The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
devans99
Posts: 159
Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm

Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?

Post by devans99 » October 30th, 2018, 3:14 pm

RJG wrote:
October 30th, 2018, 3:03 pm
Devans99 wrote:Matter had a temporal start in the Big Bang.
Did someone tell you this? So then 'what' banged? Was it 'nothing' or 'something'?
Its on Wikipedia:

"The Planck epoch is an era in traditional (non-inflationary) big bang cosmology immediately after the event which began our known universe. During this epoch, the temperature and average energies within the universe were so inconceivably high compared to any temperature we can observe today, that everyday subatomic particles could not form"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronolog ... y_universe

To be fair, the Planck epoch is not well understood.
RJG wrote:
October 30th, 2018, 3:03 pm
Devans99 wrote:Always counting is implying no more than always existing, which is possible.
Counting REQUIRES a start point (i.e. a "0"), ...Existing does not.
Existing does require a start point: would you exist if you were not born?
RJG wrote:
October 30th, 2018, 3:03 pm

With no starting point, that which doesn't exist can NEVER exist, and that which does exist has ALWAYS existed, ...agreed?
No, 'always' has no starting point so it's not possible to 'always' do something. Always is just another way of saying eternally (in time). Its possible to always do something while your alive, but then living has a starting point.

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1291
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?

Post by RJG » October 30th, 2018, 3:43 pm

Devans99 wrote:Its on Wikipedia:
1. So then you agree that 'something' (matter/energy) existed before the Big Bang?
2. How about 'time', and 'space' - did these exist before the Big Bang?
3. Was there ever a time when 'nothing' existed? (...be careful, this is a loaded question!)

Devans99 wrote:Existing does require a start point: would you exist if you were not born?
Yes. The real stuff (matter) that I am composed of has always existed; it cannot be created or destroyed.

devans99
Posts: 159
Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm

Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?

Post by devans99 » October 30th, 2018, 3:55 pm

RJG wrote:
October 30th, 2018, 3:43 pm
Devans99 wrote:Its on Wikipedia:
1. So then you agree that 'something' (matter/energy) existed before the Big Bang?
2. How about 'time', and 'space' - did these exist before the Big Bang?
3. Was there ever a time when 'nothing' existed? (...be careful, this is a loaded question!)

Devans99 wrote:Existing does require a start point: would you exist if you were not born?
Yes. The real stuff (matter) that I am composed of has always existed; it cannot be created or destroyed.
1. Time is cyclical. The big crunch existed before the big bang.
2. Yes.
3. No. At all times something has existed.

According to science, matter was created during the big bang.

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1291
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?

Post by RJG » October 30th, 2018, 4:36 pm

Devans, I think we are getting closer to agreeing.
Devans99 wrote:At all times something has existed.
And is this "something", space/time/matter? ...if not, then what specifically has "always existed" (i.e. was not created)?

Devans99 wrote:According to science, matter was created during the big bang.
But according to logic, matter was 'not' created during the big bang. ...so, who you gonna believe?

devans99
Posts: 159
Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm

Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?

Post by devans99 » October 30th, 2018, 4:46 pm

RJG wrote:
October 30th, 2018, 4:36 pm
Devans, I think we are getting closer to agreeing.
Devans99 wrote:At all times something has existed.
And is this "something", space/time/matter? ...if not, then what specifically has "always existed" (i.e. was not created)?
The universe (space, time, matter/energy) has always existed outside of time; it encapsulates time. It was not created; it just is.
RJG wrote:
October 30th, 2018, 4:36 pm
Devans99 wrote:According to science, matter was created during the big bang.
But according to logic, matter was 'not' created during the big bang. ...so, who you gonna believe?
I am not sure and science is not sure. Maybe matter was created in the big bang, but it could also just endlessly cycle around the loop of time (never created never destroyed).

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1291
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?

Post by RJG » October 30th, 2018, 10:42 pm

Well Devans, I think we have beat this one to death. Thanks for the very good discussions. ...until next time friend.

devans99
Posts: 159
Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm

Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?

Post by devans99 » October 31st, 2018, 2:57 am

RJG wrote:
October 30th, 2018, 10:42 pm
Well Devans, I think we have beat this one to death. Thanks for the very good discussions. ...until next time friend.
You Too RJG!

BigBango
Posts: 182
Joined: March 15th, 2018, 6:15 pm

Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?

Post by BigBango » October 31st, 2018, 10:02 pm

Well kumbaya to both of you. Did you ever have any real disagreements, I don't think so.

