There was a beginning

[Scott Mayers]

There are two proofs for this. A) The physical argument (the second law of thermodynamics) and B) The metaphysical one (the logical one).

Proof of A: Heat death is the final state of any close system eventually. This is due to the second law of thermodynamics that states that entropy (disorder) increases in any close system. We are not in heat death therefore there was a beginning.

Proof of B: There are two scenarios for the eternal past (eternal past being whatever that exists in past): 1) One can reach from the eternal past to now or 2) One cannot. In the first case, we have a beginning since we just need to look at the past to see the eternal past. In the second case, we cannot reach from the eternal past to now, therefore, there is no beginning. We however are at now. Therefore there is no eternal past. Therefore the second case is wrong. We are left with (1) that is plausible. Therefore, there is a beginning.

I didn't directly comment before on what you said here. So let me now.

For your "Proof of A", etropy asserts 'closed' to define the meaning. But the actual space is 'open' and, according to the expansion of space, permits the "heat death" to present scientific concensus. I don't necessarily agree with this, but your argument doesn't hold and in fact is argued for the opposite, ....that given space is assumed open (for 'growing'), they reverse this in time and assume the singularity as the point at which no space exists and its 'origin'. Again, this has its paradoxes and so either way, science cannot argue for 'beginnings', something that I justify dropping the Big Bang theory for a Steady State version instead.

For your "Proof of B", this is understandable but deals with Zeno's paradoxes that still can be argued as contentious where a 'singular' point of origin could be just a 'boundary' point rather than an included point. Discussing 'infinite' concepts are difficult because the nature of 'definition' goes against 'infinity' concepts. "Infinity" literally means "without finitude" where "definition" refers to "with finitude", by contrast. This "Proof of B", is however, more probable to argue with though. But it requires respecting something BEYOND those singularity points' existence. Then you can assert that the singularity itself exists AS "AN origin", but not necessarily "THE origin" most universally possible of Totality as a whole.

[bahman]

There are two proofs for this. A) The physical argument (the second law of thermodynamics) and B) The metaphysical one (the logical one).

Proof of A: Heat death is the final state of any close system eventually. This is due to the second law of thermodynamics that states that entropy (disorder) increases in any close system. We are not in heat death therefore there was a beginning.

Proof of B: There are two scenarios for the eternal past (eternal past being whatever that exists in past): 1) One can reach from the eternal past to now or 2) One cannot. In the first case, we have a beginning since we just need to look at the past to see the eternal past. In the second case, we cannot reach from the eternal past to now, therefore, there is no beginning. We however are at now. Therefore there is no eternal past. Therefore the second case is wrong. We are left with (1) that is plausible. Therefore, there is a beginning.

I didn't directly comment before on what you said here. So let me now.

For your "Proof of A", etropy asserts 'closed' to define the meaning. But the actual space is 'open' and, according to the expansion of space, permits the "heat death" to present scientific concensus. I don't necessarily agree with this, but your argument doesn't hold and in fact is argued for the opposite, ....that given space is assumed open (for 'growing'), they reverse this in time and assume the singularity as the point at which no space exists and its 'origin'. Again, this has its paradoxes and so either way, science cannot argue for 'beginnings', something that I justify dropping the Big Bang theory for a Steady State version instead.

The whole is closed since there is nothing left to interact with.

For your "Proof of B", this is understandable but deals with Zeno's paradoxes that still can be argued as contentious where a 'singular' point of origin could be just a 'boundary' point rather than an included point. Discussing 'infinite' concepts are difficult because the nature of 'definition' goes against 'infinity' concepts. "Infinity" literally means "without finitude" where "definition" refers to "with finitude", by contrast. This "Proof of B", is however, more probable to argue with though. But it requires respecting something BEYOND those singularity points' existence. Then you can assert that the singularity itself exists AS "AN origin", but not necessarily "THE origin" most universally possible of Totality as a whole.

What is the relation of Zeno's paradoxes with my argument?

[Scott Mayers]

There are two proofs for this. A) The physical argument (the second law of thermodynamics) and B) The metaphysical one (the logical one).

Proof of A: Heat death is the final state of any close system eventually. This is due to the second law of thermodynamics that states that entropy (disorder) increases in any close system. We are not in heat death therefore there was a beginning.

