Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
-
- Posts: 60
- Joined: February 6th, 2015, 11:21 am
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
If time did not exist then I would be instantly dead of old age at the very instant that I was born. ...but I'm not dead yet, so time must exist, ...true?
If time did not exist then all events would happen "instantaneously" (at zero duration). If the universe had a beginning, then it would have already ended at the very instant that it began.
Thankfully we have 'time' to discuss this
Top
GG: What you say is true.We have time clocks and our lives depend upon processes in our body which time out. Yet time is not a dimension. It is only a measurement and it is very difficult to discuss things without a time clock to measure things.
-
- Posts: 1780
- Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
Tamminen, it is not necessarily the "logical possibilities" that we should be concerned with. If we are searching for truths, then the most powerful process to finding truths is the process of eliminating "logical impossibilities" (as opposed to the consideration of "logical possibilities"). For not even Gods, can overturn/overrule a logical impossibility. If something is logically impossible, then all the science and all Gods in the universe are powerless to make that which is logically (mathematically) impossible, possible.Tamminen wrote:Just to remind us about the distinction between logical and physical possibility: It is logically possible that a pink unicorn suddenly appears in front of us, weighing 178,4 kilograms, floating in the air and breaking all laws of physics. That pretty creature fits into the logical space of our logical universe, although not into our physical univese. And note the little word 'our'.
So if we are seeking real truths, then our BEST method is the process of eliminating logical impossibilities from the field of logical possibilities. Other than that, anything goes. Empirical evidence (i.e. science) is never a reliable means of finding 'real' truths, as it is wholly dependent upon the subjectiveness of the observer, and is reliant upon the uncertain nature of experiential objects, and therefore can never be known as 'certain', or true. Only logic can give us truths (and falses).
There is nothing in this universe that we can be more 'certain' of, than the certainty of a logical impossibility. This, elimination of logical impossibilities, is therefore the best and most appropriate path to finding 'real' truths.
RJG wrote: P1. Matter did not exist at t0
P2. Matter does exist at > t1
C. Therefore matter was 'created' (between t0 and t1).
Assuming that all premises are actually true, then the full logic would go like this:Steve3007 wrote:I disagree that C is a logical, deductive conclusion from P1 and P2. i.e. I disagree that the meanings of P1 and P2 automatically contain the meaning of C. I disagree that you can get C by re-arranging P1 ans P2.
- P1. t0<X; Matter did not exist at t0 (t0 is before X)
P2. X<t1; Matter does exist at t1 (X is before t1)
C1. t0<X<t1; Therefore matter came into existence between t0 and t1
P3. Matter was either "created" or has "always existed".
P4. Since matter did not exist at t0, matter has NOT "always existed".
C2. Therefore matter was "created".
Premises by themselves do not prove anything. They are worthless by themselves. If we are to use logic, then premises "lead to a logical conclusion". That's how logic works. If you accept premise statement P3 (above) as true, then it logically leads to conclusion C2.Steve3007 wrote:As we've said, the word "created" is a verb - a doing word. Therefore it implies an action being carried out by something which isn't the object of that action. Matter not existing at t0 and existing at t1 does not logically necessitate an action. It makes us look for an action because that is what our empirical experience leads us to look for.
And since the conclusion (C2) is a logical impossibility (X cannot precede itself; X<X), we then have a flaw in our syllogism, that being premise P1.
-
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm
-
- Posts: 95
- Joined: July 25th, 2018, 10:54 am
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
But empirical evidence cannot be easily dismissed either. Recent scientific and statistical research implies that is statistically impossible that the universe not only began but was not created. Their are four fundamental forces of nature that we know of: gravity, the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force and electromagnetism. The constants or values at which these forces operate could have existed over a wide range. In addition if each value changed ever so slightly, then the universe as we observe it could not exist. As a result, the probability that all of these values could exist as they do at random is 1 out of ten to the power of ten thousand at least. In other words, it is much more reasonable and evidential that the physical universe began and was created.
