Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

the universe has always existed

pachomius
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2010 4:22:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
http://vexen.livejournal.com...

You are of the idea that the universe has always existed.

I am asking you whether you also entertain the question whether it is self-operating or being operated by something else.

No, I am not going into the infinite regress of who operates the operator on and on and on.

Because if we grant that the universe is self-operating, then that is it.

If the universe however is operated by something else, then also that is it.

Postulating another operator operating the subsequent operator is just being silly, because it is just being redundant in thinking the same thought again and again, without coming to anything new and contributing to more knowledge.

---------------------------

I would agree if that be your idea that the universe is self-operating.

Still we may ask I believe rationally on the basis of what we know of the universe as composed of a good number of things which are here today and gone forever tomorrow -- for example, extinct species, and even man who was not here previously but now here and can almost definitely be gone tomorrow -- we may and must ask if we be sincerely curious, whether there is in the universe a part that is doing all the programming and operating, i.e., implementing programming, for the whole universe and of course including itself.

Are you aware of that question?

Pachomius
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 8:05:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/15/2010 4:22:51 PM, pachomius wrote:
http://vexen.livejournal.com...

You are of the idea that the universe has always existed.

I am asking you whether you also entertain the question whether it is self-operating or being operated by something else.

No, I am not going into the infinite regress of who operates the operator on and on and on.

Because if we grant that the universe is self-operating, then that is it.

If the universe however is operated by something else, then also that is it.

Postulating another operator operating the subsequent operator is just being silly, because it is just being redundant in thinking the same thought again and again, without coming to anything new and contributing to more knowledge.

---------------------------

I would agree if that be your idea that the universe is self-operating.

Still we may ask I believe rationally on the basis of what we know of the universe as composed of a good number of things which are here today and gone forever tomorrow -- for example, extinct species, and even man who was not here previously but now here and can almost definitely be gone tomorrow -- we may and must ask if we be sincerely curious, whether there is in the universe a part that is doing all the programming and operating, i.e., implementing programming, for the whole universe and of course including itself.


Are you aware of that question?




Pachomius
What question? The only question you posited was "Are you aware of that question?"

As for the Universe operating itself, are you suggesting perpetual motion?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Mattsterpiece1993
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2010 9:48:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I don't think perpetual motion would get anybody of the hook. This would either posit the bounce-contraction model, or some cyclical model of the universe. Not only are all of these very speculative, but they require the absolute beginning that they set out to avoid.

Moreover, current cosmological measurements are in favor of a single-universe that began.

Personally, I feel that the only thing that could logically be beginningless is a personal mind: or God, to dumb it down.
pachomius
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2010 1:59:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/16/2010 8:05:51 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/15/2010 4:22:51 PM, pachomius wrote:
http://vexen.livejournal.com...

You are of the idea that the universe has always existed.

I am asking you whether you also entertain the question whether it is self-operating or being operated by something else.

No, I am not going into the infinite regress of who operates the operator on and on and on.

Because if we grant that the universe is self-operating, then that is it.

If the universe however is operated by something else, then also that is it.

Postulating another operator operating the subsequent operator is just being silly, because it is just being redundant in thinking the same thought again and again, without coming to anything new and contributing to more knowledge.

---------------------------

I would agree if that be your idea that the universe is self-operating.

Still we may ask I believe rationally on the basis of what we know of the universe as composed of a good number of things which are here today and gone forever tomorrow -- for example, extinct species, and even man who was not here previously but now here and can almost definitely be gone tomorrow -- we may and must ask if we be sincerely curious, whether there is in the universe a part that is doing all the programming and operating, i.e., implementing programming, for the whole universe and of course including itself.


Are you aware of that question?




Pachomius
What question? The only question you posited was "Are you aware of that question?"

As for the Universe operating itself, are you suggesting perpetual motion?

I guess you did not get the drift of my OP.

So, let me start again with this question which is also an issue:
Has the universe always existed?

