A Universe from Nothing?

[Ben Dhyan]

And your metaphysics is irrelevant to the point I was making. Your definition of 'finite' is flawed because it is ambiguous.


And that the axis can be extended by going off the Earth is irrelevant. My point is that *one the Earth*, there is no north of the north pole. Similarly, if time is finite, there is no 'before' time begins nor 'after' time ends.


But models are always what we use to help us understand. I agree, they never encompass all of reality, but they can encompass enough to allow understanding. If you don't allow models, there can be no discussion.

That is my whole point from the get go, I am looking at the universe as one without a nothing, models must be some finite circumscription of the whole of reality in order to apply analytical exploration, mathematical and otherwise, to gain some understanding. But many people then mistake the results of the present state of understanding as being the real, when it is only a mental construct. I otoh look at the universe as a whole and try to explain that there is more to it.

I don't understand your logic when you say the finite time has no beginning and no after, if it had not a beginning or after, then that is infinite time meaning eternal. The universe is not finite and has no beginning and no ending, therefore to develop a method of time measurement, the human mind takes a known 'segment' of eternal existence that can be measured, like the revolution of our planet around the sun and call it a year, 365 days, and applying maths to divide the day into 24 hour segments, the hour 60 minute segments, the minutes 60 second segments, and seconds milli. -- micro, -pica, - etc.. Time as you know it,is not real in the sense existence is real, it is merely a convenient mental construct to assist in our understanding a circumscribed volume of the eternal infinite.

To reiterate, I accept that the concept of time as a measurement of an abstracted finite segment of eternity is essential to provide some practical understanding of our universal environment, but it will always be a mental construct, it does not represent anything real except as a conceptual reality.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Time is an expression of causality. There is some arbitrariness because of relativistic effects, but the basics are the the the cause of an event is earlier in time than that event.

Something is real if it exists, yes. But many things can exist at one time and not exist at another. So it is not required that something real continues to be real. As an example, my first car was a real object. It existed. It was not an imagined thing. It was not a phantom. But now it no longer exists. So it's reality was not persistent. It vanished by being dismantled.

Time is as real as space. Together they form the geometry of spacetime, which is where/when things exist.

Again, you are dealing with the multitudinous aspects of the universe, therefore you can not see the forest for the trees. I am dealing with the whole and the essential and natural unity of the multitudinous aspects. Nothing can be taken from the universe nor anything added to it, ever. As for the aspects, be they galaxies, cars, humans, or atoms, they have beginnings and endings in time as conceived by the human mind. So spacetime is an abstract concept, convenient for physical science, but it is not real in the sense the universe is real.

 

[gnostic]

Thank you gnostic, I understand we are talking models, but it is these theoretical scenarios that Polymath takes seriously, and he talks of the cessation of time, the cessation of anything in existence to persist existing. That is what I am challenging, for to my mind, the beginning of, or ending of the continuation of existence is impossible.

No, Ben.

Polymath was only giving you an "example" of what could possibly cause the cessation of time, not that he accept it to be true.

For instance. We can both read the same passages from the bible, and we can argue over what they mean - the context of that passages.

You may believe in the quoted verses, but believing in it, doesn't mean that you understand. And I don't have to actually believe what those passages literally or historically; I can come up with interpretation simply by understanding what those passages say.

Understanding what you read doesn't mean that you have to believe or not believe in any book.

I think polymath knows a lot more about theoretical physics on different physical cosmology than I do, but i did not see that he committed himself to any known hypotheses of the universe's fate.

He only show his understanding of your conversation with him, not his commitment to that model.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, Ben.

Polymath was only giving you an "example" of what could possibly cause the cessation of time, not that he accept it to be true.

For instance. We can both read the same passages from the bible, and we can argue over what they mean - the context of that passages.

You may believe in the quoted verses, but believing in it, doesn't mean that you understand. And I don't have to actually believe what those passages literally or historically; I can come up with interpretation simply by understanding what those passages say, eternal otoh is infinite and has no beginning or ending.

Understanding what you read doesn't mean that you have to believe or not believe in any book.

I think polymath knows a lot more about theoretical physics on different physical cosmology than I do, but i did not see that he committed himself to any known hypotheses of the universe's fate.

He only show his understanding of your conversation with him, not his commitment to that model.

Perhaps gnosis, we will see going forward, though he says things that fly against logical understanding of even the conceptual understanding. For example, as I read it, he is saying finite time implies no beginning or ending, and I understand it the opposite way....what do you say? Now I know he relies on the.."there is no time before the beginning of time" wrt singularity expansion, but that has nothing to do with normal language concerning what is finite, finite time is a segment of time duration that begins and end, eg a day is finite, it has a beginning and an ending, Eternal otoh denotes infinite duration, ie. no beginning and no ending.

 

[Polymath257]

Again, you are dealing with the multitudinous aspects of the universe, therefore you can not see the forest for the trees. I am dealing with the whole and the essential and natural unity of the multitudinous aspects. Nothing can be taken from the universe nor anything added to it, ever. As for the aspects, be they galaxies, cars, humans, or atoms, they have beginnings and endings in time as conceived by the human mind. So spacetime is an abstract concept, convenient for physical science, but it is not real in the sense the universe is real.

