A Universe from Nothing?

[Willamena]

and in the beginning....there is no dimensions at all
nothing to measure

time does not exist

Nothing is not a beginning.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Time is part of the universe. Causality is dependent on time. So, to ask for a cause for the universe is nonsense. There is no 'coming from' when there is no time. There is no time when there is no universe.

I did not ask about a cause, I asked how the universe came from nothing. The definition of nothing is self explanatory, no time and no space....how did time and space come into existence from the absolute absence of time and space?

 

[Polymath257]

for every effect there is a cause
for every cause there is an effect
you can't do any science experiment if you disjoint that relationship

the universe (one word) is the effect
God is the Cause

Show that the universe is, in fact, an effect. I claim that it is not.

Yes, science is possible without cause and effect. In fact, the most successful scientific theory is an acausal one.

But, that isn't my point. My point is that time is part of the universe and hence, to have cause and effect, requires time and therefore the universe. Show how this is wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

I did not ask about a cause, I asked how the universe came from nothing. The definition of nothing is self explanatory, no time and no space....how did time and space come into existence from the absolute absence of time and space?

In that case, it did NOT 'come from nothing'. To say the words 'come from' implies the existence of time. And time is part of the universe.

Nothing, as you define it, doesn't exist. And never has. (Remember that never is also a statement about time).

To use thre words 'come from' also implies causality. In spite of your denial, you were asking for a cause.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

In that case, it did NOT 'come from nothing'. To say the words 'come from' implies the existence of time. And time is part of the universe.

Nothing, as you define it, doesn't exist. And never has. (Remember that never is also a statement about time).

To use thre words 'come from' also implies causality. In spite of your denial, you were asking for a cause.

Haha....you are digging your hole deeper....you are saying that while nothing does not exist, from this non-existence arose existence...

So given the principle of reciprocity, you logically must believe that the universal process which brought us thus far can go into reverse whereby the universe will cease to exist? Or is it one way trip?

 

[Polymath257]

Haha....you are digging your hole deeper....you are saying that while nothing does not exist, from this non-existence arose existence...

So given the principle of reciprocity, you logically must believe that the universal process which brought us thus far can go into reverse whereby the universe will cease to exist? Or is it one way trip?

There is no 'process'. There was no time when there was 'nothing'. At no time did 'nothing' exist. There was no 'transition' from 'nothing' to the universe. The universe, spacetime, simply exists.

If time is finite into the past (which is not yet known), then it is theoretically possible that it is finite into the future also. In that case, there will not be a 'transition' from the universe to 'nothing'. There *still* won't be a time when there is 'nothing'. In that case, all existence is in a finite period of time.

 

[Thief]

Nothing is not a beginning.

even a nothing begins ......
if not....there is no beginning

not even a possibility of a beginning

equate nothing with......void?

 

[Polymath257]

even a nothing begins ......
if not....there is no beginning

not even a possibility of a beginning

equate nothing with......void?

I equate 'nothing' with nothing: no space, no time, no existence. Literally, nothing does not exist and never has.

And why do you say there has to be a 'beginning'?

 

[Thief]

Show that the universe is, in fact, an effect. I claim that it is not.

Yes, science is possible without cause and effect. In fact, the most successful scientific theory is an acausal one.

But, that isn't my point. My point is that time is part of the universe and hence, to have cause and effect, requires time and therefore the universe. Show how this is wrong.

you just threw cause and effect out the window
so much for science

and sooooo many other participants claim I do such things

i do not

Spirit first
Spirit is the Cause
the universe is the effect

Denying cause as FIRST
denies science

 

[Thief]

I equate 'nothing' with nothing: no space, no time, no existence. Literally, nothing does not exist and never has.

