Do you see errors? — ucarr

I see an argument wherein an argument is not needed. — 180 Proof

My argument is the self-evident argument to which you refer. I don't imagine myself presenting original thinking. I'm recognizing that the self-evident argument is all that's needed to answer the question.

Proposing the self-evident argument as the sufficient argument agrees with your statement: "...nothing negates or prevents existence." We're both saying that reality is fundamentally something; a world equal to nothing is impossible.

Not-nothing aka "something" is, so to speak, a ripple in nothing. As Frank Wilczek points out "Nothing is unstable" (e.g. quantum uncertainty), ergo there's always "something" (existence) too.

... a world equal to nothing is impossible

:up: I.e. nothing-ness (or total absence of possible worlds).

As Frank Wilczek points out "Nothing is unstable" (e.g. quantum uncertainty), ergo there's always "something" (existence) too. — 180 Proof

Perhaps the constant jiggling of the zero-point energy (that never reaches zero) is showing that 'Nothing' cannot be gotten to, and so it is ever up to something.

I think an eternal universe has no opening. What do you think? — ucarr

That you're asking me this proves it wrong. A Universe with no 'opening' never opened, so does not exist, logically.

If you're trying to posit a metaphysical eternity, I'm with 180. This is nonsense.

That you're asking me this proves it wrong. A Universe with no 'opening' never opened, so does not exist, logically. — AmadeusD

If you assume a universe with no opening never existed, then you think a universe that opens was preceded by nothing, (this stipulated on the basis of the ancillary assumption the universe is the totality of existence). If you think the universe was preceded by nothing, then you must explain how nothing transitioned into something.

If you're trying to posit a metaphysical eternity, I'm with 180. This is nonsense. — AmadeusD

Regarding your use of "metaphysical" in context here, "Do you mean foundational abstract premises and principles nevertheless a part of the natural world? Or do you mean a non-physical realm?

In your mathematical analogies do you consider "0" to be nothing (in some sense)?

If you think the universe was preceded by nothing, then you must explain how nothing transitioned into something. — ucarr

Perhaps 'quantum uncertainty' ... such that "nothing" necessarily fluctuates and (at some threshold) a density of fluctuations – (contingent) not-nothing aka "something" – happens. :nerd:

addendum to
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1024032

If you assume a universe with no opening never existed, then you think a universe that opens was preceded by nothing, — ucarr

Nope. I just think exactly what I said. I commit to nothing else and I'm not required to. A universe is an event. If the event never begins, it doesn't occur. End of that.
In what that hypothetical event is embedded is another question entirely. One which I doubt humans can ever get any kind of a handle on.

If you think the universe was preceded by nothing, then you must explain how nothing transitioned into something. — ucarr

Not really, no. If the facts are that we have a Universe, and there is no logical move open to nothingness which results in a Universe (which there isn't - "fluctuations in nothing" is nonsense. I presume 180 is trying to be helpful to you there).

Regarding your use of "metaphysical" in context here, "Do you mean foundational abstract premises and principles nevertheless a part of the natural world? Or do you mean a non-physical realm? — ucarr

I don't think this makes sense. You are positing a metaphysical eternity in which a 'never began' universe must sit. That is a nonsense (that doesn't make it wrong - just nonsensical. It is likely many of these concepts elude sense-making for humans entirely).
I don't mean either of the things you posited, and they do not seem relevant questions.

Perhaps 'quantum uncertainty' ... such that "nothing" necessarily fluctuates and (at some threshold) a density of fluctuations – (contingent) not-nothing aka "something" – happens. :nerd: — 180 Proof

If your "quantum uncertainty" is alternate wording for "quantum vacuum" with its altering energy and virtual particles bound by physical laws, then we're agreeing that this state makes a close approach to nothing. The binding physical laws, however, keep it within the natural world. The methodological naturalism of the scientific community holds it firmly within reality. Nothing within physics is distinct from philosophical nothing.

