Total Posts:140|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Did the universe come into being?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 2:18:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 2:16:55 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Agnosticism is the position of the logician.

Well I am agnostic on this issue myself. I am just wondering what people who affirm this position have to defend it.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 9:02:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It probably didn't. The only good arguments I've seen are arguing against an infinite past. But this doesn't rule out temporally closed models, thus doesn't prove the universe had a beginning. Even the BVG theorem doesn't rule out temporally closed models.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 2:43:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 9:02:49 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
It probably didn't. The only good arguments I've seen are arguing against an infinite past. But this doesn't rule out temporally closed models, thus doesn't prove the universe had a beginning. Even the BVG theorem doesn't rule out temporally closed models.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "temporally closed".
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 5:43:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 8:46:07 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/12/2013 2:16:55 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Agnosticism is the position of the logician.

No it isn't.

Yes it is, dude.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 6:46:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 5:43:31 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/12/2013 8:46:07 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/12/2013 2:16:55 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Agnosticism is the position of the logician.

No it isn't.

Yes it is, dude.

Prove it
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 6:48:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 6:46:49 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/13/2013 5:43:31 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/12/2013 8:46:07 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/12/2013 2:16:55 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Agnosticism is the position of the logician.

No it isn't.

Yes it is, dude.

Prove it

Agnosticism doesn't deal with proofs, but lack of proofs.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 7:24:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 6:48:40 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/13/2013 6:46:49 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/13/2013 5:43:31 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/12/2013 8:46:07 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/12/2013 2:16:55 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Agnosticism is the position of the logician.

No it isn't.

Yes it is, dude.

Prove it

Agnosticism doesn't deal with proofs, but lack of proofs.

Lack of proofs meaning you can't come to a conclusion. But logic depends on unproven axioms, which you couldn't use as an agnostic. Agnostics can't be logicians because they can't use logic. Herp.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 7:28:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 7:24:34 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/13/2013 6:48:40 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/13/2013 6:46:49 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/13/2013 5:43:31 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/12/2013 8:46:07 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/12/2013 2:16:55 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Agnosticism is the position of the logician.

No it isn't.

Yes it is, dude.

Prove it

Agnosticism doesn't deal with proofs, but lack of proofs.

Lack of proofs meaning you can't come to a conclusion. But logic depends on unproven axioms, which you couldn't use as an agnostic. Agnostics can't be logicians because they can't use logic. Herp.

Do you feel clever now?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 7:29:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 7:28:31 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/13/2013 7:24:34 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/13/2013 6:48:40 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/13/2013 6:46:49 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/13/2013 5:43:31 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/12/2013 8:46:07 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/12/2013 2:16:55 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Agnosticism is the position of the logician.

No it isn't.

Yes it is, dude.

Prove it

Agnosticism doesn't deal with proofs, but lack of proofs.

Lack of proofs meaning you can't come to a conclusion. But logic depends on unproven axioms, which you couldn't use as an agnostic. Agnostics can't be logicians because they can't use logic. Herp.

Do you feel clever now?

No answer? How odd for you.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 10:20:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 2:43:59 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/12/2013 9:02:49 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
It probably didn't. The only good arguments I've seen are arguing against an infinite past. But this doesn't rule out temporally closed models, thus doesn't prove the universe had a beginning. Even the BVG theorem doesn't rule out temporally closed models.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "temporally closed".

Hawking's no boundary proposal is a closed temporal model. Each state in time is preceded by another state, but there is no beginning. Like the earth; you never reach a beginning or end, but the earth is finite.

I don't know if temporally closed is an official term. I read it in one of Robin Le Poidevin"s books where he was explaining it.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 10:22:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 2:48:24 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I would say the presence of entropy. Are you taking a position in this discussion or just hearing people's views?

Entropy only means there can't be infinite time.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2013 12:06:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/13/2013 10:22:05 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 2:48:24 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I would say the presence of entropy. Are you taking a position in this discussion or just hearing people's views?

Entropy only means there can't be infinite time.

Time and space are intricately linked. There is no such thing as time without space, time is the perception of motion. Motion is the active displacement of matter or energy through space.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2013 12:01:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/14/2013 12:06:29 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/13/2013 10:22:05 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 2:48:24 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I would say the presence of entropy. Are you taking a position in this discussion or just hearing people's views?

Entropy only means there can't be infinite time.

Time and space are intricately linked. There is no such thing as time without space, time is the perception of motion. Motion is the active displacement of matter or energy through space.

That assumes Minkowski spacetime, which implies the B theory of time.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2013 3:42:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/14/2013 12:01:08 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 12:06:29 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/13/2013 10:22:05 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 2:48:24 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I would say the presence of entropy. Are you taking a position in this discussion or just hearing people's views?