Time is one of the aspects of the universe. Just like space and matter are aspects of the universe. So, because the univeree is real, so are all of those.

If you want to think of the universe as a whole, thorughout all of time and space, that is quite fine. It can still be limited in some dimensions.

 

[Polymath257]

Haha....but it's the car that represents the universe, whether it is moving or stopped, it continues to exist....besides, on any incline, the car would start moving again if you remove the brake..

And if there is no incline, and more importantly, if there is no future time, then it won't.

 

[Polymath257]

That is my whole point from the get go, I am looking at the universe as one without a nothing, models must be some finite circumscription of the whole of reality in order to apply analytical exploration, mathematical and otherwise, to gain some understanding. But many people then mistake the results of the present state of understanding as being the real, when it is only a mental construct. I otoh look at the universe as a whole and try to explain that there is more to it.

All you do when you 'explain there is more' is to present a different model. That is all you are doing. Then the question becomes which model fits reality better,

I don't understand your logic when you say the finite time has no beginning and no after, if it had not a beginning or after, then that is infinite time meaning eternal. The universe is not finite and has no beginning and no ending, therefore to develop a method of time measurement, the human mind takes a known 'segment' of eternal existence that can be measured, like the revolution of our planet around the sun and call it a year, 365 days, and applying maths to divide the day into 24 hour segments, the hour 60 minute segments, the minutes 60 second segments, and seconds milli. -- micro, -pica, - etc.. Time as you know it,is not real in the sense existence is real, it is merely a convenient mental construct to assist in our understanding a circumscribed volume of the eternal infinite.

I know that you fail to grasp this basic point. You assume that there must always be a previous time and there must always be a later time. So, when there is an event, you assume there must be a time after that event. That is the assumption that may well be false (we simply do not know yet). And, if time doesn't go past, say, 14 billion years ago, then time is limited into the past.

To reiterate, I accept that the concept of time as a measurement of an abstracted finite segment of eternity is essential to provide some practical understanding of our universal environment, but it will always be a mental construct, it does not represent anything real except as a conceptual reality.

And I say that it measures something real and is therefore NOT simply a mental concept. It is a fundamental aspect of reality. Even if you want to regard all of the universe as a whole (throughout space and time), then time is *still* an aspect of the geometry of that whole universe.

 

[Polymath257]

Perhaps gnosis, we will see going forward, though he says things that fly against logical understanding of even the conceptual understanding. For example, as I read it, he is saying finite time implies no beginning or ending, and I understand it the opposite way....what do you say? Now I know he relies on the.."there is no time before the beginning of time" wrt singularity expansion, but that has nothing to do with normal language concerning what is finite, finite time is a segment of time duration that begins and end, eg a day is finite, it has a beginning and an ending, Eternal otoh denotes infinite duration, ie. no beginning and no ending.

Let me be as clear as possible.

I am giving a couple of possible ways the universe could be. I am trying to point out assumptions that you have that may be wrong. They may be correct, but we don't yet know that.

Let's pick an arbitrary time duration into the past, say 14 billion years. Suppose that time only exists *after* 14 billion years ago. There simply was no 15 billion years ago. Time *began* 14 billion years ago. So it is finite into the past. Can you conceive of this as a possibility? Well, it is what general relativity, when applied to the universe as a whole, naturally predicts.

Because of this possibility, I use the word 'eternal' slightly differently. I use it to say something exists through all time. And that holds even if time is finite, either into the past or into the future.

You also make assumptions about causality. For example, you assume that anything that begins necessarily has a cause. That is simply false. We know this from quantum fluctuations, for example. Causality is *one* aspect of the universe, but not all things in the universe have causes.

 

[Thief]

Define 'force' and 'substance' and explain why nothing else can be 'real'.

try to focus on the concept of a beginning......First

 

[Polymath257]

try to focus on the concept of a beginning......First

OK, something begins at a certain time if there is no previous time when it exists.

Your turn. Define 'force' and 'substance' and show nothing else is real.

 

[Thief]

OK, something begins at a certain time if there is no previous time when it exists.

ok....and was it substance ?
or Spirit

if you choose substance then all of life was begotten by something dead
including that First Guy

which is ridiculous
God formed of substance?
the creation forms it's own Creator?

putting the cart in front of the horse.....does not work
.

 

[Polymath257]

ok....and was it substance ?
or Spirit

To what are you referring here? You asked what it means to begin. I gave an answer. You then asked about an 'it'. Do you mean the thing that begins?
If so, please define what it means to be a 'substance' and the specific thing that begins and I can tell you (maybe).

if you choose substance then all of life was begotten by something dead
including that First Guy

Huh? Yes, there was a time in the past when there was no life. Life is a collection of chemical reactions. It is a physical process. No atom in you is alive, but the collection of those atoms (you) is alive.

What about your definition of a substance implies that substances cannot be alive? Certainly my body is alive.

which is ridiculous
God formed of substance?
the creation forms it's own Creator?
putting the cart in front of the horse.....does not work
.