If you assume a universe with no opening never existed, then you think a universe that opens was preceded by nothing, — ucarr

Nope. I just think exactly what I said. I commit to nothing else and I'm not required to. A universe is an event. If the event never begins, it doesn't occur. End of that. — AmadeusD

Why do you think you're exempt from providing a supporting argument to your declarations? Our dialectical debate has something in common with a courtroom trial. Therein each side must support its claims with arguments potentially falsifiable.

If the event never begins, it doesn't occur. End of that. — AmadeusD

Can you show logically why existence needs a beginning? Consider A=A. Where does it begin?

If you think the universe was preceded by nothing, then you must explain how nothing transitioned into something. — ucarr

Not really, no. If the facts are that we have a Universe, and there is no logical move open to nothingness which results in a Universe (which there isn't - "fluctuations in nothing" is nonsense. I presume 180 is trying to be helpful to you there). — AmadeusD

As I read you, you agree that something cannot come from nothing. Also, you mention, "If the facts are that we have a Universe..." followed by you declaring, "...'fluctuations in nothing' is nonsense." In conclusion, I think you believe the universe real, and you don't think it came from nothing. So, you know the universe is fundamentally something. You also know it didn't start itself in nothing because to begin presumes an existing something.

Nothing within physics is distinct from philosophical [metaphysical] nothing. — ucarr

Yes, and we've been speculating in the context of physics (re: the universe). Btw, "philosophical nothing" is more precisely referred to as nothing-ness (i.e. total absence of possible worlds) as distinct from no-thing (e.g. quantum vacuum).

If you think the universewas preceded by nothing, then you must explain how nothing transitioned into something. — ucarr

'Nothing' has no time.

Yes, this is another claim I can use to argue the possibility of eternal universe.

Why do you think you're exempt from providing a supporting argument to your declarations? — ucarr

I did. This is a circle you tend to go in throughout all exchanges I've seen you have.

The argument is that something with no beginning never began, and so does not exist. That is an argument. It is a sound one. We can imagine this well enough, but it fails quite quickly because a metaphysical eternity is conceptually empty. So, I would prefer if you did not make claims that attempt to paint your interlocutors as failing, where hte failure is your ability to understand what is being said clearly enough to apply it to your concepts. You can disagree all you want (and I welcome it!). But this sort of "You're not playing the game" when I've clearly done what you're saying I haven't will go nowhere.

Our dialectical debate has something in common with a courtroom trial. — ucarr

No, it does not. There is no analogy between the two that can hold.

Can you show logically why existence needs a beginning? Consider A=A. Where does it begin? — ucarr

So, I did make an argument. Great. Please stop pretending I haven't.

A=A is an identity concept. It has nothing to do with existence and says absolutely nothing about eternity.

As I read you, you agree that something cannot come from nothing. — ucarr

Then you are not reading me very clearly at all. You are not adequately distinguishing between descriptions and reasonings. We have a Universe. We cannot assume it was "beginning-less" because there is no logical way for that to be the case. That does not mean it isn't true. It means you cannot support it with reason. You need to be far more careful about how you treat concepts, less you continue to run into total non sequiturs like A=A having something to do with the Universe having a beginning.

In conclusion, I think you believe the universe real, and you don't think it came from nothing. So, you know the universe is fundamentally something. You also know it didn't start itself in nothing because to begin presumes an existing something — ucarr

I have no choice but to accept the Universe is real. Its not my belief, its an overwhelming reality. I suppose you can call this a belief, but it is a recognition. Beliefs behave differently.
The Universe is obviously something, fundamentally or otherwise. I don't 'know' anything beyond that hte Universe exists. I'm am illustrating that reason cannot get us to an infinite Universe, and the concept of a Universe with no boundaries along any axes (i.e space, time, expansive capacity etc..) is essentially a meaningless failure to adequate understand the nature of "something".

The more interesting, and in my view, only, question we can ask here is "What is outside the Universe?". No idea. But if it's expanding, we have extremely good reason to think it's expanding into something (else). This makes it pretty clear an "open-ended" Universe cannot be - otherwise expansion would be nonsense.