Entropy only means there can't be infinite time.

Time and space are intricately linked. There is no such thing as time without space, time is the perception of motion. Motion is the active displacement of matter or energy through space.

That assumes Minkowski spacetime, which implies the B theory of time.

Philosophy of time is irrelevant. Einsteinian relativity holds this.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2013 6:20:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/14/2013 12:01:08 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 12:06:29 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/13/2013 10:22:05 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 2:48:24 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I would say the presence of entropy. Are you taking a position in this discussion or just hearing people's views?

Entropy only means there can't be infinite time.

Time and space are intricately linked. There is no such thing as time without space, time is the perception of motion. Motion is the active displacement of matter or energy through space.

That assumes Minkowski spacetime, which implies the B theory of time.

Not necessarily. There is a Bohm-Lorentz model where space and time are connected, yet simultaneity is absolute.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2013 8:32:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/14/2013 3:42:51 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/14/2013 12:01:08 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 12:06:29 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/13/2013 10:22:05 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 2:48:24 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I would say the presence of entropy. Are you taking a position in this discussion or just hearing people's views?

Entropy only means there can't be infinite time.

Time and space are intricately linked. There is no such thing as time without space, time is the perception of motion. Motion is the active displacement of matter or energy through space.

That assumes Minkowski spacetime, which implies the B theory of time.

Philosophy of time is irrelevant. Einsteinian relativity holds this.

The philosophy of time couldn't be more relevant. Under the B theory of time, the universe never begins.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2013 8:36:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/14/2013 6:20:11 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 10/14/2013 12:01:08 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 12:06:29 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/13/2013 10:22:05 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 2:48:24 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I would say the presence of entropy. Are you taking a position in this discussion or just hearing people's views?

Entropy only means there can't be infinite time.

Time and space are intricately linked. There is no such thing as time without space, time is the perception of motion. Motion is the active displacement of matter or energy through space.

That assumes Minkowski spacetime, which implies the B theory of time.

Not necessarily. There is a Bohm-Lorentz model where space and time are connected, yet simultaneity is absolute.

Really? If time is connected with space, it would seem like B theory would still entail.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 12:00:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/14/2013 8:32:16 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 3:42:51 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/14/2013 12:01:08 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 12:06:29 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/13/2013 10:22:05 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 2:48:24 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I would say the presence of entropy. Are you taking a position in this discussion or just hearing people's views?

Entropy only means there can't be infinite time.

Time and space are intricately linked. There is no such thing as time without space, time is the perception of motion. Motion is the active displacement of matter or energy through space.

That assumes Minkowski spacetime, which implies the B theory of time.

Philosophy of time is irrelevant. Einsteinian relativity holds this.

The philosophy of time couldn't be more relevant. Under the B theory of time, the universe never begins.

Its begging the question to assume one or the other. Why believe either? Empirical evidence is the only thing that will get us anywhere. You don't have to believe this nonsense about A and B theories of time since they don't have to be true. Entropy does not necessitate the validity of B theory any more than it does A theory. I choose to disregard both theories.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 11:37:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 12:00:55 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/14/2013 8:32:16 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 3:42:51 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/14/2013 12:01:08 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 12:06:29 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/13/2013 10:22:05 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 2:48:24 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I would say the presence of entropy. Are you taking a position in this discussion or just hearing people's views?

Entropy only means there can't be infinite time.

Time and space are intricately linked. There is no such thing as time without space, time is the perception of motion. Motion is the active displacement of matter or energy through space.

That assumes Minkowski spacetime, which implies the B theory of time.

Philosophy of time is irrelevant. Einsteinian relativity holds this.

The philosophy of time couldn't be more relevant. Under the B theory of time, the universe never begins.

Its begging the question to assume one or the other. Why believe either? Empirical evidence is the only thing that will get us anywhere. You don't have to believe this nonsense about A and B theories of time since they don't have to be true. Entropy does not necessitate the validity of B theory any more than it does A theory. I choose to disregard both theories.

You can't disregard both theories, as one of them has to be true. Either time is tensed, and A-Theory is true, or time is tenseless, and B-Theory is true. There is no third option (law of excluded middle).
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 11:53:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 11:37:21 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/15/2013 12:00:55 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/14/2013 8:32:16 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 3:42:51 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/14/2013 12:01:08 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 12:06:29 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/13/2013 10:22:05 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 2:48:24 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I would say the presence of entropy. Are you taking a position in this discussion or just hearing people's views?

Entropy only means there can't be infinite time.

Time and space are intricately linked. There is no such thing as time without space, time is the perception of motion. Motion is the active displacement of matter or energy through space.

That assumes Minkowski spacetime, which implies the B theory of time.

