Riddle of the beginning solved without god?

[Gjallarhorn]

Thank you...hope your dreams are pleasant in your grave.
Dead men don't wake up.

...okay then.

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

*God* is a concept to begin with and so Gauatma never discussed about IT.
His efforts were only for everyone to be conscious of IT and get back to that voidness from where the form came from to begin with.
Meidtation is the only WAY/PATH/RELIGION.
Yes, one can study and involve in research; meditatively. All scientific research are products of meditation in one way or the other.
Love & rgds

 

[Meow Mix]

First of all thanks for the very interesting post.

I'm actually taking a foundation of math(proofs) class right now, and I'm a little confused about the logic behind your argument(like why would you assume P and then try to prove ~P, unless you were trying to do a proof by contradiction, but you then said that we can't even show ~P is true so clearly this isn't a proof by contradiction) but I'll assume what you've said makes sense.

It is using contradiction; it's perhaps just muddled because of all the multiple negations. Essentially, in English, assuming that it's possible for everything to be absent still vindicates the presence of something in that we still have to agree that state of affairs is self-identical, which contradicts our original notion that not anything exists (ostensibly including self-identity).

If P is the existence of anything, and ¬P is proposed, and logical self-identity is part of "anything," then we shouldn't agree that ¬P = ¬P; but we must -- contradicting our assumption that ¬P.

So if at least something must always exist, then a paradox arises. If something has always existed, then that means this "something" has experienced an infinite number of events. Which logically isn't possible, for you'd think any "something" can only experience a finite amount of events.

Is there an explanation for this paradox? You seem a lot more learned on this subject than I do

There isn't necessarily a paradox here. Temporal dimensions could have finite lives (with a transcendental metatime to set the stage, itself eternal), for instance. It's also not necessarily true that having an infinite number of permutations is impossible -- I certainly don't agree that "any something can only experience a finite amount of events." Can you be more specific about what aspect of that possibility you take an issue with?

If it helps, I can assume you might be coming from a direction that there are no actual infinities or that there can't be a past infinite sequence of events (else we'd never get to the present), but these both involve fallacies of understanding the nature of infinities and time. The most complex issue is the question of infinite past events: the reason the notion seems worrisome is because people try to extrapolate to some point at infinity on a hypothetical timeline and note that it would take an infinite distance to get to the present -- but this is essentially making a Zeno's Paradox sort of mistake. It's imparting too much of a Cartesian-centrism (and absolutism) to a relational state of affairs (time) for one, and assumes a strict linear nature of time (for instance, imagine a circle or a tree as opposed to a straight timeline).

 

[McBell]

Cause and effect....
one creation after another.....

No one in charge?....no one in control?....

Choose...
Spirit first.... or substance.

so who/what caused god?

 

[McBell]

Thank you...hope your dreams are pleasant in your grave.
Dead men don't wake up.

:biglaugh:
as if this is some sort of ace in the hole win....
:biglaugh:

 

[PolyHedral]

Dead men don't wake up.

The hardware and software requirements are pretty difficult, but they're far from impossible. If we acquire such things in the future, hopefully they'll resurrect you for the amusement value.

...assumes a strict linear nature of time (for instance, imagine a circle or a tree as opposed to a straight timeline).

Pratchett's metaphor is the "trousers of time." It's just somewhat annoying that trouser legs don't intersect in a way that works sensibly.

 

[punkdbass]

It is using contradiction; it's perhaps just muddled because of all the multiple negations. Essentially, in English, assuming that it's possible for everything to be absent still vindicates the presence of something in that we still have to agree that state of affairs is self-identical, which contradicts our original notion that not anything exists (ostensibly including self-identity).

If P is the existence of anything, and ¬P is proposed, and logical self-identity is part of "anything," then we shouldn't agree that ¬P = ¬P; but we must -- contradicting our assumption that ¬P.