Pachomius
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2010 2:06:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/17/2010 1:59:03 PM, pachomius wrote:

So, let me start again with this question which is also an issue:
Has the universe always existed?

Pachomius

Well... let me put it this way - universes and the matter in them have always existed... as for ours, it's matter and energy have always existed, albeit in different forms than we see them now.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2010 3:08:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/17/2010 2:06:21 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/17/2010 1:59:03 PM, pachomius wrote:

So, let me start again with this question which is also an issue:
Has the universe always existed?

Pachomius

Well... let me put it this way - universes and the matter in them have always existed... as for ours, it's matter and energy have always existed, albeit in different forms than we see them now.

...excuse me? UniverSES? Eternally existent matter and energy? What scientific theory has established this? The only way I could see you justifying this is by appealing to the 1st law of thermodynamics which would assume that the universe is a closed system but then...how do you deal with the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2010 3:15:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/17/2010 9:48:25 AM, Mattsterpiece1993 wrote:
I don't think perpetual motion would get anybody of the hook. This would either posit the bounce-contraction model, or some cyclical model of the universe. Not only are all of these very speculative, but they require the absolute beginning that they set out to avoid.

Really? Why?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2010 3:50:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/17/2010 2:06:21 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/17/2010 1:59:03 PM, pachomius wrote:

So, let me start again with this question which is also an issue:
Has the universe always existed?

Pachomius

Well... let me put it this way - universes and the matter in them have always existed... as for ours, it's matter and energy have always existed, albeit in different forms than we see them now.

Doesn't this present an infinite regress problem?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2010 2:59:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/17/2010 3:50:03 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/17/2010 2:06:21 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/17/2010 1:59:03 PM, pachomius wrote:

So, let me start again with this question which is also an issue:
Has the universe always existed?

Pachomius

Well... let me put it this way - universes and the matter in them have always existed... as for ours, it's matter and energy have always existed, albeit in different forms than we see them now.

Doesn't this present an infinite regress problem?

It presents an infinite regress. Whether that's a problem or not remains to be seen.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2010 3:08:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/15/2010 4:22:51 PM, pachomius wrote:
http://vexen.livejournal.com...

You are of the idea that the universe has always existed.

I am asking you whether you also entertain the question whether it is self-operating or being operated by something else.

No, I am not going into the infinite regress of who operates the operator on and on and on.

Because if we grant that the universe is self-operating, then that is it.

If the universe however is operated by something else, then also that is it.

Postulating another operator operating the subsequent operator is just being silly, because it is just being redundant in thinking the same thought again and again, without coming to anything new and contributing to more knowledge.

---------------------------

I would agree if that be your idea that the universe is self-operating.

Still we may ask I believe rationally on the basis of what we know of the universe as composed of a good number of things which are here today and gone forever tomorrow -- for example, extinct species, and even man who was not here previously but now here and can almost definitely be gone tomorrow -- we may and must ask if we be sincerely curious, whether there is in the universe a part that is doing all the programming and operating, i.e., implementing programming, for the whole universe and of course including itself.


Are you aware of that question?




Pachomius

Modern science disagrees WHOLE heartedly.
The Cross.. the Cross.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2010 11:49:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/18/2010 2:59:03 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 7/17/2010 3:50:03 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/17/2010 2:06:21 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/17/2010 1:59:03 PM, pachomius wrote:

So, let me start again with this question which is also an issue:
Has the universe always existed?

Pachomius

Well... let me put it this way - universes and the matter in them have always existed... as for ours, it's matter and energy have always existed, albeit in different forms than we see them now.

Doesn't this present an infinite regress problem?

It presents an infinite regress. Whether that's a problem or not remains to be seen.

Well, if an infinite number of "days" had to occur before "today," then there would never be a today.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2010 2:43:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/17/2010 2:06:21 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/17/2010 1:59:03 PM, pachomius wrote:

So, let me start again with this question which is also an issue:
Has the universe always existed?

