Einstein on the train

[surreptitious57]

WHY would any person let alone one called scientist propose origin causation when the facts SHOW there was NO origin to the Universe

Think about it and tell us WHY there is continually a PRESUMPTION that there was even an origin to the Universe

If most scientists do NOT propose origin causation then WHY is the origin word even used

What facts show that there was no origin to the Universe ? Physics can currently only go back to the Big Bang but not beyond
Do you know what happened before it ? If you do then can you demonstrate this knowledge ? If you cannot your claim is false

The word origin refers to the beginning of local cosmic expansion and nothing else so in that respect is entirely valid
Whether it is the beginning of the Universe however is an entirely separate issue and currently that remains unknown

[surreptitious57]

THAT what is agreed upon and accepted by ALL is the Truth as I have ALREADY expressed

Something does not have to have universal agreement for it to be true
Also universal agreement could be wrong any way with regard to the truth in question
How true something is has no bearing at all on how many believe or think it to be true

[uwot]

THAT what is agreed upon and accepted by ALL is the Truth as I have ALREADY expressed

Something does not have to have universal agreement for it to be true

Bloody right. Other than Parmenides irrefutable 'Being is', there has never been a single proposition that has ever had universal agreement. Unless we are to believe Age:

Until the earth was NOT the center of the Universe was BELIEVED to be true, the exact opposite was being said and insisted by ALL "scientists".

So the Earth used to be flat. Now it isn't.

Anyway Age, I've had my hissy fit. So what is it that everyone agrees on today?

[surreptitious57]

The Earth is a sphere [ or oblate spheroid ] and this is a demonstrable fact and is therefore true. But there are Flat Earthers who deny this
So does this mean that till they accept it that it cannot be claimed that the Earth is a sphere ? No of course not so universal acceptance is
a flawed concept pertaining to objective truth. What matters with regard to objective truth is not how popular it is but how rigorous it is

[uwot]

...universal acceptance is a flawed concept pertaining to objective truth.

Well it's argumentum as populum which anyone who has been in the same room as book on logic knows is a fallacy.

[Arising_uk]

'THAT' what is agreed upon and accepted by ALL is the Truth, as I have ALREADY expressed.
...

So what is agreed upon and accepted by all?

[surreptitious57]

Something can be both true and popular but that is mere correlation rather than causation
For even if something is held to be universally true that in and of itself does not make it so

[Age]

I find it much better to just start from what IS and then proceed while always remaining with what IS

You cannot acquire new knowledge if you always remain with what is

If you KNOW ALL of what IS, in the beginning, then you can NOT acquire new knowledge. However, if you do NOT know ALL of what IS, then you CAN always acquire new knowledge.

SEEING and KNOWING what IS of one thing does NOT mean that you could NOT keep SEEING and acquiring new knowledge of what IS of other things nor even more of that one thing itself.

and you therefore have to at some point hypothesise about what might be true but which is not yet known.

You do NOT 'have to', but you CAN do that, if you so wish to.

You can then proceed with such a hypothesis providing that it is testable and capable of potential falsification This is the standard method by which science acquires new knowledge and it is used because it is very reliable and there is no superior method

Do you mean there is NO superior method, which you know of, or, NO superior method, full stop?

[surreptitious57]

Do you mean there is NO superior method which you know of or NO superior method full stop ?

I mean that there is no superior method at this point in time. The method can be refined and improved upon
However as a general principle it cannot be since it is deliberately designed to find fault with any hypothesis

[Logik]

However as a general principle it cannot be since it is deliberately designed to find fault with any hypothesis

It is deliberately designed to maximise for completeness, while knowing it will never really get there.

all models are wrong - some are useful

[surreptitious57]

It is deliberately designed to maximise for completeness while knowing it will never really get there

It will never get there because of the problem of induction but it can over time become less imperfect and so give better results
The best thing about it is that despite its very obvious flaw it remains an incredibly rigorous and eternally self correcting system

[Scott Mayers]

Age appears to be going through a 'why' stage like a 2-year old child of the parents, Science and Philosophy, not knowing the particular terms of the process, or methods. I was thinking maybe Age was an Internet born A.I. that has learned to communicate, has access to information, but can't associate the 'sensing' of reality except through data as the raw facts. (?) At least if such an A.I. were to exist and evolve, I picture her to respond like this for lacking the same kind of senses we do. "Assuming" is a kind of a real randomizing function that computers only know as artificial functions.

