to have existed near the BB. Prior to Einstein, nobody had witnessed time dialation, therefore time was considered the same for all observers. At certain extreme conditions, this was considered incorrect.

Just as we have never experienced uncaused events, we have also not experienced a real (vs conceptual) infinity. Since your argument requires a real infinity (of time), you also have a point that is outside observed behaviour, just as uncaused events are outside observed behaviour. How is it you assign one to be more probably than the other. What mechanism do you use to calculate the probability of each?

To the 'reality of infinite time' I can only say that it can't become a reality, in the sense as what we define reality to be, i.e. not in the sense that it can be observed in any or other way.
So it only follows from a postulate, an abstraction of reality.

As a matter of fact, so is the existence of matter itself. Matter is an abstract philosophical category, which is determined as that what exists outside, apart from and independend from the mind.
We have never seen or observed matter. Because matter is something abstract. In the same way you have never seen womanhood. Womanhood is also an abstraction, you have only seen women.

Humans have evolved to accept causality at a very deep level. It has helped enable us to survive, so evolutionarily, is considered a good thing. Humans also have a deep urge to know the 'purpose' and 'reason' for everything. Certain religious folk are notorious for bringing up the ideas of purpose and reason for existence up, in discussing faith vs atheism - but that doesn't imply it is required to exist. Though the acceptance of causality would be a default position, so would the absence of infinities. Both cannot be correct. While your arguments do have merit, the problems I've stated are enough for me to disregard what you've said, as a proof. [/B]

What do you accept as proof? Infinity is unmeasurable, and therefore unobservable. A begin of time is however same absurd as no begin of time. We will never accept any of them. Because no one can proof that 'things happen to begin for no appearant reason' and no one can proof (i.e. 'measure) that time is infinite.

We have to admit that the existence of the world, the universe then, is something of a contradiction. Neither a begin or the infinity itself, can be a way for the world to exist, so it seems.
Though, neither we can think about infinity, without a contradiction. The contradiction of the infinity is that it exist out of finite parts, and yet that is the case. It is because infinity is a contradiction, that it is an endless process, evolving in time.

 

[heusdens]

Clearly the world cannot be completely causal else it could not exist. Neither can it be completely acausal for this would invalidate logic. Therefore, the universe must exist in two mutually contradictory states at once.
contradiction resolved with brute force

I think this is the wrong approach to this.

But let me explain.

First, I adressed this basic question, which is the basic question in philosophy as such. How do we know that the world exists?

There are two approaches to this basic question.

One is to state that the world in fact does not exist on itself, but only exist in a mindly form. The world is formed and shaped in the form of our consciousness. Nothing outside of that really can be hold to exist. This approach is called Idealism. The world exists in the idealized form of consciousness.

The other approach is to state that something outside of our consciousness exists, independend and apart from consciousness itself, which forms and shapes the world and forms an objective way in which the world exists. This approach is called Materialism.
That what exists primarily and independend of our consciousness is called matter.

- o - O - o -

Now about resolving this conflict between the causal way and acuasal way in which the world exists.

My statement is that becuase the material world, or simply matter, exists in a causal way, it means that it is an endless process, without begin or end.
But what is true for matter at the same time is untrue for consciousness. Consciousness does not exist in a causal way, because consciousness itself is not infinite and not endless.

Your consciousness was formed at some time, and will end at some time.
Consciousness does not exist in the same way as matter exists, and consciousness does not exist on itself. Consciosuness is the subjective way in which the world exists, while matter is the objective way in which the world exists. Consciousness is therefore dependend on matter. Matter is therefore primary, and consciousness secondary.

if we are talking about the material world, we can not escape from using the proper concepts which accompany the material world. An approach to matter as if it could exist in acausal way, or any approach which reflect on matter as having begun at some time, make matter into something it is not, cause this would denote that matter would not have objective and independend existence.

The conclusion would then be somehow: it is impossiple for the world to exist at all. Yet... nevertheless the world DOES exist!

You then have to choose between one of these:

EITHER the world is nothing but an illusion, and a flagrant and impossible contradiction, and does not exist at all

OR my mental projection of what the world is, are impossible concepts that do not reflect on the true nature of the world, and is therefore wrong

Now which is it?

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by heusdens
My statement is that becuase the material world, or simply matter, exists in a causal way, it means that it is an endless process, without begin or end.

Your statement is definition of faith without possibility to be proved. Fact that matter exists in causal way only, does NOT mean it is an endless process without begin or end. At best you can say that causal world can not give itself existence or terminate its own existence causally.

if we are talking about the material world, we can not escape from using the proper concepts which accompany the material world. An approach to matter as if it could exist in acausal way, or any approach which reflect on matter as having begun at some time, make matter into something it is not, cause this would denote that matter would not have objective and independend existence.

Matter can not exist in "acausal way", don't confuse it. acausal is not that which exists, its only instant of event without cause in principle. For any material motion which seems acausal, we'll eventually find some mysterious field or particle. Any acausal change of behaviour can be expressed as acausal appearance of new matter that then interacts. Its the existence of matter itself which is acausal, existence of causality principle itself is acausal.
Your requirement that all must be causal requires you to find the cause for existence of matter. Can you name any cause? Claim that it eternally existed is claim that it exists without cause, which is not so different from possibility that it began without cause.

