Proof of God

[Mobyseven]

Someone said to me the other day, "If we don't posit an end to time, then why is it so important for us to posit a beginning?"

Granted, some people may well posit an end to time, but I see where he was coming from - most people seem to have no problem imagining time as being like the set of all positive integers...beginning at '1' but stretching on towards infinity. If many of us have no problem with there being no end to time, why is it so important to posit a beginning?

 

[Belz...]

Come on, Belz, I was having a little joke.

I think you're always having a little joke.

Throw it in then as a third alternative.
It regresses back to one of the other alternatives anyway.

You're assuming it had a beginning.

Without time nothing happens

An interesting assertion.

There has to be the possibility of quantum fluctuations before quantum fluctuations can occur.
What gives rise to this possibility?

Yes, indeed we've been there. It just might be that quantum fluctuations are the simplest possible thing, and that "nothing" is impossible. What makes you think something gave rise to them ?

Regardless, it takes time for something to happen and nothing can happen in no time.

You keep saying that, but I see no reason to take your word on that.

 

[Z]

Someone said to me the other day, "If we don't posit an end to time, then why is it so important for us to posit a beginning?"

Granted, some people may well posit an end to time, but I see where he was coming from - most people seem to have no problem imagining time as being like the set of all positive integers...beginning at '1' but stretching on towards infinity. If many of us have no problem with there being no end to time, why is it so important to posit a beginning?

I'd guess it's biological. We can imagine people living forever easier than we can imagine having lived forever. More people believe in life after death than believe in life before birth. And our own experiences have a definite beginning (or, in my case, a hazy, indefinite one) but no foreseeable ending.

I've encountered schoolchildren with the same aversion to negative integers that others show to the idea of time without beginning. It seems we're geared up to accept positive infinite time as a possibility, albeit a vague and nearly meaningless one; but negative infinite time goes against everything we're pre-wired to accept, apparently.

 

[Robin]

Throw it in then as a third alternative.
It regresses back to one of the other alternatives anyway.

Show your reasoning.

 

[Robin]

(oops, I apologise if this wasn't meant as a joke)

I was, as I indicated, illustrating two possible meanings of "beginning", the first concerning ontology, the second concerning boundaries. You appeared to have confused the two meanings.

If there is a joke in there I'm afraid I don't get it (unless you mean that you were simply punning in the first place).

 

[Robin]

At least you're honest.
And, no, it is not. The question is why is there something (quantum fluctuations) instead of nothing (no quantum fluctuations).

Because as dear old Lifegazer used to say, in his rare moments of lucidity, there is no such thing as nothing.

As I said before, the thing we know for sure is that at least one thing had no origin. Why the thing(s) that had no origin exist is really a meaningless question.

And there is no reason to think that that gap will ever be filled.
In other words, it is entirely possible that that science is not capable of answering all possible questions.

Science is not capable of answering all possible questions. For example it cannot answer the question "how does this soup taste to you?". The only way for a person to answer that is to taste the soup. No mathematical model will ever capture that.

But a question that science cannot answer is not an indicator of divinity.

 

[Belz...]

As I said before, the thing we know for sure is that at least one thing had no origin. Why the thing(s) that had no origin exist is really a meaningless question.

Since it seems illogical that something could come from ACTUAL nothing, and something exists, then 'nothing' is impossible.

 

[BillyJoe]

Someone said to me the other day, "If we don't posit an end to time, then why is it so important for us to posit a beginning?"

Granted, some people may well posit an end to time, but I see where he was coming from - most people seem to have no problem imagining time as being like the set of all positive integers...beginning at '1' but stretching on towards infinity. If many of us have no problem with there being no end to time, why is it so important to posit a beginning?

I haven't heard this before.

But now that I have, it's the most ridiculous thing I've heard for a long time.
I don't have time to respond now, but maybe you'd like to rethink this in the mean time.