Pachomius

Well... let me put it this way - universes and the matter in them have always existed... as for ours, it's matter and energy have always existed, albeit in different forms than we see them now.

Religious nonsense!
The Cross.. the Cross.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2010 7:05:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/20/2010 2:43:33 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 7/17/2010 2:06:21 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/17/2010 1:59:03 PM, pachomius wrote:

So, let me start again with this question which is also an issue:
Has the universe always existed?

Pachomius

Well... let me put it this way - universes and the matter in them have always existed... as for ours, it's matter and energy have always existed, albeit in different forms than we see them now.

Religious nonsense!

How so?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2010 7:00:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/19/2010 11:49:54 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:

Well, if an infinite number of "days" had to occur before "today," then there would never be a today.

No, it only means it took infinitely long to get to the present day. Many concepts of modern physics cannot be "conceived" but are nonetheless true. Try to imagine the speed of light being a limiting speed, for example. It seems like it would always be possible to go faster, but it's not possible. If the math works, then it is possible.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2010 2:51:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/20/2010 7:05:00 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/20/2010 2:43:33 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 7/17/2010 2:06:21 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/17/2010 1:59:03 PM, pachomius wrote:

So, let me start again with this question which is also an issue:
Has the universe always existed?

Pachomius

Well... let me put it this way - universes and the matter in them have always existed... as for ours, it's matter and energy have always existed, albeit in different forms than we see them now.

Religious nonsense!

How so?

Science CLEARLY points to a beginning; it clearly teaches that 'nothing' exploded..
The Cross.. the Cross.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2010 8:52:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/20/2010 7:00:27 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
No, it only means it took infinitely long to get to the present day.
Hence, today would not be here because an infinite amount of time would have had to occur before today.

Many concepts of modern physics cannot be "conceived" but are nonetheless true. Try to imagine the speed of light being a limiting speed, for example. It seems like it would always be possible to go faster, but it's not possible. If the math works, then it is possible.
I would say that some concepts in physics are difficult if not impossible to envision or picture, so to speak, but not necessarily conceive. However, that's just splitting hairs. That said, I do not think that all things that are mathematically possible necessarily have expression in the physical.

Also, much of this hinges on what is "infinite?" For example, if it means "all" of something (i.e. all of time) then clearly it has not happened because time is still occurring and so "all of it" has not happened yet.

At 7/21/2010 2:51:36 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Science CLEARLY points to a beginning;
Yes.

it clearly teaches that 'nothing' exploded.
No.

You got it 1/2 right. No where in science does it say that "nothing" exploded. The statement doesn't even make sense: it lacks any coherent meaning.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2010 3:35:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/21/2010 8:52:58 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/20/2010 7:00:27 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
No, it only means it took infinitely long to get to the present day.
Hence, today would not be here because an infinite amount of time would have had to occur before today.

Many concepts of modern physics cannot be "conceived" but are nonetheless true. Try to imagine the speed of light being a limiting speed, for example. It seems like it would always be possible to go faster, but it's not possible. If the math works, then it is possible.
I would say that some concepts in physics are difficult if not impossible to envision or picture, so to speak, but not necessarily conceive. However, that's just splitting hairs. That said, I do not think that all things that are mathematically possible necessarily have expression in the physical.

Also, much of this hinges on what is "infinite?" For example, if it means "all" of something (i.e. all of time) then clearly it has not happened because time is still occurring and so "all of it" has not happened yet.

At 7/21/2010 2:51:36 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Science CLEARLY points to a beginning;
Yes.

it clearly teaches that 'nothing' exploded.
No.

You got it 1/2 right. No where in science does it say that "nothing" exploded. The statement doesn't even make sense: it lacks any coherent meaning.

Check out the text-books, THAT'S what your taxes are going to teach kids today:

Luke 17:2
It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.
The Cross.. the Cross.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2010 7:42:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/22/2010 3:35:56 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
You got it 1/2 right. No where in science does it say that "nothing" exploded. The statement doesn't even make sense: it lacks any coherent meaning.

