What do you mean you fucking retard?

And projection too?! :razz:

I'm drooling as we speak.

You need to watch PBS Spacetime on YouTube. He had an episode on violation of conservation.

So when's he getting that Nobel for his 'perpetual motion' engine?

The physicist on Spacetime?

The woo woo crank who claims to violate energy conservation ...

Einstein you fucking retard.

Noether, bitch!

Did you not look at the explanation re Noether I sent you in the "no"?

Sure did. Skimmed actually. Doesn't jive with anything else I've ever read about Noether's work and its implications. Ain't the internet just the truthiest? :smirk:

No — frank

Has Luboš Motl's theorizing been established (verified and not falsified)?

Theories about perpetual motion machines amuse me. If it's always moving, how is there a counterfactual situation of it not moving to theorise against?

It seems the theorist has forgotten the machine is always in motion.

:grin: :up:

Calling me 'kid' all the time condescending and moronic.

This question makes no sense. "Always" implies temporality, and time is a metric description of entropy, or changing densities (i.e. complexities) of mass-energy. "Always" only has meaning in terms of mass-energy. — 180 Proof

Time is more fundamental than that; the speed of light is a universal constant enforced by the laws of the universe and speed=distance/time; so the laws of the universe are intimately time-aware and time is therefore much more than a human invention. It is not s description of entropy; it enables entropy. It is the 4th dimension.

Not my "explanation" :roll: ... We've done this 'reframing the BB in terms of the no boundary conjecture dance' before, kid. — 180 Proof

Some people will give credence to absolutely anything; in this case, time is assumed to be a complex variable; that's fringe science and you should treat it as so.

I feel you are evading the main questions because you do not have any decent arguments to offer up in defence of your illogical position.

- Do you think time has a start?
- What is the cause of the Big Bang?
- Was there a first cause?

A. Assume an infinite causal regress exists
B. Then it has no first element
C. If it has no nth element, it has no nth+1 element
D. So it cannot exist — Devans99

Why can we not number the elements in a causal regress?
— Devans99

Didn't you show with B and C?
We can label events (A) in whichever way we standardize/choose, indexically, but not non-indexically. — jorndoe

You are making no sense to me. I fail to see why you cannot appreciate that an infinite causal regress is like a house without a foundation - it is simply impossible - everything depends and derives its reality from the first element of the causal regress (eg the break off shot in pool), if there is no first element then the rest of the causal regress does not exist (eg the balls do not bounce around if the break off shot is not taken). Infinite causal regresses have no first element, so they cannot exist. This is simple stuff; I don't understand why you are not getting it.

In any case, we have already established that actual infinity is impossible (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7379/infinite-bananas/p) so infinite causal regresses are therefore doubly impossible.

- Do you think time has a start?
- What is the cause of the Big Bang?
- Was there a first cause? — Devans99

The answers to these depend on how they're defined. In my reading of your posts over a long time I have seen no rigorous or consistent definitions of these offered by you. It's time to do that.

I'm thinking a well-crafted sentence or two on each should suffice. Then we'll have the ground and can better understand the structures erected over them, in particular whether they're sound or unsound.

Please define, then,
1) time
2) start
3) cause
4) big bang
5) first

1) Time. A degree of freedom. The fourth dimension.
2) Start. The furthermost temporal/spacial point(s) of something's extent.
3) Cause. The reason for something happening.
4) Big Bang. The expansion of space that started 14 billion years ago.
5) First. Coming before all others in a temporal or spacial sense

I fail to see why you cannot appreciate that an infinite causal regress is like a house without a foundation [...] — Devans99

I'm not so interested in your analogies per se, I'm just pointing out that the argument you keep posting doesn't work.

it is simply impossible [...] cannot exist — Devans99

The argument I've commented on a few times by now does not prove so.

Admirably brief!

