[QUOTE="NTWrightfan"][QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"] It is a big mistake to treat human knowledge/experience as infallible or complete.DeeJayInphinityits also a big mistake to so brazenly commit a special pleading fallacy. being does not come from nonbeing. Please point out the fallacy. you're basically assuming that the universe could have come into existence uncaused because human experience isn't "infallible". We've never observed anything come into existence uncaused (Quantum mechanics doesn't quite count because only according to the Copenhagen interpretation are virtual particles uncaused), and to say that the universe must be some exception is special pleading. and we really ought to ask, if things, like the universe (or natural world if you believe in a multiplicity of universes) can come into existence uncaused, then why doesn't anything and everything come into existence uncaused?
NTWrightfan's forum posts
[QUOTE="NTWrightfan"]It is a big mistake to treat human knowledge/experience as infallible or complete. its also a big mistake to so brazenly commit a special pleading fallacy. being does not come from nonbeing.I am denying that the natural world (that includes all other universes) could have possibly come out from nothing because that is a violation of the first law of metaphysics, and is, once again, worse than magic.
DeeJayInphinity
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]Either way, those kind of analogies/paradoxes may look nice and convincing when we lack knowledge, but they may not logically apply to the real world. Take Zeno's paradoxes as an example of what I'm talking about. Zeno's paradox, like mrsprinkles above, confuses actual infinites (an infinite collection of independent discrete and identical units) with potential infinites.
Argument 1: A hotel with an infinite number of rooms can never become full. That is the basic concept of infinity, there will always be more after the highest number you can think of. This entire analogy falls flat on its face. Infinity is infinity, there is no grounding in finite concepts such as "full" for infinity. You could fill it with an infinite number of people, but since there are an infinite amount of rooms, there will always be more space.
Argument 2: Simple. (infinity) - 1, (infinity) - 2, (infinity) - 3, (infinity) - n. Did you ever take a calculus math course? And one could never "finish" counting down from infinity. Again you fail to understand the meaning of infinity. Infinity is one of those words that has a true meaning that is beyond normal human comprehension. Infinity is never-ending... that is its basic foundation. One cannot "fill" a hotel with an infinite amount of rooms, there will always be one more to fill once you pick any real number between 0 and (infinity), not including infinity itself. You could fill it with an infinite amount of people but then your case for a finite proof goes out the door because you are dealing with an infinite amount of people.
You are going to need something a little more compelling than that to disprove the concept of infinity.DeeJayInphinity
The first example, whilst it seems absurd, is no disproof of infinity. And the second example just shows a misunderstanding of infinity. "infinity" is not a number, it means "no limit." You cannot count down from infinity, because there is no last number to start counting from. And the past being eternal would have no bearing on what is happening right now. count down from 0 (-1, -2, -3 etc...) and you can go forever. 0 will still be right where it was though.Mr_sprinklesfirst off, you're confusing potential infinites with actual infinites. the idea of an infinite past entails the existence of an actual infinite, in this case an infinite amount of past events. Hilbert's Hotel aims to show that actual infinites cannot exist. the second example assumes that a person *has been* counting down from infinity, not that he sometime in the past began to count down from infinity. yet this would have to be mathematically coherent in order to have an infinite past.
if we were in the center of the universe. Foxhound, this is basic 8th grade science. place some beads on a rubber string and stretch it. no matter which bead you have as your frame of reference, all other beads will appear to move away from you. if spacetime itself is expanding, every supercluster will be moving away from you.
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]I don't "believe" in anything, I just have what I know. There is no way anyone can understand the origin of the universe (if there even is one). Why does the universe even need a cause? Why can't you just accept that it might just be a series of natural processes that led to the universes current state?foxhound_fox
I'm in no way denying that, I am denying that the natural world (that includes all other universes) could have possibly come out from nothing because that is a violation of the first law of metaphysics, and is, once again, worse than magic.
and yes, science requires metaphysics.
I think you've been reading too much Kant. Metaphysics deals with everything relating to what is exterior to the physical universe and existentialism, not what science explains.foxhound_fox
no, metaphysics deals with physics and beyond, oh, and the statement "the natural universe is uncaused" is a metaphysical statement.
and this effects which part of my argument? once again we need metaphysics to explain the natural world if it began to exist. and dont forget, if the universe really did begin to exist, then it has an immaterial and timeless cause. This would, hence, be WAY out of Science's jurisdiction.
Metaphysics and logic are two separate forms of philosophy. Logic is rooted in mathematics, yes, but it can be applied both to the physical and non-physical universe, it is based *solely* in mathematics. Metaphysics cannot.foxhound_fox
[QUOTE="NTWrightfan"]Deejay, the laws of mathematics support my statement that the past is not eternal. if it is not eternal then it began to exist sometime in the past. if it began to exist then it must have a cause. if it has a cause then this cause must be God or some disembodied mind for one very simple reason. The only objects which can exist timelessly and without material are disembodied minds and abstract objects. since abstract objects do not cause anything, it logically follows that the cause of the universe is a disembodied mind. foxhound_fox
Prove the universe is not an eternal system of Big Bang's and Big Crunches. Prove this "cause." You assume that there must be a cause because you assume it isn't eternal. Occam's razor.
