@JPLosman0711,
I accept that explanation of what you meant by 'nothing' in this case. No problem. When did I ever say that 'old' and 'wise' have any relationship to each other? I certainly don't subscribe to that notion. Neither youth nor age have any monopoly on so-called 'wisdom.' Being older simply means that one has more experience in the phenomenal world, that's all.
@Lustig Andrei,
Never said that you said that, I was just making a statement.
the Universe exits because energy and matter is infinite
and that nothing cannot evolve into something , it is simply not possible
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
Quote:1) If we assume that a sphere with a given volume contains nothing,
Of course, Ding, if it has a specific volume then it contains space, which I had proposed to remove
Quote:2) But the idea of nothingness is not contradictory or paradoxical;
You misunderstand. You had asserted
Quote:There is no reason why the universe exist as it does;
and I was merely speculating that eventually you’ll be proven wrong in that respect, for the reason given
I stated that there is no reason, not that it was 'nothing' at all. And the problem does not lie within the idea of nothing, but within its actualizing, with its very possibility of obtaining. But there is no reason why we should suppose that something can come from nothing, and this is due to the absolute facticity, or necessary contingency, of everything; which entails that there must exist at least one contingent thing.
@JPLosman0711,
JPLosman0711 wrote:
Yes, they are mis-representations of 'life'.
And how does one go about representing or mis-representing? Better yet, can one ever represent at all? Is it all smoke and mirrors?
@Ding an Sich,
'Concepts' are what people hide behind when they don't want anyone to find out their un-aware of what they're talking about.
This is called being in-authentic and mis-representing who you really are.
@north,
Quote:and that nothing cannot evolve into something , it is simply not possible
Don’t know about that North (and maybe Ding too). Present thinking—not my idea--has it all starting out of a speck appearing out of nothingness, then a “ball" expanding through various stages and eventually winding up as a huge number of objects accelerating apart forever whilst cooling toward absolute zero
For what it’s worth—not much if you ask most of our participants—I find the scenario intuitionally unsatisfying and speculate that eventually somehow the expansion reverses and all the junk comes back together into a “ball” of increasing mass—we call it the Big Crunch--and smaller size until poof—it’s once more nothing. Then we have the next Big Bang
I say “ball” ‘cause it doesn’t have a shape and the reason for that is, there’s nothing outside it, not even space
Contradictions and paradoxes entailed in the idea of nothingness afre dispatched by asserting its duration to be zero
@dalehileman,
Quote:and that nothing cannot evolve into something , it is simply not possible
Quote: Don’t know about that North (and maybe Ding too). Present thinking—not my idea--has it all starting out of a speck appearing out of nothingness, then expanding through various stages and eventually winding up as a huge number of objects accelerating apart forever whilst cooling toward absolute zero For what it’s worth—not much if you ask most of our participants—I find the scenario intuitionally unsatisfying and speculate that eventually all the junk comes back together into a “ball” of increasing mass—we call it the Big Crunch--and smaller size until poof—it’s once more nothing. Then we have the next Big Bang Contradictions and paradoxes entiled in the idea of nothingness afre dispatched by asserting its duration to be zero
the paradox though with the BB is this ; they can't explain what was happening before BB , fine we see though , assuming though that the latest finding are right , that Universe is actually accelerating , that the galaxies are actually becoming further and further a part , not closer together therefore the paradox is , if the Universe is actually moving further a part , how did it come to a single point ? the evidence is observational BB is a theory see my point ?
@north,
Quote: they can't explain what was happening before BB ,
Not conclusively by any means but the idea of successive Bangs is very appealing
Quote: ….. the latest finding …... actually accelerating , that the galaxies are actually becoming further and further a part ,
That’s the thinking
Quote:not closer together therefore the paradox is , if the Universe is actually moving further a part , how did it come to a single point ?
If you mean how do all the particles then come back together, why, heck I don’t know. Maybe after a long while gravitation reasserts itself
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote: Quote: they can't explain what was happening before BB ,
Not conclusively by any means but the idea of successive Bangs is very appealing
Quote: ….. the latest finding …... actually accelerating , that the galaxies are actually becoming further and further a part ,
That’s the thinking
Quote:not closer together therefore the paradox is , if the Universe is actually moving further a part , how did it come to a single point ?
If you mean how do all the particles then come back together, why, heck I don’t know. Maybe after a long while gravitation reasserts itself
and in the way things are going , out there , the new theory is that , eventually all things will get ripped a part , galaxies , planets , moons , you -me , everything will be ripped a part
now what they don't mention nor talk about is how this relates to BB , I found this interesting , don't you ?
for life to be possible,
various features of the Universe must be almost precisely as
they are. As one example of such a feature, we can take the
initial conditions in the Big Bang. If these conditions had been
more than very slightly different, these physicists claim, the
Universe would not have had the complexity that allows living
beings to exist. Why were these conditions so precisely
right?
Some say: ‘If they had not been right, we couldn’t even ask this
question.’ But that is no answer. It could be baffling how we
survived some crash even though, if we hadn’t, we could not
be baffled.
