bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2024 1:51 pm
You need to read the second part of the argument carefully: "Now, what is the great coincidence? God or the stuff that made the universe cannot exist before the beginning of spacetime so they could only exist at the beginning of spacetime or after. They come into existence if they didn't exist at the beginning of spacetime. That means they were created. This leads to infinite regress unless we accept that they exist exactly at the beginning of time. And that is the great coincidence!"
THe reason I said what I said, is that I cannot see why you make mention of god at all.
Forget about God for a second. Think of stuff that made the universe.
No.
You brought him up and I responded because you did.
What co-incidence?
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2024 4:34 pm
Forget about God for a second. Think of stuff that made the universe.
No.
You brought him up and I responded because you did.
What co-incidence?
That the stuff that made the universe has to exist exactly at the beginning of time and not later. That is one point!
The universe is the same as the "stuff of which it is comprised".
Saying it is a coinidence is like saying the dent in the car co-incides with the collision.
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2024 6:12 pm
Well, I can certainly argue that time cannot begin to exist. Spacetime however a part of a manifold so they come together.
You missed my point?
I stated spacetime [space and time individually] are 'man-made' within Physics [collective-of-subjects].
As such spacetime cannot be fundamental without any relation to humans [subjects].
No. Humans just discovered the spacetime concept. It is fundamental whether human exists or not.
No, that is only a speculation and assumption which if reified is at best an illusion.
Spacetime and are particulars of reality. There are Two Senses of Reality viewtopic.php?t=40265
1. The FSRK based sense of reality
2. The human and mind-independent sense of reality.
In sense 2, humans do not discover any pre-existing spacetime, but spacetime is realized within a human-related FSRK then it is subsequently perceived, discovered, known and described within a FSK.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2024 7:47 pm
No.
You brought him up and I responded because you did.
What co-incidence?
That the stuff that made the universe has to exist exactly at the beginning of time and not later. That is one point!
The universe is the same as the "stuff of which it is comprised".
Saying it is a coinidence is like saying the dent in the car co-incides with the collision.
You didn't get the point. If the stuff that made the universe existed after the beginning of spacetime then it comes to existence. Therefore it is caused. The only exception is the beginning of spacetime in which if the stuff existed there then it is not caused.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2024 5:33 am
You missed my point?
I stated spacetime [space and time individually] are 'man-made' within Physics [collective-of-subjects].
As such spacetime cannot be fundamental without any relation to humans [subjects].
No. Humans just discovered the spacetime concept. It is fundamental whether human exists or not.
No, that is only a speculation and assumption which if reified is at best an illusion.
Spacetime and are particulars of reality. There are Two Senses of Reality viewtopic.php?t=40265
1. The FSRK based sense of reality
2. The human and mind-independent sense of reality.
In sense 2, humans do not discover any pre-existing spacetime, but spacetime is realized within a human-related FSRK then it is subsequently perceived, discovered, known and described within a FSK.
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2024 7:57 pm
That the stuff that made the universe has to exist exactly at the beginning of time and not later. That is one point!
The universe is the same as the "stuff of which it is comprised".
Saying it is a coinidence is like saying the dent in the car co-incides with the collision.
You didn't get the point.
NO.
You are not getting the point. You only have a problem because of the way you conceive this.
You are thinking dualistically.
The universe does not care.
It's a UNI-verse. The clue is in the name. There is no duality between the items and issues you conceive. They are one thing.
That the stuff that made the universe has to exist exactly at the beginning of time and not later. That is one point!
The universe is the same as the "stuff of which it is comprised".
Saying it is a coinidence is like saying the dent in the car co-incides with the collision.
You didn't get the point.
NO.
You are not getting the point. You only have a problem because of the way you conceive this.
You are thinking dualistically.
The universe does not care.
It's a UNI-verse. The clue is in the name. There is no duality between the items and issues you conceive. They are one thing.
Do you think that what you said makes any sense to anyone!?
Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2024 8:46 pm
That the stuff that made the universe has to exist exactly at the beginning of time and not later. That is one point!
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 7:36 pm
Ok, to start I have to show that spacetime is fundamental, it cannot begin to exist. To prove this think of spacetime coming into existence. This means that there was a point before that spacetime didn't exist. But that means that you need another spacetime to allow spacetime to come into existence. Why? Because of before in the previous statement. This leads to infinite regress unless you accept that there is a spacetime that didn't come into existence. Therefore, spacetime is fundamental and cannot begin to exist.
Now, what is the great coincidence? God or the stuff that made the universe cannot exist before the beginning of spacetime so they could only exist at the beginning of spacetime or after. They come into existence if they didn't exist at the beginning of spacetime. That means they were created. This leads to infinite regress unless we accept that they exist exactly at the beginning of time. And that is the great coincidence!
I don't know what spacetime is, exactly (does anybody? ) but how can we possibly know if there is any alternative to it or not? In order to make logical deductions, we need to be aware of all relevant information and what possibilities entail. We are nowhere near being in that position. Once we have said that the universe exists in space time, what more can we sensibly say?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 7:36 pm
Ok, to start I have to show that spacetime is fundamental, it cannot begin to exist. To prove this think of spacetime coming into existence. This means that there was a point before that spacetime didn't exist. But that means that you need another spacetime to allow spacetime to come into existence. Why? Because of before in the previous statement. This leads to infinite regress unless you accept that there is a spacetime that didn't come into existence. Therefore, spacetime is fundamental and cannot begin to exist.
