Unstable stuff was at the beginning

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Unstable stuff was at the beginning

Post by bahman »

Here we argue that the title. There are two case that we should exclude: (1) God cannot create and (2) Nothing comes of nothing. (1) is discussed in here. (2) is obvious since nothing is no thing and we don't expect that it could cause a thing. From (1) and (2) we deduce that the stuff was at the beginning since the stuff cannot be create nor it could comes of nothing. The stuff however should be unstable since there was no mover. Therefore the title stands.
Impenitent
Posts: 4331
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Unstable stuff was at the beginning

Post by Impenitent »

wild stallions...

-Imp
Troll
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Unstable stuff was at the beginning

Post by Troll »

This argument "cannot create at a specific moment" is empty since it speaks against what happens. One cannot put an arbitrary rule, non-contradiction, above what happens. Instead one should measure the rule by what is.

Note, I appreciate the sense, out of nothing, i.e., where there is no time, cannot be a moment. As "logic" it is sound. Yet, it is, nonetheless, an inadequate answer to something that does happen. For instance, the same problem is in the "Big Bang" account.

The Catholic account seems to be correct, but I don't accept it since it is incapable to stop the history of the actus purus as the way everything comes forth according to God's rationality (potentia ordinata), i.e., the perpetual moment of creation = omnipotence in Thomas' technical sense. The way of coming forth changes, which, de facto, is virtually admitted by the Church itself. Though, they conceal it behind the doctrinal claim of the law being revealed as one goes along, ergo, changing for man.

It's invalid to speak of a "moment" by the standard of a mathematical physics invented at a certain moment in history and locally. That's, as Kant says, a rumer, not a true standard of time or a "moment" in time.

Ergo, what higher judge gives the sanction to a set of assumed standard determinations of the terms involved?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Unstable stuff was at the beginning

Post by bahman »

Troll wrote: Mon Jun 11, 2018 10:41 pm Note, I appreciate the sense, out of nothing, i.e., where there is no time, cannot be a moment. As "logic" it is sound. Yet, it is, nonetheless, an inadequate answer to something that does happen. For instance, the same problem is in the "Big Bang" account.
Theory of BB does not claim to be a theory which explain the creation of time.
Troll wrote: Mon Jun 11, 2018 10:41 pm The Catholic account seems to be correct, but I don't accept it since it is incapable to stop the history of the actus purus as the way everything comes forth according to God's rationality (potentia ordinata), i.e., the perpetual moment of creation = omnipotence in Thomas' technical sense. The way of coming forth changes, which, de facto, is virtually admitted by the Church itself. Though, they conceal it behind the doctrinal claim of the law being revealed as one goes along, ergo, changing for man.
I already address the problem related to timeless God in another thread. The problem is simple. There is no time reference at which timeless God could perform the act of creation therefore the age of universe could be anything.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Post by henry quirk »

Cacoastrum was first, Crom was second, Reality was third.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re:

Post by bahman »

henry quirk wrote: Tue Jun 12, 2018 2:25 pm Cacoastrum was first, Crom was second, Reality was third.
What is Cacoastrum?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Post by henry quirk »

Chaos, seething.
Troll
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Unstable stuff was at the beginning

Post by Troll »

Theory of BB does not claim to be a theory which explain the creation of time.
It does in the sense of space-time, which is the only sense the claim of "Big Bang" deals with. And even if it didn’t the point would be the same in principle.
“There is no time reference at which timeless God could perform the act of creation therefore the age of universe could be anything.”
If time means space-time than it would be as old as the calculable movement of the universe. The mind of God isn’t thought as something that exists, it the principle of the categories which is the model for the creating in Aristotle or Thomas. In other words, it's more like the "laws" which determine how existence comes forth out of nothing, which themselves have no material presence.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Unstable stuff was at the beginning

Post by bahman »

