Logic?

[The Bone]

I know that I am probably going to get caned for this but.. If we accept the theory that space and time were created by the big bang - after singularity, and we understand that cause and effect and logic are functions of space and time, then how could there be a scientific way of understanding what or why or how the universe began? Before the universe there "must" have been no space or time - therefore no logic/cause/effect so the probabability of this universe and our existence in it as we understand it would be ?:? and lo and behold it is!!!!

[Meleagar]

Logical inference from the evidence supports a supernatural uncaused cause for the origin of the universe.

[The Bone]

i hear you on that, but supernatural seems a bit suggestive of something that i don't get, but possibly should. my point is that I can't and I can't get it.

[Juice]

People get confused by the term "supernatural". As Meleagar suggests logical inference constitutes evaluating material phenomenon as well as rational phenomenon. One constitutes sensate exercises, the other, phrenic exercises.

[Belinda]

The Bone #1, I was wondering about this too. I watched a TV programme about the expanding universe, and time itself, and was duly impressed. There seemed to be some connection between the end of the universe when gravitational forces are no more, and the end of reason.
But then if reason is as dependent upon gravitational forces etc. how is reason sufficient to proclaim that the universe is a finite object?

I think that the answer is that reason is as reason is, no more, no less. There is no need for anyone to claim that reason is absolutely true. I doubt if many if any scientists do make such a claim.

Reason is King within certain closed systems such as mathematics and formal logic, as I understand those.My understanding is that knowledge within maths and formal logic is analytical knowledge, not synthetic knowledge . Synthetic knowledge is knowledge such as knowledge of astronomy and the other exploratory and descriptive sciences.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

then how could there be a scientific way of understanding what or why or how the universe began?

Assuming you mean before the Big Bang, then it seems there is not way to scientifically study or know that.

Before the universe

Assuming by 'universe' you mean all of space and time, then that clause--"before the universe"--does not make sense. It's like asking, "where is nowhere?"

Thanks!
Scott

[DeathByThought]

In (n)everlasting infinite nothingness there was an error, a corruption, a fragmentation in its forever and at the same time never lasting repeating pattern. That corruption createad dualism, making nothingness aware of its counterpart, sth else, the number two. Then there was Big Bang.

Some errors are just unrepairable, they can not be solved. Either you have to live with the error and create your world and system around it, or destroy the error destroying everything with it, even yourself. Then one can not even hope to come into existence again because there is no "one" and there is no dualism. There is just nothingness without any error, corruption or fragmentation.

And there is no probability of this ever happening again - there is nothing. NEVER

[Santini]

I know that I am probably going to get caned for this but.. If we accept the theory that space and time were created by the big bang - after singularity, and we understand that cause and effect and logic are functions of space and time, then how could there be a scientific way of understanding what or why or how the universe began?

I understand how cause and effect are functions of space and time, but I don't see how logic would be. Logic seems to be a priori or independent of experience.

Before the universe there "must" have been no space or time - therefore no logic/cause/effect so the probabability of this universe and our existence in it as we understand it would be ?:?

There is no probability associated with the merely possible. Something is either 100% possible or it is 100% impossible. No event is more or less possible than is some other event. Events are only more or less probable.

It was always possible (100% possible) that this universe and our existence in it would be like it is. Obviously before the concept of probability emerged with space and time, that event could never have been probable to any degree.

and lo and behold it is!!!!

I agree. We and the rest of the universe exist.

[John Jones]

In (n)everlasting infinite nothingness there was an error, a corruption, a fragmentation in its forever and at the same time never lasting repeating pattern. That corruption createad dualism, making nothingness aware of its counterpart, sth else, the number two. Then there was Big Bang.

Some errors are just unrepairable, they can not be solved. Either you have to live with the error and create your world and system around it, or destroy the error destroying everything with it, even yourself. Then one can not even hope to come into existence again because there is no "one" and there is no dualism. There is just nothingness without any error, corruption or fragmentation.

And there is no probability of this ever happening again - there is nothing. NEVER

Yes, the root of the universe is emptiness. But does "emptiness" make it as a feasible object?

Anyway, if the choice is delivered as the option of either error or nothingness, then I wonder if something has been left out of consideration?

[Keith Russell]

Take a look at this article, which explains my views on the universe before the Big Bang:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... -exist-bef ore-the-big-bang.html?full=true