Noah's Ark

[jdonn]

i think we might have put the cart before the horse... it might be useful to define the terms, assuming we can even agree on the use of those terms... do you see a differentiation between an actual and a potential infinite? if not, why not? if so, how do you define each? that should at least give us a starting point (much like the universe had one B))

 

aside from the philosophical aspect, don't most scientists now believe the universe began at some point in time (i usually hear 15 billion years ago) with the big bang? or has that been overturned?

I wasn't trying to argue that the universe either did or didn't have a starting point. My point is that there is no way we can know, but it's certainly not inherently (logically) impossible. So it seems to me extremely flawed to try to use logic to point to the universe having had a beginning and use that to justify a belief in god. After that point in the conversation I have very little clue what most of what you said meant. I don't see why you are asking others to define terms. You are the one making a claim about something being impossible, so I think you ought to define the terms/ideas you are using.

 

Btw I could be wrong, but my understanding of the big bang was that it was (at least potentially) thought to be a repeating process. The universe contracts to a very tiny size, BANGS into a gigantic size, rinses and repeats a few bajillion times. So I don't necessarily think of it as the beginning of the universe.

[Winstonm]

I think some of the flaws in the theist explanations simply come from filling a void (an unknown) with a term, expression, or reason and then proving logically that the unproven premise leads to a valid logical conclusion.

 

Example: I have seen this claim many times in these forums or a similar theme: something cannot come from nothing, meaning before the Big Bang there was nothing and everything we recognize as matter, energy, and time sprang into being at once - and since something cannot come from nothing, yada yada yadi.

 

Truth of the matter is, we simply don't know if nothing - in the sense that all we can say about nothing is it is an absence of what is known to man - can produce our known universe. Is the interior of a black hole nothing? Will our universe expand forever or will it slow down and start to contract?

 

These questions have no known answers. When we delve into logical assumptions based on our own limited thinking abilities we may well satisfy logic but that in no way ratifies the rightness or wrongness of the belief - it only inplies that the belief - given the premise - is not illogical.

[mike777]

"Example: I have seen this claim many times in these forums or a similar theme: something cannot come from nothing, meaning before the Big Bang there was nothing and everything we recognize as matter, energy, and time sprang into being at once - and since something cannot come from nothing, yada yada yadi."

 

 

I respectfully disagree, yes something cannot come from nothing per logic.

 

I have argued in other threads to be NOT afraid of Knowledge and to NOT assume all Knowledge is just some social construct.

 

Per this thread, even God cannot create God from nothing. Only nothing can come out of nothing.

 

To use your analogy if there was something before the Big Bang it was not nothing.

 

 

"The scientist and Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, although he called it his "hypothesis of the primeval atom"."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

 

 

"Truth of the matter is, we simply don't know if nothing - in the sense that all we can say about nothing is it is an absence of what known to man - can produce our known universe. Is the interior of a black hole nothing? Will our universe expand forever or will it slow down and start to contract?"

 

Yes if something is forever unknowable or if information is forever lost that is one issue. As for the interior of a blackhole I think the debate/question is information lost forever and unknowable? At this point the answer/definition seems to be yes. As for the edge of a blackhole, Hawking seems to say no, information is not forever lost.

 

To bring this whole issue back to this thread on God. Most major religions claim knowledge of God is knowable, not a secret unknowable.

[helene_t]

Btw I could be wrong, but my understanding of the big bang was that it was (at least potentially) thought to be a repeating process. The universe contracts to a very tiny size, BANGS into a gigantic size, rinses and repeats a few bajillion times. So I don't necessarily think of it as the beginning of the universe.

I don't think that is universally accepted. Anyway, suppose it is impossible to know anything about the pre-big bang history because all the information that might have been was destroyed in the process. You could then chose to say either

1) Big Bang was the beginning of time

2) There was a time before big bang but we can know nothing about what, if anything, happened back then

3) We will have to remain agnostic w.r.t. 1 vs. 2.

4) The 1 v 2 question is meaningless.

 

I don't think it matters, it is just a question of what phrasing you are more comfortable with.

 

Truth of the matter is, we simply don't know if nothing - in the sense that all we can say about nothing is it is an absence of what known to man - can produce our known universe.

Agree 100%. If someone (surely none of the people contributing to this discussion) knows a lot about physics then he/she might have a qualified opinion whether it is possible that the whole universe just popped into existence out of thin air. Personally I don't know if it is clear what "nothing" means, whether there could have been a time when there was nothing (intuitively I would say that if there was no material to build clocks from then there was no time either, but I may be wrong), etc.