@Age, I mean no insult but this came to mind when trying to figure you out. I suggest thinking of the word, "assume" to be 'as U me' (as you, me). This might help you recognize that assumptions have to be made between two or more people communicating what we 'sense' together because we can't actually read through each other's heads to know THAT we sense things in the same way. Because your questions do have 'sense' in light of my analogy, please be patient and given your kind of questions involve stepping back into epistemology, open or join threads on questioning HOW we know things first. You're in the right place but may not yet be prepared OR require getting to know HOW you deal with knowing or learning first through other thread activity.

As for the term, "beginning", that seems to be troubling to you, this concept is about ORDER. Science IS about determining the patterns of order in reality (versus math being about determining patterns using numbers uniquely). Seeking causation is seeking the patterns of reality that has order and is used to predict "how to" do something in the future using those patterns. The 'why' is what science does that means, "for what reason, cause, purpose, etc." Asking why is equivalent to asking what it the ordered pattern of some conclusion we seek to understand in order to either duplicate the experience or evade it in some future way. Then, if we learn the pattern, we can use them to anticipate or design intentional 'conclusions' (where 'conclusions' include any desired outcome).

[Age]

WHY would any person let alone one called a "scientist"propose origin causation when the facts SHOW there was NO origin to the Universe

Think about it and tell us WHY there is continually a PRESUMPTION that there was even an origin to the Universe

If most scientists do NOT propose origin causation then WHY is the origin word even used

What facts show that there was no origin to the Universe ?

If there is NO sufficient nor reasonable answer to the question; How could any thing come from one thing or from no thing? then, until there is what IS is there is absolutely NOTHING whatsoever that says nor shows how there even COULD BE a start let alone that the Universe had a beginning.

Also, if 'EVERY action has a reaction' is a fact, then there is the fact that there is NO origin to the Universe.

Physics can currently only go back to the Big Bang but not beyond

Does physics SHOW that 'EVERY action causes a reaction'?

If yes, then physics can go beyond that bang.
If no, then does physics "SAY" that the universal law of cause and effect states that for every effect there is a definite cause, likewise for every cause, there is a definite effect?

If yes, then physics can go beyond that bang.
If no, then what do you mean by 'physics'?

Do you know what happened before it ?

Yes.

The Universe was in a different shape and form.

If you do then can you demonstrate this knowledge ?

I can NOT show/illustrate a picture of the Universe before that bang, just like I can NOW show/illustrate a picture of the end of a black hole where there is likely an infinite compression of matter nor show what that looks like after that singularly goes of with a bang and expands, if it does, but I can explain that if 'cause and effect' is a universal law of physics, then physics can demonstrate what the Universe is doing BEFORE and AFTER these, relatively sized, bangs.

If you cannot your claim is false

Did I demonstrate this knowledge, to you?

If yes, then so be it.
If no, then that does NOT necessarily mean my claim is false. That just means my claim is yet unknown, by you.

The word origin refers to the beginning of local cosmic expansion and nothing else so in that respect is entirely valid

So, then the word 'origin' is not in question, just as long as the 'origin' word ONLY refers to the local cosmic, and NOT to the Universe, Itself.

By the way what does the phrase "The early Universe" refer to when used in scientific literature?

Whether it is the beginning of the Universe however is an entirely separate issue and currently that remains unknown

Could you explain HOW there even could be a beginning to the Universal, Itself?

Also WHY did you say "Whether 'it' is the beginning of the Universe"?

And, WHY use the "the" word when referening to "beginning"? The 'the' word, in that context, very subtlety and subconsciously implies that there actually WAS a beginning.