What in the world are you babbling about here? I do not believe in any deities.

You have yet to define what it means to be a 'substance'. Even if a deity exists, I don't know what you mean by the term 'substance', so I wouldn't know whether that deity is a substance or not.

 

[Thief]

To what are you referring here? You asked what it means to begin. I gave an answer. You then asked about an 'it'. Do you mean the thing that begins?
If so, please define what it means to be a 'substance' and the specific thing that begins and I can tell you (maybe).


Huh? Yes, there was a time in the past when there was no life. Life is a collection of chemical reactions. It is a physical process. No atom in you is alive, but the collection of those atoms (you) is alive.

What about your definition of a substance implies that substances cannot be alive? Certainly my body is alive.


What in the world are you babbling about here? I do not believe in any deities.

You have yet to define what it means to be a 'substance'. Even if a deity exists, I don't know what you mean by the term 'substance', so I wouldn't know whether that deity is a substance or not.

so there is no life beyond the physical?

there's your problem

you're here in a religious forum hoping to support a lack of belief

not likely

 

[Polymath257]

so there is no life beyond the physical?

there's your problem

you're here in a religious forum hoping to support a lack of belief

not likely

1) Non-theism is one of the viewpoints discussed on this site.

2) We are in the 'Science and Religion' section. I am discussing the *scientific* aspects of this.

3) No, there is no life beyond the physical. If you believe otherwise, present the evidence. At this point *all* the evidence shows life to be a physical process.

4) I am not expecting support. I am expecting reasoned discussion. We may well disagree.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Time is one of the aspects of the universe. Just like space and matter are aspects of the universe. So, because the univeree is real, so are all of those.

If you want to think of the universe as a whole, thorughout all of time and space, that is quite fine. It can still be limited in some dimensions.

Yes, the universe is one reality, but the apparent aspects of the one reality are merely distinctions made by our natural human differentiating sensory perception and conception systems. Hence the eastern religious traditions treat the one (non-dual) as real, and the apparent multitudinous (duality) as maya.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And if there is no incline, and more importantly, if there is no future time, then it won't.

How will there be no future time, how can the real stop existing?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Let me be as clear as possible.

I am giving a couple of possible ways the universe could be. I am trying to point out assumptions that you have that may be wrong. They may be correct, but we don't yet know that.

Let's pick an arbitrary time duration into the past, say 14 billion years. Suppose that time only exists *after* 14 billion years ago. There simply was no 15 billion years ago. Time *began* 14 billion years ago. So it is finite into the past. Can you conceive of this as a possibility? Well, it is what general relativity, when applied to the universe as a whole, naturally predicts.

Because of this possibility, I use the word 'eternal' slightly differently. I use it to say something exists through all time. And that holds even if time is finite, either into the past or into the future.

You also make assumptions about causality. For example, you assume that anything that begins necessarily has a cause. That is simply false. We know this from quantum fluctuations, for example. Causality is *one* aspect of the universe, but not all things in the universe have causes.

Sorry, I can not conceive that time as I understand the concept, to have begun 14 billion years ago, and I don't do hypotheticals. I can though conceive hypothetically of singularities expanding and contracting over these periods, non only this one, but possible an infinite number and series of them throughout eternity.

No, I do not see a cause to the one reality, the universe, for it is eternal. Though wrt its apparent multitudinous manifested forms, they all have beginnings and endings and thus the one eternal reality is referred to as the causeless cause of all apparent change.

 

[ChristineM]

Sorry, I can not conceive that time as I understand the concept, to have begun 14 billion years ago, and I don't do hypotheticals. I can though conceive hypothetically of singularities expanding and contracting over these periods, non only this one, but possible an infinite number and series of them throughout eternity.

No, I do not see a cause to the one reality, the universe, for it is eternal. Though wrt its apparent multitudinous manifested forms, they all have beginnings and endings and thus the one eternal reality is referred to as the causeless cause of all apparent change.

I think you are confusing the human concept of time (hours, minutes which is illusion) with entropy, times arrow, the transition from order to disorder. Entropy cannot exist unless there something for it to exist in, before this universe entropy did not exist in this universe.

 

[Polymath257]

Sorry, I can not conceive that time as I understand the concept, to have begun 14 billion years ago, and I don't do hypotheticals. I can though conceive hypothetically of singularities expanding and contracting over these periods, non only this one, but possible an infinite number and series of them throughout eternity.
.

But this is the *standard* mode for General relativity. It isn't just a hypothetical. It is one of the possibilities we have to consider because it may well be reality.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I think you are confusing the human concept of time (hours, minutes which is illusion) with entropy, times arrow, the transition from order to disorder. Entropy cannot exist unless there something for it to exist in, before this universe entropy did not exist in this universe.

I am using the word time as representing the reality of the persistence of existence to continue to exist, not as a measurement of a finite segment of duration.

As to entropy, it is merely a human concept made to distinguish different theoretical/observed states of the universe existence, it says nothing about the cessation of the universal existence. The universe is one, and not one iota of whatever constitutes it can be taken out of it, nor any more added to it, for if so, where it go, and from where would it come?