[mike777]

1) As a layman I have never read a theory of a universe popping out of thin air.

2) Repeating big bangs, seldom but ok.

3) multiple big bangs as opposed to repeating ones, often.

4) universe as a Hologram....YES.....

[the hog]

Jimmy, who made the watchmaker?

[Winstonm]

Personally I don't know if it is clear what "nothing" means, whether there could have been a time when there was nothing

 

It occured to me that although the language and ideas have become more sophisticated, that a statement such as "something cannot be created from nothing" - a conclusion based on man's limited understanding - is really a method for humans to account for an unexplainable phenomenon. I would say there is a closer association than we might be comfortable admitting between our present explanation of unknowns with sayings such as "something cannot come from nothing" and early mankind's explanation of the sun as a god who drives a chariot of fire across the sky each day.

[luke warm]

Jimmy, who made the watchmaker?

ron, we can't even seem to agree on this forum over such things as ex nihilo nihil fit, or even the law of cause and effect... but if we could agree that from nothing nothing comes, it makes it easy to arrive at the conclusion that something has always existed, else there would be nothing now... now all we have to do is try to reason what it is that might have always existed... if you read the above posts re: the eternalness of the universe, you'll see the problem - if the universe, hence time (which is a part of the universe), is actually infinite then it means an infinite regression can be traversed, which is not possible... an infinite temporal series of receding events occurring in nature would be an actual infinite, but this is incoherent... there are many analogies that demonstrate this, such as hilbert's hotel (though this is but one of many)... since ex nihilo nihil fit (assuming one accepts this), and since time isn't an actual infinite, whatever has always existed must be outside of and apart from time... it doesn't matter to me whether this entity, whatever it is, is called "God"... call it (or him) what you will

Personally I don't know if it is clear what "nothing" means, whether there could have been a time when there was nothing

It occured to me that although the language and ideas have become more sophisticated, that a statement such as "something cannot be created from nothing" - a conclusion based on man's limited understanding - is really a method for humans to account for an unexplainable phenomenon. I would say there is a closer association than we might be comfortable admitting between our present explanation of unknowns with sayings such as "something cannot come from nothing" and early mankind's explanation of the sun as a god who drives a chariot of fire across the sky each day.

this makes no sense to me, so you'll have to help out... how is the word "nothing" contingent on man's understanding? the word has a meaning, after all... it's the absence of something, anything... if you say that our perception of nothing might not be all there is, that's one thing - but even if that's true it doesn't change the meaning of the word

[helene_t]

It occured to me that although the language and ideas have become more sophisticated, that a statement such as "something cannot be created from nothing" - a conclusion based on man's limited understanding - is really a method for humans to account for an unexplainable phenomenon.

Maybe I am misinterpreting the "nothing comes from nothing" slogan, but I think it generally represents rational thinking: if something happens, it makes sense to look for the cause of it since that would make it easier to predict similar events in the future. Allowing things just to have happened because of "magic", "accident" or "the gods' untraceable wills" is not helpful, then one might as well not waste energy observing the events in the first place.

 

But in modern physics, so many things are contra-intuitive to laymen. What does "nothing" even mean? Is empty space "nothing", or does "nothing" means "not even space"? Is space filled with quantum fluctuation of positive and negative energy "nothing"? What about a hypothetical form of matter than cannot interact with ordinary matter, but under extreme circumstances such as Big Bang can turn into matter? If the Big Bang appears to mark the beginning of time, in what (if any) sense does it then "come from" anything (whether that "anything" could be "nothing" or not)?

[EricK]

"Something can't come from nothing" is obviously false if the "something" you are trying to explain is everything!

 

There is literally no other option but "nothing". Because any "something" is necessarily part of what you are trying to explain.

 

Another way to look at it is to realise that an explanation of some phenomenon or property must only contain things which themselves lack that property (so, for example, the explanation of wetness will not involve things which are themselves wet). So an explanation for existence will necessarily only be in terms of things which lack existence.

[PassedOut]

if the universe, hence time (which is a part of the universe), is actually infinite then it means an infinite regression can be traversed, which is not possible... an infinite temporal series of receding events occurring in nature would be an actual infinite, but this is incoherent... there are many analogies that demonstrate this, such as hilbert's hotel (though this is but one of many)... since ex nihilo nihil fit (assuming one accepts this), and since time isn't an actual infinite, whatever has always existed must be outside of and apart from time... it doesn't matter to me whether this entity, whatever it is, is called "God"... call it (or him) what you will

Thanks for clarifying what you mean on this point rather than asking more vague questions. Now I can respond more specifically.