In your mathematical analogies do you consider "0" to be nothing (in some sense)? — jgill

Yes, I do. I characterize zero as strategic absence within math. It's function also extends to what I call, "not yet, but presently accountable." This refers to human intentions looking forward to how abstractly designed outcomes blossom over time.

If you assume a universe with no opening never existed, then you think a universe that opens was preceded by nothing... — ucarr

Nope. I just think exactly what I said. I commit to nothing else and I'm not required to. A universe is an event. If the event never begins, it doesn't occur. End of that. — AmadeusD

Why do you think you're exempt from providing a supporting argument to your declarations? — ucarr

I did. This is a circle you tend to go in throughout all exchanges I've seen you have. — AmadeusD

The argument is that something with no beginning never began, and so does not exist. That is an argument. It is a sound one... a metaphysical eternity is conceptually empty. — AmadeusD

Do you think you began with your parent's dna combined at fertilization? If not, where and when did you begin? If p⟹q, does q begin at p? If not, where and when does q begin?

In your use of "metaphysical" are you referring to abstract rules attempting to describe how the universe is structured and governed formally, or, are you, on the other hand, referring to a postulated non-material realm of cosmic mind that structures and governs formally?

Our dialectical debate has something in common with a courtroom trial. — ucarr

No, it does not. There is no analogy between the two that can hold. — AmadeusD

Here's an example of you making a declaration with no supporting argument. I say that in the courtroom, as in the debate room, each side must support its declarations with a supporting logical argument and or facts. I stand by my claim as factually correct. I encourage you to present independently verifiable facts that refute my claim.

Can you show logically why existence needs a beginning? Consider A=A. Where does it begin? — ucarr

A=A is an identity concept. It has nothing to do with existence and says absolutely nothing about eternity. — AmadeusD

Why do you think identity has nothing to do with existence? Do you think you can persist if your identity is separated from existence? If you do, explain how this is possible.

If the facts are that we have a Universe, and there is no logical move open to nothingness which results in a Universe (which there isn't - "fluctuations in nothing" is nonsense. I presume 180 is trying to be helpful to you there). — AmadeusD

You're incorrectly combining the scientific quantum vacuum, which is subject to physical laws with the philosophical nothingness, which is subject to nothing.

We have a Universe. We cannot assume it was "beginning-less" because there is no logical way for that to be the case. That does not mean it isn't true. It means you cannot support it with reason. — AmadeusD

You seem to think there are true things not logical. Well considered responses to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says, "We think undecidable statements generated by first-order axiomatic systems are true, although we can't prove them within the axiomatic system that generated them. Is this what you're saying?

...the concept of a Universe with no boundaries along any axes (i.e space, time, expansive capacity etc..) is essentially a meaningless failure to adequate understand the nature of "something". — AmadeusD

Why do you think a universe with no opening also has no boundaries? Don't distinct planetary systems have boundaries? Why do you think a universe with no opening has no discrete geometry?

The... only, question we can ask here is "What is outside the Universe?" — AmadeusD

Why do you think universe with an outside is not, by definition, a contradiction?

Hey mate - appreciate your determination to push through this discussion. I am sorry that its such a slog.

Do you think you began with your parent's dna combined at fertilization? If not, where and when did you begin? If p⟹q, does q begin at p? If not, where and when does q begin? — ucarr

Yes. The moment of 'Zygotization' is when "I" began. Exactly what I was to be wasn't yet determined. I'm not sure how you want to relate this to 'the universe' though?

If p⟹q, does q begin at p? — ucarr

w....what?? P implying Q doesn't give us anything about existence, beginnings or anything else. That's a relation. Semantic entailment doesn't even really deal with our reality. Just linguistic 'must's. It seems like you want arguments, but present only irrelevant semi-philosophical-sounding points?