allow me to give two mathematical arguments for the finititude of the past
argument 1: Hilbert's Hotel. The aim of this analogy is to show that actual infinites are impossible. Imagine you have a hotel with an infinite amount of rooms, now imagine that every one of those rooms are full. a guest arrives and wants to give the guest a room. How does he do this? simple, he shifts the guest in room #1 to room #2, the guest in room #2 to room #3, and does this ad infinitum. You now have one vacant room, even though moments before EVERY ROOM WAS FILLED. I should stop here after showing the absurdity of actual infinites, but I will go on anyway. Now imagine for the moment that an infinite amount of guests arrive and want a room. How does the clerk give these arrivals a room? simple, he shifts the guest in room #1 to room #2, the guest in room #2 to room #4, the guest in room #3 to room #6, and does this ad infinitum. You now have an infinite amount of rooms even though moments before EVERY ROOM WAS FULL. Now imagine for the moment that the guests staying in every other room leave, how does he do this? simple, he shifts the guests in room #2 to room #1, the guests in room #4 to room #2, and does this ad infinitum. You now have a hotel completely filled EVEN THOUGH MOMENTS BEFORE THE HOTEL WAS HALF EMPTY!
argument 2: How can a man count down from infinity? Imagine that someone has been counting down from infinity and has just finished. but he would have finished 5 minutes ago, and he would have finished 10 minutes ago. Simply put, you cannot traverse an infinite. if the past is eternal, then we should not be here right now
these 2 arguments really give us mathematical certainty that the past is not eternal and that the natural world began to exist.
Now the natural world could not have popped into existence out from nothing, to say otherwise would be an appeal to magic.
Yes, and infinite=/= expanding. how can an infinite universe possibly expand?
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]That is why discussing the complexities of "infinity" are so... complex. If there was an origin, we would be able to trace the red-shift away from the origin and narrow down a fixed centre.foxhound_fox
why is that? if you are inside an expanding universe, EVERYTHING will appear to be moving away from you.
The Big Bang theory does not cover the cause of the Big Bang, only what it was and what happened after it began. We have no way of knowing what came before the Big Bang and never will. There is no way anyone can prove that it either came from "nothing" or "something."ah, so are you willing to believe in magic?
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
Metaphysics? Principles of metaphysics being applied to the physical universe? What the ****?foxhound_fox
metaphysics applies to EVERYTHING, including physics. foxhoud, the notion that the universe is both uncaused and finite is worse than magic, because when the magician pulls the bunny rabbit out of the hat, you still have the hat and you still ahve the magician.
not all philosophy is existential...just so you know. the philosophical arguments are rooted IN MATHEMATICS.
It definitely isn't a slave to metaphysics... that's for sure. Logic is one form of philosophy, which science is based on. But that doesn't mean that existentialism can be used to refute a scientific theory.foxhound_fox
The big bang theory does not cover the origin of the universe.. I don't know how that supports your statement. :? DeeJayInphinity
DeeJay, the Big Bang theory and the 2nd law support the fact that the universe has a finite past. But I tend to shy away from those arguments (because within science, there is always without exception room for doubt) and favor the philosophical arguments for the finititude of the past. The Philosophical arguments, rooted in mathematics, show that the past cannot be eternal and that it must have a beginning.
There is as of yet no evidence that the universe had an origin or that it did not have an origin. I don't know how you can apply any laws to something that we know nothing about.DeeJayInphinityDeejay, the laws of mathematics support my statement that the past is not eternal. if it is not eternal then it began to exist sometime in the past. if it began to exist then it must have a cause. if it has a cause then this cause must be God or some disembodied mind for one very simple reason. The only objects which can exist timelessly and without material are disembodied minds and abstract objects. since abstract objects do not cause anything, it logically follows that the cause of the universe is a disembodied mind.
You have to provide some peer-reviewed evidence to back up such a bold statement as "as far as scientists are concerned, the Universe is very much finite and has an origin."foxhound_fox
The Big Bang theory has near-unanimous support among cosmologists
and so does the 2nd law of thermodynamics. we know from the Cosmic redshift that the universe is expanding. if it is expanding then it is not infinite. if it is not infinite then it had a beginning because if the universe existed eternally into the past, then the universe would have reached a state of pure thermodynamic equilibrium, maximum entropy, absolute zero.
I've never seen anything to support such a hypothesis. What the current understanding is, is that the universe is infinite and has no origin, which is the grounding of the Big Bang theory along with the science behind the expansion and red-shift of the current universe.foxhound_fox
I seriously doubt that you would be able to provide even a single peer-reviewed publication from the last 50 years that would support such a statement that the idea of an origin-less universe is the basis for the big bang theory and the cosmic expansion. Not only that, but this statement that the universe could have popped into existence without a cause (which is exactly what is required should you posit the theory that the universe was both uncaused and began to exist) violates the first principle of metaphysics, that being does not come from nonbeing. if you seriously wish to violate this principle, then you will have stepped into the realm of magic.
Philosophy isn't science.foxhound_foxyou're absolutely right, science is a SLAVE to philosophy. Science could not possibly exist without philosophy.
[QUOTE="superheromonkey"]not it is not...it is growing, which means it is very finite. It also means that it is probable that it must be growing out from some point. Which many consider to be good evidence for god. To Red Wolf- unreliable info is right. If we were the only planet in the universe with intelligent life, it would be a miracle unto itself. 1 in 300 while humorous will increase indefinitely to 1 in x. With x equaling the amount of planets we have found. The point is that until more intelligent life is found it cannot be assumed and taken for granted that there are. There are also factors I am sure that you are not bringing into account with your own evaluation, such as the gravitational-time dilation. When we find some more then we can talk about it, until then i think the cosmological evidence indicates a good possibility of a creator.foxhound_fox
Prove where it's centre is and give us an approximation of it's finite size.
As far as scientists understand it, the universe is infinite and has no centre or place of origination. actually foxhound fox, as far as scientists are concerned, the Universe is very much finite and has an origin. But regardless, there are strong philosophical arguments for the finititude of the past which give us much more certainty that the universe has a beginning because they use deductive reasoning whereas Science uses inductive reasoning.
Have you ever heard of Hilbert's Hotel?
Log in to comment