Riddle of the beginning solved without god?

[shawn001]

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



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?



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" ?



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.



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?

"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? "

Math is part of science.

"I am religious and I also find science very exciting. Is there a conflict between science and religion?

According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS):

"Yet, many scientific explanations have been so thoroughly tested and confirmed that they are held with great confidence."

WMAP Site FAQs

we can all pretty much agree the sky is blue and we know why.

 

[shawn001]

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.

"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."

Its great when people use science all the time for all kinds of reasons and post comments like this using a computer.

Especially when science brought most poeple religion via the printing press for one.

 

[shawn001]

e=mc# is working out pretty good for us so far.

2+2=4 also works pretty well.

 

[shawn001]

It is so a "yes or no question." What is with some of you people attempting to always complicate even the most simplest concepts and secrets of Life. So, your very first sentence in this reply is about as far as I can even tolerate.

The question is about "existence". Either it has always existed or it has not- just like anything else. When reffering to "existence" you can't have both at the same time unless you are some sort of contradiction. The computer in front of your face either exists or it don't. This is a topic where there are no tricks of duality. You really do have to come down on one side of the fence or the other. If you can't even answere a simple 'yes or no question" then I have no reason to discuss anything furthur... sorry.


Existence cannot not exist and exist at the same time. It either is or it isn't. Either it has ALWAYS existed or has not at some point....

It is not a question that can be answered yes or no at this time, because it is extremly complicated.

Tell me did something exist before the big bang? Do you have proof of anything existing before the bang?


You think the birth of the universe is a "simple concept"?

The universe is way more complicated then your wildest imaginations.

As I have also pointed out to you, the big crunch has basically been almost completely ruled out as the universe, space, not matter is expanding faster then the speed of light.

 

[Copernicus]

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.

Don't forget that there are different kinds of "proof". Math and logic are formal languages that you can use to prove conclusions in arguments. The fact that they are human constructs doesn't mean that you can't use them to prove anything. Proofs are valid or invalid by virtue of the way we define those languages.

How can math prove anything about reality?

The conclusions of all valid proofs are only as good as the truth of their premises. So, if you make assumptions about reality, you can prove things with logic and math that are contingent on the truth of the assumptions. You said that math only describes "ideal" conditions, but not reality. However, reality is always an idealization for us. We are constantly revising our opinions about what is true and not true. When you think of an empirical "proof", you should think of it in terms of probability or plausibility, not absolute proof. Logic does not guarantee truth. It is nothing more than a method for linking the truth of a proposition to the truth of other propositions.

 

[waitasec]

"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."

Its great when people use science all the time for all kinds of reasons and post comments like this using a computer.

Especially when science brought most poeple religion via the printing press for one.

seems the obvious has to be pointed out i suppose...
:clap

 

[punkdbass]

Don't forget that there are different kinds of "proof". Math and logic are formal languages that you can use to prove conclusions in arguments. The fact that they are human constructs doesn't mean that you can't use them to prove anything. Proofs are valid or invalid by virtue of the way we define those languages.

Makes sense. So the bottom line is that any proof will always have some assumptions made in it, some sort of axiom or definition that is assumed to be true. So although you may be able to prove things within the system of math, ultimately any proof you make will rely on some sort of assumption, meaning if some sort of single, true reality exists, then it would be impossible to literally prove anything about it. Am I right?

The conclusions of all valid proofs are only as good as the truth of their premises. So, if you make assumptions about reality, you can prove things with logic and math that are contingent on the truth of the assumptions. You said that math only describes "ideal" conditions, but not reality. However, reality is always an idealization for us. We are constantly revising our opinions about what is true and not true. When you think of an empirical "proof", you should think of it in terms of probability or plausibility, not absolute proof. Logic does not guarantee truth. It is nothing more than a method for linking the truth of a proposition to the truth of other propositions.

Well said. And yes I agree that reality is always an idealization for us.. so we can prove things about that particular idealization.. but when it comes to proving things about true reality, I should think of "proofs" in terms of probability or plausibility, and not absolute proof as you said. Thanks

 

[Copernicus]

Makes sense. So the bottom line is that any proof will always have some assumptions made in it, some sort of axiom or definition that is assumed to be true. So although you may be able to prove things within the system of math, ultimately any proof you make will rely on some sort of assumption, meaning if some sort of single, true reality exists, then it would be impossible to literally prove anything about it. Am I right?

Yes, and that is why the classic definition of agnosticism--denial of the ability to know ultimate reality--is so popular. Quite often we think of an agnostics as people who cannot make up their minds, but Aldous Huxley originally coined the term to mean someone who denies "gnosis"--absolute knowledge. Hence, it is possible to be an atheist agnostic, Christian agnostic, Jewish agnostic, etc., if you believe that God does or does not exist while denying the ability to know the truth. A more modern interpretation of the word is that it refers to someone who cannot decide whether to believe or not.