Hmm I'm still a little confused. Okay so your trying to do proof by contradiction, got it. So you assume ~P(it is possible for nothing to exist) and arrive at the "contradiction" of ~P = ~P by logical self identity. I'm just having trouble understanding how this is a contradiction. Are you saying this is a contradiction because saying ~P = ~P is essentially saying something must exist a.k.a the self identity?

Because if so, I don't see how saying nothing = nothing contradicts the statement that nothing exists. Hmm.. perhaps you could argue its a contradiction because the actual principle of the logical identity must exist, therefore something exists(the logical identity rule). But obviously a logical rule isn't something physical, and the entire nature of this debate is about whether or not something physical must always exist. So if we define ~P as being "it is possible for nothing physical to exist" then I do not see ~P=~P as being a contradiction.

There isn't necessarily a paradox here. Temporal dimensions could have finite lives (with a transcendental metatime to set the stage, itself eternal), for instance. It's also not necessarily true that having an infinite number of permutations is impossible -- I certainly don't agree that "any something can only experience a finite amount of events." Can you be more specific about what aspect of that possibility you take an issue with?

If it helps, I can assume you might be coming from a direction that there are no actual infinities or that there can't be a past infinite sequence of events (else we'd never get to the present), but these both involve fallacies of understanding the nature of infinities and time. The most complex issue is the question of infinite past events: the reason the notion seems worrisome is because people try to extrapolate to some point at infinity on a hypothetical timeline and note that it would take an infinite distance to get to the present -- but this is essentially making a Zeno's Paradox sort of mistake. It's imparting too much of a Cartesian-centrism (and absolutism) to a relational state of affairs (time) for one, and assumes a strict linear nature of time (for instance, imagine a circle or a tree as opposed to a straight timeline).

Yea you are right, I am having trouble understanding how actual infinities can exist, or how an infinite past can exist. Perhaps you have an explanation that would help or could you point me to a source of reading that might help me understand these topics better? I'd definitely appreciate it, these kind of topics really interest me

 

[The Wizard]

Interesting topic and comments by everyone, if I may say so. Riddles have always attracted my attention. Though I have my beliefs I do make an effort to stick with the thread title. I always learn something different from people regardless... its a big Universe out there...

 

[PolyHedral]

Because if so, I don't see how saying nothing = nothing contradicts the statement that nothing exists. Hmm.. perhaps you could argue its a contradiction because the actual principle of the logical identity must exist, therefore something exists(the logical identity rule). But obviously a logical rule isn't something physical, and the entire nature of this debate is about whether or not something physical must always exist. So if we define ~P as being "it is possible for nothing physical to exist" then I do not see ~P=~P as being a contradiction.

Due to the recursive nature of predicate logic, logic statements themselves are part of "everything." It's just as valid to say "There exists a formula such..." as "There exists a value such..."

Also, it is tautologically true that time itself has always, and always will, exist. However, the trick is that this does not imply that time is infinite. Similarly, a thing can exist for all of time, but does not need to have an infinite existence. The key being the specific semantics: "for all of time" can cover a finite amount, if time is finite, just like "for all points on the line" can still make sense even if the line in question only covers a finite distance.

 

[gnostic]

Thank you...hope your dreams are pleasant in your grave.
Dead men don't wake up.

That's actually fine by me. I don't want to exist, once I'm dead.

No afterlife. No heaven. No hell. No purgatory. No reward or punishment. No reincarnation. No ghost or spirit or shade. Absolutely nothing. :thumb up:

 

[punkdbass]

Due to the recursive nature of predicate logic, logic statements themselves are part of "everything." It's just as valid to say "There exists a formula such..." as "There exists a value such..."

Also, it is tautologically true that time itself has always, and always will, exist. However, the trick is that this does not imply that time is infinite. Similarly, a thing can exist for all of time, but does not need to have an infinite existence. The key being the specific semantics: "for all of time" can cover a finite amount, if time is finite, just like "for all points on the line" can still make sense even if the line in question only covers a finite distance.

