We don't need to verify it. We just need to imagine it. The question is whether there is a beginning for time or not. Which one do you pick up?Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:31 pmThat is not what I am saying.bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 4:45 pmSo one cannot reach from the eternal past to now. Agree?Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 4:35 pm
FFS. You really want to conclude THAT from what I said??
I said YOU! YOU cannot demonstrate this. You are not the human race.
That's fine until you want to claim something that entails that.
No. You have not used any logic.
By definition no.
To reach something, you need to have an end.
Eternity and infinity do not stop, it is not refuted at any point. If the universe ends then you are not here to say if the universe was eternal or not.
If the universe is eternal then you have a long time to wait to prove it.
Either way infinity can never be demonstrated or refuted.
That statement implies an "eternal" past which cannot be verifiable.
Nothing to something must be possible
Re: Nothing to something must be possible
- iambiguous
- Posts: 7893
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm
Re: Nothing to something must be possible
Fair enough.bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:11 pm
I don't know how to deal with you. When I ask for a counterargument you say that you are not qualified. You then refer me to the scientific community which partly believes in regress! Others believe that there is a beginning for the universe. So they are confused. They need a metaphysical argument.
Again, however, my reaction revolved more around what I perceive to be the dangers of objectivism from either the philosophical, the scientific, the religious or the ethical and political communities.
Noting in particular the clear limitations of logic in regard to what either can or cannot be known here when it basically revolves words defining and defending other words.
After all, some go from arguing that "nothing to something must be possible" to arguing that this particular something that we live in now must be construed as they construe it to be as well. At least theoretically...metaphysically.
Or, for some, theocratically. Or ideologically. Or deontologically.
As for nothing and something, something certainly seems to be the case. Us for example. But to argue that it came from nothing is not nearly the same as demonstrating that there was once nothing and out of it came something. Why not that there was always something?
And how on Earth would any of us go about demonstrating it one way or the other...except in a world of words?
Re: Nothing to something must be possible
I IMAGINE that the BigBang so far seems to save the appearances as we know them, but all cosmologies heretofore accepted have become redundant, so that a collection of different paradigms sweep aside old ideas from Aristarchus to Copernicus, Kepler, Einstein, Hoyle etc.. I have no specific reason to be assured that the BB is going to last forever.
It might be that the Universe has been continually expanding, contracting then exploding . Whose knows if the BB expanded into something there that was washed away?
Re: Nothing to something must be possible
It could not always be something. That is regress.iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:42 pmFair enough.bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:11 pm
I don't know how to deal with you. When I ask for a counterargument you say that you are not qualified. You then refer me to the scientific community which partly believes in regress! Others believe that there is a beginning for the universe. So they are confused. They need a metaphysical argument.
Again, however, my reaction revolved more around what I perceive to be the dangers of objectivism from either the philosophical, the scientific, the religious or the ethical and political communities.
Noting in particular the clear limitations of logic in regard to what either can or cannot be known here when it basically revolves words defining and defending other words.
After all, some go from arguing that "nothing to something must be possible" to arguing that this particular something that we live in now must be construed as they construe it to be as well. At least theoretically...metaphysically.
Or, for some, theocratically. Or ideologically. Or deontologically.
As for nothing and something, something certainly seems to be the case. Us for example. But to argue that it came from nothing is not nearly the same as demonstrating that there was once nothing and out of it came something. Why not that there was always something?
That is the world of logic.iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:42 pm And how on Earth would any of us go about demonstrating it one way or the other...except in a world of words?
Re: Nothing to something must be possible
First, we are not talking about the future. Second, there are three models for the universe, cyclic, eternal, and a universe with a beginning. Cyclic and eternal universes could not be the case since they lead to regress. So we are left by a universe that has a beginning. QED.Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:45 pmI IMAGINE that the BigBang so far seems to save the appearances as we know them, but all cosmologies heretofore accepted have become redundant, so that a collection of different paradigms sweep aside old ideas from Aristarchus to Copernicus, Kepler, Einstein, Hoyle etc.. I have no specific reason to be assured that the BB is going to last forever.
It might be that the Universe has been continually expanding, contracting then exploding . Whose knows if the BB expanded into something there that was washed away?