Well said. And yes I agree that reality is always an idealization for us.. so we can prove things about that particular idealization.. but when it comes to proving things about true reality, I should think of "proofs" in terms of probability or plausibility, and not absolute proof as you said. Thanks

Yes. It is worth saying a few things about logic, though. Logic is always about preserving meaning. A formal language--programming, logic, or mathematics--always "contains" the full meaning and is unambiguous. Natural human language is very different from a formal language, although people sometimes fail to understand the distinction. Much of the meaning of an expression in a natural language depends on the context in which it is uttered, so natural languages are sometimes called "context sensitive", whereas formal languages like logic or programming languages are "context free".

If you go on to study logic, it is important to bear in mind that logicians and philosophers have no algorithmic procedure for translating natural language expressions into formal language expressions. It is all done intuitively, and therein lies a problem. Some arguments expressed in formal logic may not, in fact, correspond perfectly to the full meaning of natural language expressions. So be very careful when someone starts making arguments in terms of formal logic. The same problem exists with physicists. They have precise mathematical expressions for proving things about natural reality, but the natural linguistic description of their theories may lose a lot in translation. Beware of drawing too many conclusions about the nature of reality from natural language descriptions of the formal models that physicists work with.

 

[The Wizard]

It is not a question that can be answered yes or no at this time, because it is extremly complicated.

Tell me did something exist before the big bang? Do you have proof of anything existing before the bang?


You think the birth of the universe is a "simple concept"?

The universe is way more complicated then your wildest imaginations.

As I have also pointed out to you, the big crunch has basically been almost completely ruled out as the universe, space, not matter is expanding faster then the speed of light.

No it isn't. You people complicate things into absolute oblivion or can't accept any truthfull answere even if it were laid right in front of you.. You wish to dwell in confusion, unnecessary complication and mystery. That is becouse of the views you're invested with and cannot put aside at ANY moment...

If you want to find the answere then stop obsessing over the Universe and focus on Existence itself.... But, once again, you can't have both views at once on this. So, I don't have much to say... becouse you have no position...

Sorry...

Answer this simple question: Does existence exist right now?

 

[shawn001]

Don't forget that there are different kinds of "proof". Math and logic are formal languages that you can use to prove conclusions in arguments. The fact that they are human constructs doesn't mean that you can't use them to prove anything. Proofs are valid or invalid by virtue of the way we define those languages.


The conclusions of all valid proofs are only as good as the truth of their premises. So, if you make assumptions about reality, you can prove things with logic and math that are contingent on the truth of the assumptions. You said that math only describes "ideal" conditions, but not reality. However, reality is always an idealization for us. We are constantly revising our opinions about what is true and not true. When you think of an empirical "proof", you should think of it in terms of probability or plausibility, not absolute proof. Logic does not guarantee truth. It is nothing more than a method for linking the truth of a proposition to the truth of other propositions.

Well said Copernicus. :bow:

 

[shawn001]

No it isn't. You people complicate things into absolute oblivion or can't accept any truthfull answere even if it were laid right in front of you.. You wish to dwell in confusion, unnecessary complication and mystery. That is becouse of the views you're invested with and cannot put aside at ANY moment...

If you want to find the answere then stop obsessing over the Universe and focus on Existence itself.... But, once again, you can't have both views at once on this. So, I don't have much to say... becouse you have no position...

Sorry...

Answer this simple question: Does existence exist right now?

"You people complicate things into absolute oblivion "

What people are you talking about, cosmologist ,astrophysicists and astronomers?

I personall love studying space and the stars and why and how we exist.

"once again, you can't have both views at once on this"

What both views are you talking about here?

Answer this simple question: Does existence exist right now?

Yes and there may even be more then one of me at the same time.

However, there was a time that what I am made out of and what you are made out of carbon for one, came from super nova star explosion billions of years ago. The universe hasn't always existed in the state its in now which is part of the big bang. There is and was a process of events that lead to the existence of what we think of as the here and now.

"Universe and focus on Existence itself."

You exist because of the universe. In it and made out of it.

"No it isn't."

Okay explain quantum mechanics for me and virtual particles popping in and out of existence in the vacuum of empty space?

 

[The Wizard]

"You people complicate things into absolute oblivion "

What people are you talking about, cosmologist ,astrophysicists and astronomers?

I personall love studying space and the stars and why and how we exist.

"once again, you can't have both views at once on this"

What both views are you talking about here?