Okay I think I understand what your saying, thanks for explaining. I'm still not sold on the idea that showing a logical rule exists suffices to prove that something physical MUST exist (by the proof of contradiction Meow Mix used), but for the sake of this debate I will assume you are right.

Hmm as for your second point, many issues come to my mind. It seems to me that what you have said only makes sense if "existence" itself is not necessarily eternal. That somehow existence was created(for example by the big bang, which would then create time as well). From what little I have read about the big bang, time itself was created in the big bang, and thus there was no "before" and it makes absolutely no sense to talk about what came before the big bang and thus is not a relevant question.

So the only way I can make sense of what you have said is if existence and time were created both at the same point, so thus time has always existed and always will - until someday existence is terminated(if that is possible). Which if it was, then time would officially be finite.

Am I making progress or am I way off track?

 

[Thief]

Okay I think I understand what your saying, thanks for explaining. I'm still not sold on the idea that showing a logical rule exists suffices to prove that something physical MUST exist (by the proof of contradiction Meow Mix used), but for the sake of this debate I will assume you are right.

Hmm as for your second point, many issues come to my mind. It seems to me that what you have said only makes sense if "existence" itself is not necessarily eternal. That somehow existence was created(for example by the big bang, which would then create time as well). From what little I have read about the big bang, time itself was created in the big bang, and thus there was no "before" and it makes absolutely no sense to talk about what came before the big bang and thus is not a relevant question.

So the only way I can make sense of what you have said is if existence and time were created both at the same point, so thus time has always existed and always will - until someday existence is terminated(if that is possible). Which if it was, then time would officially be finite.

Am I making progress or am I way off track?

If I may....
Time never has existed.
Time is not a force or a substance.
It is a cognitive device created by man to serve man....a measurement.
It is a quotient on a blackboard....it never be anything else.

In the beginning would be nothing...the void.
No heat,no cold.....no light, no shadow....no sound, no echo.
Perfection.

For time to 'exist'....
You need at least two points so to measure distance....and movement.

Prior to the singularity...these items are not on Hand.

 

[The Wizard]

I just view time as a measurement of existence or the Universal Big Bang Cylce. Without something existing there is no time involved. Existence and time work hand in hand.. Time doesn't exist if existence doesn't exist..... imo.

 

[shawn001]

If I may....
Time never has existed.
Time is not a force or a substance.
It is a cognitive device created by man to serve man....a measurement.
It is a quotient on a blackboard....it never be anything else.

In the beginning would be nothing...the void.
No heat,no cold.....no light, no shadow....no sound, no echo.
Perfection.

For time to 'exist'....
You need at least two points so to measure distance....and movement.

Prior to the singularity...these items are not on Hand.

Which is why hawking showed without breaking any laws of nature you don't need a god to create the universe, there was no time, space or energy.

Putting god before the singularity is a "personal opinion" or "belief" only, with no facts behind it at all, not that its not possible, but there is not one shred of evidence.

Again most modern cosmologist don't believe this is the only universe, some believe this universe was formed from another via a black hole. But there are many possible explanations without the "god did it." factor that has no support at this time. We might know soon enough about other universes existing though through science, just like we laern the milkyway wasn't the entrie universe back in the late 20's when Hubble proved there were hundreds of billions of other galaxies, not just the milkyway.

 

[Thief]

Which is why hawking showed without breaking any laws of nature you don't need a god to create the universe, there was no time, space or energy.

Putting god before the singularity is a "personal opinion" or "belief" only, with no facts behind it at all, not that its not possible, but there is not one shred of evidence.

Again most modern cosmologist don't believe this is the only universe, some believe this universe was formed from another via a black hole. But there are many possible explanations without the "god did it." factor that has no support at this time. We might know soon enough about other universes existing though through science, just like we laern the milkyway wasn't the entrie universe back in the late 20's when Hubble proved there were hundreds of billions of other galaxies, not just the milkyway.