You, young man, have a long way to go.
(literally and metaphorically speaking)

 

[Mobyseven]

I haven't heard this before.

But now that I have, it's the most ridiculous thing I've heard for a long time.
I don't have time to respond now, but maybe you'd like to rethink this in the mean time.

Tell you what, that whole thing was just a little aside into the conversation, but if you'd like to properly address it, be sure that I'll see your analysis. Until then, I'll be over here doing the washing.

 

[Robin]

Since it seems illogical that something could come from ACTUAL nothing, and something exists, then 'nothing' is impossible.

"At least one thing has no origin" is not the same as "at least one thing came from nothing".

It seems, as you say, illogical that something came from actual nothing.

Equally a "turtles all the way down" explanation appears illogical.

So when I say "has no origins" I mean that it did not begin to exist. If something is non-temporal then I don't see that this idea poses any logical contradiction.

In fact I don't see that there is a necessary logical requirement for anything to begin to exist.

 

[Belz...]

I agree, Robin. I was just adding my own thought to yours.

 

[volatile]

BJ - A physicist once explained time to me in a way that made it all very simple to understand.

Someone once asked Steven Hawking what came before the Big Bang, and his answer was "What's more north than the North pole?". Basically, what he means is that, just as you cannot demarcate the "start" of a sphere, nor its end, even though it is not infinitely big, and just as it makes no sense to ask what's more northern than the north pole, you cannot mark the "start" or "end" of time. The question you're asking doesn't make sense.

 

[BillyJoe]

BJ - A physicist once explained time to me in a way that made it all very simple to understand.

Someone once asked Steven Hawking what came before the Big Bang, and his answer was "What's more north than the North pole?". Basically, what he means is that, just as you cannot demarcate the "start" of a sphere, nor its end, even though it is not infinitely big, and just as it makes no sense to ask what's more northern than the north pole, you cannot mark the "start" or "end" of time. The question you're asking doesn't make sense.

Yes, I have heard this before.


But the question is: Is this really an explanation?
I think Hawking was just trying to get a bit of a handle on a puzzle that does not really have a clear solution.
Also, I think he was trying to get a handle on 3D curved space, not time.
But I could be wrong.


A one dimensional creature can only move back and forth along a line. If he keeps moving forward, he would be suprised if he found himself back at his starting point. However, this is possible if the line is curved in on itself into a two dimensional circle.
A two dimensional creature can move back and forth, and left and right over a surface. If he keeps moving in the same direction, he would be suprised if he found himself back at his starting point. However this is possible if the surface is curved in on itself into a three dimensional sphere.
A three dimensional creature can move back and forth, and left and right, and up and down through space. If he keeps moving in the same direction, he would be suprised if he found himself back at his starting point. Apparently this would be possible if space is curved in on itself into a four dimensional "hypersphere".


It seems to be an answer to the question: what lies beyond the universe? The answer is: nothing lies beyond the universe. The universe is all there is. The explanation is to imagine the the 3D universe to be curved in on itself so that you can never actually leave it even if you travel in a straight line.

You will note, by analogy with the lesser dimensional examples, that we need to posit a 4th spacial dimension into which our 3D universe curves: Just as the one dimensional creature does not see the second dimension into which his one dimensional world curves, and just as the two dimensional creature does not see the third dimension into which his two dimensional world curves, we three dimensional creatures do not see the fourth dimension into which our three dimensional world curves.

So, we have an explanation for the universe being all there is, with nothing lying beyond it, but the explanation is at the expense of having to introduce a fourth dimension about which we have absolutely no clue and which becomes our new puzzle searching for a solution.

Therefore, I would say our 3D curved space explanation progresses our understanding a little, but I would not say we have solved the puzzle.


And I don't immediately see how time fits into this scenario.


regards,
BillyJoe

 

[BillyJoe]

Someone said to me the other day, "If we don't posit an end to time, then why is it so important for us to posit a beginning?"