Proof of B: There are two scenarios for the eternal past (eternal past being whatever that exists in past): 1) One can reach from the eternal past to now or 2) One cannot. In the first case, we have a beginning since we just need to look at the past to see the eternal past. In the second case, we cannot reach from the eternal past to now, therefore, there is no beginning. We however are at now. Therefore there is no eternal past. Therefore the second case is wrong. We are left with (1) that is plausible. Therefore, there is a beginning.

I didn't directly comment before on what you said here. So let me now.

For your "Proof of A", etropy asserts 'closed' to define the meaning. But the actual space is 'open' and, according to the expansion of space, permits the "heat death" to present scientific concensus. I don't necessarily agree with this, but your argument doesn't hold and in fact is argued for the opposite, ....that given space is assumed open (for 'growing'), they reverse this in time and assume the singularity as the point at which no space exists and its 'origin'. Again, this has its paradoxes and so either way, science cannot argue for 'beginnings', something that I justify dropping the Big Bang theory for a Steady State version instead.

The whole is closed since there is nothing left to interact with.

I already understood you to interpret this as the case. I'm saying that the 'closed' need to describe entropy is for definition only. If you had a closed container, this is mostly true but still has the problem that the container, no matter what it is made up of, will eventually lose the heat through its containing walls. So the IDEAL meaning of entropy is to imagine a container of which walls are perfectly non-conducting and reflects 100% of energy of particles internally. Then, given there is a fixed amount of particles in this container, AND further assuming these particles have energy (ie, movement), the meaning of entropy is that if you imagine beginning with all particles on one side of the container, the motion will bump all the particles in a way that will more often fill the whole space such as to distribute its contents evenly. This is just an average based upon a 'bell' curve. So the 'odds' of all the particles to actually become 'ordered', such as starting from any mixed state to become in a state with all the molecules on only one half, is still possible but highly improbable given all possible arrangements.

Because the Standard model believes in the Big Bang model, they didn't start off with an assumption of a finite container, only an assumption of finite ENERGY. This theory and its competing one, the Steady State, use the inference of space to be 'expanding' (or space being added from nowhere) such that the concentration of matter to space is continuously decreasing. As such, the 'singularity' inferred when you reverse time SUGGESTS that there was a point in time that the Universe was all at one point. [Steady State theory treats this as an illusion or that no matter how far back in time you go, there will ALWAYS still be some space, something that is more rational to me.]

But given the Standard model by the majority supporting the Big Bang, suggests that entropy decreases and we WILL end in heat death. You falsely interpreted that a closed container LOSES energy when it is actually 'conserved'. Note too that the Steady State model suggests that the DENSITY of energy per unit of space remains contant and so no heat death occurs. This though means that the universe would be more likely open and infinitely the same throughout time. Although today scientists recognize these as facts, the desire to keep the Big Bang model is likely due to political necessity, not logical correctness. The Big Bang is not LOGICALLY valid but permits the view that the singularity is nevertheless real contrary to the contradictions. They just act like the religious when they then add, "the Universe works in mysterious ways" where this is implied by "the laws of physics breaks down there."

Anyways, that's a digression. The point is that science regardless cannot justify a literal 'origin' to this Universe or similar ones to it. My own argument in the other similar thread to this argues for Absolute Nothingness which acts as a logical origin, not something referring to time but to the source of time(s) and space(s) and energy, etc.

What is the relation of Zeno's paradoxes with my argument?

If you recall Zeno's paradox of the Tortoise and Achilles, for one, he argued that if you give the slow tortiose a head start of say 1 unit distance, then when Achilles begins a unit behind, although he can run faster, time still is needed for both to move ahead. If the tortoise can go 10% of Achilles' speed, then by the time Achilles reaches the Tortoise's starting point 1 unit ahead, the tortoise would be 1/10 of a unit further ahead. Then when Achilles reaches the point at 1/10 further, the Tortoise is 1/100 of a unit further given time still exists for both. When this is continued, Zeno argued that Achilles could never actually catch up to the Tortoise and so should lose. The problem is that the series of additions APPROACH a real point that exists, not merely a virtual one. So as long as there is time and space BEYOND the fixed REAL goal point, Achilles should win if the distance is greater than or equal to 1.1111... units.