And such is the definition of faith.

If your waiting for science to introduce you to God....you will fail.
Faith is something you must do by choice.
No photos, no fingerprints, no equations, no experiments.

Choose.
Which came first?...Spirit?...or substance?

If you say substance then all spirit is the result of chemistry.
Your spirit fails when your chemistry fails.
Into the box... and into the ground.
Eternal darkness is physically real.
That...you can believe.

If you say Spirit first...and Someone had to be First.....
then comes the possibility of standing up from your body, as you surrender your last breath.
But you will have to deal with anything standing over you...during that hour.

Relying on scientists to tell you the truth?
They already confess with certainty..things they cannot prove.
They see the effect....but they won't call the Cause by name.

 

[PolyHedral]

Okay I think I understand what your saying, thanks for explaining. I'm still not sold on the idea that showing a logical rule exists suffices to prove that something physical MUST exist (by the proof of contradiction Meow Mix used), but for the sake of this debate I will assume you are right.

Trying to deductively prove something exists via formal logic alone is rather difficult, since "exist" in formal logic could be more accurately thought of as, "exists in the 'universe' of discourse." This universe of discourse is not usually the same thing as the physical, real universe, and so proving that something logically must exist does not necessarily mean that the thing is a physical object. This is what Meow's proof shows: something (a logical proposition) must exist, although that thing is not a physical object. Although it's not a physical object, it still counts as a thing, and so is a counterexample to the statement, "Nothing exists."

Hmm as for your second point, many issues come to my mind. It seems to me that what you have said only makes sense if "existence" itself is not necessarily eternal. That somehow existence was created(for example by the big bang, which would then create time as well). From what little I have read about the big bang, time itself was created in the big bang, and thus there was no "before" and it makes absolutely no sense to talk about what came before the big bang and thus is not a relevant question.

Existence being created is an inherently nonsensical proposition; after all, what was doing the creating?

From the simplified quantum mechanics I've heard, it's more sensible to think of the Big Bang creating coherent, linear time, as opposed to time itself. During the Big Bang, time isn't linear and is instead behaving like a big mess of wibbly-wobbly quantum-y stuff that tends to loop back on itself. (And so logically doesn't have a beginning.)

So the only way I can make sense of what you have said is if existence and time were created both at the same point, so thus time has always existed and always will - until someday existence is terminated(if that is possible). Which if it was, then time would officially be finite.

Existence cannot be terminated; otherwise "nothing exists", and Meow has already outlined how that is imposisble.

Time never has existed.

Just like length doesn't exist. ...Hang on.

People with a lot more expertise on this subject disagree with you. It'd be nice if you listened to them.

 

[punkdbass]

For time to 'exist'....
You need at least two points so to measure distance....and movement.

Prior to the singularity...these items are not on Hand.

Makes sense to me, but I also have to agree with PolyHedral that I'm sure it's a lot more complicated than that and that experts who know a lot more disagree.

Trying to deductively prove something exists via formal logic alone is rather difficult, since "exist" in formal logic could be more accurately thought of as, "exists in the 'universe' of discourse." This universe of discourse is not usually the same thing as the physical, real universe, and so proving that something logically must exist does not necessarily mean that the thing is a physical object. This is what Meow's proof shows: something (a logical proposition) must exist, although that thing is not a physical object. Although it's not a physical object, it still counts as a thing, and so is a counterexample to the statement, "Nothing exists."

Ah yes I am familiar with universe of discourse, I should have thought of that.. Good explanation, I think I have a good grasp of Meow's proof now.

But to think a little bit more abstractly, I don't think her proof is really that relevant to reality. Math is ultimately a man-made system, that can only "prove" things within the system(although I personally think the system of math will one day be able to apply to most things). That being said basic geometry and numbers don't actually exist in nature, and since we can never measure something to 100% accuracy, math only describes IDEAL conditions and not reality. So it would only make sense to me that proofs which use integers, real numbers, rational numbers, natural numbers, etc as their universe of discourse would subsequently only be describing IDEAL conditions as well, and not reality.