In your use of "metaphysical" are you referring to abstract rules attempting to describe how the universe is structured and governed formally, or, are you, on the other hand, referring to a postulated non-material realm of cosmic mind that structures and governs formally? — ucarr

I use it to refer to metaphysics. I did not come up with the concept, nor do I posit some novel definition of such. "What is possible" is what metaphysics deals with outside the constraints of empirical observation. I don't mean this to be rude, but it is a highly perplexing exchange in this way. Your two suggested possible meanings neither are reasonable, relevant or , in my view able to be inferred from my use of metaphysical.

Here's an example of you making a declaration with no supporting argument. — ucarr

Hmm. While your general point is totally valid, its entirely inapt here: If you told me that the act of selling a couple of oranges must have some analogy to a Dolphin headbutting an Orca, i'd say the same thing. There is no analogy. You made that claim - you need to support it. Not me. The onus is on you to support your purported analogy. I note you try to do this in your reply - so lets deal with it..

I encourage you to present independently verifiable facts that refute my claim. — ucarr

You are not talking about anything for which we have verifiable facts. This probably explains why no one can quite understand what you're saying, when your responses are in a different lane to your questions. And why that happens a lot. In a court case we are not dealing with hypotheticals, metaphysics and speculation on the nature of reality. There is no analogy between the two. There is no outcome to be gleaned from this discussion and no judge to adjudicate. The only thing we roughly have in common with a court room is that we're trying to get across disparate points of view. That's it. There is no analogy in terms of evidential standards or logical requirements or anything else (if you see it differently, that's fine, but I reject it so we can't keep arguing about it).

Why do you think identity has nothing to do with existence? Do you think you can persist if your identity is separated from existence? If you do, explain how this is possible. — ucarr

I do not know why you keep making total non sequiturs and pretending they make sense.

The fact that A=A says literally nothing about existence or beginnings. Because it doesn't. It tells us a relation between two objects (or, two concepts which are one object). This is patent, as A=A literally does not tell us anything about those things. The bold is particularly bad thinking, wording and general discussion. I don't even take myself to have an identity. Even if I did, this question has nothing to do with my claim about the Universe.

You're incorrectly combining the scientific quantum vacuum, which is subject to physical laws with the philosophical nothingness, which is subject to nothing. — ucarr

I am neither incorrectly, or correctly doing that. I am telling you, on your own terms, what my view of the position that the Universe has no beginning could mean and whether I think it's plausible.
That said, "fluctuations in nothing" is nonsense in both senses. Physical 'nothing' is literally not nothing. No-thing. Nothing. They are the same. If there's some special physics use of 'nothingness' I'm not using it. You'd do well not to import your own conceptual uses of things into other's speech.

You seem to think there are true things not logical. — ucarr

No. I didn't claim 'true' for anything. Logic can only work on the information you currently have (or, conceptually i guess but that's total abstractness and not helpful here). Something like "if/then" only works if you know what sits between those words. We have no clue, at all, what's 'beyond our Universe' if anything. We cannot use logic to speak about anything outside the Universe.
What we can say: anything which exists, began to exist. Therefore, there is no move open to get to an open-ended Universe (at the back end, anyway. Perhaps an infinite-in-time Universe can be posited).

If further information gives us reason to think there actually is something out there, that would support this. If we came to information which actually indicated the Universe were infinite (i.e we'd have to just brute accept no start point then) then your argument works. We don't have that information, and so based on the above we can't posit that. We do not have logical infinites in reality, only in concept. This is why I brought in metaphysics: It is a metaphysical claim, not a logical one, that there could be no infinite past. I even accept that logically, in the abstract, we could posit an infinite universe without contradiction. But, you see to want to talk about the actual Universe.

Maths deals with infinites, but requires things like "numbers are infinite" to support the type of logic you're wanting in here. There's nothing ipso facto wrong with this, because as noted, infinites can be dealt with - but they cannot (it seems) give us reasons in the real world.

Why do you think a universe with no opening also has no boundaries? — ucarr

I don't, and didn't say this. Please try to read more carefully.