Check out the text-books, THAT'S what your taxes are going to teach kids today:

Humm...let me think about it...no. No science book will teach children or otherwise that nothing exploded. Epic fail.

"Nothing exploded" is a statement of something that didn't happen like if someone asks "did something explode, dude?" To which another could answer: "Naw. Nothing exploded, dude." Other than that, what you wrote makes no sense at all.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2010 2:49:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/22/2010 7:42:38 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/22/2010 3:35:56 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
You got it 1/2 right. No where in science does it say that "nothing" exploded. The statement doesn't even make sense: it lacks any coherent meaning.

Check out the text-books, THAT'S what your taxes are going to teach kids today:

Humm...let me think about it...no. No science book will teach children or otherwise that nothing exploded. Epic fail.

"Nothing exploded" is a statement of something that didn't happen like if someone asks "did something explode, dude?" To which another could answer: "Naw. Nothing exploded, dude." Other than that, what you wrote makes no sense at all.

So, I'll NOT be be able to find a text book the SPECIFICALLY says 'nothing' no?
The Cross.. the Cross.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2010 9:01:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/23/2010 2:49:33 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
So, I'll NOT be be able to find a text book the SPECIFICALLY says 'nothing' no?
It seems that you not be able to do much with a text book because I think that you may have some difficulty with reading comprehension. The reason for this is the absurdity you wrote above which you claim to be a statement originating from me.

The other alternative is that you're trying to be a smart@ss.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2010 9:23:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/21/2010 2:51:36 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 7/20/2010 7:05:00 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/20/2010 2:43:33 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 7/17/2010 2:06:21 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/17/2010 1:59:03 PM, pachomius wrote:

So, let me start again with this question which is also an issue:
Has the universe always existed?

Pachomius

Well... let me put it this way - universes and the matter in them have always existed... as for ours, it's matter and energy have always existed, albeit in different forms than we see them now.

Religious nonsense!

How so?

Science CLEARLY points to a beginning; it clearly teaches that 'nothing' exploded..

Well, this shows how much you know about science. Astrophysics teaches that the matter and energy was all very, very compressed. NOT to a singular point. Imagine a sheet of graph paper where there are points at the places where each of the lines cross. The Big Bang was like all of those points getting farther from every other point.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2010 2:03:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/21/2010 8:52:58 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/20/2010 7:00:27 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
No, it only means it took infinitely long to get to the present day.
Hence, today would not be here because an infinite amount of time would have had to occur before today.

Yes, an infinite amount of time may have passed before today cannot imagine that, but that doesn't prove it isn't true.

Your play on the word "conceived" is irrelevant. In context, "conceived" means "straighforwardly related to everyday experience."

I did not claim that anything math allows necessarily happened. I claimed that if the math works, it might be true. You are arguing strictly that it cannot be true because you cannot imagine it. That's wrong.

There is nothing in the Big Bang Theory that says the universe began at the time of the Big Bang. There might have been matter that collapsed previously or there might have been energy in other dimensions, or whatever. It is possible that the Big Bang was the start of everything, meaning that time itself began at the Big Bang, but that is a separate unproved theory.

My schoolmate Alan Guth wrote a book on what happened in the first 10^-29 seconds of the Big Bang, ""The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins". Good stuff.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2010 2:49:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/23/2010 2:03:37 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Yes, an infinite amount of time may have passed before today cannot imagine that, but that doesn't prove it isn't true.
I never said that the reason it isn't true is because it cannot be imagined.

Furthermore, the statement: "an infinite amount of time may have passed before today" is a contradiction. An infinite amount of time is a never ending process, hence it can never exist strictly in the past so it cannot "have passed."

Your play on the word "conceived" is irrelevant. In context, "conceived" means "straighforwardly related to everyday experience."
I did correct myself and said: "However, that's just splitting hairs."