So if math is ultimately man-made and does not exist in reality, but only in the ideal conditions it describes, then although Meow proved something must exist using math, I'm not sure how relevant her proof is to reality. In other words, ideally something MUST exist, but in actual reality.. who knows?

From the simplified quantum mechanics I've heard, it's more sensible to think of the Big Bang creating coherent, linear time, as opposed to time itself. During the Big Bang, time isn't linear and is instead behaving like a big mess of wibbly-wobbly quantum-y stuff that tends to loop back on itself. (And so logically doesn't have a beginning.)

Hmm so your saying time has always existed, it just hasn't always been linear.. that before the big bang it was circular or wibbly wobbly as you say? lol. Like I said I don't know that much on these topics but Im learning. So backing up a bit, you are 100% sure time can be finite? Because the main issue I'm having is the idea that something could have always existed - and thus would have experienced an infinite number of events which seems like a paradox to me - although Meow claims this isn't necessarily a paradox, and is possible, but obviously I lack the understanding.

Lastly, it seems to me that all of these cosmological theories simply describe different possibilities of how the universe exists. And as we learn more, some ideas get eliminated, and some get added - but in the end, we are only left with possibilities.. hypothetical scenarios that logically could happen, but no proof of anything.

 

[PolyHedral]

Makes sense to me, but I also have to agree with PolyHedral that I'm sure it's a lot more complicated than that and that experts who know a lot more disagree.

The section you quoted is technically right, apart from the idea of a point prior to the singularity. That's equivalent to asking what's south of the South pole. (Almost exactly the same in fact, only in a 4-dimensional way that's quite hard to visualize.)

But to think a little bit more abstractly, I don't think her proof is really that relevant to reality. Math is ultimately a man-made system, that can only "prove" things within the system(although I personally think the system of math will one day be able to apply to most things). That being said basic geometry and numbers don't actually exist in nature, and since we can never measure something to 100% accuracy, math only describes IDEAL conditions and not reality. So it would only make sense to me that proofs which use integers, real numbers, rational numbers, natural numbers, etc as their universe of discourse would subsequently only be describing IDEAL conditions as well, and not reality.

You would think that, wouldn't you? You're right in the first case: logical proofs only prove things in their universe of discourse.

If you'll excuse the minor tangent, I'd like to bring up the matrix hypothesis, and with it the idea that reality is indistinguishable in principle from a sufficiently powerful simulation. As far as I know, this proposition is valid; it is impossible - even in theory - to differentiate "reality" from arbitrary powerful simulation.

The connection this has to formal logic is... well, look how the computer is defined. Math can only prove things within its own universe of discourse, but that universe can contain the real, physical universe within its possibilities.

Hmm so your saying time has always existed, it just hasn't always been linear.. that before the big bang it was circular or wibbly wobbly as you say?

The terminology is very important here; there was no before the Big Bang, only a period in the early universe where time behaves in a way that humans can't really work with. In reality, time is not ever linear, and only appears that way on the scales humans are used to because of the law of large numbers. However, this is similar to the fact that, in reality, all mass causes time dilation and all speed causes length contraction; it's true, but the difference from "normality" is so small that we don't notice, and probably couldn't notice if we tried. The importance of the Big Bang is that, because of the high energies involved, time that progresses forward from one event to another is no longer a workable approximation.

So backing up a bit, you are 100% sure time can be finite?

It can be, certainly, although you'd have to ask someone more educated as to what reasons there are to think the actual universe is one or the other.

Because the main issue I'm having is the idea that something could have always existed - and thus would have experienced an infinite number of events which seems like a paradox to me - although Meow claims this isn't necessarily a paradox, and is possible, but obviously I lack the understanding.