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10528
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Nothing to something must be possible
What is wrong with regress in a cyclic universe?bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 11:00 pmFirst, we are not talking about the future. Second, there are three models for the universe, cyclic, eternal, and a universe with a beginning. Cyclic and eternal universes could not be the case since they lead to regress. So we are left by a universe that has a beginning. QED.Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:45 pmI IMAGINE that the BigBang so far seems to save the appearances as we know them, but all cosmologies heretofore accepted have become redundant, so that a collection of different paradigms sweep aside old ideas from Aristarchus to Copernicus, Kepler, Einstein, Hoyle etc.. I have no specific reason to be assured that the BB is going to last forever.
It might be that the Universe has been continually expanding, contracting then exploding . Whose knows if the BB expanded into something there that was washed away?
Re: Nothing to something must be possible
Nothing happens.
Re: Nothing to something must be possible
Limitless or endless in size or spatially.
Re: Nothing to something must be possible
One 'what', EXACTLY?bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 4:45 pmSo one cannot reach from the eternal past to now. Agree?Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 4:35 pmFFS. You really want to conclude THAT from what I said??
I said YOU! YOU cannot demonstrate this. You are not the human race.That's fine until you want to claim something that entails that.
I don't need to witness the beginning.No. You have not used any logic.
It has. As I showed.By definition no.
It is not. Is infinity reachable?
To reach something, you need to have an end.
Eternity and infinity do not stop, it is not refuted at any point. If the universe ends then you are not here to say if the universe was eternal or not.
If the universe is eternal then you have a long time to wait to prove it.
Either way infinity can never be demonstrated or refuted.
One, Universe, CAN and HAS so-called 'REACHED' from the eternal past to the NOW. (But this is just because it is the NOW, which is eternal anyway).
One, human being, for example, however, OBVIOUSLY, could NOT reach from the eternal past to now. But this is just SO OBVIOUS it would NOT be necessary to even mention it.
Re: Nothing to something must be possible
Re: Nothing to something must be possible
Through experiments.iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:42 pmFair enough.bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:11 pm
I don't know how to deal with you. When I ask for a counterargument you say that you are not qualified. You then refer me to the scientific community which partly believes in regress! Others believe that there is a beginning for the universe. So they are confused. They need a metaphysical argument.
Again, however, my reaction revolved more around what I perceive to be the dangers of objectivism from either the philosophical, the scientific, the religious or the ethical and political communities.
Noting in particular the clear limitations of logic in regard to what either can or cannot be known here when it basically revolves words defining and defending other words.
After all, some go from arguing that "nothing to something must be possible" to arguing that this particular something that we live in now must be construed as they construe it to be as well. At least theoretically...metaphysically.
Or, for some, theocratically. Or ideologically. Or deontologically.
As for nothing and something, something certainly seems to be the case. Us for example. But to argue that it came from nothing is not nearly the same as demonstrating that there was once nothing and out of it came something. Why not that there was always something?
And how on Earth would any of us go about demonstrating it one way or the other...except in a world of words?
And, in a 'world of words' what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY, can be demonstrated.
Re: Nothing to something must be possible
What, EXACTLY, are you saying 'No' to, here?
Do you BELIEVE that the Universe could NOT be eternal?
Re: Nothing to something must be possible
- iambiguous
- Posts: 7893
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm
Re: Nothing to something must be possible
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 10:55 pmIt could not always be something. That is regress.iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:42 pmFair enough.bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:11 pm
I don't know how to deal with you. When I ask for a counterargument you say that you are not qualified. You then refer me to the scientific community which partly believes in regress! Others believe that there is a beginning for the universe. So they are confused. They need a metaphysical argument.
Again, however, my reaction revolved more around what I perceive to be the dangers of objectivism from either the philosophical, the scientific, the religious or the ethical and political communities.
Noting in particular the clear limitations of logic in regard to what either can or cannot be known here when it basically revolves words defining and defending other words.
After all, some go from arguing that "nothing to something must be possible" to arguing that this particular something that we live in now must be construed as they construe it to be as well. At least theoretically...metaphysically.
Or, for some, theocratically. Or ideologically. Or deontologically.
As for nothing and something, something certainly seems to be the case. Us for example. But to argue that it came from nothing is not nearly the same as demonstrating that there was once nothing and out of it came something. Why not that there was always something?
There you go again, merely believing this "in your head"..."logically". Much like those on the other side who believe in their heads logically that there was never not something.
I'll stay tuned for the documentary on NOVA that finally settles it. And, with any luck, in our lifetime!!
iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:42 pm And how on Earth would any of us go about demonstrating it one way or the other...except in a world of words?
Oh, indeed. A world of words. Words defining and defending other words. Metaphysically as it were.