The universe is not posited to have been built from 'material'. Any material did not show up on the scene until several epochs beyond the big bang.one can also say that the material has existed since the beginning of time — MoK
I have one argument for nothing to something is impossible which I discussed it in this thread. The argument got refined in the final forms as following:So premise 1 is a premise that only applies to objects IN the universe, and even then it isn't necessarily true except under fully deterministic interpretations of physics. — noAxioms
Actually I was aware of that problem as well but I wanted to discuss it in another thread. Time is needed for a thing to begin to exist since the thing does not exist at a point and then exists.Premise 2 totally goes against the consensus view among cosmologists where time and space are contained by the universe instead of the other way around. — noAxioms
Do mind to provide a link to such models? I studied cosmology around 20 years ago and I am very rusty now.Such a model does exist, and it necessarily denies things predicted by the prevailing view such as the big bang or black holes. — noAxioms
We still don't have the quantum gravity theory and that was why I hesitated to discuss Big Bang. Otherwise, I agree with you.The universe is not posited to have been built from 'material'. Any material did not show up on the scene until several epochs beyond the big bang. — noAxioms
Cool.So we're in agreement about the lack of soundness of the argument, but for different reasons. — noAxioms
To elaborate let's consider the current state of the universe to be S(t) which by the state I mean the configuration of material at a given time. The state of the universe at the former time is then S(t-1) etc. until we reach the beginning of time S(0). I claim that this state is related to the configuration of some sort of material at the beginning of time. — MoK
Interesting. I didn't know that.Interesting that arguments over whether the Universe has an origin in time is one of Kant’s ‘antinomies of reason’ (insoluble questions) and also a question declared unanswerable in Buddhism. — Wayfarer
How ethical issues are related to the origin of the universe?It’s kind of a shame that so many important ethical issues are believed to hinge on such a question. — Wayfarer
In this thread, I am not interested to discuss whether different states predicate other states later. What I am interested is that these states have existed since the beginning of time.First of all, if S(t) can be predicted from S(t-1) ... S(0) then the theory T for this system is complete. — Tarskian
What is PA? Why the theory for the system of natural number is incomplete?Non-trivial systems do not have a complete theory. For example, the theory for the system of the natural numbers (PA) is not complete. — Tarskian
We may one day be able to explain why reality behaves like this.Secondly, theory T is axiomatic, which means that every single one of its rules has no further explanation in terms of deeper underlying rules. So, even if we had a copy of theory T with all its rules, we would still not understand why it is there, just by looking at it. Just like PA has no ulterior logical explanation, by its very nature, T does not have one either. — Tarskian
I would say that we have to be open to the situation. We may be able to explain things given our intellectual power. We are evolving creatures so even if we cannot explain things now we may be able to explain things in future when we are evolved well.Hence, from within the universe, you cannot figure out why the universe exists. Just staring at the universe or just staring at its theory (which we do not even have) won't help. — Tarskian
Yes, that is a belief and you have the right to accept it. Are you in favor of the creation of things from nothing? If yes, I have an argument against it. You can find the argument here.The idea that God created the heavens and the earth, is a belief. By merely by staring at the heavens and the earth, this belief can neither be logically justified nor logically rejected. This belief has spiritual origins that transcend logic. — Tarskian
What is PA? Why the theory for the system of natural number is incomplete? — MoK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
Gödel's incompleteness theorems
The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e. an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers. For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system.
We may be able to explain things given our intellectual power. We are evolving creatures so even if we cannot explain things now we may be able to explain things in future when we are evolved well.
No, 'nothing' cannot be a cause. I don't posit that the universe is the sort of thing that 'came into existence', something that only describes objects within our universe, such as a raindrop. Treating the universe as an object is a category error.Nothing caused the the universe to come into existence? How does that work? — RogueAI
Physics very much supports uncaused events, but even such events are not from nothing. I don't think anybody is pushing a stance of something from nothing, except as a straw man alternative to whatever it is they actually are evangelizing. Craig regularly commits such a fallacy.I have one argument for nothing to something is impossible which I discussed it in this thread. — MoK
For temporal change, sure. There are other kinds of change that don't involve time. e.g. 'The air pressure changes with altitude'.P1) Time is needed for change
'nothing' isn't even really a defined thing, so the conclusion is more meaningless than impossible.nothing to something is not possible
Bob also seems to treat the universe as something subject to temporality, that is, something contained by time. This model was outdated over a century ago.Bob Rose's argument:
...
P3: Change requires temporality.
Just so. Hence the category error.Time is needed for a thing to begin to exist since the thing does not exist at a point and then exists.
Here's the main one, perhaps the first one to generalize LET theory to include gravity. It was published almost a century after Einstein generalized his Special relativity theory.Do mind to provide a link to such models?