Answer this simple question: Does existence exist right now?

Yes and there may even be more then one of me at the same time.

However, there was a time that what I am made out of and what you are made out of carbon for one, came from super nova star explosion billions of years ago. The universe hasn't always existed in the state its in now which is part of the big bang. There is and was a process of events that lead to the existence of what we think of as the here and now.

"Universe and focus on Existence itself."

You exist because of the universe. In it and made out of it.

"No it isn't."

Okay explain quantum mechanics for me and virtual particles popping in and out of existence in the vacuum of empty space?

Let's focus on Existence shall we, yes? Now that you have stated your position that existence actually exists at the moment. Exactly where do you, as you propose, does it (ie existence) start NOT existing or shall I say, "twinkle" in and out. Would "twinkle" be an acceptable term? Where does it twinkle, like fairy dust, as existing and NOT existing at the same time?

 

[Thief]

"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."

Its great when people use science all the time for all kinds of reasons and post comments like this using a computer.

Especially when science brought most poeple religion via the printing press for one.

Science cannot disprove God...if that is what you imply.

I happen to love science.....God did it.

 

[PolyHedral]

Does existence exist right now?

Of course it does, and it will exist for all of time.

It just happens to be quantum mechanical.

 

[shawn001]

Let's focus on Existence shall we, yes? Now that you have stated your position that existence actually exists at the moment. Exactly where do you, as you propose, does it (ie existence) start NOT existing or shall I say, "twinkle" in and out. Would "twinkle" be an acceptable term? Where does it twinkle, like fairy dust, as existing and NOT existing at the same time?

In order for us to exist in the hear and now there were many porcesses that had to happen along the path to human existence.

This is the afterglow of the big bang itself.

WMAP 1 Year Mission Results Press Release

The first stars had to evolve and then stellar nucleosynthesis which made carbon and then our solar system had to evolve and then life on earth right up to us know and the existence at the moment.

Solar History Timeline​

Our understanding of the sun and its many details is part of a much longer history of events that had to unfold. These pages will take you on a journey from the birth of the cosmos, to the most recent discoveries about our nearest star.

Solar-B :: For Educators :: Timeline


I find the processes facination and there is more to it all then "god did it" end of story.

Science can't measure or observe or test or prove or disprove any god! It can show a process of how a universe can start without one though.

Then you have QM and that is a game changer and what scientists are working hard on, connecting QM theory to the universe on the big scale.


watch these as they help explain some of the areas being worked on and how complex and weird things really are in "our existence."


The Fabric of the Cosmos: Quantum Leap

The Fabric of the Cosmos: Quantum Leap


Fabric of the Cosmos: Universe or Multiverse?

[youtube]-FGgkfsMpCs[/youtube]
Fabric of the Cosmos: Universe or Multiverse? - YouTube

 

[shawn001]

Of course it does, and it will exist for all of time.

It just happens to be quantum mechanical.

:yes:

 

[The Wizard]

Of course it does, and it will exist for all of time.

It just happens to be quantum mechanical.

Agreed, no one will ever see me arguing against "Reality" or Rational logic... well said, Jake...

I was just trying to point something out. If existence can exist and NOT exist at the same time then what on Earth would be his definition for "Reality." In fact, what on Earth would be his definition for "Existence?" Does the computer in front of his face exist or not? There is no "both at same time".....

I don't know whether to laugh or..

 

[shawn001]

Agreed, no one will ever see me arguing against "Reality" or Rational logic... well said, Jake...

I was just trying to point something out. If existence can exist and NOT exist at the same time then what on Earth would be his definition for "Reality." In fact, what on Earth would be his definition for "Existence?" Does the computer in front of his face exist or not? There is no "both at same time".....

I don't know whether to laugh or..

In QM and physics

"There is no "both at same time"..... "

Yes there is in QM, which is how everything works on the smallest scales.

We actually don't fully understand reality for a lot of reasons, other then how we see it now with eyes that have evolved. Would reality be different if you could see in say microwave? Reality, might be the same but your persception of it would change.

There is more going on then meets the eyes.

The universe might also be all holographic, which is one theory that has been around now for quite sometime.

 

[shawn001]

Agreed, no one will ever see me arguing against "Reality" or Rational logic... well said, Jake...

I was just trying to point something out. If existence can exist and NOT exist at the same time then what on Earth would be his definition for "Reality." In fact, what on Earth would be his definition for "Existence?" Does the computer in front of his face exist or not? There is no "both at same time".....

I don't know whether to laugh or..

watch the videos above on the cutting edge science of QM and tell me about reality?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Too difficult. God did it (see, that's more simple).

Accidents happen (even simpler)