Don't distinct planetary systems have boundaries? Why do you think a universe with no opening has no discrete geometry? — ucarr

This is a non sequitur - we are not talking about planetary systems. I wont address it.
A Universe with no opening has no temporal boundary. That is what I indicated, and i did not at any stage say anything that can be reasonable inferred to mean I think an infinite universe has no discreet geometry. Please, PLEASE read more carefully. It is going to be extremely difficult if most responses are my correctly bad reading and assumptions you're making.

Exactly what I was to be wasn't yet determined. — AmadeusD

Your parents carried your dna long before you were born. There would be no you without it. So, did you start to be before you were born?

I'm not sure how you want to relate this to 'the universe' though? — AmadeusD

We've been talking about things beginning. No universe, no you. If so, then maybe you know something about the universe's beginning. If you don't know about it, maybe it's because there was no beginning; maybe the universe has always been incomplete.

P implying Q doesn't give us anything about existence, beginnings or anything else. — AmadeusD

p⟹q What about parents imply Quincy, their son?

It seems like you want arguments, but present only irrelevant semi-philosophical-sounding points? — AmadeusD

You ever heard about a wise guy who's connected? It's all about being connected, man. Arguments, likewise, are all about connections. You've never had an argument about something important?

What is possible" is what metaphysics deals with outside the constraints of empirical observation. — AmadeusD

Okay. So metaphysical to you means abstraction.

If you told me that the act of selling a couple of oranges must have some analogy to a Dolphin headbutting an Orca, i'd say the same thing. There is no analogy. — AmadeusD

Okay, above is an argument: you think my analogical pairing of dialectic and courtroom is faulty.

The ancient Greeks used the term dialectic to refer to various methods of reasoning and discussion in order to discover the truth.

Why do you think the above definition has no analogy with the purpose in a courtroom?

In a court case we are not dealing with hypotheticals, metaphysics and speculation on the nature of reality. — AmadeusD

The courtroom does deal with the nature of reality. Someone was murdered. The court wants to know who committed the murder. That's an investigation into reality.

Socrates was put on trial in a state courtroom in Athens. He was charged with disrespecting the gods approved by the state. He was sentenced to death and executed. Why do you think the courtroom takes no interest in reasoned arguments about the truth?

Why do you think identity has nothing to do with existence? Do you think you can persist if your identity is separated from existence? — ucarr

If you have no identity, you don't exist, right?

I don't even take myself to have an identity. — AmadeusD

Your are like a mirror? You only reflect back some other being's face? When there's no being before you, you have no face of your own?

this question has nothing to do with my claim about the Universe. — AmadeusD

Sorry, please repeat your claim about the universe.

If there's some special physics use of 'nothingness' I'm not using it. — AmadeusD

Okay. You refer to the no possible worlds definition of nothingness.

Perhaps an infinite-in-time Universe can be posited. — AmadeusD

This describes my infinite universe with no opening.

We do not have logical infinites in reality, only in concept. This is why I brought in metaphysics: It is a metaphysical claim, not a logical one — AmadeusD

You think logic and metaphysics distinct. Do you think them disjoint?

Maths deals with infinites, but requires things like "numbers are infinite" to support the type of logic you're wanting in here. There's nothing ipso facto wrong with this, because as noted, infinites can be dealt with - but they cannot (it seems) give us reasons in the real world. — AmadeusD

Since civil engineers use calculus to design bridges, why do you think calculations employing infinite values have no practical applications?

A Universe with no opening has no temporal boundary. That is what I indicated... — AmadeusD

Some current theories of the origin of the universe allow for a quantum gravity mediated unification of QM and Relativity. In some of these theories, allowance is made for time without a beginning.

Your parents carried your dna long before you were born. — ucarr

No. They carried their DNA. This is bizarre. Almost every reply is a non sequitur that butters no bread at all. I'm having fun though.

So, did you start to be before you were born? — ucarr

I've directly, unambiguously answered this. If you don't grok it, please do not put that on me.