The conclusion would then be somehow: it is impossiple for the world to exist at all. Yet... nevertheless the world DOES exist!

Yes, but this conveys no new information. Its empty.

EITHER the world is nothing but an illusion, and a flagrant and impossible contradiction, and does not exist at all

OR my mental projection of what the world is, are impossible concepts that do not reflect on the true nature of the world, and is therefore wrong

First, illusion and nonexistence don't fit together, therefore your first option is invalid. Second, I don't see why you bring mental stuff to the table at all. Are we talking about what exists, or about what we think? We have a damn case, our logic tells that what we observe is impossible, and we somehow have to live with it.
The point of the quote I gave was, that we can't resolve the contradiction, and we can't discard our logic, therefore heck with it, we accept both and live with it. Instead of banging heads against the wall, we bring acausality as possibility into our logic. We can also ignore the problem and avoid facing it.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wimms
Your statement is definition of faith without possibility to be proved. Fact that matter exists in causal way only, does NOT mean it is an endless process without begin or end. At best you can say that causal world can not give itself existence or terminate its own existence causally.

Hmmmm. Faith?

The only thing you might put against it, that my statement misses the option of being falsificable.
But it therefore does not need to be inherently false, it would just show that the falsification theory has been falsified, and proven not to be always correct.

Matter can not exist in "acausal way", don't confuse it. acausal is not that which exists, its only instant of event without cause in principle. For any material motion which seems acausal, we'll eventually find some mysterious field or particle. Any acausal change of behaviour can be expressed as acausal appearance of new matter that then interacts. Its the existence of matter itself which is acausal, existence of causality principle itself is acausal.
Your requirement that all must be causal requires you to find the cause for existence of matter. Can you name any cause? Claim that it eternally existed is claim that it exists without cause, which is not so different from possibility that it began without cause.

Matter contains within itself it's own cause. It is because matter is primary that it is not dependend on something else for it's existence.
By definition there can not be a cause for matter or for causality.

But your questions in fact refer to an issue, which is known as the 'fundamental question' in philosophy. This question is " why is there something ( a universe, a material world ) at all , instead of "nothing" ? "

I have made a contribution to that, and provide an answer to a question, which has been regarded as unanswerable.

This contribution is https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3703"

First, illusion and nonexistence don't fit together, therefore your first option is invalid. Second, I don't see why you bring mental stuff to the table at all. Are we talking about what exists, or about what we think? We have a damn case, our logic tells that what we observe is impossible, and we somehow have to live with it.
The point of the quote I gave was, that we can't resolve the contradiction, and we can't discard our logic, therefore heck with it, we accept both and live with it. Instead of banging heads against the wall, we bring acausality as possibility into our logic. We can also ignore the problem and avoid facing it.

I think we don't need to do that. But read my thread on 'The Fundamental Question' first.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by heusdens
No. My thread is about providing arguments against some very popular arguments in favour of a begin of time.

I showed that these arguments don't hold water.

It is you which shifts the burden of proof to me now.

Please refrain from popular theories which f.e. claim that BB is the theory of the 'begin of time', since that idea is not intrinsical to the BB theory at all.

There are so called 'pre BB hypothesis' of which one seemingly claims a 'begin of time' but on the same time does not state that at all...

There are a number of views of the BB theory at times prior to T^{10^-43}, all are supposition given that many physical laws cease to be known prior to T^{10^-43}. There are a number of suppositions about a prior cause to the BB, including the idea that the BB, and the Universe are a fixed four dimensional manifold, with time starting at T0 the same way the north pole is the 'start' of the earth, in the direction of 'south'. This view means causality is only an aspect of the physical structure of that 4D manifold, with events actually causing other events the same way my elbow causes my forearm . Most of the speculations about a cause to the BB are relatively new. The default position is that time started at the start of the BB, along with the other dimensions. It is the default position of the BB, because all others fail Occams razor. You are accurate in that the actual theory doesn't state time started at T0, however, it also says nothing else about anything before T^{10^-43}.

You state that you are disproving popular notions of time, yet when questioned about some of your points, you claim that those with the popular position must prove you wrong. You are making the assertion here, not I.

FAQ: Constructing a Logical Argument
http://saturn.las.ox.ac.uk/internet/news/faq/archive/atheism.logic.html
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise"

How do you define 'real infinite'.

Existing in reality, as opposed to a mental construct, such as an infinite number of integers, or infinite number of Real numbers.
For time to not have a beginning, it does not need to be measured or innuerated to be a real infinity.


Considering the positions in this debate appear intractable, I will retire from it. I prefer to avoid any debate where positions are intractable and/or where informal logic is dismissed.

 

[heusdens]

Radargast:

Are you aware of the argument of Kant in Critique of Pure Reaon Pro and Contra a begin of time ?