 

Logic and mathematics are useful and powerful intellectual tools. Using mathematics and logic, we can describe through abstraction many features of the real world.

 

Once you get beyond tautologies, however, the accuracy of those descriptions is never a given. As science progresses, the intellectual tools we develop are refined to reflect a more refined understanding of the real world.

 

To say that a logical paradox (no matter how cleverly constructed) makes anything impossible in the real world is to claim that the tail wags the dog.

 

Yes, there are many interesting word games that you can play with infinity, and also with rules and meta-rules, as Bertrand Russell discussed at length. But you cannot draw conclusions about the real world from word games without further evidence. For example, there is nothing at all inconsistent about a world in which an infinite hotel cannot exist, but where time is infinite.

 

That's not to say that time actually is infinite either. It's convenient to treat time as starting with the big bang because that's where our information begins. It might be convenient also to treat time as infinite going forward. As for traversing an infinite amount of time, we never have to do that. We just go forward, looking back.

 

By the way, why do you accept the big bang, but reject evolution?

[Winstonm]

this makes no sense to me, so you'll have to help out... how is the word "nothing" contingent on man's understanding? the word has a meaning, after all... it's the absence of something, anything...

 

What I mean is that our word nothing may acually be a physical impossibility so when we say nothing we are simply saying "an unknown and unexplained state" or we use the word "nothing" to express a physical condition for which there is no present understanding or explanation. For example, we used to believe that space was a void; however, now the consideration is that space must hold something called dark matter. In other words, saying something cannot come from nothing may make for an amusing parlor game but the saying does not explain what does occur nor does it help move understanding forward. To me, it is like taking a trip in an intellectual automobile, running into a dead end road, and saying, "Well, that's the end of that," turning around and heading back instead of parking the car, getting out, and continuing the journey on foot. You can't find an answer unless you look for it.

 

So I am drawing a fine line here, that what you refer to as an impossibility from a logic argument perspective (something cannot come from nothing) is also true in the physical sense but it is our non-understanding of what "nothing" is comprised of that is the key - there never was a point in time or before time-space when there was nothing. You elect to call this phenomenon God - I simply say I don't know what occured, perhaps when universes contract into an immensely dense black hole the energy explodes and escapes into a new space-time rift and creates another universe.

[helene_t]

Hey Winston if you get tired of your current job you can always take up teaching philosophy, I think you would be god at it.

[Winstonm]

Hey Winston if you get tired of your current job you can always take up teaching philosophy, I think you would be god at it.

I am sincerely flattered.

[helene_t]

For example, there is nothing at all inconsistent about a world in which in infinite hotel cannot exist, but where time is infinite.

W.r.t time, do you mean "finite" or do you mean "bounded"? The set of real numbers between zero and one is infinite but bounded. If the real numbers (or some other dense number set) is an accurate model for the timeline, then the set of time points from the big bang to the big crunch is infinite, but bounded.

 

I may be wrong but I can't see how boundedness could be a feature of time as it "really" is. Suppose your model of the world includes a real variable "time" which runs from -1 to +1, and my model includes a variable "taym" which is defined o.t.b. of your "time" by the equation

taym = ArcTan (time)

 

Then time is bounded while taym is unbounded, and yet they describe the same physical thing. The laws of nature which involve time will mathematically look different from those involving taym, One could dismiss one of the models because it is too "ugly", i.e. does not have the symmetry properties physicists like, but both models are equally valid and describe the same physics.

 

W.r.t finite vs infinite, I don't think our brains which can perceive only a finite number of bits can differentiate between infinite and "very large number", but if one believes in a truth "out there" which is independent from our perception, then it could be a meaningful question whether some set in the real world is finite or not. I am not saying it is a meaningful question (someone with more insight in physics might dismiss it), but from a pure philosophical point of view I don't see why it would have to be meaningless.

[PassedOut]

For example, there is nothing at all inconsistent about a world in which in infinite hotel cannot exist, but where time is infinite.

W.r.t time, do you mean "finite" or do you mean "bounded"? The set of real numbers between zero and one is infinite but bounded. If the real numbers (or some other dense number set) is an accurate model for the timeline, then the set of time points from the big bang to the big crunch is infinite, but bounded.

 

I may be wrong but I can't see how boundedness could be a feature of time as it "really" is. Suppose your model of the world includes a real variable "time" which runs from -1 to +1, and my model includes a variable "taym" which is defined o.t.b. of your "time" by the equation

taym = ArcTan (time)

 

Then time is bounded while taym is unbounded, and yet they describe the same physical thing. The laws of nature which involve time will mathematically look different from those involving taym, One could dismiss one of the models because it is too "ugly", i.e. does not have the symmetry properties physicists like, but both models are equally valid and describe the same physics.