Now if there was a point (goal post) in which no time nor space is inferred, as the Steady State assumes a real singularity refers to, then Zeno's logic would work because the closer to the virtual singularity you get, those in such a space and time would appear slower to us (if we could see them from here) WHILE the space is also smaller, both never actually zero. As such, the Steady State version asserts that given we cannot KNOW what is at or beyond that apparent singularity, you cannot presume you can ever reach it. The apparition is similar to parallel lines meeting up to an apparent point, like a straight road going off in the distance. The road still exists even though it appears as though it meets. And if we were to use a telescope to see this, car on the road would appear to be shrinking (though it is not) as would the appearance of it to be going 'slower' the further out it is. [Because there still is an actual point in space and time beyond the apparent perspective point, the car would still disappear unless the road were literally infinite.]

This does not MEAN that the singularity (or some possible other point beyond what we can observe) DOES NOT exist, though. This only means that we cannot INFER that the singularity is literally real or just virtual. The default should be to not assume the certainty of the appearance of the point but rather the opposite because if it were real, physics would definitely be unable to be the same there as it is here and now. That is why I asserted that you still have a logical rationale for this but that you can only at best infer that SOME (more than one) 'beginning(s)' exist, rather than ONE specific one. [My extention for Totality is to assume NO specific origin but that the 'absolute' state of nothing suffices to justify a fixed origin if it refers to the 'causes' of time and space apriori. That would 'statically' be the 'background' nothingness to which all other things that exist NOW rely on.

[bahman]

I didn't directly comment before on what you said here. So let me now.

For your "Proof of A", etropy asserts 'closed' to define the meaning. But the actual space is 'open' and, according to the expansion of space, permits the "heat death" to present scientific concensus. I don't necessarily agree with this, but your argument doesn't hold and in fact is argued for the opposite, ....that given space is assumed open (for 'growing'), they reverse this in time and assume the singularity as the point at which no space exists and its 'origin'. Again, this has its paradoxes and so either way, science cannot argue for 'beginnings', something that I justify dropping the Big Bang theory for a Steady State version instead.

The whole is closed since there is nothing left to interact with.

I already understood you to interpret this as the case. I'm saying that the 'closed' need to describe entropy is for definition only. If you had a closed container, this is mostly true but still has the problem that the container, no matter what it is made up of, will eventually lose the heat through its containing walls. So the IDEAL meaning of entropy is to imagine a container of which walls are perfectly non-conducting and reflects 100% of energy of particles internally. Then, given there is a fixed amount of particles in this container, AND further assuming these particles have energy (ie, movement), the meaning of entropy is that if you imagine beginning with all particles on one side of the container, the motion will bump all the particles in a way that will more often fill the whole space such as to distribute its contents evenly. This is just an average based upon a 'bell' curve. So the 'odds' of all the particles to actually become 'ordered', such as starting from any mixed state to become in a state with all the molecules on only one half, is still possible but highly improbable given all possible arrangements.

Because the Standard model believes in the Big Bang model, they didn't start off with an assumption of a finite container, only an assumption of finite ENERGY. This theory and its competing one, the Steady State, use the inference of space to be 'expanding' (or space being added from nowhere) such that the concentration of matter to space is continuously decreasing. As such, the 'singularity' inferred when you reverse time SUGGESTS that there was a point in time that the Universe was all at one point. [Steady State theory treats this as an illusion or that no matter how far back in time you go, there will ALWAYS still be some space, something that is more rational to me.]

But given the Standard model by the majority supporting the Big Bang, suggests that entropy decreases and we WILL end in heat death. You falsely interpreted that a closed container LOSES energy when it is actually 'conserved'. Note too that the Steady State model suggests that the DENSITY of energy per unit of space remains contant and so no heat death occurs. This though means that the universe would be more likely open and infinitely the same throughout time. Although today scientists recognize these as facts, the desire to keep the Big Bang model is likely due to political necessity, not logical correctness. The Big Bang is not LOGICALLY valid but permits the view that the singularity is nevertheless real contrary to the contradictions. They just act like the religious when they then add, "the Universe works in mysterious ways" where this is implied by "the laws of physics breaks down there."

Anyways, that's a digression. The point is that science regardless cannot justify a literal 'origin' to this Universe or similar ones to it. My own argument in the other similar thread to this argues for Absolute Nothingness which acts as a logical origin, not something referring to time but to the source of time(s) and space(s) and energy, etc.

Heat death state is a state at which the average energy does not change anymore since the average energy is similar in any given volume. This means that one cannot use the energy as a source to produce work, therefore there is a heat death. That applies to the expanding universe as well.

What is the relation of Zeno's paradoxes with my argument?