Granted, some people may well posit an end to time, but I see where he was coming from - most people seem to have no problem imagining time as being like the set of all positive integers...beginning at '1' but stretching on towards infinity. If many of us have no problem with there being no end to time, why is it so important to posit a beginning?

Actually, reading it again, your post seems to be a little ambiguous.
I interpreted it as follows:

If we don't have a problem with time without end, why do we have a problem with time without beginning.

My comment was based on this interpretation.
If I am wrong about that interpretation, I apologise.
Otherwise there is a clear difference between the two.

I think I should wait for confirmation though.....

If you'd like to properly address it, be sure that I'll see your analysis. Until then, I'll be over here doing the washing.

....if you have finished hanging out the washing - Mrs. Bartoluzzi!

Mrs Bartolozzi
(Kate Bush)​

I remember it was that Wednesday
Oh when it rained and it rained
They traipsed mud all over the house
It took hours and hours to scrub it out
All over the hall carpet
I took my mop and bucket
And I cleaned and I cleaned
The kitchen floor
Until it sparkled
Then I took my laundry basket
And put the linen all in it
And everything I could fit in it
And all our dirty clothes that hadn’t gone into the wash
And all your shirts and jeans and things
And put them in the new washing machine
Washing machine
Washing machine​

I watched them go ‘round and ‘round
My blouse wrapping itself in your trousers
Oh the waves are going out
My skirt floating up around my waist
As I wade out into the surf
Oh and the waves are coming in
Oh and the waves are going out
Oh and you’re standing right behind me
Little fish swim between my legs
Oh and the waves are coming in
Oh and the waves are going out
Oh and the waves are coming in
Out of the corner of my eye
I think I see you standing outside
But it’s just your shirt
Hanging on the washing line
Waving its arm as the wind blows by
And it looks so alive
Nice and white
Just like its climbed right out
Of my washing machine
Washing machine
Washing machine​

Slooshy sloshy slooshy sloshy
Get that dirty shirty clean
Slooshy sloshy slooshy sloshy
Make those cuffs and collars gleam
Everything clean and shiny​

Washing machine
Washing machine​

Washing machine​

 

[BillyJoe]

BillyJoe:
The question is why is there something (quantum fluctuations) instead of nothing (no quantum fluctuations).

Because as dear old Lifegazer used to say, in his rare moments of lucidity, there is no such thing as nothing....As I said before, the thing we know for sure is that at least one thing had no origin. Why the thing that had no origin exists is really a meaningless question.

If you say so.

And I did not say there was ever nothing (and hence that something came from nothing).
I said that there are two alternatives and this is but one of them - that, if it's not something from nothing, then its time without beginning.
I don't know why I have to keep repeating this.

Also, if you have a proof that there was never nothing (that there is at least one thing that had no origin), I'd be happy if you shared it with me.

Science is not capable of answering all possible questions. For example it cannot answer the question "how does this soup taste to you?". The only way for a person to answer that is to taste the soup. No mathematical model will ever capture that.

If you say so.

Really, you never know what it's possible for science to explain.
Just like you never know what it may be incapable of explaining.
(And I was not talking just about qualia, just to be clear.)

But a question that science cannot answer is not an indicator of divinity.

And neither did I say so.
And I don't know why I have to keep repeating that.

 

[BillyJoe]

I was, as I indicated, illustrating two possible meanings of "beginning", the first concerning ontology, the second concerning boundaries. You appeared to have confused the two meanings.

Perhaps it would be simpler if you could just point out where I have confused the two meanings.

 

[BillyJoe]

I think you're always having a little joke.

No, you just have trouble telling the difference.
(hint: unless the joke is totally obvious, there is usually a smily in there somewhere)

You're assuming it had a beginning.

For the millionth time, no, I am not.
I am not assuming. And I am not assuming a beginning.
I am logically deriving two alternatives:
EITHER something from nothing OR time without beginning.

