A Universe from Nothing?

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

I had the "time" argument with him a few weeks ago, basically he denied any scientific fact i put to him, including the most important, 2nd law of thermodynamics had any relationship to time. After that i just shrugged my shoulders and said **** him, he's just a waste of time

LMAO!

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

Why is it that you write and post in a manner consistent with gnostic in that you make false claims, and then when you are politely asked to show me where I had supposedly made the claim, you totally ignore the point and go into a ad hom rant? You have now added another false claim that I call you on, so in order to show you your reading comprehension is practically zero, try your very best to show this forum where it is you believe I have said or implied duration of an event is 0. And now you are claiming that I deny the existence of time, when in recent posts I have spelled it for you, I agree with this definition of the reality representing the concept of time....time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.

Now please refrain from any irrelevant rant and merely reply to the point of my posts to provide the evidence of your claims. This is the only way a reasonable exchange can take place, so long as you and gnostic are both going on about things I did not say, it is impossible for me to say anything except...show me where I said it?

X

 

[Ben Dhyan]

X

I take that as a no, you can not back up your claims...

 

[ChristineM]

But I did not raise the concept of 'entropy', you did, as a definition of what time is in your post #3854

So let's be clear, time is not entropy, radioactive decay, oxidation, big bang theory, etc., etc., time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.

How is it logical or reasonable for you to equate the reality defined by time as that defined by the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy?

I don't mind that you raise the subject of entropy as an example for which 'time' is a factor in the explanation thereof, but first of all we must agree on a definition of time, do you understand? Time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future. Do you agree or not, if not please explain your reason?

Entropy and time are intertwined, you may not like that but i dont really care what you like.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Entropy and time are intertwined, you may not like that but i dont really care what you like.

So what, all of existence is intertwined with time....this is implicit in the definition I provided...time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

So what, all of existence is intertwined with time....this is implicit in the definition I provided...time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.

As long as YOU'RE happy with that definition, the matter is closed. YOU won the debate.
Over and OUT!

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

Entropy and time are intertwined, you may not like that but i dont really care what you like.

He can goF***imself for all i care.
What a dehumanizing waste of time.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

He can goF***imself for all i care.
What a dehumanizing waste of time.

I get it that your debased display of language is evidence of dehumanization, but I suspect this was already the case before our exchange, so please don't blame others..

 

[ChristineM]

So what, all of existence is intertwined with time....this is implicit in the definition I provided...time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.

So, time is definite

 

[ChristineM]

I get it that your debased display of language is evidence of dehumanization, but I suspect this was already the case before our exchange, so please don't blame others..

Suspect what you like, your incredulous posts have that effect

And whats wrong with what the auto censor calls f***, it's valid old English, Anglo Saxon to be more precise.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So, time is definite

No, 'indefinite' applies to the 'continued process of existence', meaning there are no finite stops and starts of existence continuing to exist.

 

[ChristineM]

No, 'indefinite' applies to the 'continued process of existence', meaning there are no finite stops and starts of existence continuing to exist.

Yet
The start was just under 14 billion years ago, unless you have evidence time preceded the bb.
An maximum entropy will be the stop.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Suspect what you like, your incredulous posts have that effect

And whats wrong with what the auto censor calls f***, it's valid old English, Anglo Saxon to be more precise.

What is incredulous is the incredulous strawman claim regolith made as to what I had said, which is why when I kept asking him to show me where I had said it, because it did not exist, with total disregard for RF rule 6 and possibly 1, he became all potty mouthed and then ran away.

 

[ChristineM]

What is incredulous is the incredulous strawman claim regolith made as to what I had said, which is why when I kept asking him to show me where I had said it, because it did not exist, with total disregard for RF rule 6 and possibly 1, he became all potty mouthed and then ran away.

Tell someone who cares

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yet
The start was just under 14 billion years ago, unless you have evidence time preceded the bb.
An maximum entropy will be the stop.

You have it backwards, existence already exists, and there is no evidence of it ceasing to exist, so one can logically and reasonably assume it has always existed in some form or other. However for those who think existence is finite, the onus is on them to prove that existence first came from non-existence....something from absolute nothing.