If you recall Zeno's paradox of the Tortoise and Achilles, for one, he argued that if you give the slow tortiose a head start of say 1 unit distance, then when Achilles begins a unit behind, although he can run faster, time still is needed for both to move ahead. If the tortoise can go 10% of Achilles' speed, then by the time Achilles reaches the Tortoise's starting point 1 unit ahead, the tortoise would be 1/10 of a unit further ahead. Then when Achilles reaches the point at 1/10 further, the Tortoise is 1/100 of a unit further given time still exists for both. When this is continued, Zeno argued that Achilles could never actually catch up to the Tortoise and so should lose. The problem is that the series of additions APPROACH a real point that exists, not merely a virtual one. So as long as there is time and space BEYOND the fixed REAL goal point, Achilles should win if the distance is greater than or equal to 1.1111... units.

Now if there was a point (goal post) in which no time nor space is inferred, as the Steady State assumes a real singularity refers to, then Zeno's logic would work because the closer to the virtual singularity you get, those in such a space and time would appear slower to us (if we could see them from here) WHILE the space is also smaller, both never actually zero. As such, the Steady State version asserts that given we cannot KNOW what is at or beyond that apparent singularity, you cannot presume you can ever reach it. The apparition is similar to parallel lines meeting up to an apparent point, like a straight road going off in the distance. The road still exists even though it appears as though it meets. And if we were to use a telescope to see this, car on the road would appear to be shrinking (though it is not) as would the appearance of it to be going 'slower' the further out it is. [Because there still is an actual point in space and time beyond the apparent perspective point, the car would still disappear unless the road were literally infinite.]

This does not MEAN that the singularity (or some possible other point beyond what we can observe) DOES NOT exist, though. This only means that we cannot INFER that the singularity is literally real or just virtual. The default should be to not assume the certainty of the appearance of the point but rather the opposite because if it were real, physics would definitely be unable to be the same there as it is here and now. That is why I asserted that you still have a logical rationale for this but that you can only at best infer that SOME (more than one) 'beginning(s)' exist, rather than ONE specific one. [My extention for Totality is to assume NO specific origin but that the 'absolute' state of nothing suffices to justify a fixed origin if it refers to the 'causes' of time and space apriori. That would 'statically' be the 'background' nothingness to which all other things that exist NOW rely on.

I don't think that the beginning was singular. There was nothing in fact at the beginning.

[Scott Mayers]

Heat death state is a state at which the average energy does not change anymore since the average energy is similar in any given volume. This means that one cannot use the energy as a source to produce work, therefore there is a heat death. That applies to the expanding universe as well.

Same thing as I stated other than that you add that there is a point at which the energy cannot do anything effective. But that is NOT equal density. It still is presumed to continue expanding while the total energy remains the same. This means that the density is constantly reduced, according to the BBT. I'm not sure what else you may be referencing but the SST model is more likely which cannot assure that no beginning exists (absolutely in this Universe). The science cannot add more because we are limited to our senses composed of matter, energy, space, and time. You second alternative works better...

What is the relation of Zeno's paradoxes with my argument?

If you recall Zeno's paradox of the Tortoise and Achilles, for one, he argued that if you give the slow tortiose a head start of say 1 unit distance, then when Achilles begins a unit behind, although he can run faster, time still is needed for both to move ahead. If the tortoise can go 10% of Achilles' speed, then by the time Achilles reaches the Tortoise's starting point 1 unit ahead, the tortoise would be 1/10 of a unit further ahead. Then when Achilles reaches the point at 1/10 further, the Tortoise is 1/100 of a unit further given time still exists for both. When this is continued, Zeno argued that Achilles could never actually catch up to the Tortoise and so should lose. The problem is that the series of additions APPROACH a real point that exists, not merely a virtual one. So as long as there is time and space BEYOND the fixed REAL goal point, Achilles should win if the distance is greater than or equal to 1.1111... units.

Now if there was a point (goal post) in which no time nor space is inferred, as the Steady State assumes a real singularity refers to, then Zeno's logic would work because the closer to the virtual singularity you get, those in such a space and time would appear slower to us (if we could see them from here) WHILE the space is also smaller, both never actually zero. As such, the Steady State version asserts that given we cannot KNOW what is at or beyond that apparent singularity, you cannot presume you can ever reach it. The apparition is similar to parallel lines meeting up to an apparent point, like a straight road going off in the distance. The road still exists even though it appears as though it meets. And if we were to use a telescope to see this, car on the road would appear to be shrinking (though it is not) as would the appearance of it to be going 'slower' the further out it is. [Because there still is an actual point in space and time beyond the apparent perspective point, the car would still disappear unless the road were literally infinite.]