Without time nothing happens

An interesting assertion

It's called logic.
Things happen over time. No time. Nothing happens.

Yes, indeed we've been there. It just might be that quantum fluctuations are the simplest possible thing, and that "nothing" is impossible. What makes you think something gave rise to them ?

Yes, yes.
As I said EITHER something from nothing OR time without beginning.
(time without beginning = never nothing)

it takes time for something to happen and nothing can happen in no time

You keep saying that, but I see no reason to take your word on that.

It's called logic.
Things happen over time. No time. Nothing happens.

 

[BillyJoe]

Sorry to butt in here.
Just curious BillyJoe: by "What gives rise to this possibility?" are you saying the law of quantum fluctuations precedes the behavior; that some sort of "logic" which encompasses any law "gives rise to this possibility" [of law]; that a medium must pre-exist for the law to operate in; that nothing can come from nothing without intention; any, all or none of these?
In other words, is this "possibility" prescriptive (for behavior), creative (other laws), descriptive (of behavior), directive (plan), or something else?
Thanks. {p.s. signing off -- will check back later}

I am sorry, but, after the example of Belz, I have decided I will no longer respond to posts that answer a question with a question.
If you are willing to give a short summary of your thoughts on the subject encompasing the questions you raise, I will be happy to respond.

I will just add that I asked the question because I do not know the answer and, since I'm getting nothing but evasion around here, I'm more and more confirmed in my opinion that there is no answer to this question.

If the question is meaningless, it needs to be more than stated as a fact. It must be meaningfully shown why the question is meaningless.

regards,
BillyJoe.

 

[blobru]

...
I will just add that I asked the question because I do not know the answer ...

That's why I asked too.

I vacillate between agnosticism and atheism myself. I think you're doing a good job of outlining the "metaphysical" basis for agnosticism (if I read you right).

Anyway, depending on which 1st "possibility" one thinks more likely, you end up with arguments for Leibniz's God (prescriptive) , Godel's God (creative), Spinoza's God (descriptive), or Aristotle's God (directive), it seems to me. Kind of interesting.

Sorry if my questionable wording suggested entrapment; it just comes out that way sometimes.

 

[BillyJoe]

Wrong. There's no 'universal time line' involved, because in a cyclical scenario, time literally starts and stops at the same point, a point that is both beginning and ending, and you're back at the beginning again.

You are saying that in a cycling universe, time goes in reverse as each universe contracts? And you are sure about this? (seeing as you said "Wrong.")
Hey, the milk is returning to the bowl, the bowl collects itself together again, and the mended bowl and milk returns to the bench from which it fell so many billions of years ago.

Not really. In this case, since time, itself, becomes cyclical, the cycles actually fit into neither category. They do go on forever in the sense that they go on for all time, but that's only because they consist of time itself. And being cycles of time, they have no beginning or ending themselves.

I don't get it.
Each cycle surely does begin and end (in time and in space).
But what about the string of cycles.
Surely this string-of-cycles either begins (something from nothing) or doesn't (time without beginning (time here refers to string-of-cycles time))

I think what you're striving to achieve is the idea of a metatime - and that's a concept as purely in the realms of fantasy as God itself.

Not metatime, no.
Just subsets of time.
I spend time at work each day. Within that time I see customer after customer. So there is work time consisting of cycles of customer time.

Only for those who fail to understand time.

If by "I have no problem with time without a beginning", you mean you understand it perfectly well, I don't believe you.

Your belief or disbelief is irrelevant.

But I see you are not about to enlighten us.

I challenge you to explain to me the concept of eternity.

Do you honestly think the challenge would prove my understanding of eternity... or your ability to understand eternity?

I'm saying that your inability or refusal to do so is telling.

It is impossible to understand how time could have no beginning - that there was never nothing.

For you, perhaps. But don't project your personal limitations on others - that's rude.

Still waiting.
(Yeah, that's right, I refuse to take your word for it.)