I did not claim that anything math allows necessarily happened. I claimed that if the math works, it might be true.
OK. I claimed that just because the math works doesn't necessarily mean that there HAS to exist a physical expression of it.

You are arguing strictly that it cannot be true because you cannot imagine it.
Again, I never said that. Why do you keep saying this?

There is nothing in the Big Bang Theory that says the universe began at the time of the Big Bang.
There's also nothing that says it didn't.

There might have been matter that collapsed previously or there might have been energy in other dimensions, or whatever.
There is no "previously" before t = 0. Other dimensions are part of the Universe.

It is possible that the Big Bang was the start of everything, meaning that time itself began at the Big Bang, but that is a separate unproved theory.
Separate? Unproved?

My schoolmate Alan Guth wrote a book on what happened in the first 10^-29 seconds of the Big Bang, ""The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins". Good stuff.
Seen him on the telly. Smart guy.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2010 3:39:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/23/2010 2:49:45 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/23/2010 2:03:37 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Yes, an infinite amount of time may have passed before today cannot imagine that, but that doesn't prove it isn't true.
I never said that the reason it isn't true is because it cannot be imagined.

Furthermore, the statement: "an infinite amount of time may have passed before today" is a contradiction. An infinite amount of time is a never ending process, hence it can never exist strictly in the past so it cannot "have passed."

Do you agree that it is mathematically possible for time to extend infinitely backwards? If not, what is the mathematical contradiction? No scientist, to my knowledge, has ever offered such an objection. Do you have any support for the idea in the scientific community? The Steady State theory was at one time the consensus theory, and that requires an infinite past. No one saw that as a problem with the theory.

You do not understand the concept of infinity. You keep claiming that a infinite amount of time could not have passed, but there is no basis or that assertion beyond your belief that it could not be true. There are the same number of points in [-infinity, 0], [0,1], [1, infinity], and [-infinity, infinity]. That's not intuitive, but it is mathematically correct; all are the same order of infinity. There are also the same number of points within a unit square area as on the line between zero and one. Again, same infinity. There is no contradiction at all between having an infinite past and also an infinite future.

You are just making stuff up based up your intuition of how things ought to be to fit your idea of what makes sense. Wrong. You should read a math book that covers the subject.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2010 3:52:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/23/2010 3:39:17 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Do you agree that it is mathematically possible for time to extend infinitely backwards?
Yes mathematically possible but physically impossible.

If not, what is the mathematical contradiction?
None.

No scientist, to my knowledge, has ever offered such an objection. Do you have any support for the idea in the scientific community? The Steady State theory was at one time the consensus theory, and that requires an infinite past. No one saw that as a problem with the theory.
Just like I have stated before: infinite time would be a never ending process and so could never be just in the past.

You do not understand the concept of infinity.
I think I do. If you think I am in error, can you please explain it to me then?

You keep claiming that a infinite amount of time could not have passed, but there is no basis or that assertion beyond your belief that it could not be true. There are the same number of points in [-infinity, 0], [0,1], [1, infinity], and [-infinity, infinity]. That's not intuitive, but it is mathematically correct; all are the same order of infinity.
Sure, that's mathematically so but not NECESSARILY physically so.

There are also the same number of points within a unit square area as on the line between zero and one. Again, same infinity. There is no contradiction at all between having an infinite past and also an infinite future.
All fine mathematical ABSTRACTIONS but not necessarily physically so.

You are just making stuff up based up your intuition of how things ought to be to fit your idea of what makes sense. Wrong.
Based on observation.

You should read a math book that covers the subject.
I guess you are saying that everything in math has a physical expression. I profoundly disagree.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2010 10:16:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/23/2010 3:52:31 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/23/2010 3:39:17 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Do you agree that it is mathematically possible for time to extend infinitely backwards?
Yes mathematically possible but physically impossible.
....
I guess you are saying that everything in math has a physical expression. I profoundly disagree.