Because of our imperfect humanity we may never know exactly how the universe began. But we cannot ignore science and probability when trying to get closer to reality.
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
Either it was "created" or was "not created" (aka "always existed"). ...one or the other, ...pick one.Tamminen wrote:But how about our pretty little pink unicorn? It was not created, it just suddenly was there, without a cause.
Agreed. There is no way to invalidate logic without invalidating our reasoning (logic) to do so.tommarcus wrote:Logic cannot be dismissed in our discussion of the universe. It is one of the methods that we use to think. If it is not valid, so is any conclusions we try to make about anything.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
-
- Posts: 95
- Joined: July 25th, 2018, 10:54 am
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
There is always one more step back in time. It is much easier for us to understand that if you go forward infinitely then you will go on forever and never get to an end. But if there is no beginning then nothing can get started and go forward. Now if you can always go back one more step, then nothing can be finally determined. Nothing can be defined because its source is always subject to change which means it can never be finally defined or determined. It is like a mother trying to birth to a child but the DNA of the mother infinitely changes. Such a mother would never be able to find the moment to give birth.
Now this analysis only applies to to our three dimensional world of cause and effect, or the physical universe and its beginning. If there are other dimensions, then those dimensions have other rules and characteristics. I believe that there is at least one other dimension called existence itself. Within this dimension, the three dimension were created.
- Thinking critical
- Posts: 1793
- Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
- Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
tommarcus wrote: ↑August 3rd, 2018, 2:12 pm Logic cannot be dismissed in our discussion of the universe. It is one of the methods that we use to think. If it is not valid, so is any conclusions we try to make about anything.
But empirical evidence cannot be easily dismissed either. Recent scientific and statistical research implies that is statistically impossible that the universe not only began but was not created. Their are four fundamental forces of nature that we know of: gravity, the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force and electromagnetism. The constants or values at which these forces operate could have existed over a wide range. In addition if each value changed ever so slightly, then the universe as we observe it could not exist. As a result, the probability that all of these values could exist as they do at random is 1 out of ten to the power of ten thousand at least. In other words, it is much more reasonable and evidential that the physical universe began and was created.
Because of our imperfect humanity we may never know exactly how the universe began. But we cannot ignore science and probability when trying to get closer to reality.
The teleology of the universe is not evidence of a designer or creator but more so is evidence that the Universe has order. Statistical analysis does not imply that it is impossible for Universe to be so finally tuned, humans do. Statistics give data and probability, no matter how improbable it was that our Universe exists how it does, the fact remains that it does exist. Furthermore any tuning of any Universe is just as improbable as the next, there is no evidence which suggests that different forms of life couldn't form in Universes tuned different to our own that would sit an ask these same sort of questions.
The teleological argument can also NOT be used as a logical argument against an infinitely existing Universe because its premise " the Universe is fine tuned" is an assumption, until we can better understand the fundamental laws of physics, this observation can not be used in any formal arguments.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
As I've said, I disagree that P3 is a logical necessity, given the definition of the word "created" that we've established - i.e. the fact that we define "A was created" as "Something or someone that was not A either turned into A or brought some other stuff together and turned it into A".RJG wrote:P1. t0<X; Matter did not exist at t0 (t0 is before X)
P2. X<t1; Matter does exist at t1 (X is before t1)
C1. t0<X<t1; Therefore matter came into existence between t0 and t1
P3. Matter was either "created" or has "always existed".
P4. Since matter did not exist at t0, matter has NOT "always existed".
C2. Therefore matter was "created".
But, in a way that is analogous to the subject of the argument itself, I strongly suspect we're going to have to either agree to disagree on this or argue for all time.