Others say: ‘There had to be some initial conditions, and the
conditions that make life possible were as likely as any others.
So there is nothing to be explained.’ To see what is wrong
with this reply, we must distinguish two kinds of case.
Suppose first that, when some radio telescope is aimed at most
points in space, it records a random sequence of incoming
waves. There might be nothing here that needed to be
explained. Suppose next that, when the telescope is aimed in
one direction, it records a sequence of waves whose pulses
match the number π, in binary notation, to the first ten
thousand digits. That particular number is, in one sense, just
as likely as any other. But there would be something here that
needed to be explained. Though each long number is unique,
only a very few are, like π, mathematically special. What
would need to be explained is why this sequence of waves
exactly matched such a special number. Though this
matching might be a coincidence, which had been randomly
produced, that would be most unlikely. We could be almost
certain that these waves had been produced by some kind of
intelligence.
On the view that we are now considering, since any sequence
of waves is as likely as any other, there would be nothing to be
explained. If we accepted this view, intelligent beings
elsewhere in space would not be able to communicate with us,
since we would ignore their messages. Nor could God reveal
himself. Suppose that, with some optical telescope, we saw a
distant pattern of stars which spelled out in Hebrew script the
first chapter of Genesis. This pattern of stars, according to this
view, would not need to be explained. That is clearly false.
Here is another analogy. Suppose first that, of a thousand
people facing death, only one can be rescued. If there is a
lottery to pick this one survivor, and I win, I would be very
lucky. But there might be nothing here that needed to be
explained. Someone had to win, and why not me? Consider
next another lottery. Unless my gaoler picks the longest of a
thousand straws, I shall be shot. If my gaoler picks that
longest straw, there would be something to be explained. It
would not be enough to say, ‘This result was as likely as any
other.’ In the first lottery, nothing special happened: whatever
the result, someone’s life would be saved. In this second
lottery, the result was special, since, of the thousand possible
results, only one would save a life. Why was this special result
also what happened? Though this might be a coincidence, the
chance of that is only one in a thousand. I could be almost
certain that, like Dostoyevsky’s mock execution, this lottery
was rigged.
The Big Bang, it seems, was like this second lottery. For life to
be possible, the initial conditions had to be selected with great
accuracy. This appearance of fine-tuning, as some call it, also
needs to be explained.
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
Quote:Suppose first that the Universe has always existed.
Yes Tur I have always so supposed as it neatly skirts so many contradictions and paradoxes
Quote:Even an infinite series of events cannot explain itself. We could ask why this series occurred, rather than some other series
Because this is the only way it could work; any other way would entail all those anomalies. It’s the way it is because it can’t be any other way
Quote:if the Universe had no beginning, there would be nothing for a Creator to explain.
I don’t require Her to explain it. The pantheist replies simply that She has always existed
Quote:Suppose next that the Universe is not eternal, since nothing preceded the Big Bang.
Okay. So I propose the problems with a “state of nothingness” are easily resolved by asserting its duration to be zero, reducing the question to a mere matter of semantics and incidentally allowing for serial Universes
Quote:There could not be a causal explanation of why the Universe
exists,
Sure there could, the fact it hasn’t been done yet doesn’t mean it can’t be done. At risk of repetition, it’ll be shown that it has to exist because non-existence is impossible
Quote:why there are any laws of nature, or why these laws are as they are.
Easy: It will be shown that a law or constant adopts the value that it does because it depends upon all the other values. This is illustrated dramatically in the case of a moving clock. All its apparent peculiarities though counter-intuitional are proved by actual measurement and if you try to assign a different value relativity would fall apart
Hmmm....
Which constants are dependent, and which are independent? Also, there is not only constants that need to be explained, but also the form of the fundamental equations.
@TuringEquivalent,
Quote:Which constants are dependent, and which are independent?
Tur that’s really a good question and one that deserves to be further addressed. My feeling is that somehow they’re all interdependent, the value of each depending on those of the rest
No, not exactly a definitive response, purely intuitive
Quote:Also, there is not only constants that need to be explained, but also the form of the fundamental equations.
Indeed. Wish I could help you
@dalehileman,
I agree, Dalehileman. Ultimately all is co-dependent and co-existent. Some aspects of reality are--it would seem--more independent from some other aspects of reality, but ULTIMATELY it's a single unitary system.
@JLNobody,
Thank you JL, it’s encouraging to gain a little support in this punic conflation of dysphoric persiflage
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent wrote:The Big Bang, it seems, was like this second lottery. For life to be possible, the initial conditions had to be selected with great accuracy. This appearance of fine-tuning, as some call it, also
needs to be explained.
I disagree. I can pose a question that could solve this issue easily.
What if, the big bang, banged multiple times, but failed to result in a universe because the bang in these other bang attempts the physics were not right and it immediately collapsed back in on itself?
Sort of like a person blowing up a balloon but failing to do so on the first few attempts and then finally something gives and the right amount of "pressure" is exerted and the balloon inflates.