 

[gnostic]

You have it backwards, existence already exists, and there is no evidence of it ceasing to exist, so one can logically and reasonably assume it has always existed in some form or other. However for those who think existence is finite, the onus is on them to prove that existence first came from non-existence....something from absolute nothing.

Actually, the limited of actual stop at the start of the BB's Recombination epoch.

According to the best estimate of the age of the universe, given by NASA and ESA (European Space Agency) with WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, 2001) and Planck (2009-2013) space telescopes, at 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago.

The Recombination epoch is the period is furthest back time we can directly detect and measure, which is 377,000 years after the Big Bang.

This evidence is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation or CMBR. It was first detected in 1964 by astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at Bell Laboratory, but CMBR was actually theorised and predicted in papers written back in 1948, by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman.

Since then the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer, 1989), WMAP and Planck space telescopes have provided images of the CMBR.

CMBR is the earliest light detected. This photons can only be detected by microwave anisotropy. It measure the relic radiation. It is older than the earliest detected quasars.

CMBR can be observed because the universe was no longer opaque at this time (377,000 years after the Big Bang). The Recombination epoch marked the time when electrons bonded with atomic nuclei of hydrogen and helium (ionised) atoms.

Before the Recombination epoch, hydrogen and helium were ionised atoms, meaning it has no electrons, therefore the atoms were all positive charged, and the young universe was in the state of plasma, which made the universe opaque; meaning light cannot move freely.

We currently don't have the technology to detect earlier events of very young universe before the Recombination epoch.

What you have claims cannot be substantiated because we cannot observe anything before the Recombination epoch. We don't know if the universe is eternal or not, we don't know if the universe has a beginning.

Everything before the Recombination epoch and CMBR, are theoretical (mathematical proven) and only hypothetical (still not testable or verifiable).

Creationism and Intelligent Design are not hypothetical or theoretical; no, they are just plain pseudoscience.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What you have claims cannot be substantiated because we cannot observe anything before the Recombination epoch. We don't know if the universe is eternal or not, we don't know if the universe has a beginning.

Everything before the Recombination epoch and CMBR, are theoretical (mathematical proven) and only hypothetical (still not testable or verifiable).

Your admission that you do not know if the universe is eternal shows that at present, you understand that there is no proof that existence can come from absolute nothing. Now based on the principle of reciprocity, logically if science could cause something that exists to turn into absolute nothing, then that would definitely serve a evidence of the reciprocal, existence from absolute nothing.

Since there is no one that I am aware of who thinks that it is a sufficiently realistic goal to convert something into absolute nothing, then the idea of something coming from absolute nothing is equally unrealistic. I thus suggest that reason and logic should assume the nature of existence to be eternal, and time to be the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Tell someone who cares

Apparently you do as I was just responding to your post to me defending of his potty mouth language.

 

[gnostic]

Your admission that you do not know if the universe is eternal shows that at present, you understand that there is no proof that existence can come from absolute nothing.

Again, straw man. And worse, it is the same straw man.

I keep telling you again and again and again that I don't accept the concept that the universe was formed from "nothing"...

...but it is very clear to me that no matter how many times, I have to tell you this, that I don't believe in nothingness...BUT you cannot seem to grasp it.

Talk about thickness!

So let me, make it very clear to you:

I DON'T EVER BELIEVE IN NOTHINGNES!!!​

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Again, straw man. And worse, it is the same straw man.

I keep telling you again and again and again that I don't accept the concept that the universe was formed from "nothing"...

...but it is very clear to me that no matter how many times, I have to tell you this, that I don't believe in nothingness...BUT you cannot seem to grasp it.

Talk about thickness!

So let me, make it very clear to you:

I DON'T EVER BELIEVE IN NOTHINGNES!!!​

Seriously gnostic, take a deep breath and read my post slowly with your thinking cap on, I made it clear that I understood you did not accept there was any proof that the universe came from nothing. there was no strawman argument, I agree with you on that point. But then you went on to say "we don't know if the universe is eternal or not, we don't know if the universe has a beginning."

Now you can't have your cake and eat it too, if you say categorically that existence did not come from nothing, then it must have always existed. Do you follow the logical reasoning? If there were a beginning, then it had to have come from nothing, for if you claim it came from something, then it is being obtuse for there is no real beginning, just some transformation of existing existence.