Yes that's true, but deductively arrived at logical conclusions come about because they are contained within the premises, as demonstrated using the famous syllogism I mentioned earlier. That's how deductive logic works. "Something or someone that was not A either turned into A or brought some other stuff together and turned it into A" is not logically contained within the statement "A came into existence". It just seems that way because all of our empirical experience leads us to believe in the principle of conservation matter (and more recently conservation of matter/energy). So your conclusion that matter cannot be created comes from your empirical experience of this principle, not from logical analysis of the words we're using. If we wanted it to come just from logical analysis of the words we're using we'd have to add another premise expressing the law of conservation of matter.Premises by themselves do not prove anything. They are worthless by themselves. If we are to use logic, then premises "lead to a logical conclusion". That's how logic works.
When you keep asserting what you think is the logical impossibility of matter being created you are really reciting the empirical law of conservation of matter.
As I've said, I disagree that C2 is the inevitable logical conclusion, given what we've said about the verb "to create". Let's agree to disagree!And since the conclusion (C2) is a logical impossibility (X cannot precede itself; X<X), we then have a flaw in our syllogism, that being premise P1.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
You should bear in mind that you're talking specifically about deductive logic here. Deductive logic does indeed provide us with certainties. The way it does that is by telling us nothing new about our observations but simply elucidating the consequences of our previous words (our premises). i.e. it clarifies our thoughts.RJG wrote:So if we are seeking real truths, then our BEST method is the process of eliminating logical impossibilities from the field of logical possibilities. Other than that, anything goes. Empirical evidence (i.e. science) is never a reliable means of finding 'real' truths, as it is wholly dependent upon the subjectiveness of the observer, and is reliant upon the uncertain nature of experiential objects, and therefore can never be known as 'certain', or true. Only logic can give us truths (and falses).
Inductive logic, on the other hand, is what leads to such things as the principle, or law, of the conservation matter. We observe a finite number of specific instances of matter, apparently, not popping into existence or vanishing but changing into different forms or moving around. We conclude that matter can never spontaneously start or stop existing but always simply moves around or changes form. We conclude that even if the number of observations tends to infinity we will never observe an instance of matter spontaneously appearing or disappearing. But, as we know, this principle of Induction does not yield certainty. That's its downside when compared to deduction. And, as we know, the downside of deduction is that it doesn't tell us anything that wasn't already there in our previous words, mathematical equations or other symbols.
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
RJG wrote:P3. Matter was either "created" or has "always existed".
It seems logically coherent that 'something' can't happen without some-thing happening.Steve3007 wrote:As I've said, I disagree that P3 is a logical necessity, given the definition of the word "created" that we've established - i.e. the fact that we define "A was created" as "Something or someone that was not A either turned into A or brought some other stuff together and turned it into A".
Yes, I agree to disagree. Thanks for the very good discussions. Take care good friend, ...until next time.Steve3007 wrote:I strongly suspect we're going to have to either agree to disagree on this or argue for all time.
-
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 5
- Joined: August 1st, 2018, 6:32 am
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
Agreed.RJG wrote: 1. Without 'something' happening, 'nothing' happens.
2. Without 'time', 'nothing' can occur (happen).
3. Without a 'place' to happen, 'nothing' can happen.
Agreed.Steve3007 wrote:Yes, as I said, I think RJG is clearly right to say that it is self-contradictory to say something like "time has not always existed" because "always" is a word that means "for all time". It is a temporal word. This is of course the problem with discussing a subject like General Relativity using our natural languages with their temporal words.
I hope you mind if I open the discussion again as I had something to say and I've been away.
How about putting it like this?...
0 = (-x + x) * time
The left hand side could be considered as nothing. The right hand side includes the axis of time and some other stuff. There is no "creating" going on here. They are logically equivalent to each other. It is stupid model of the universe but it shows what is logically possible in a different representation.