The topic is whether it is possible for the universe to have existed forever. Anything that does not pose a mathematical contradiction is possible, so therefore it is possible. It being possible does mean it happened. It is also possible that the universe started at the time of the Big Bang, and there are other possible theories.

You have been trying to rule out the *possibility* of an infinitely old universe based upon your erroneous concepts of infinity. You keep saying the universe cannot be infinitely old because it is still ongoing. That is simply wrong. No scientist or mathematician has to my knowledge ever supported your claim, and to the contrary the infinitely-old-universe Steady State theory was the dominant theory until a few decades ago.

Whether or not the universe is infinitely old is yet to be determined, and if the answer is ever found it will have to be based on a broader theory supported by evidence. For now, it suffices that the possibility cannot be ruled out.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2010 10:32:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/23/2010 10:16:07 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The topic is whether it is possible for the universe to have existed forever.
It may have existed timelessly, I suppose. But that means that time did not go back infinitely.

Anything that does not pose a mathematical contradiction is possible, so therefore it is possible.
Again, possible mathematically but not NECESSARILY actualized. Math is an ABSTRACTION of reality, albeit a good and very accurate abstraction. So if infinite time is a NEVER ending process how could it ever take place strictly in the past?

It being possible doesn't mean it happened. It is also possible that the universe started at the time of the Big Bang, and there are other possible theories.
Like I said, I agreed that it is mathematically possible. I think that you meant that it "doesn't" mean it happened (bolded your quote.) I agree.

You have been trying to rule out the *possibility* of an infinitely old universe based upon your erroneous concepts of infinity.
How is my concept of infinity erroneous? You gave me examples of number lines which are perfectly great mathematical ABSTRACTIONS but not real physical things.

You keep saying the universe cannot be infinitely old because it is still ongoing. That is simply wrong.
How so?

No scientist or mathematician has to my knowledge ever supported your claim, and to the contrary the infinitely-old-universe Steady State theory was the dominant theory until a few decades ago.
Oh, so it's not that you KNOW why I am wrong, it's that you have FAITH in the scientists that you claim do not agree with my position.

Whether or not the universe is infinitely old is yet to be determined, and if the answer is ever found it will have to be based on a broader theory supported by evidence. For now, it suffices that the possibility cannot be ruled out.
Evidence. I like that word.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2010 2:15:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/23/2010 10:16:07 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

You have been trying to rule out the *possibility* of an infinitely old universe based upon your erroneous concepts of infinity. You keep saying the universe cannot be infinitely old because it is still ongoing.

No, he isn't. What he's saying is that if the universe is infinitely old we would have never reached today (assuming the A-theory of time). It maybe logically possible for the universe to infinitley old but it doesn't seem metaphysically possible or even nomologically possible.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 7:28:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/23/2010 9:23:01 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/21/2010 2:51:36 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 7/20/2010 7:05:00 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/20/2010 2:43:33 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 7/17/2010 2:06:21 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/17/2010 1:59:03 PM, pachomius wrote:

So, let me start again with this question which is also an issue:
Has the universe always existed?

Pachomius

Well... let me put it this way - universes and the matter in them have always existed... as for ours, it's matter and energy have always existed, albeit in different forms than we see them now.

Religious nonsense!

How so?

Science CLEARLY points to a beginning; it clearly teaches that 'nothing' exploded..

Well, this shows how much you know about science. Astrophysics teaches that the matter and energy was all very, very compressed. NOT to a singular point. Imagine a sheet of graph paper where there are points at the places where each of the lines cross. The Big Bang was like all of those points getting farther from every other point.

So you believe that matter IS eternal?
The Cross.. the Cross.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 8:07:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 7:28:59 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
So you believe that matter IS eternal?
That is a very good question! I would say that it depends how one defines "eternal". If by eternal you mean the whole of time, then YES: matter/energy are eternal. If you allow eternal to also represent what is outside the range of spacetime, then the answer is no...or at least not in a form or way that we could understand matter/energy.

Why?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.