1) This won't do.
2) Nor this. What is furthestmost? In ordinary usage, perfectly understandable. In this case it would seem you want to define a moment(?), a place(?) as being the moment and place where, prior or before, there is neither moment nor space. As gee-whiz nonsense, fine. But I'm not interested in nonsense.
3) Reason and cause are generally different. My reason for dynamiting the stump is to get rid of it. To "cause" the explosion I light the fuse. But clearly neither of these cause the explosion.
4) Ok - with qualifications maybe not relevant here.
5) This as well problematic.

Cannot really work with any of these. Back to the drawing board. But not to be discouraged. These are (mostly) common words with common meanings that you apparently wish to apply in, and as part of the account of, uncommon ideas for which they were never intended. You have committed yourself to a hard task. But if that's the way you want to go, then you have to do the work.

- Do you think time has a start? — Devans99

No.

- What is the cause of the Big Bang?

Consistent with the overwhelming convergence of observational data in contemporary physical cosmology, my understanding is that the BB was a planck-scale event, therefore acausal; or, in other words, the initial conditions of the universe were randomly set (because there couldn't have been other matryoshka doll-like universes ad infinitum (right?) to fine-grain - select - the conditions necessary for this universe). As an explanation, saying 'g/G caused it' is indistinguishable from saying it randomly occurred, and yet, where as the latter follows from contemporary physics, the former - ptolemaic-aristotelian "Uncaused Cause" of the gaps - clearly does not.

- Was there a first cause?

No.

'What IS', even if it's just capability/possibility needs to be timeless and eternal, as 'ever', for it is mandatory, as the default, given that there is no alternative for there not to be anything at all.

Necessarily, due to no beginning or outside to it, it must be every path of events since there is no design point for it to be just one particular path of events. This is akin to the Block Universe.

'What IS', then, can never be still, and is seen not to be, for it continuously transmutes at every instant, nor can it stop because it can never go away. It is powerless over not being.

Not being still makes for all but it to be temporary; its being itself is necessity and thus all that is permanent.

Given that is does what it does, it will ever do that, meaning that it ever turns and returns in its transmutations guided by its laws of nature.

It is not holy, it just is, as like some topological structure that can always be taken back to itself at any point, although ever having to proceed through its transitions.

We, although appearing to progress in a presentist mode of time must somehow be passing through the 'IS', or, probably, we are it. The mind rememberers what has been passed through and thus we seem to be progressing in a presentism mode.

Nice.

- Do you think time has a start?
— Devans99
No. — 180 Proof

So you think that a greater than any finite number of days (or Planck intervals if you prefer) has passed? How has that happened?

Consistent with the overwhelming convergence of observational data in contemporary physical cosmology, my understanding is that the BB was a planck-scale event, therefore acausal; or, in other words, the initial conditions of the universe were randomly set (because there couldn't have been other matryoshka doll-like universes ad infinitum (right?) to fine-grain - select - the conditions necessary for this universe). As an explanation, saying 'g/G caused it' is indistinguishable from saying it randomly occurred, and yet, where as the latter follows from contemporary physics, the former - ptolemaic-aristotelian "Uncaused Cause" of the gaps - clearly does not. — 180 Proof

The BB looks awfully contrived though:

- Unnaturally low entropy at the start
- The way space is expanding in such an unnatural way (just right to stop everything collapsing under gravity)
- The fact that the expansion is speed up is also most unnatural
- Its a suspicious looking singleton; natural events always come in pluralities.

I don't see how anything at Planck-scale could possibly be responsible for something like the BB; there is simply not enough energy at Planck-scale to produce the BB. There is nothing at Planck-scale that could explain the expansion of space.

- Was there a first cause?
No. — 180 Proof

There is nothing without a first cause; it determines and defines everything else in existence.

I'm not so interested in your analogies per se, I'm just pointing out that the argument you keep posting doesn't work. — jorndoe

You are not able to give a satisfactory reason why the argument does not work, so I will keep posting it; it is a sound argument.