Now my balloon analogy might be a horrible one, but it paints a picture that we could have had technically many failed universes and then the reason why we have a universe now was because something "gave" that allowed the expansion to occur as we observe it.
The problem is people assume that there was only one bang and it was successful on the first attempt. When you assume this, you make an error right off the get go because any following questions will assume such a process and so doing it will imply (as many so desperately try to) that there was some aid by some intelligence to make it happen just so.
With my theory, you wouldn't need any intelligence, if the bangs failed many times previously and then finally a "successful" result occurred. I see this happen in nature quite a bit, so it isn't so far fetched to question if the start of the universe underwent the same sort of process.
@Krumple,
I very much appreciate your attempt to suggest alternative presuppositions of how the universe began. Multiple bangs (in one place)...very interesting.
What about another: if space did not exist before the singularity then it is not necessary for it to exist elsewhere for an indefinite number of other Big Bang events to occur. I was going to suggest that in infinite space (and time) there might very likely have occurred other bangs--replications of our universe's genesis, but then I recalled that time and space began with our singularity so I suggested the possibility of multiple Big Bangs in different places.
What fun.
BTW is your signature line inspired by Nietzsche's principle of Amor Fati (love your destiny)?
@Krumple,
Quote:What if, the big bang, banged multiple times, but failed to result in a universe because the bang in these other bang attempts the physics were not right and it immediately collapsed back in on itself?
Why not
However it happened, it’s sure a form of evolution just as with life. No doubt in the latter instance suffered many false starts
What’s so puzzling however is that it seems all the constants were finally adjusted—some within a fraction of one percent—specifically to allow the latter kind
In other words why should life have proved so important in the process
Quote:The problem is people assume that there was only one bang
Not everyone
Quote:how the universe began. Multiple bangs (in one place)
Forgive me JL but that doesn’t make sense. There’s only one place, and that’s The Universe. For there to be more places implies it’s a sort of ball in space. But it isn’t in space. Space is in
it
Quote:if space did not exist before the singularity then it is not necessary for it to exist elsewhere…...so I suggested the possibility of multiple Big Bangs in different places.
This one’s got me going too. Are you suggesting an infinite space in which Big Bangs occur here and there for no apparent reason
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:
I very much appreciate your attempt to suggest alternative presuppositions of how the universe began. Multiple bangs (in one place)...very interesting.
What about another: if space did not exist before the singularity then it is not necessary for it to exist elsewhere for an indefinite number of other Big Bang events to occur. I was going to suggest that in infinite space (and time) there might very likely have occurred other bangs--replications of our universe's genesis, but then I recalled that time and space began with our singularity so I suggested the possibility of multiple Big Bangs in different places.
What fun.
It creates more problems sometimes to suggest that there were multiple attempts rather than assume there was only one attempt and that attempt was so percise to work out as a "successful" universe.
But to go on, I actually hate this discussion because it makes another assumption, and hopefully I can pin point what I mean without rambling on too much.
The matter, the "solid" stuff that we find so facinating about the universe, ie. stars, planets, asteroids, comets, ect. ALL of this "stuff" this matter is an incredibly SMALL amount of the universe. What I mean to say is that we take all this stuff to be significant but only because we are made of this stuff. But the reality is, the ratio of "nothing" or "space" to "matter" or "stuff" is so remarkably huge~!
If we were to take all the matter or stuff , the stars and everything and put it all into a clump (ignoring gravity for this explanation) the amount of space it would take up in the universe is less than 0.0000000001% of the entire size of the universe. I am not making up these numbers, they are accurate mathmatical answers that many cosmologists have come to determine.
What does that mean then? It means the matter, all this "stuff" is really nothing more than residue. It is like a spec of dust in an empty room the size of the earth. It really means matter is insignificant. So the bang that created all the atoms really created nothing at all. Atoms are just the residue of an event that happened.
Since we are made of atoms, we tend to gravitate (pun intended) to assume that matter is important and significant to the universe when in reality it is not. We are just too small to realize that but it needs to be mentioned.
This is why I don't like this discussion because it assumes matter is significant to the universe where as how I see it, it is so incredibly insignificant, it might as well be non-existent comparitively.
JLNobody wrote:
BTW is your signature line inspired by Nietzsche's principle of Amor Fati (love your destiny)?
Actually no, and honestly I am not very familiar with nietzche's philosophies. The quote is just something I made up but probably not the first to actually do so. It really comes from studying buddhism, where the concept that life is unfavorable because we don't have everything we want when we want it. So I see and view life as a struggle to obtain happiness, a sort of curse that we all share and what drives us to live. If we had everything we wanted, we would probably stop living. Just my interpretation of life, I could be wrong.
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
In other words why should life have proved so important in the process
I think your question is where the error is. You use the word "important" as if the universe views life as being necessary or important. I however; do not view the universe as seeing life as it's goal or why there is a universe. I think life was just a result because of how things are in terms of chemistry and physics but life is not necessary or important to the universe. To use the word important makes an assumption that I am not willing to grant.