No, 'nothing' cannot be a cause. I don't posit that the universe is the sort of thing that 'came into existence', something that only describes objects within our universe, such as a raindrop. Treating the universe as an object is a category error. — noAxioms
How ethical issues are related to the origin of the universe? — MoK
Plenty of valid philosophies would disagree with that, so it is hardly a certain thing. Just for an example, an idealist would say only the ideal (the concept of the universe) exists, and there is no real universe (noumena).the universe certainly exists — RogueAI
There are multiple meanings to that word.The only way around that I can see is to say it's eternal.
The issue boils down to a problem to a realist: How does one explain the reality of whatever one asserts to be real? Shorter but less rigorous version: Why is there something and not nothing? Positing a creator doesn't solve the problem; it only regresses it. — noAxioms
I didn't mean mathematical truth when I said we may one day explain reality. I mean we may be able to explain why physical laws are like this and not the other ways.If a system is incomplete, then it has unprovable truths. An unprovable truth is an inexplicable truth. The existence of such fundamentally inexplicable truths has nothing to do with our own evolution in terms of understanding. There simply does not exist a justification for such truth. The natural numbers is a system with fundamentally inexplicable truths. — Tarskian
Thanks for writing. I see what you mean.For the Christian, the fact that we are created 'imago dei' and return to the source of being at the time of death is fundamental to their faith. Life is regulated according to that belief, and according to the Biblical maxims and commandments. Whereas naturalism sees h.sapiens as the consequence of physical evolutionary processes that happen to have given rise to this particular species. They are very different attitudes and outlooks. — Wayfarer
I mean temporal change.For temporal change, sure. — noAxioms
By nothing I mean no material, no space, no time,...'nothing' isn't even really a defined thing, so the conclusion is more meaningless than impossible. — noAxioms
I read the manuscript once last night and I found it very interesting. I have to read a couple of more times to understand it well. Just out of curiosity, where was the manuscript published, and how many citations does it have?Here's the main one, perhaps the first one to generalize LET theory to include gravity. It was published almost a century after Einstein generalized his Special relativity theory.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45904833_Black_Holes_or_Frozen_Stars_A_Viable_Theory_of_Gravity_without_BlackHoles
It is an absolute theory, with the universe contained by time, hence absolute time. All the premises of special relativity are denied, and different premises are used. — noAxioms
I didn't mean mathematical truth when I said we may one day explain reality. I mean we may be able to explain why physical laws are like this and not the other ways. — MoK
Maybe. For now, we don't know why physical laws are like this. — MoK
Well I was speaking more of the lay public which Craig entertains. They don't know enough to put the creator on a different ontological level, and thus work more directly with said analog. But the Theologians do, and presumably explain away the regress issue to their own satisfaction.I think you would only say that if you put the creator on the same ontological level as the created. — Wayfarer
There's plenty left when those are eliminated. The natural numbers for one...By nothing I mean no material, no space, no time,... — MoK
Don't know the 'where'. Probably heavily cited by the absolutist crowd, but all that is sort of fringe. They've been waiting for a generalization of LET for an awful long time.Just out of curiosity, where was the manuscript published, and how many citations does it have?
The weak anthropic principle does a fair task of explaining why physical laws are like this.I mean we may be able to explain why physical laws are like this and not the other ways. — MoK
The second premise is not the only scenario as one can also say that the material has existed since the beginning of time. — MoK
There was no cause for the material at the beginning of time.What caused the material to exist since the beginning of time? — Philosophim
Correct.If there is no prior cause, then it is uncaused. — Philosophim
Correct.Something that is uncaused has no prior reason for its existence. — Philosophim
Why should it be finite?But then, what is to prevent something uncaused that is also finite? — Philosophim
I cannot follow why.There is no logical difference between the two. — Philosophim
But then, what is to prevent something uncaused that is also finite?
— Philosophim
Why should it be finite? — MoK
There is no logical difference between the two.
— Philosophim
I cannot follow why. — MoK
The weak anthropic principle does a fair task of explaining why physical laws are like this. — noAxioms
This premise is self-contradictory.1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its beginning — MoK
I stand by my statement. Your assertion notwithstanding, how does the weak anthropic principle (or the strong for that matter) not explain why they are as they are? If they were not as they are, there'd be no observers to glean the suboptimal choice of laws.There is no explanation for physical laws, generally. Physical laws can serve as the basis for the explanations for all manner of things, but why they are as they are is not something explained by science. — Wayfarer
Neither is the universe.The natural numbers are not a thing. — MoK
This seems to have evaded the question. Sure, if it lacks a reason for being, it equally lacks a reason for not being. The question was where 'finite' was somehow relevant to that statement.But then, what is to prevent something uncaused that is also finite? — Philosophim
Why should it be finite? — MoK
Why should it not? Its uncaused. Something uncaused has no reason for being. Which also means it has no reason for NOT being. — Philosophim
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.