The argument I've commented on a few times by now does not prove so. — jorndoe

Yes it does. And other arguments do so too. To use one of your own examples:

1. A guy is writing his auto-biography
2. He is being especially dutiful and it is taking a year to document each day of his life.
3. Can he ever finish?
4. No
5. What if we introduce actual infinity and say he lives forever?
6. Then he can finish the auto-biography
7. Reductio ad absurdum. Step 5 must be wrong.
8. Actual infinity is impossible

1) Time. A degree of freedom. The fourth dimension.
2) Start. The furthermost temporal/spacial point(s) of something's extent.
3) Cause. The reason for something happening.
4) Big Bang. The expansion of space that started 14 billion years ago.
5) First. Coming before all others in a temporal or spacial sense — Devans99

1) This won't do.
2) Nor this. What is furthestmost? In ordinary usage, perfectly understandable. In this case it would seem you want to define a moment(?), a place(?) as being the moment and place where, prior or before, there is neither moment nor space. As gee-whiz nonsense, fine. But I'm not interested in nonsense.
3) Reason and cause are generally different. My reason for dynamiting the stump is to get rid of it. To "cause" the explosion I light the fuse. But clearly neither of these cause the explosion.
4) Ok - with qualifications maybe not relevant here.
5) This as well problematic.

Cannot really work with any of these. Back to the drawing board. But not to be discouraged. These are (mostly) common words with common meanings that you apparently wish to apply in, and as part of the account of, uncommon ideas for which they were never intended. You have committed yourself to a hard task. But if that's the way you want to go, then you have to do the work. — tim wood

1) What is your definition then?
2) I am thinking of everything in 4d spacetime mode. So space is analogous to time. So like every object has a spacial starting point(s), it also has a temporal starting point.
3) How about the physical pre-conditions that result in an event happening.
4) -
5) What is your definition then?

The universe is fine tuned for life so there must be a fine tuner

God is fine tuned for life, so there must be a god-tuner.

This fine tuner must be very special (to be uncaused and to not need a fine tuned environment)

It’s fascinating that you apply logic reasonably well, except to your own statements

The universe must be very special fine-tuner to tune itself, to be uncaused and to not need a fine tuned environment.

So the answer to any of your questions about how could unconscious universe be the same thing you call god is simply because it is a very special universe. It must be, right?

I think it's helpful to refer to what God created (I allege) as spacetime. Then there can be a wider universe that contains both God and spacetime. I am saying that spacetime looks like a fine-tuned creation. The wider universe with God in it is then timeless. God must exist in a wider universe that is not fine-tuned for life and he must be uncaused (have permanent, timeless, existence).

There is no possibility that the spacetime fine tuned itself. The initial conditions and initial laws (those in effect from t=0, the Big Bang) uniquely determine spacetime (IE the standard model, the 4 forces, the expansion of space), so there is simply no time/room for spacetime to fine tune itself - its characteristics are fixed from the get-go and those characteristics are life supporting; hence the very high probability it was fine tuned.

So the answer to any of your questions about how could unconscious universe be the same thing you call god is simply because it is a very special universe. It must be, right? — Zelebg

1. Chances of a very special universe that is life supporting by accident: billion to one
2. Chance of a fine tuner who exists in a non fined tuned environment: considerably higher

So I think, bearing in mind this is a fundamentally probability based argument, have to favour option 2 above. If we then take into account all the other arguments for God (e.g. causality, start of time, equilibrium, Big Bang), then 2 looks like a clear favourite.

there is simply no time/room for spacetime to fine tune itself

Then it must have tuned itself while it was beyond space and time. Of course it’s possible, you should know, it’s simply a special kind of universe.

Why can you not understand that every single illogical thing you say about god can be applied directly to the universe?

God is superfluous proposition that does not answer any questions -- god is fine tuned to create life, so there must be a god-tuner. Do you see?