PogoPedant
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2002
- Messages
- 763
Yes.
Let's take as an axiom A, where A means that the universe has existed infinitly. Then, by reflexion or whatever, we have A -> A and since A is given, we know that the universe must have existed infinitly.
Logic'll do anything for you.
Let's take as an axiom A, where A means that the universe has existed infinitly. Then, by reflexion or whatever, we have A -> A and since A is given, we know that the universe must have existed infinitly.
Logic'll do anything for you.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Patrick said:
Depends on what you mean by "universe". If "universe" means "everything that is", then it has to have always existed, because anything existing previous to it would have to be included in the category "universe". By definition, then, the universe has to have always existed, since existence itself automatically makes something part of the universe.
A. Anything that exists is part of the universe.
B. Something existed way back in the past.
C. That something was therefore part of the universe.
If you want to argue that a period of nonexistence stretched before the universe, you get the problem of whether time exists. If it does, it's part of the universe and therefore there can be nothing "previous", since "previous" is part of time which would be part of the universe. If time isn't part of the universe, then you end up with the problem of what it is, where does it come from, and you're stuck with the fact that time can't be measured without something existing to measure it by.
If however, you're defining "universe" differently, to mean the current collection of matter and energy surrounding us and the space containing it, then it's possible there were other universes of this nature "previous" if time is independent of a particular universe, and existing in some unmeasurable relationship to each other if time is in fact dependent upon each individual universe. In the latter case, "previous" has no meaning, so the question is moot.
Logical argument seems to require defining the terms first.
Don't you know that there's not even a logical argument to show that there actually is a physical universe? That's the truth pal.Patrick said:
I fail to see how anyone can provide proof that the physical-universe is eternal if they can't even prove that there is a physical-universe. But hey, standards slip to facilitate all manner of beliefs.
Immanuel Kant published an indubitable proof that the universe always existed, with an infinite past. Within the same book ("Kritik der reinen Vernunft"), he also published an indubitable proof that the universe once came into existence and didn't existed before. Choose your poison.
RussDill
Philosopher
Patrick said:
You are asuming you have a one size fits all measuring stick for measuring time.
The Cats Venm
Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2003
- Messages
- 168
c4ts said:
When has a little fallacy ever stopped anyone? If it's good enough for God, it's good enough for us.
PogoPedant
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2002
- Messages
- 763
Fallacious? No, it's simply unsound. A -> A is actually quite an important attribute of implication. Without it life would be hard, as we could have A -> (not A).c4ts said:
I'll concede that it is a useless argument with regards to the sciences, but since Patrick specified non-scientific ...
UserGoogol
Master Poster
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2002
- Messages
- 2,074
Not neccesarily. It's quite possible that there was simply no time "before" the universe existed. I'm not sure what science has to say on this matter, though.
Of course, there being a creation doesn't mean there was a creator. The whole concept of cause and effect are dependent on time: causes come before effects. (Assuming that time travel doesn't happen.) If there is a first moment of time, there is no time prior to that moment for their to be a cause. Thusly, the first moment was effectively causeless.
Not neccesarily. It's quite possible that there was simply no time "before" the universe existed. I'm not sure what science has to say on this matter, though.
I specifically excluded science, but when I was in astronomy (ten years ago) they were saying that the big bang was a singular event which "started" the universe, with the universe either expanding forever or reaching a max size and then collapsing on itself, whereupon a new cycle may start. Also there are endless physic theories of parallel universes.
I specifically excluded science, but when I was in astronomy (ten years ago) they were saying that the big bang was a singular event which "started" the universe, with the universe either expanding forever or reaching a max size and then collapsing on itself, whereupon a new cycle may start. Also there are endless physic theories of parallel universes.