Was there a beginning to the Universe, Itself?

[Scott Mayers]

[from the particular response to surruptitious57 but applicable to others here including myself]

Could you explain HOW there even could be a beginning to the Universal, Itself?

Also WHY did you say "Whether 'it' is the beginning of the Universe"?

And, WHY use the "the" word when referening to "beginning"? The 'the' word, in that context, very subtlety and subconsciously implies that there actually WAS a beginning.

Was there a beginning to the Universe, Itself?

If you just 'begin' from where you are, then there is a set of factors that are 'prior' to your reality (or 'past') as well as to 'post' the present. This defines an ORDER relationship to which some factors are 'original' to your present experience. So a 'beginning' means a begged inning or assumed input to the machine of reality that determines what you are. This is a 'cause'.

So 'HOW there even could be a beginning to the Universe' is just an extension to how you yourself originated. We just extend what we know collectively to try to determine what pattern reality has. Obviously there is at least some 'original' FACTOR about reality, whether it be infinite OR finite. To be confused at why we need to question a 'finite' one equally begs the question of an infinite one as well.

When you think we should not 'assume' anything, this thinking IS what we all do. Yet, assuming nothing is indifferent to assuming an infinity of things in just the same way you do. While totality CAN include ALL possible infinite realities, this won't help us DETERMINE what is true locally. If you insist that space is infinite and that we should not assume anything, then you are left to assume nothing itself as an 'origin' that includes something infinite. Certainly for you to assign infinity to space as something so obvious begs that you transfer this thinking to logically include every explanation true by default. So why would you hypocritically expect to distrust something specifically called, an "origin" when this too is included in the infinity of possible realities?

[Age]

[from the particular response to surruptitious57 but applicable to others here including myself]

Could you explain HOW there even could be a beginning to the Universal, Itself?

Also WHY did you say "Whether 'it' is the beginning of the Universe"?

And, WHY use the "the" word when referening to "beginning"? The 'the' word, in that context, very subtlety and subconsciously implies that there actually WAS a beginning.

Was there a beginning to the Universe, Itself?

If you just 'begin' from where you are, then there is a set of factors that are 'prior' to your reality (or 'past') as well as to 'post' the present. This defines an ORDER relationship to which some factors are 'original' to your present experience. So a 'beginning' means a begged inning or assumed input to the machine of reality that determines what you are.

When you say 'mean' here, do you mean that this IS EXACTLY what it 'means' for ALL from an absolute sense, or, this is just what it 'means', to you?

The dictionaries I have LOOKED IN do NOT say that 'beginning' means a beggedinning.

The rest of what you wrote, for example, "assumed input to the machine of reality", "that determines what you are", "a set of factors that are prior", "to 'your' reality", "defines an ORDER relationship", "some factors are 'original' ", "present experience, and more does NOT answer the question I posed, and ONLY detracts further away from the actual question I posed.

This is a 'cause'.

Yes I agree that a 'beginning' is a 'cause'.

If you like; How could there even be a 'cause' to the Universe?

So 'HOW there even could be a beginning to the Universe' is just an extension to how you yourself originated.

But the 'you', which is usually referred to the human body, did actually originate, from two other human bodies coming together. This, however, does NOT necessarily extend to the Universe, Itself. (Unless of course SHOWN otherwise).

We just extend what we know collectively to try to determine what pattern reality has.

And this is EXACTLY what I have been saying is a fault within the adult human being. That is; this making ASSUMPTIONS, based on one's own past experiences, and extrapolating that out onto other things, as though what applies to human beings applies to EVERY thing also. Making Assumptions, based on Past Experiences, can very easily and very simply cause confusion, which is WHY I say that way of LOOKING is an OLD WAY of SEEING things.

Instead of extending what 'you' know collectively to TRY TO determine what pattern "reality" has, WHY NOT just LOOK AT and SEE and RECOGNIZE the actual pattern that ALREADY exists and IS HERE, for ALL to SEE?