Both your problems is that you try to establish the nature of reality from the nature of abstract thinking. I think devan is more cognizant of that as a problem but you both still focus on the nature of abstract thinking rather than the metaphysical nature of reality to which abstract thinking must be about.

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1291
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?

Post by RJG » October 31st, 2018, 10:56 pm

BigBango wrote:Well kumbaya to both of you. Did you ever have any real disagreements, I don't think so.

Both your problems is that you try to establish the nature of reality from the nature of abstract thinking. I think devan is more cognizant of that as a problem but you both still focus on the nature of abstract thinking rather than the metaphysical nature of reality to which abstract thinking must be about.
BigBango, you are displaying your dishonesty (and immaturity) here. You know very well, that I only try to reason with "logic", and not with so-called "abstract thinking" (fantasy). Your continued denial of logic in favor of religion/fantasy/feel-goodness is the reason why you will never understand the true nature of reality.

Before making accusations, take a good look in the mirror first.

BigBango
Posts: 182
Joined: March 15th, 2018, 6:15 pm

Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?

Post by BigBango » November 1st, 2018, 12:37 am

RJG wrote:
October 31st, 2018, 10:56 pm
BigBango wrote:Well kumbaya to both of you. Did you ever have any real disagreements, I don't think so.

Both your problems is that you try to establish the nature of reality from the nature of abstract thinking. I think devan is more cognizant of that as a problem but you both still focus on the nature of abstract thinking rather than the metaphysical nature of reality to which abstract thinking must be about.
BigBango, you are displaying your dishonesty (and immaturity) here. You know very well, that I only try to reason with "logic", and not with so-called "abstract thinking" (fantasy). Your continued denial of logic in favor of religion/fantasy/feel-goodness is the reason why you will never understand the true nature of reality.

Before making accusations, take a good look in the mirror first.
Please RJG I actually admire what you and Devan have contributed to our thinking about reality. What you are mistaken about is that you apparently do not realize "logic" is one of our categories of thinking, all of which can be referred to as "abstract thinking". Abstract thinking is not "fantasy", it is "logic", mathematics, the notion of time and other mental tools we have with which we can use to try to understand the nature of reality. Science, on the other hand, takes our abstract theories and uses them to collect "real" data about the nature of reality. It just turns out that reality, as known through exhausting testing, does not always conform to what our abstract thinking has predicted.

Xeno's paradox about motion is only a paradox that exists in the world of abstract mathematics where there are an infinite number of points along any segment of a line and we assume things in reality move from one point to another in that abstract space. But what we find is that in the real world things move through a discrete quantized space unlike the real number line.

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1291
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?

Post by RJG » November 1st, 2018, 5:01 pm

BigBango wrote:Abstract thinking is not "fantasy", it is "logic", mathematics, the notion of time and other mental tools we have with which we can use to try to understand the nature of reality. Science, on the other hand, takes our abstract theories and uses them to collect "real" data about the nature of reality. It just turns out that reality, as known through exhausting testing, does not always conform to what our abstract thinking has predicted.
It seems you have this backwards. The truths of science constantly change as they are based on experiential whims; on the 'uncertain' nature of 'experiential' evidence. Whereas the truths of logic/math are constant/unchangeable, and are not reliant upon said subjective views.

Logic/math are 'a priori' (pre-experiential) truth. Science is an 'a posteriori' (post experiential) truth. Therefore, Logic always trumps Science. Although I have great respect for science, it pales in comparison to the certainty/truth of logic (and math).

BigBango wrote:Xeno's paradox about motion is only a paradox that exists in the world of abstract mathematics where there are an infinite number of points along any segment of a line and we assume things in reality move from one point to another in that abstract space. But what we find is that in the real world things move through a discrete quantized space unlike the real number line.
Zeno's Paradox -- Zeno's paradoxes states that I can't walk over to you because I first have to get halfway there, and once I do, I still have to cover half the remaining distance, and once I get there I have to cover half of that remaining distance, ad infinitum. There are an infinite number of halfway points, and so according to (flawed) logic, I'll never be able to get there. But it's easy to prove this false by simply doing it, which we can all do. So we seemingly have a paradox, a contradiction, something that seems true but which, clearly, is not.

Since true paradoxes don't actually exist (as they are not logically possible), where is the flaw in this seemingly paradox?

Zeno's paradox, as written, conveniently disregards the dimension of 'time' to falsely denounce the possibility of 'motion'. Like a good magician, Zeno has his audience focus on the infinite number of 'distance' segments (and not on the infinitely decreasing 'time'), which leads our minds to (falsely) conclude that it would therefore take for-ev-ver (an infinite amount of 'time') to cross over an infinite number of halfway points. But, this is not the case. For each and every halfway point, time is reduced in half (it takes half as much time to arrive at each halfway point).