Remember that that "thus" isn't actually a valid inference. Would you like a more detailed explanation for why something can exist for all of finite time? (and so exist eternally, but not experience an infinite history)

Lastly, it seems to me that all of these cosmological theories simply describe different possibilities of how the universe exists. And as we learn more, some ideas get eliminated, and some get added - but in the end, we are only left with possibilities.. hypothetical scenarios that logically could happen, but no proof of anything.

This is science. Everything can be wrong, and so the only thing you're left with is what is most likely. Quantum mechanics is very likely, and the only things more likely have to explain everything QM does and more.

 

[shawn001]

THE FABRIC OF THE COSMOS: THE ILLUSION OF TIME


[youtube]Rp3_cPRQSh0[/youtube]
THE FABRIC OF THE COSMOS: THE ILLUSION OF TIME - YouTube

Acclaimed physicist Brian Greene

This is about time and worth watching, especially in regards to QM.

 

[punkdbass]

The section you quoted is technically right, apart from the idea of a point prior to the singularity. That's equivalent to asking what's south of the South pole. (Almost exactly the same in fact, only in a 4-dimensional way that's quite hard to visualize.)

Hmm one thing I'm definitely taking away from this debate is I have to stop thinking about time in a linear manner.

You would think that, wouldn't you?

What are you trying to suggest? My friend who is taking philosophy classes told me that one of the main principles of philosophy is that you can't prove or disprove anything. Right away(being a math major) I got defensive and started saying how you can prove things with math.. but the more I think about it, the more I think he is right. Like I said math is a man-made system.. he told me that most philosophers today do not think numbers actually exist in nature, but rather are man-made -- which makes sense considering we can never measure something with 100% accuracy, thus math only describes IDEAL conditions but not reality. Im taking a math proofs class right now.. sure you can prove things within math, but math only describes ideal conditions and not reality.

How can math prove anything about reality?

If you'll excuse the minor tangent, I'd like to bring up the matrix hypothesis, and with it the idea that reality is indistinguishable in principle from a sufficiently powerful simulation. As far as I know, this proposition is valid; it is impossible - even in theory - to differentiate "reality" from arbitrary powerful simulation.

The connection this has to formal logic is... well, look how the computer is defined. Math can only prove things within its own universe of discourse, but that universe can contain the real, physical universe within its possibilities.

Oh jeeze it just clicked I think. I think this answers my above question. First of all, I'm super skeptical of the matrix hypothesis. It's definitely an interesting concept, but I'm super skeptical. But for the sake of this debate, lets assume its valid.

Anyways are you trying to say that technically, by the matrix hypothesis, reality is indistinguishable from a sufficiently powerful simulation.. and with the link you gave me, apparently logic is used to define a computer(the thing that runs the simulation a.k.a the universe in other words)... so if logic can be used to define a computer(which runs a simulation of reality), and essentially due to the matrix hypothesis a computer is the same thing as our universe(which gives reality).. then logic can ALSO be used to define the universe.

Thus it is possible for the physical real universe to be contained within a Universe of Discourse for a mathematics proof.
Thus Math can prove things about the universe or "reality" ?

Remember that that "thus" isn't actually a valid inference. Would you like a more detailed explanation for why something can exist for all of finite time? (and so exist eternally, but not experience an infinite history)

Yes! if you don't mind. I appreciate you taking the time to explain these topics to me when obviously I don't have a lot of knowledge about them. I bolded the word "eternally" because if something exists for all FINITE time then how can it be eternal? How can something that exists for a finite amount of time be eternal? I have a feeling this is going to relate to the idea that there is no "before" the big bang.

This is science. Everything can be wrong, and so the only thing you're left with is what is most likely. Quantum mechanics is very likely, and the only things more likely have to explain everything QM does and more.

Yeah I know, science doesn't actually prove things. But backing up to something I mentioned earlier, do you think math can actually prove things, unlike science? That it can prove things about reality, and that my friend was wrong?