Troll wrote: Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:54 pm
Theory of BB does not claim to be a theory which explain the creation of time.
It does in the sense of space-time, which is the only sense the claim of "Big Bang" deals with. And even if it didn’t the point would be the same in principle.
We still don't have a theory with time as an emergent property. I think that such a theory cannot exist. I am discussing this in another thread.
Troll wrote: Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:54 pm
“There is no time reference at which timeless God could perform the act of creation therefore the age of universe could be anything.”
If time means space-time than it would be as old as the calculable movement of the universe. The mind of God isn’t thought as something that exists, it the principle of the categories which is the model for the creating in Aristotle or Thomas. In other words, it's more like the "laws" which determine how existence comes forth out of nothing, which themselves have no material presence.
Nothing comes of nothing. Moreover, you are not addressing my argument. I am arguing in the case of timeless God, the age of universe can be anything which this is contradictory.
Troll
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Unstable stuff was at the beginning

Post by Troll »

“We still don't have a theory with time as an emergent property. I think that such a theory cannot exist. I am discussing this in another thread.”
If time means the same thing as space, as in space/time, and we understand the so-called 'heat event' (the raw data from which various theories such as Big Bang stem) as the creation + expansion of space, it is also the creation of time. If time must be a quantity, than we can think vaguely of something before that, but it would have no content according to the current most powerful view about what science is.
Nothing comes of nothing. Moreover, you are not addressing my argument. I am arguing in the case of timeless God, the age of universe can be anything which this is contradictory.
What does time mean here? What does nothing mean?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Unstable stuff was at the beginning

Post by bahman »

Troll wrote: Fri Jun 15, 2018 12:45 am
“We still don't have a theory with time as an emergent property. I think that such a theory cannot exist. I am discussing this in another thread.”
If time means the same thing as space, as in space/time, and we understand the so-called 'heat event' (the raw data from which various theories such as Big Bang stem) as the creation + expansion of space, it is also the creation of time. If time must be a quantity, than we can think vaguely of something before that, but it would have no content according to the current most powerful view about what science is.
If that is true then there should exist a dynamical theory which time is an emergent phenomena within it. What I am arguing is that you need time in such a dynamical theory as a fundamental variable first to allow any general change, emergence of time at the beginning for example. What I am arguing is that you need to put the emergent time and fundamental time in the same equation. You either assume that these two time are different or the same. One can show that the first case leads to infinite regress and second case leads to a contradiction.
Troll wrote: Fri Jun 15, 2018 12:45 am
Nothing comes of nothing. Moreover, you are not addressing my argument. I am arguing in the case of timeless God, the age of universe can be anything which this is contradictory.
What does time mean here? What does nothing mean?
Nothing means "no thing" and time is one of fundamental variable which allows a change in fabric of universe, Qualia.
Troll
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Unstable stuff was at the beginning

Post by Troll »

“If that is true then there should exist a dynamical theory which time is an emergent phenomena within it.”
Say you define time by using a ruler and a machine. The ruler measures points on a surface, and the machine tells you each time an atom lets off a quantum of radiation during its decay. Time is equal to the number of quantums of movment ticked off from one mark to another. That’s what we name when we name time when we determine the meaning of time physically. Whatever happened before isn’t time on that definition. So where does it come from, and what do we mean by it?

Both “emergent” and “fundamental” time, are time. Ergo, time as such is prior and present in both. One doesn’t know how time is ever determined, as subject of the discussion, out of what one experiences and talks about.

“no thing”
implies we are able to determine what a thing is in some way. For instance, something stands before me and I am certain it is a keyboard, a thing. When no keyboard is here, what am I thinking of, the lack of a keyboard? My wanting a keyboard? What is this “no thing”? A picture of an abyss in the mind? I can say, if there were “no thing” between the sun and me, I would be burned up now. The statement “no thing” would say something serious. I can write down the statement “something”, and it stands there just like the statement “no thing”. It has a content.

Ergo, since “no thing” has a content, why should nothing come from it ("no thing" might come from nothing)? Otherwise, is “no thing” something we just pretend to be able to name. Like Infinity? I count 1, 2, 3, and pretend to think of, or know, infinity. Perhaps in speaking of nothing we talk utter nonsense. Then, however, to speak of “something” is also something that becomes questionable.
Qualia
= something? No quantity, but something. Or, nothing, but a qualified nothing, nothing as not quantity. In other words, we would ask, what is the meaning of nothing, and answer, nothing as not being quantifiable. A specific kind of nothing alongside others?
Post Reply