Now, what is the great coincidence? God or the stuff that made the universe cannot exist before the beginning of spacetime so they could only exist at the beginning of spacetime or after. They come into existence if they didn't exist at the beginning of spacetime. That means they were created. This leads to infinite regress unless we accept that they exist exactly at the beginning of time. And that is the great coincidence!
I don't know what spacetime is, exactly (does anybody? ) but how can we possibly know if there is any alternative to it or not?
The spacetime is a substance that accommodates things and allows changes.
Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2024 12:23 pm
In order to make logical deductions, we need to be aware of all relevant information and what possibilities entail. We are nowhere near being in that position. Once we have said that the universe exists in space time, what more can we sensibly say?
I don't understand your question. Do you mind elaborating?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 7:36 pm
Ok, to start I have to show that spacetime is fundamental, it cannot begin to exist. To prove this think of spacetime coming into existence. This means that there was a point before that spacetime didn't exist. But that means that you need another spacetime to allow spacetime to come into existence. Why? Because of before in the previous statement. This leads to infinite regress unless you accept that there is a spacetime that didn't come into existence. Therefore, spacetime is fundamental and cannot begin to exist.
Now, what is the great coincidence? God or the stuff that made the universe cannot exist before the beginning of spacetime so they could only exist at the beginning of spacetime or after. They come into existence if they didn't exist at the beginning of spacetime. That means they were created. This leads to infinite regress unless we accept that they exist exactly at the beginning of time. And that is the great coincidence!
I don't know what spacetime is, exactly (does anybody? ) but how can we possibly know if there is any alternative to it or not?
The spacetime is a substance that accommodates things and allows changes.
But what does the "substance" consist of? Until we know that, how can we speculate about how "fundamental" it is?
Harbal wrote:In order to make logical deductions, we need to be aware of all relevant information and what possibilities entail. We are nowhere near being in that position. Once we have said that the universe exists in space time, what more can we sensibly say?
I don't understand your question. Do you mind elaborating?
We know the universe exists, and science has a theory of how it came into existence; the Big Bang. But as to what came before the Bang, do we know enough about physics and reality to even speculate?
I don't know what spacetime is, exactly (does anybody? ) but how can we possibly know if there is any alternative to it or not?
The spacetime is a substance that accommodates things and allows changes.
But what does the "substance" consist of? Until we know that, how can we speculate about how "fundamental" it is?
A substance is something that exists and has a set of properties. It is not proper to say "What does a substance consist of?". The property of spacetime is its curvature.
Harbal wrote:
In order to make logical deductions, we need to be aware of all relevant information and what possibilities entail. We are nowhere near being in that position. Once we have said that the universe exists in space time, what more can we sensibly say?
I don't understand your question. Do you mind elaborating?
We know the universe exists, and science has a theory of how it came into existence; the Big Bang. But as to what came before the Bang, do we know enough about physics and reality to even speculate?
Well, if we accept the Big Bang that occurred at the beginning of time then it is not proper to say what was before. Otherwise, it was only spacetime before the Big Bang. The universe is caused in the latter case. It does not necessarily need a cause in the first case.
Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2024 3:39 pm
We know the universe exists, and science has a theory of how it came into existence; the Big Bang. But as to what came before the Bang, do we know enough about physics and reality to even speculate?
Well, if we accept the Big Bang that occurred at the beginning of time then it is not proper to say what was before. Otherwise, it was only spacetime before the Big Bang. The universe is caused in the latter case. It does not necessarily need a cause in the first case.
But what do you mean by the "beginning of time", and how do we know that the Big Bang happened then? Why couldn't it have happened at some point later? To go back to my original point, it seems we are trying to use logic without having all the necessary information on which to base it. That's the way it seems to me, but what do I know?
Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2024 3:39 pm
We know the universe exists, and science has a theory of how it came into existence; the Big Bang. But as to what came before the Bang, do we know enough about physics and reality to even speculate?
Well, if we accept the Big Bang that occurred at the beginning of time then it is not proper to say what was before. Otherwise, it was only spacetime before the Big Bang. The universe is caused in the latter case. It does not necessarily need a cause in the first case.
But what do you mean by the "beginning of time", and how do we know that the Big Bang happened then?
By the beginning of time, I mean the point at which there was no point before. We don't know whether the Big Bang happened at the beginning of time or not.
Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2024 4:47 pm
Why couldn't it have happened at some point later?
It could happen later but in this case, it is caused.
Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2024 4:47 pm
To go back to my original point, it seems we are trying to use logic without having all the necessary information on which to base it. That's the way it seems to me, but what do I know?
Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2024 4:47 pm
To go back to my original point, it seems we are trying to use logic without having all the necessary information on which to base it. That's the way it seems to me, but what do I know?
) but how can we possibly know if there is any alternative to it or not? In order to make logical deductions, we need to be aware of all relevant information and what possibilities entail. We are nowhere near being in that position. Once we have said that the universe exists in space time, what more can we sensibly say?