 

W.r.t finite vs infinite, I don't think our brains which can perceive only a finite number of bits can differentiate between infinite and "very large number", but if one believes in a truth "out there" which is independent from our perception, then it could be a meaningful question whether some set in the real world is finite or not. I am not saying it is a meaningful question (someone with more insight in physics might dismiss it), but from a pure philosophical point of view I don't see why it would have to be meaningless.

Yes, I should have said "bounded," but was trying not to change terms within the actual discussion. And the phrase "infinite hotel" was too simple also, but should have referred to the infinite number of rooms in Hilbert's hotel.

 

When using analogies to make a point, the strength of an analogy depends upon the similarities between the things being compared. Numbers do provide an excellent representation of time, which is why I used numbers to explain why it could never be logically impossible for time to be infinite (unbounded).

 

However, Jimmy argues (as he must) that numbers do not provide an accurate representation of time. Rather, he claims that time is more like a hotel, which cannot have an unlimited number of rooms. I think that the hotel analogy falls down in many respects, but there you are.

 

On the other hand, we can't assume that time as it "really" is will always be mapped precisely by our number system at the most extreme moments of the universe.

[luke warm]

To say that a logical paradox (no matter how cleverly constructed) makes anything impossible in the real world is to claim that the tail wags the dog.

says who? you?

Yes, there are many interesting word games that you can play with infinity, and also with rules and meta-rules, as Bertrand Russell discussed at length. But you cannot draw conclusions about the real world from word games without further evidence. For example, there is nothing at all inconsistent about a world in which an infinite hotel cannot exist, but where time is infinite.

first of all, hilbert's hotel isn't a word game that i play, it was formulated by mathematician david hilbert to specifically address the paradoxical nature and counter-intuitiveness of an actual infinite set of physical things that exists in nature and is an example of reductio ad absurdum... he is also the one who said, "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite...is solely that of an idea." ... now you might call this an "interesting word game" if you choose, but it's possible that it's more than that... if you say you don't differentiate between actual and potential infinites, that's one thing... so far you don't say that, although you (and helene) use examples that seem to suggest there is no difference

That's not to say that time actually is infinite either. It's convenient to treat time as starting with the big bang because that's where our information begins. It might be convenient also to treat time as infinite going forward. As for traversing an infinite amount of time, we never have to do that. We just go forward, looking back.

 

By the way, why do you accept the big bang, but reject evolution?

it is nonsensical to say that time is infinite in one direction only, you will have to provide some sort of reasoning for that statement... if time is actually infinite and you can only "look" back, do an infinite or finite number of years separate 9/11/01 from today? if you insist that time is only infinite going forward, how did we get to this day from 9/11/01? weren't an infinite number of seconds, minutes, hours, days, years traversed? not only that, how about the universe itself? if (forget bb for a moment) it has existed for an infinite period of time, why is there still movement? why is there still expansion? why is there still heat? or life? if there was no beginning to it, an infinite period of time would have preceded this present time... surely you see the problem with an actual infinite existing in reality

 

i never said i accept the bb, i said that present scientific observation seems to support that theory... in any case, whether bb is true or not, it and evolution are not necessarily synonymous

However, Jimmy argues (as he must) that numbers do not provide an accurate representation of time. Rather, he claims that time is more like a hotel, which cannot have an unlimited number of rooms. I think that the hotel analogy falls down in many respects, but there you are.

where did i argue that? i expect more from you than straw man arguments... btw, where does the analogy "fall down?"

this makes no sense to me, so you'll have to help out... how is the word "nothing" contingent on man's understanding? the word has a meaning, after all... it's the absence of something, anything...

 

What I mean is that our word nothing may acually be a physical impossibility so when we say nothing we are simply saying "an unknown and unexplained state" or we use the word "nothing" to express a physical condition for which there is no present understanding or explanation.

then don't you think this should be the definition of the word rather than the one actually used? perhaps you should offer this as a possible definition to those who assign such values... as for 'something from nothing', even david hume seemed to disagree with you, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition that anything might arise without a cause."

[jdonn]

To say that a logical paradox (no matter how cleverly constructed) makes anything impossible in the real world is to claim that the tail wags the dog.

says who? you?

Anyone? Throughout history many paradox's have been shown untrue. It doesn't mean any paradox is untrue, but it means you can't use one as valid proof of anything.