For example: I can walk 1 yard per second. So if I were to walk to the halfway point (50 yards) across a football field, it would take me 50 seconds. And then 25 seconds later, I'll find myself at the next halfway point. And then 12.5 seconds later, at the next halfway point. And after 100 seconds have transpired, I find myself magically standing in the end zone.

It is 'time' that propels me through space (and across the football field).

Zeno's paradox only proves, that without time, motion is impossible. But we already knew that. We already knew that motion can't occur without the pre-existence of time. Motion occurred (I traveled from 0 yard line to 100 yard line), therefore Time must exist. Now we have proof! Thanks Zeno
Last edited by RJG on November 2nd, 2018, 2:55 pm, edited 4 times in total.

BigBango
Posts: 182
Joined: March 15th, 2018, 6:15 pm

Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?

Post by BigBango » November 1st, 2018, 11:08 pm

RJG wrote:
November 1st, 2018, 5:01 pm
BigBango wrote:Abstract thinking is not "fantasy", it is "logic", mathematics, the notion of time and other mental tools we have with which we can use to try to understand the nature of reality. Science, on the other hand, takes our abstract theories and uses them to collect "real" data about the nature of reality. It just turns out that reality, as known through exhausting testing, does not always conform to what our abstract thinking has predicted.
It seems you have this backwards. The truths of science constantly change as they are based on experiential whims; on the 'uncertain' nature of 'experiential' evidence. Whereas the truths of logic/math are constant/unchangeable, and are not reliant upon said subjective views.

Logic/math are 'a priori' (pre-experiential) truth. Science is an 'a posteriori' (post experiential) truth. Therefore, Logic always trumps Science. Although I have great respect for science, it pales in comparison to the certainty/truth of logic (and math).
Kant did assert that Euclidean Geometry was true "apriori/before experience" however there has been almost unanimous rejection of that position. Non-Euclidean Geometry was asserted to be true by Einstein and has won the day with a good deal of evidence collected about how light is deflected around large masses. I actually believe Kant but it remains a fact that both Euclidean and Non Euclidean,Riemann geometry, cannot be true of space. Frege devastated Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica which was all about the truth of "logic" as derived from mathematics.

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1291
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?

Post by RJG » November 2nd, 2018, 8:02 am

I bet it takes 'math' to expose flawed math. ...and 'logic' to expose flawed logic (paradoxes, etc.)

... agreed?

BigBango
Posts: 182
Joined: March 15th, 2018, 6:15 pm

Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?

Post by BigBango » November 2nd, 2018, 7:55 pm

RJG wrote:
November 2nd, 2018, 8:02 am
I bet it takes 'math' to expose flawed math. ...and 'logic' to expose flawed logic (paradoxes, etc.)

... agreed?
It also takes logic to expose false math. The use of a flawed logic to correct itself is somewhat problematic. For that purpose one uses "strong" logic to correct soft logic, yet hard logic has been shown to be incomplete and what we strive for is that any mathematical or logical system be both consistent and complete.

Those problems with our abstract theories simply complicate their application to the task of discovering the nature of objective reality. In the actual practice of modeling reality with these abstract theories we find that both the level of physical reality at which we are applying these theories and the scope of the terrain becomes very important. For a theory to be trusted we want it to be both consistent and complete. If one can show "logically" that theorems can be derived that prove both p and not p to be true then its inconsistency renders it suspect. To compound the problem, we find consistent theories like Newton's laws of gravitational attraction to fail to predict the correct weight of an object traveling at high speeds. Einstein's General Relativity, also a consistent set of mathematical theories, correctly predicts the increased weight of objects traveling at high speeds. The point being, that the correctness of abstract theories of objects in motion may only be true in a limited context and completely fail in a broader context.

Of course QM offers us an example of where even strong logic breaks down and has superimposed objects that are both dead and alive.

User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 338
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?

Post by SimpleGuy » November 8th, 2018, 7:36 am

devans99 wrote:
October 13th, 2018, 11:59 am
Time and space have a relationship: speed = distance / time

In Relativity, the faster you go, the slower time runs. In addition, every particle in the universe is bound by the speed of light limit.

So time is fundamental to the universe and built into its laws; its not just change; it governs change.
You plot the Problem on the surface , for yourself time is passing normal. For an unmoving "framed" Person your time seems to be slowed down.
That's why having an end for a particle is something subjective to the observer, a particle falling in a black hole could end for the particle very fast,
for other observers the procedure of the particle to move into the black hole could last eons.

Post Reply