The right hand side of the above equation has no limit to the axis of time. Hence that side is infinite. However the equation itself shows something as nothing.SimpleGuy wrote:So forever is something observer dependent
-
- Posts: 95
- Joined: July 25th, 2018, 10:54 am
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
The universe is ordered. What is the logical basis for believing that it is likely for order to come from disorder spontaneously? We know that from the laws of thermodynamics the universe is becoming more disordered, granted that these laws are only true in our physical world. If we can postulate multiverses with no evidence, then we can postulate anything. And many try to postulate anything rather than accept the possiblity that there exists a creator. It is correct that the order of the universe cannot alone prove beyond a doubt that a creator exists. But given the many unsubstantiated and creative theories, the concept of a creator is much more likely to be the case than than they are.
Finally, even if the universe somehow spontaneously came into existence, where does my self-awareness come from? Not just mine, but that of every living thing. We can all function as sophisticated robots following the physical laws of nature. We don't need self-awareness to live and die. How can an organism as simple as a fish know it is a fish? It's brain is nothing to brag about. Self-awareness is not like growing another leg. It is something very different and a very profound part of life. If we are to believe that this too "just happened", then we can explain anything by saying it "just happened".
- Thinking critical
- Posts: 1793
- Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
- Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
Science says no such thing, let's get the facts straight. Science has created a model of our Universe which demonstrates the emergence of certain properties such as matter and Spacetime being contingent on the fundamental laws being as they are. This is not evidence of fine tuning, it is simply evidence that we have and understanding of the fundamental laws in that we can conclude if they were different, then the Universe would be to.tommarcus wrote: ↑August 4th, 2018, 12:44 pm It is a scientific fact that the universe is finely tuned. Something is "finely tuned" if extremely small changes would result in major changes in its existence. This is defined mathematically and has been calculated for each of the four forces of nature in this universe.
The term "fine tuned" is nothing more than a catchy phrase which comes in useful when discussing subjects of this nature, it was in no way intended to insinuate that the Universe was intentionally tuned with the purpose of creating galaxies, solar systems and planets which support life. Note the significant difference between consequence and determined.
This is a strawman tactic, on what grounds do you believe that the universe spontaneously rose from disorder? Furthermore, logically based on the fact that the complexity off life evolved from simplicity it makes sense that we should expect the Universe itself to also rise from simplicity as opposed to a Universe emerging already equipped with complex laws such the teleological argument assumes.The universe is ordered. What is the logical basis for believing that it is likely for order to come from disorder spontaneously?
Not quite, in science the term postulate means to propose a hypothesis, the multiverse was by no means a hypothesis intended to deal with the "fine tuning" problem. The idea of a multiverse was first considered in String theory to account for the trillions of different variables of vibrating strings. It was either multiple dimensions in one Universe or multiple Universes, the fact that the multiverse also offered a resolution to the "fine tuning" was nothing more than serendipity.We know that from the laws of thermodynamics the universe is becoming more disordered, granted that these laws are only true in our physical world. If we can postulate multiverses with no evidence, then we can postulate anything.
According to who and why?And many try to postulate anything rather than accept the possiblity that there exists a creator. It is correct that the order of the universe cannot alone prove beyond a doubt that a creator exists. But given the many unsubstantiated and creative theories, the concept of a creator is much more likely to be the case than than they are.
The fact that conscious beings exist is irrelevant to the order of the Universe. Gravity, electro magnetism and nuclear forces are not intrinsically linked to conscious, so regardless of how the Universe came to be there is no correlation between the two.Finally, even if the universe somehow spontaneously came into existence, where does my self-awareness come from? Not just mine, but that of every living thing. We can all function as sophisticated robots following the physical laws of nature. We don't need self-awareness to live and die. How can an organism as simple as a fish know it is a fish? It's brain is nothing to brag about. Self-awareness is not like growing another leg. It is something very different and a very profound part of life. If we are to believe that this too "just happened", then we can explain anything by saying it "just happened".
No reputable scientist would say that consciousness just happens, the facts are clear.....we simply don't know enough about consciousness to provide a clear answer.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023