Obviously there is at least some 'original' FACTOR about reality, whether it be infinite OR finite.

HOW could there be an 'original' FACTOR about an infinite "reality"?

I can very easily see how there could be an 'original' FACTOR to any thing finite, but any thing infinite, to me, IS DIFFERENT.

To be confused at why we need to question a 'finite' one equally begs the question of an infinite one as well.

WHY do 'you' feel the NEED to question either?

The answers ARE HERE, for ALL to SEE.

When you think we should not 'assume' anything, this thinking IS what we all do.

Yes I KNOW ALL adult human beings ASSUME things. This is EXACTLY what I am POINTING OUT and putting into QUESTION.

Yet, assuming nothing is indifferent to assuming an infinity of things in just the same way you do.

What do you propose I am ASSUMING?

I have expressed that I DO NOT LIKE TO ASSUME ANY THING. I have also noted that some times i make ASSUMPTIONS unknowingly, and WHEN i do this and it is noticed, then i would like to be informed of this. So, if you SEE any ASSUMPTIONS in my writings, then please inform me of this so i and the readers can also SEE them.

While totality CAN include ALL possible infinite realities, this won't help us DETERMINE what is true locally.

No it will NOT. But just simply LOOKING AT what IS, from the Truly OPEN perspective, easily DETERMINES what is true locally.

Whereas, ASSUMING what COULD BE, however, can interfere with and distort what ACTUALLY IS locally AND further afield.

If you insist that space is infinite

What is it with you human beings when reading what I write? The actual words I write are HERE, in plain sight, for ALL to SEE. How can the words that I actually WRITE get so misinterpreted, so often?

I have NEVER insisted that space is infinite. I have NEVER even said that space is infinite. So, once again, WHERE are ALL of these WRONG conclusions coming from? Is it from the way MY WORDS are written, is it from the way they get MISREAD, or, is it coming from some thing else, like, for example, the actual things that are being ASSUMED when my words are being read?

and that we should not assume anything, then you are left to assume nothing itself as an 'origin' that includes something infinite.

You are so FAR OFF TRACK now, that to get back ON TRACK is getting harder and harder all the time.

Certainly for you to assign infinity to space as something so obvious

Which I have CERTAINLY NOT done at all.

Can you POINT US TO WHERE I have, supposedly, 'assigned infinity to space'?

begs that you transfer this thinking to logically include every explanation true by default.

ANOTHER completely and utterly WRONG conclusion/assertion being made here.

So why would you hypocritically expect to distrust something specifically called, an "origin" when this too is included in the infinity of possible realities?

I do NOT 'distrust' an 'origin'.

I have a VIEW, which SEES HOW an infinite Universe is SIMPLY POSSIBLE. I, however, have NOT yet SEEN how a finite, origin/beginning Universe IS POSSIBLE. Unless of course, you can SHOW one or at least explain; HOW the Universe COULD begin.

Also, it was explained to me that the word 'origin' ONLY applies to the local cosmic "expansion" (the local "expansion" is some thing else, for another time) SO, if the origin ONLY applies to that and NOT to the Universe, Itself, then we will have to NOT use the 'origin' word in relation to whether the Universe began or started, or not'.

Now, IF there is a possibility that the Universe began/started, then WHAT COULD HAVE POSSIBLY even 'caused' this starting/beginning?

If you just ignored EVERY thing else and just ANSWERED this question ONLY, then that might help me to SEE HOW there even could be a beginning to the Universe, Itself, which would then help me to SEE 'that', which "others" want me to SEE.

If, so called, "religious people" keep thinking/believing that the words, "In the beginning", in religious texts refers to A beginning of the Universe, Itself, and, so called, "scientific people" keep thinking/believing that the words, "The early Universe", in scientific texts is in relation to A beginning of the Universe, Itself, then please help me to UNDERSTAND HOW this could even be actually POSSIBLE.

JUST ANSWER the question: HOW could there even be a beginning to the Universe, Itself? I will thank you in advance.