This does not MEAN that the singularity (or some possible other point beyond what we can observe) DOES NOT exist, though. This only means that we cannot INFER that the singularity is literally real or just virtual. The default should be to not assume the certainty of the appearance of the point but rather the opposite because if it were real, physics would definitely be unable to be the same there as it is here and now. That is why I asserted that you still have a logical rationale for this but that you can only at best infer that SOME (more than one) 'beginning(s)' exist, rather than ONE specific one. [My extention for Totality is to assume NO specific origin but that the 'absolute' state of nothing suffices to justify a fixed origin if it refers to the 'causes' of time and space apriori. That would 'statically' be the 'background' nothingness to which all other things that exist NOW rely on.

I don't think that the beginning was singular. There was nothing in fact at the beginning.

Notice the difficulty with the last sentence? It can be interpreted in literally multiple ways. It can mean that "a beginning exists that started with nothing" OR "that there was no such thing as a 'beginning'" To me, this still works fair to Totality because it IS contradictory AND real (ie, 'paradox').

[Terrapin Station]

For the first one we have to assume that there are real physical laws, that the laws of thermodynamics are among the real physical laws/that we have the laws of thermodynamics correct, and that the universe is a closed system.

For the second one, we have the problem that something "coming from nothing" is as intuitively implausible as infinite extension back in time.

[Scott Mayers]

For the first one we have to assume that there are real physical laws, that the laws of thermodynamics are among the real physical laws/that we have the laws of thermodynamics correct, and that the universe is a closed system.

The 'closed' system of thermodynamics refers to both a fixed amount of energy AND fixed volume of space.

For the second one, we have the problem that something "coming from nothing" is as intuitively implausible as infinite extension back in time.

The 'intuition' part is due to the bias of BEING something. The argument has to be logically understood, such as the 'empty set' as being the base set originating in nothing. I can intuit these but didn't originally. [My reference is to Totality though, not simply this universe.] Space is still a something (a volume greater than zero). The Big Bang theory was derogatorily labeled to point out how ridiculous it is to assume everything extant (as energy) at a point (a literal nothing) that has to accelerate INFINITELY INSTANTANEOUSLY for it to be sensible. It goes against logic AND the senses.

[AlexW]

Unless you contain and can access an infinite memory of existence, you have no reason to INFER that the world existed by 'direct experience' prior to your birth.

True.
But, based on DE, you don't even have any reason to infer that any separate thing exists - a reason/interpretation only arises once DE is conceptualised (via thinking).

That state, with respect to who YOU are (not merely the atoms that make up your body), came from NOTHING.

This is also just something that you infer...

Have you ever experienced "nothing"?
If not, how do you even know nothing "existing" is a possible option?

I would rather say: All things are mind-made (conceptual interpretation of DE) - but DE itself is not of things and is also not a thing itself.
This doesn't mean that DE is "nothing" (at least not based on how we conventionally define the term).
I think it is important to differentiate between "not a thing" and "nothing" - DE is not a thing, but not nothing.

The unique property of "Absolute Nothingness" is that it is 'nothing' ANYWHERE.

No - within the absolute there is no location at all - there is no "anywhere".
You cannot (or rather: should not) affix conceptual/dualistic attributes to the absolute.

As such, unless you have proof that you lived eternally, you came from 'nothing'.

The real "you" (which is reality/the absolute itself) didn't come from anything (nor did not not come from anything) - it neither is, not is it not.

What you are doing is similar to the attempt of describing "infinity" by reverting to the idea that it is a collection of a very, very large amount of separate things...
But "infinity" (the absolute) is not a collection of an infinite amount of separate things, it is the necessary result of there being no separate things – no separation – in the first place. Infinity is not a very, very large – unlimited – extension of space, it is no space, zero extension.
The same is true for eternity, it is not a very, very long – unlimited – amount of time, it is no time, it is zero time.
In a nighttime dream: How large is the room you seem to be standing in?
I guess we agree that its physical extension is zero. But – and you might not believe it – the same is the case for what we call "reality".

[bahman]

Heat death state is a state at which the average energy does not change anymore since the average energy is similar in any given volume. This means that one cannot use the energy as a source to produce work, therefore there is a heat death. That applies to the expanding universe as well.