We've been talking about things beginning. No universe, no you. If so, then maybe you know something about the universe's beginning. If you don't know about it, maybe it's because there was no beginning; maybe the universe has always been incomplete. — ucarr

Babble. And that is not to dismiss it - it's an interesting through, but it is babbling. "If so" what? Totally nonsensical in situ.

p⟹q What about parents imply Quincy, their son? — ucarr

...w.....what? You are, sorry to say, going to need to make sense for me to be able to reply.

Okay. So metaphysical to you means abstraction. — ucarr

No. It means what metaphysics actually is. This is getting tiresome.

Why do you think the above definition has no analogy with the purpose in a courtroom? — ucarr

I gave you specific, direct reasoning for this. YOu need to read an entire post before replying my friend. Tiresome.

Why do you think the above definition — ucarr

You gave no definition of anything. Non sequitur.

That's an investigation into reality — ucarr

No. It's not even an investigation. It's an interrogation of an investigation (usually). The investigation was already done. And it was not, in any way that can be made sensible, relevant to what we're talking about.

Socrates was put on trial in a state courtroom in Athens. He was charged with disrespecting the gods approved by the state. He was sentenced to death and executed. Why do you think the courtroom takes no interest in reasoned arguments about the truth? — ucarr

He was mostly charged with corrupting the Youth. Impiety was not a driver of his charge, as I understand.
The bold: you continually put words in my mouth and ask me to defend them. I have politely asked you to stop doing this. You have not stopped.
One more warning: Do not put words in my mouth. I will stop responding if I see this again. You need to carefully read, and review your responses to ensure you are not A. making things up, and B. writing irrelevant replies: If you want a fruitful exchange.

If you have no identity, you don't exist, right? — ucarr

No. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of Identity. It tells me you have never looked into the philosophical issue of identity. It is not at all required that identity holds for one to exist.

Your are like a mirror? You only reflect back some other being's face? When there's no being before you, you have no face of your own? — ucarr

Absolutely nonsense that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. I am whatever I am. There is no identity to it - its a flux of various parameters. My reflection in the mirror has almost nothing at all to do with the concept of identity (unless you mean social identity, which would explain a lot your going-wrongs here).

Sorry, please repeat your claim about the universe. — ucarr

It could not be open ended as, at some stage, it began (again, I posited that future points could be infinite, but I also don't think that - it just seems logically more reliable than the reverse).

Okay. You refer to the no possible worlds definition of nothingness. — ucarr

That is what you are requiring of your exchange. It is now quite clear that you are using both concepts interchangeably to disagree with both in different exchanges. That's fine, as it seems you're comfortable with both concepts, in different exchanges. But if they are separate concepts, please do not run them together. It may simply be that this is a clarifying exchange for both of us - that's a good thing.

This describes my infinite universe with no opening. — ucarr

It does not, as "in time" still imports a start-date as it were. Your infinite universe can only have one open end (on my view, I'm not making a logical argument at this stage because there's no incoherence in your concept - as noted). If you truly think something can exist with no start point, I'll leave you to it. This isn't the discussion for me.

You think logic and metaphysics distinct. Do you think them disjoint? — ucarr

No, i don't. You need to stop telling people what they think, Its so intensely bad for a good faith exchange that I am surprised people entertain you when you do this.

Since civil engineers use calculus to design bridges, why do you think calculations employing infinite values have no practical applications? — ucarr

Give me a calculation that applied to the construction of a bridge which required an infinite set. This is another non sequitur. Unless you think all maths is ipso facto dealing with infinites? In which case again, this is not the discussion for me.

In some of these theories, allowance is made for time without a beginning. — ucarr

If sure it is, because its theoretical. But in real life, we have no reason whatsoever to posit "time without a beginning". Because time is duration. Duration requires a start and finish to be termed as such. Otherwise, we're not talking about time - which I suspect is what's happened there, and you've missed it.

Very much appreciate your time and effort, despite the difficulties.