As I see it, it is logically impossible for matter to be be created, because it would take matter to create matter, which is a logical impossibility. X cannot precede its own existence.Steve3007 wrote:There is nothing illogical in saying "matter didn't exist at time 't' and it did exist at time 't+1'", even if we might think it physically impossible.
Explanation: the act of "creating" is an event/happening that requires time, space, and matter. Without 'something' happening, 'nothing' can happen, this includes the happening (event) called "creating". Creating cannot happen without something happening, but since something does not yet exist, the creating of something is therefore not possible. Therefore, if matter does in fact, exist, then it has always existed.
RJG wrote:4. And finally, how can something "behave" WITHOUT A MEANS OF BEHAVING? (without 'something' to behave there is 'nothing' to behave; without time and space, there is no 'means' of behaving).
I interpret "behaving" as "acting/moving". Behaving, in this definition/interpretation, would not be a "property" of an object (piece of matter), but instead, an 'action' taken by the object. Without time and space, particles/objects could not "behave" (act/move) at all, as there is no means to behave.Steve3007 wrote:This last one, I think, hinges on the definition of the word "behave". It implicitly asserts that "behaving" is a property of the particle itself and that it is therefore only logical to talk about something exhibiting a particular behaviour if it already exists.
RJG wrote:TC, would you agree that claiming -- "something can happen when nothing happens" -- is non-sensical (i.e. contradictory; logically impossible)?
TC, you are missing the point! The laws of nature cannot overturn logic; it cannot somehow make X=not-X, as you are suggesting. There is no way to invalidate logic without invalidating the invalidation itself. In other words, any attempt to renounce logic, only renounces one's attempt. It cuts off the very legs that you make your stand upon. We have no other means of "making sense". This is our ONLY means, without it we are all fools.Thinking critical wrote:Agreed, these conditions however do not accurately represent nature of the Universe, it is unfortunately not that simple. Furthermore, things happen that make no sense to us. The Universe doesn't always seem logical, however logical discourse will change before the laws of nature do. The truth remains, we do not know what we do not know?
Again, this is not about the "nature of the universe" (or "empirical observations") per se. It is about the usage/misuse of logic. You are committing a logical contradiction by claiming 'something' happens when 'nothing' happens. Either something happens or nothing happens, it is one or the other, but not both. These are mutually exclusive, much like married men and bachelors, it is one or the other, but not both. X cannot equal not-X!
If something happens/exists, then SOMETHING happens/exist, ...right?
If nothing happens/exist, then NOTHING happens/exist, ...right?
To claim that married men are bachelors (unmarried men) is contradictory, ...right?
To claim 'something' happens, when 'nothing' happens is contradictory...right?