Same thing as I stated other than that you add that there is a point at which the energy cannot do anything effective. But that is NOT equal density. It still is presumed to continue expanding while the total energy remains the same. This means that the density is constantly reduced, according to the BBT. I'm not sure what else you may be referencing but the SST model is more likely which cannot assure that no beginning exists (absolutely in this Universe). The science cannot add more because we are limited to our senses composed of matter, energy, space, and time. You second alternative works better...

What is SST?

If you recall Zeno's paradox of the Tortoise and Achilles, for one, he argued that if you give the slow tortiose a head start of say 1 unit distance, then when Achilles begins a unit behind, although he can run faster, time still is needed for both to move ahead. If the tortoise can go 10% of Achilles' speed, then by the time Achilles reaches the Tortoise's starting point 1 unit ahead, the tortoise would be 1/10 of a unit further ahead. Then when Achilles reaches the point at 1/10 further, the Tortoise is 1/100 of a unit further given time still exists for both. When this is continued, Zeno argued that Achilles could never actually catch up to the Tortoise and so should lose. The problem is that the series of additions APPROACH a real point that exists, not merely a virtual one. So as long as there is time and space BEYOND the fixed REAL goal point, Achilles should win if the distance is greater than or equal to 1.1111... units.

Now if there was a point (goal post) in which no time nor space is inferred, as the Steady State assumes a real singularity refers to, then Zeno's logic would work because the closer to the virtual singularity you get, those in such a space and time would appear slower to us (if we could see them from here) WHILE the space is also smaller, both never actually zero. As such, the Steady State version asserts that given we cannot KNOW what is at or beyond that apparent singularity, you cannot presume you can ever reach it. The apparition is similar to parallel lines meeting up to an apparent point, like a straight road going off in the distance. The road still exists even though it appears as though it meets. And if we were to use a telescope to see this, car on the road would appear to be shrinking (though it is not) as would the appearance of it to be going 'slower' the further out it is. [Because there still is an actual point in space and time beyond the apparent perspective point, the car would still disappear unless the road were literally infinite.]

This does not MEAN that the singularity (or some possible other point beyond what we can observe) DOES NOT exist, though. This only means that we cannot INFER that the singularity is literally real or just virtual. The default should be to not assume the certainty of the appearance of the point but rather the opposite because if it were real, physics would definitely be unable to be the same there as it is here and now. That is why I asserted that you still have a logical rationale for this but that you can only at best infer that SOME (more than one) 'beginning(s)' exist, rather than ONE specific one. [My extention for Totality is to assume NO specific origin but that the 'absolute' state of nothing suffices to justify a fixed origin if it refers to the 'causes' of time and space apriori. That would 'statically' be the 'background' nothingness to which all other things that exist NOW rely on.

I don't think that the beginning was singular. There was nothing in fact at the beginning.

Notice the difficulty with the last sentence? It can be interpreted in literally multiple ways. It can mean that "a beginning exists that started with nothing" OR "that there was no such thing as a 'beginning'" To me, this still works fair to Totality because it IS contradictory AND real (ie, 'paradox').

I mean the first interpretation. The very fact that we don't see nothing to something as phenomena is due to that there is something. And there is no paradox in here.

[bahman]

For the first one we have to assume that there are real physical laws, that the laws of thermodynamics are among the real physical laws/that we have the laws of thermodynamics correct, and that the universe is a closed system.

The second law of thermodynamics is correct. You need to study it to realize that it is logically correct.

For the second one, we have the problem that something "coming from nothing" is as intuitively implausible as infinite extension back in time.

It is not implausible. Something to nothing and nothing to something are both possible. In fact, they happen at any given moment.

[Terrapin Station]

The second law of thermodynamics is correct. You need to study it to realize that it is logically correct.

I've studied it. I don't buy that there are even any real physical laws.

It is not implausible. Something to nothing and nothing to something are both possible. In fact, they happen at any given moment.

Implausible is different than impossible.

[Scott Mayers]

Before I can respond to you, what is "DE"?

[Scott Mayers]

Heat death state is a state at which the average energy does not change anymore since the average energy is similar in any given volume. This means that one cannot use the energy as a source to produce work, therefore there is a heat death. That applies to the expanding universe as well.