Philosophy of time is irrelevant. Einsteinian relativity holds this.

The philosophy of time couldn't be more relevant. Under the B theory of time, the universe never begins.

Its begging the question to assume one or the other. Why believe either? Empirical evidence is the only thing that will get us anywhere. You don't have to believe this nonsense about A and B theories of time since they don't have to be true. Entropy does not necessitate the validity of B theory any more than it does A theory. I choose to disregard both theories.

You can't disregard both theories, as one of them has to be true. Either time is tensed, and A-Theory is true, or time is tenseless, and B-Theory is true. There is no third option (law of excluded middle).

Well said!
Personally, if the Universe is infinite then we have a much more interesting reality; I think.
Fingers crossed!
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 1:00:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 12:00:55 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/14/2013 8:32:16 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 3:42:51 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/14/2013 12:01:08 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 12:06:29 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/13/2013 10:22:05 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 2:48:24 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I would say the presence of entropy. Are you taking a position in this discussion or just hearing people's views?

Entropy only means there can't be infinite time.

Time and space are intricately linked. There is no such thing as time without space, time is the perception of motion. Motion is the active displacement of matter or energy through space.

That assumes Minkowski spacetime, which implies the B theory of time.

Philosophy of time is irrelevant. Einsteinian relativity holds this.

The philosophy of time couldn't be more relevant. Under the B theory of time, the universe never begins.

Its begging the question to assume one or the other. Why believe either? Empirical evidence is the only thing that will get us anywhere. You don't have to believe this nonsense about A and B theories of time since they don't have to be true. Entropy does not necessitate the validity of B theory any more than it does A theory. I choose to disregard both theories.

Entropy itself may not validate any theory of time. But the idea that space and time are connected does. Anyway, as RT said, you can't reject both.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 1:42:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think that presumption of A-Theory should be assumed lacking any hard evidence for B-Theory. The reason is that time certainly does seem to flow... We wouldn't measure a man who is 6'2, and be like "well, it may just appear that he is 6'2, but really he is 20 feet tall and it's just an illusion". If it seems that he is 6'2, then we have a right to deem it true that he is 6'2 minus hard evidence to the contrary. It certainly does seem as if time flows, and that temporal becoming is real.

I used to think that the A-Theorist had a burden of proof as well, but I think that the fact that time seems to flow is a valid enough reason to presume A-Theory lacking any hard proof for B-Theory.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 3:07:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 11:37:21 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/15/2013 12:00:55 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/14/2013 8:32:16 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 3:42:51 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/14/2013 12:01:08 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 10/14/2013 12:06:29 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 10/13/2013 10:22:05 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 10/13/2013 2:48:24 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I would say the presence of entropy. Are you taking a position in this discussion or just hearing people's views?

Entropy only means there can't be infinite time.

Time and space are intricately linked. There is no such thing as time without space, time is the perception of motion. Motion is the active displacement of matter or energy through space.

That assumes Minkowski spacetime, which implies the B theory of time.

Philosophy of time is irrelevant. Einsteinian relativity holds this.

The philosophy of time couldn't be more relevant. Under the B theory of time, the universe never begins.

Its begging the question to assume one or the other. Why believe either? Empirical evidence is the only thing that will get us anywhere. You don't have to believe this nonsense about A and B theories of time since they don't have to be true. Entropy does not necessitate the validity of B theory any more than it does A theory. I choose to disregard both theories.

You can't disregard both theories, as one of them has to be true. Either time is tensed, and A-Theory is true, or time is tenseless, and B-Theory is true. There is no third option (law of excluded middle).

This is not the law of excluded middle, this is principle of Bivalence, which states that one or the other must have a truth value. You apply the excluded middle law to everything RT, as if it were the only law in existence.

The third option is that it is unknown, yet would still be one of the other, however, form an epistemological view we have no right to call it one or the other without an empirical case. Such philosophies should not be allowed to tell us anything about our universe, only science is.

I take it that events happen temporally according to our senses to be sequential. However, that doesn't mean I hold to A theory, as I don't really believe that time is something that exists.

I have no real objections to either side, but I do dislike the thought of jumping in the deep end of a philosophical conundrum. So I'll hold that time cannot be considered tensed or tenseless until a definite conclusion can be drawn. Which is never.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 3:14:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't think it would be productive to attempt to find out the answer of the question: "did the universe come into being," By arguing A and B theory of time. Neither is proven.

Instead, we could ask that assuming the Big bang model (which is not proven either) If the universe expanded outwards, then where was it before the expansion started? If it existed before the expansion, then if the big bang is true, the universe did not come into being. If not, then the universe had an absolute start.

But if anyone wants something to discuss, I don't mind talking about the case for A and B theories of time.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...