And:

I am not making an argument FOR the infinity of time, but AGAINST the begin of time. That is my position. At least what I do is to disproof the mentioned reasons for the begin of time.

Since:
1. Science does not state it
2. The argument from the impossibility of an actual infinite, which is a false argument since infinites are never actual.
3. The application of second law of thermodynamics to the universe as a closed system, and thereby overruling the first law, which leads to a contradiction. All useuable energy would have already be used up, if workable energy has reduced endlessly. Contradiction! The sun still shines!
4. The 'begin of time' is acausal. But we know that the universe is causal. Therefore: no begin of time!

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by heusdens
The only thing you might put against it, that my statement misses the option of being falsificable.
But it therefore does not need to be inherently false,

yep, and that puts it into category of faith . We can't know if its true, we can't know if its false. We pick one to believe in. I personally am not happy with either option, neither begin of time nor eternity. So point of my objections is not to proove you wrong, but to point out that you have opinion not a proof .

By definition there can not be a cause for matter or for causality.

But your questions in fact refer to an issue, which is known as the 'fundamental question' in philosophy. This question is " why is there something ( a universe, a material world ) at all , instead of "nothing" ? "

By definition. Thats the point. You don't have proof, you have definition. Change the definition, and it'll be opposite. And I mentioned few posts ago that you have PoE on your hands - paradox of existence.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wimms
yep, and that puts it into category of faith . We can't know if its true, we can't know if its false. We pick one to believe in. I personally am not happy with either option, neither begin of time nor eternity. So point of my objections is not to proove you wrong, but to point out that you have opinion not a proof .

I think this is like telling someone, who says that the world exists, that that is a matter of faith, but not well established proof.

By definition. Thats the point. You don't have proof, you have definition. Change the definition, and it'll be opposite. And I mentioned few posts ago that you have PoE on your hands - paradox of existence.

Yeah. Lets's change the definition of reason and unreason, or of true and false, and see: all contradictions resolved!

Yeeeeeh!

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by heusdens
I think this is like telling someone, who says that the world exists, that that is a matter of faith, but not well established proof.

No, its like telling someone who says that world is flat by definition and therefore can't be curved, that his proof is contained in definition that might be unwarranted.

Yeah. Lets's change the definition of reason and unreason, or of true and false, and see: all contradictions resolved!

Yeeeeeh!

no need to get hasty. If you want me to leave your thread, say so, and I'll leave silently.

 

[Arc_Central]

How about time being stuck for an eternity like an old mechanical clock that just needs a little oil - Then presto! We are on our way. In this case there is no beginning to time - Just a beginning to the drop of oil.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by heusdens
Yeah. Lets's change the definition of reason and unreason, or of true and false, and see: all contradictions resolved!

Yeeeeeh! [/B]

That appears to be exactly what you are attempting to do.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Arc_Central
How about time being stuck for an eternity like an old mechanical clock that just needs a little oil - Then presto! We are on our way. In this case there is no beginning to time - Just a beginning to the drop of oil.

It would indicate no change, but not no time.

In any case, the begin of time is just a concept.
It means however just this. Real time exists also before the supposed begin of time, only was that a time in which there was neither matter nor change or motion. If we would run the movie again it would just show us matter and motion to occur from appearently nowhere for no appearent reason.

It can't have happenened that way. Motion and matter must come from something preexisting matter or motion, not from 'nothing'.

 

[Jagger2003]

I brought this up once before but I would like to bring it up again. I presented a hypothetical model using the base components of the universe to demonstrate two states with one having "no beginning" and another having a "beginning". Both states could exist simultaneously. If this model is logical, wouldn't it demonstrate how we could have a "beginning"?

So on to the model.

I see the universe with two distinct measurable base components: energy and physical matter. Let us ignore consciousness and assume everything else derives from those two components.

Let us look at the states of these two components in regard to space and time. Energy exists at the speed of light in which time disappears and, if I understand correctly, space disappears as well. Matter exists in space and time. Matter cannot exist outside of space and time.

Pure energy exists in a timeless, spaceless environment. It has no "beginning" or ending. Infinity can exist here because energy has always existed and will always exist.

Due to an acausal event, pure energy creates matter. We now have created a second state with matter, space, time and a "beginning".

As a theoretical model, we now have the two needed states reconciling the need for a "beginning" and no beginning. One state of pure energy without a beginning. And a second state of matter with a "beginning". And we may have an "ending" if all matter reconverts to energy. Both states could exist simultaneously.

This model requires an acausal event of pure energy creating matter, space and time. It also requires timeless/spaceless energy interacting with matter existing within space and time. However an acausal event is not illogical. And we do have energy/matter interaction as a reality whether we understand the intersection or not.

The model seems acceptable to me in demonstrating a "beginning" by using the two base components of the universe and considering their states of time and space. Perhaps there is some illogic to this model and it is not workable. If so, let me know.

 

[Jagger2003]

Light

Here is an interesting article pertinant to energy and matter. It is report on an experiment conducted at Stanford using light to create matter. Physically demonstrates that energy can create matter.

http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/e144/sciencenow820.html