And why do you say there has to be a 'beginning'?

of course there was a beginning
here we are

but the universe also had a beginning
the motion is the tell tale evidence

 

[Polymath257]

you just threw cause and effect out the window
so much for science

and sooooo many other participants claim I do such things

i do not

Spirit first
Spirit is the Cause
the universe is the effect

Denying cause as FIRST
denies science

No, I did NOT throw cause and effect out the window. But I *did* show how it is limited in the real world. And this is *known*. Quantum mechanics is NOT a causal description of the universe, but it is by far the best description we have ever had.

You claim the existence of a 'spirit' that is a 'cause' of the universe. First, prove the existence of such a 'spirit'. Then tell me what the cause of that spirit is.

 

[Thief]

No, I did NOT throw cause and effect out the window. But I *did* show how it is limited in the real world. And this is *known*. Quantum mechanics is NOT a causal description of the universe, but it is by far the best description we have ever had.

You claim the existence of a 'spirit' that is a 'cause' of the universe. First, prove the existence of such a 'spirit'. Then tell me what the cause of that spirit is.

the universe is the evidence
substance does not move of it's own volition

Spirit first

 

[Polymath257]

of course there was a beginning

but the universe also had a beginning
the motion is the tell tale evidence

Yes, we are here. That means that existence exists. But it does NOT show it had a beginning. Motion shows the existence of time, not that there was a beginning.

One possibility is that time is infinite into the past and that the universe is also infinitely old. The Big Bang was a transition from an earlier universe (contracting, possibly).

Another possibility is that time is only finite into the past. In that case, it is simply meaningless to talk about 'before the universe' because there was no 'before'.

 

[Polymath257]

the universe is the evidence
substance does not move of it's own volition

Spirit first

And this is exactly where you are wrong. Matter *does* move of its own volition. No outside force is needed: all the forces are internal to the universe.

 

[Thief]

Yes, we are here. That means that existence exists. But it does NOT show it had a beginning. Motion shows the existence of time, not that there was a beginning.

One possibility is that time is infinite into the past and that the universe is also infinitely old. The Big Bang was a transition from an earlier universe (contracting, possibly).

Another possibility is that time is only finite into the past. In that case, it is simply meaningless to talk about 'before the universe' because there was no 'before'.

motion is linear
it had a beginning

time is an invention of Man
a cognitive device
it can exist only on a chalkboard

 

[Thief]

And this is exactly where you are wrong. Matter *does* move of its own volition. No outside force is needed: all the forces are internal to the universe.

what you speak of here is the universe in motion
and the behavior of particles set in motion
each to it's own character

all of which came from a starting point

you know the name ...Hubble?

 

[Polymath257]

what you speak of here is the universe in motion
and the behavior of particles set in motion
each to it's own character

all of which came from a starting point

you know the name ...Hubble?

Of course I do.

Do you realize the Big Bang might not be the beginning?

Do you realize it was not a 'point'?

Do you realize that in the non-quantum version, time itself starts at the Big Bang? So causality only makes sense *after* that time?

Do you realize that in all quantum versions, the universe (or multiverse) has no beginning? That it is eternal?

 

[Thief]

Of course I do.

Do you realize the Big Bang might not be the beginning?

Do you realize it was not a 'point'?

Do you realize that in the non-quantum version, time itself starts at the Big Bang? So causality only makes sense *after* that time?

Do you realize that in all quantum versions, the universe (or multiverse) has no beginning? That it is eternal?

if substance first.....then all of life is begotten by 'dead' stuff

science will not agree

the dead cannot beget the living

Spirit first

 

[Polymath257]

motion is linear
it had a beginning

time is an invention of Man
a cognitive device
it can exist only on a chalkboard

You keep claiming that it had a beginning, but show no evidence for such. Time is part of the structure of the universe. Humans can measure it, just like they can measure distances. But it is part of the universe.

 

[Thief]

You keep claiming that it had a beginning, but show no evidence for such. Time is part of the structure of the universe. Humans can measure it, just like they can measure distances. But it is part of the universe.

measure is cognitive
a quotient
existing only on a chalkboard