[luke warm]

To say that a logical paradox (no matter how cleverly constructed) makes anything impossible in the real world is to claim that the tail wags the dog.

says who? you?

Anyone? Throughout history many paradox's have been shown untrue. It doesn't mean any paradox is untrue, but it means you can't use one as valid proof of anything.

i thought we were referring to hilbert's hotel specifically... evidently my bad

[blackshoe]

The source of the English word "infinity" is the Latin "infinitas", meaning "unbounded".

 

Is time bounded? Probably. One aspect of "Big Bang" theory is that time did not exist before the Bang, and will presumably cease to exist after what Helene called the "Crunch". If this is the case, then time is not "infinite".

[luke warm]

The source of the English word "infinity" is the Latin "infinitas", meaning "unbounded".

 

Is time bounded? Probably. One aspect of "Big Bang" theory is that time did not exist before the Bang, and will presumably cease to exist after what Helene called the "Crunch". If this is the case, then time is not "infinite".

yes, and if time had a beginning, it was either caused or uncaused

[jdonn]

One aspect of "Big Bang" theory is that time did not exist before the Bang, and will presumably cease to exist after what Helene called the "Crunch".

I think that is completely wrong, but I'm certainly no expert so if you have a link that supports you I'd love to see it.

 

From wikipedia:

Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe since that instant.

I think it's a misunderstanding or disagreement of what we mean by 'universe'. There are many references to the universe being of finite age, but I believe what is meant by that is 'the universe in its current form which follows the rules of physics and relativity as we know them', not 'any universe of any form that has ever existed, even prior to the big bang'.

[PassedOut]

To say that a logical paradox (no matter how cleverly constructed) makes anything impossible in the real world is to claim that the tail wags the dog.

says who? you?

Any logical paradox is an intellectual construction. Unless it is tautalogical (and therefore uninteresting), it cannot by itself (even if devised by a mathematician) make something impossible in the real world. The real world is not bound to follow what anyone, no matter how learned, writes on a piece of paper. You still have to establish that what you write accurately reflects the real world.

 

The same holds true for the other Hilbert quotes you gave. Suppose I give contrary quotes from other learned people? Those quotes would also prove nothing about the real world.

 

it is nonsensical to say that time is infinite in one direction only, you will have to provide some sort of reasoning for that statement...

Consider a sequence of positive integers beginning with zero. I find it bizarre that anyone would consider that sequence nonsensical. Does it mean that such a sequence accurately reflects time? Not necessarily.

 

if time is actually infinite and you can only "look" back, do an infinite or finite number of years separate 9/11/01 from today? if you insist that time is only infinite going forward, how did we get to this day from 9/11/01? weren't an infinite number of seconds, minutes, hours, days, years traversed?

If you recall, seconds, minutes, hours, days, and years have specified measurable durations. The fact that a sequence continues indefinitely does not mean that finite measurements cannot be made within it. We got to this day from 9/11/2001 one measurable second at a time.

 

i never said i accept the bb, i said that present scientific observation seems to support that theory...

Well, do you accept the big bang as the starting point of our universe? It seems that you have argued that way.

 

However, Jimmy argues (as he must) that numbers do not provide an accurate representation of time. Rather, he claims that time is more like a hotel, which cannot have an unlimited number of rooms. I think that the hotel analogy falls down in many respects, but there you are.

where did i argue that? i expect more from you than straw man arguments

In response to my offering numbers as a good representation of time, you offered the hotel analogy as more apt.

[Winstonm]

Jimmy,

 

Do you agree that the difference in explaining the universe and its beginning with the utilization of a God Hypothesis versus an Unknown Cause Solution is simply in testability? In other words, the God Hypothesis can only be tested through logic arguments, while an Unknown Cause Solution not only has to pass the logic test but must also pass the scientific test.

 

That's the reason I say that "something from nothing" is not the end of the argument, but simply an admission that we don't understand what came before.

In other words, there is no such thing as "nothing" other than what we can imagine - but the fact that something cannot arise from nothing in no manner implies a Creator was necessary - but it does allow for that possibility, as well as other as yet undiscovered physical explanations.

[Winstonm]

Is time bounded? Probably. One aspect of "Big Bang" theory is that time did not exist before the Bang, and will presumably cease to exist after what Helene called the "Crunch".

 

I am certainly no expert on this subject, but I understood that Einstein in his General Relativity theory showed that time and space are interwoven. Time really has no meaning without a refererence frame - if everything in the universe was moving at the speed of light then nothing would be moving and no time would pass.

 

It may be more correct to conclude that the BB created a reference frame for time.