Same thing as I stated other than that you add that there is a point at which the energy cannot do anything effective. But that is NOT equal density. It still is presumed to continue expanding while the total energy remains the same. This means that the density is constantly reduced, according to the BBT. I'm not sure what else you may be referencing but the SST model is more likely which cannot assure that no beginning exists (absolutely in this Universe). The science cannot add more because we are limited to our senses composed of matter, energy, space, and time. You second alternative works better...

What is SST?

I thought I spelled it out earlier. I just asked AlexW to define "DE" due to a similar missed meaning for me. "SST" is short for "Steady State Theory", while "BBT" is short for "Big Bang Theory". I'll try to spell it out longhand except if I repeat it in context of one post or am confident that others can follow.

I don't think that the beginning was singular. There was nothing in fact at the beginning.

Notice the difficulty with the last sentence? It can be interpreted in literally multiple ways. It can mean that "a beginning exists that started with nothing" OR "that there was no such thing as a 'beginning'" To me, this still works fair to Totality because it IS contradictory AND real (ie, 'paradox').

I mean the first interpretation. The very fact that we don't see nothing to something as phenomena is due to that there is something. And there is no paradox in here.

There is no 'god' that commands us to exist. That is, there is no 'something' apriori that is sooo SPECIAL for us humans at the exclusion of all other possibilities. I'm finding that the very confusion of NOT understanding concepts of nothing and infinites in SPECIFIC favor of 'finite' realities ONLY very odd.

If you did not exist, would ANYTHING at all exist?

I'm not asking you if YOU require being alive for a proof here because that would not be possible in principle. I'm asking whether you have any reason to BELIEVE now, from your 'proof of as a living being', that any existence PRIOR to your existence meant that YOU were "nothing absolutely" OR if you had some other magical means to determine you always existed? You cannot assume that no nothing exists yet think that infinite existence does exists without including 'nothing' as a subset of it (and everything else). If you cannot infer infinities either, you are stuck with a FINITE belief...and it IS a 'belief' without justification of what 'finite' concept contains this, (or what number of realities exist finitely).

[bahman]

Same thing as I stated other than that you add that there is a point at which the energy cannot do anything effective. But that is NOT equal density. It still is presumed to continue expanding while the total energy remains the same. This means that the density is constantly reduced, according to the BBT. I'm not sure what else you may be referencing but the SST model is more likely which cannot assure that no beginning exists (absolutely in this Universe). The science cannot add more because we are limited to our senses composed of matter, energy, space, and time. You second alternative works better...

What is SST?

I thought I spelled it out earlier. I just asked AlexW to define "DE" due to a similar missed meaning for me. "SST" is short for "Steady State Theory", while "BBT" is short for "Big Bang Theory". I'll try to spell it out longhand except if I repeat it in context of one post or am confident that others can follow.

Notice the difficulty with the last sentence? It can be interpreted in literally multiple ways. It can mean that "a beginning exists that started with nothing" OR "that there was no such thing as a 'beginning'" To me, this still works fair to Totality because it IS contradictory AND real (ie, 'paradox').

I mean the first interpretation. The very fact that we don't see nothing to something as phenomena is due to that there is something. And there is no paradox in here.

There is no 'god' that commands us to exist. That is, there is no 'something' apriori that is sooo SPECIAL for us humans at the exclusion of all other possibilities. I'm finding that the very confusion of NOT understanding concepts of nothing and infinites in SPECIFIC favor of 'finite' realities ONLY very odd.

If you did not exist, would ANYTHING at all exist?

I'm not asking you if YOU require being alive for a proof here because that would not be possible in principle. I'm asking whether you have any reason to BELIEVE now, from your 'proof of as a living being', that any existence PRIOR to your existence meant that YOU were "nothing absolutely" OR if you had some other magical means to determine you always existed? You cannot assume that no nothing exists yet think that infinite existence does exists without including 'nothing' as a subset of it (and everything else). If you cannot infer infinities either, you are stuck with a FINITE belief...and it IS a 'belief' without justification of what 'finite' concept contains this, (or what number of realities exist finitely).

Well, I think if I as a mind didn't exist then there is at least another mind.

[AlexW]

Before I can respond to you, what is "DE"?

Direct experience - perception made up of the input received via the five senses plus thought.
The question is: Do our thought based, conceptual interpretations match with our direct perception/experience?
If you ask me... then no... there never is an experience of separation (and as such also never of separate, independently existing things) - its actually perfectly impossible.