DannyTR Posted October 14, 2018 Author Share Posted October 14, 2018 2 minutes ago, mistermack said: You need to define start. It's a vague term, that can mean lots of things. But without you defining it, this thread is a joke. When does a loaf of bread "start" ? Making it doesn't start it. It merely brings the ingredients together in a certain form. It is defined in the OP: 1 hour ago, DannyTR said: First, what do I mean by start? To be specific, for things to exist they must have: - Spacial start point(s). For example, a circle you can choose any point as a spacial start point. Yourself you could choose your feet as start points, etc... - A temporal start point. For example, your date of birth was when you started (roughly speaking) 2 minutes ago, mistermack said: I asked you earlier to name something that had a start but you didn't reply. Sorry, a car has a spacial start; the front fender for example. It has a temporal start in the factory when assembly is complete... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 Just now, DannyTR said: It has a temporal start in the factory when assembly is complete... So the car doesn't exist until the final item (lets say the badge) is attached? So a car complete with wheels, engine, seats, doors windows, bodywork etc. is not a car because it doesn't have the badge on the front. I think you have successfully demonstrated how stupid your argument is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyTR Posted October 14, 2018 Author Share Posted October 14, 2018 1 minute ago, Strange said: So the car doesn't exist until the final item (lets say the badge) is attached? So a car complete with wheels, engine, seats, doors windows, bodywork etc. is not a car because it doesn't have the badge on the front Yes, the temporal 'start' of objects is typically a time window (assembly using the car example) rather than a specific moment of time, but that time window still qualifies as a temporal start... -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 ! Moderator Note We better have more than hand-waiving pretty soon, or the door gets shut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, mistermack said: You need to define start. It's a vague term, that can mean lots of things. But without you defining it, this thread is a joke. When does a loaf of bread "start" ? Making it doesn't start it. It merely brings the ingredients together in a certain form. I asked you earlier to name something that had a start but you didn't reply. Like this too. +1 And wave a bit harder on my question too please? Edited October 14, 2018 by studiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistermack Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 1 minute ago, DannyTR said: Sorry, a car has a spacial start; the front fender for example. It has a temporal start in the factory when assembly is complete... The FRONT fender? Why not the rear fender? Or the floor or roof? What's special about the front fender? And like the loaf of bread, the car is just ingredients that hang together for a tiny scrap of time. In other words, it's an EVENT, not a thing. It gives the illusion of being a thing, but it's constantly changing. ( tyre wear, gases in and out, liquids in and out etc etc) So like a loaf of bread, the car is an event involving matter. Of course you can say that an EVENT has a start. But you haven't named a THING that had a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyTR Posted October 14, 2018 Author Share Posted October 14, 2018 2 minutes ago, mistermack said: But you haven't named a THING that had a start Well I guess we have to define 'thing' somehow first. How about a collection of related parts that recognisably function as a whole? Then a car (and a universe) would then qualify as a thing. Whats your definition of a thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistermack Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, DannyTR said: Whats your definition of a thing? Well, your first and presumably most important statement was "Things without a start can't exist.." so you should have had "things" and "start" nailed. Your suggestion " How about a collection of related parts that recognisably function as a whole?" describes an event. Matter comes together in a certain form, for a certain time. That's an event. The Sun is an event. Your car is an event. In five billion years time, your car will be vapour and plasma in an enlarged Sun. It's a "thing" for a time. That's an event. Edited October 14, 2018 by mistermack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 9 minutes ago, DannyTR said: Well I guess we have to define 'thing' somehow first. How about a collection of related parts that recognisably function as a whole? How about the quantum foam from whence we speculate that the BB arose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyTR Posted October 14, 2018 Author Share Posted October 14, 2018 2 minutes ago, mistermack said: Well, your first and presumably most important statement was "Things without a start can't exist.." so you should have had "things" and "start" nailed. Your suggestion " How about a collection of related parts that recognisably function as a whole?" describes an event. Matter comes together in a certain form, for a certain time. That's an event. The Sun is an event. Your car is an event. In five billion years time, your car will be vapour and plasma in an enlarged Sun. It's a "thing" for a time. That's an event. OK, how about a collection of related parts that recognisably function as a whole and exist within a fixed spacial and temporal windows. Sounds like a thing? We could drill right down though; a quark counts as a thing. Without spacial and temporal starts a quark cannot logically exist. 1 minute ago, beecee said: How about the quantum foam from whence we speculate that the BB arose? Well that quantum foam qualifies as a thing IMO. Empty space has vacuum/dark energy associated with it so its a thing. Being a thing, it should have a spacial and temporal start. So the quantum foam/pre-BB-universe cannot have existed forever; it must of had a start. Besides, if the universe really did not have a start, we should be in thermodynamic equilibrium by now, but we are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 1 minute ago, DannyTR said: So the quantum foam/pre-BB-universe cannot have existed forever; it must of had a start. So what was there before that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 Just now, DannyTR said: Well that quantum foam qualifies as a thing IMO. Empty space has vacuum/dark energy associated with it so its a thing. Being a thing, it should have a spacial and temporal start. So the quantum foam/pre-BB-universe cannot have existed forever; it must of had a start. The quantum foam is sometimes seen as close to "nothing" that we can get.....The "nothing" that could be seen as having existed forever. Quote Besides, if the universe really did not have a start, we should be in thermodynamic equilibrium by now, but we are not. The observable universe did have a start, but we are talking about the pre BB quantum foam...How did that start? I speculate that it is "nothing" that certainly has existed forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistermack Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 1 minute ago, DannyTR said: OK, how about a collection of related parts that recognisably function as a whole and exist within a fixed spacial and temporal windows. Sounds like a thing? It's a thing in everyday speech. In reality, it's an event. It's a human illusion, that these events seem to be "things". We set the boundaries, timewise and spacewise, in our heads. It's a bit like saying that a crowd is a "thing". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 6 minutes ago, DannyTR said: Besides, if the universe really did not have a start, we should be in thermodynamic equilibrium by now, but we are not. It was, originally (we know this because it was the same temperature everywhere). But now it is expanding. The most likely end of the universe is a "heat death" (back to thermodynamic equilibrium). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 https://phys.org/news/2014-08-what-is-nothing.html extract: "There are physicists like Lawrence Krauss that argue the "universe from nothing", really meaning "the universe from a potentiality". Which comes down to if you add all the mass and energy in the universe, all the gravitational curvature, everything… it looks like it all sums up to zero. So it is possible that the universe really did come from nothing. And if that's the case, then "nothing" is everything we see around us, and "everything" is nothing". Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2014-08-what-is-nothing.html#jCp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyTR Posted October 14, 2018 Author Share Posted October 14, 2018 3 minutes ago, Strange said: So what was there before that? I don't actually believe in quantum foam as the cause of the big bang. I think instead there was/is a timeless reality which our space-time is contained. Something in the timeless realm created time. The full argument is as follows: Something can’t come from nothing So base reality must have always existed If base reality is permanent it must be timeless (to avoid an actual infinity of time) Also something without a start cannot exist so time must have a start Time was created and exists within this permanent, timeless, base reality So time must be real, permanent and finite 2 minutes ago, beecee said: The quantum foam is sometimes seen as close to "nothing" that we can get.....The "nothing" that could be seen as having existed forever. When discussing 'cant get something from nothing' I have a specific definition of nothing: no energy/matter and no dimensions. So it really is nothing; not even quantum foam and truly nothing can come from it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 (edited) 49 minutes ago, DannyTR said: Yes, the temporal 'start' of objects is typically a time window (assembly using the car example) rather than a specific moment of time, but that time window still qualifies as a temporal start... But this is still pretty meaningless. The part assembled car is within you "time window". As is the paper design and the components in the warehouse(*). And the design and manufacture of the components is all within the start "time window". The mining of the metals used is within the time window. The construction of the mining equipment is within the time window. We can go back all the way through the industrial revolution, the formation of the Earth, the galaxy and on ad on. There is no "start" at all. It is completely arbitrary. (*) Yes, I know they aren't warehoused in JIT environments. Edited October 14, 2018 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 2 minutes ago, mistermack said: It's a thing in everyday speech. In reality, it's an event. It's a human illusion, that these events seem to be "things". We set the boundaries, timewise and spacewise, in our heads. It's a bit like saying that a crowd is a "thing". I don't know if you realise the full power of your fuzzy boundary. It doesn't matter if it is the whole thing or any part of it. Any part is still a thing. And so must be subject (or not) to the same rules as any other thing according to our OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 1 minute ago, DannyTR said: So base reality must have always existed Hang on. You said: Quote Things without a start can't exist... So if "base reality" (whatever that means) always existed then it didn't have a start and therefore it can't exist. You don't seem to know what "logic" means. Quote So time must be real, permanent and finite How can it be permanent and finite. That makes no sense. You might as well say it is both big and small. 3 minutes ago, DannyTR said: The full argument is as follows: Something can’t come from nothing So base reality must have always existed If base reality is permanent it must be timeless (to avoid an actual infinity of time) Also something without a start cannot exist so time must have a start Time was created and exists within this permanent, timeless, base reality So time must be real, permanent and finite This is just a series of assertions with no evidence. It has no place on a science forum. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyTR Posted October 14, 2018 Author Share Posted October 14, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Strange said: But this is still pretty meaningless. The part assembled car is within you "time window". As is the paper design and the components in the warehouse(*). And the design and manufacture of the components is all within the start "time window". The mining of the metals used is within the time window. The construction of the mining equipment is within the time window. We can go back all the way through the industrial revolution, the formation of the Earth, the galaxy and on ad on. There is no "start" at all. It is completely arbitrary. But none of that could exist without a start to the universe; there has to be a start in that great chain else nothing in the chain exists. Anything without a start is undefined. If I ask you to build a universe with a start in space and time what might you say? Maybe with God-like powers I could do it. If I ask you to build a universe without a start in space and time what do you say? 8 minutes ago, Strange said: So if "base reality" (whatever that means) always existed then it didn't have a start and therefore it can't exis Remember base reality is timeless so it does not need a temporal start. It has spacial starts though... 8 minutes ago, Strange said: How can it be permanent and finite. That makes no sense. You might as well say it is both big and small. Well I'm thinking about the universe in the 4D space time way. You have to imagine a static brick, spacial dimensions along the short edge, time dimension along the long edge. This is analogous to a higher dimensional view of our universe. So it is permanent, finite and encapsulates time. This is the way Einstein thought of the universe. Edited October 14, 2018 by DannyTR typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 2 minutes ago, DannyTR said: But none of that could exist without a start to the universe; there has to be a start it that great chain else nothing in the chain exists. Why can't it just keep going back forever? What was before your supposed start? 2 minutes ago, DannyTR said: Anything without a start is undefined. Nonsense. 4 minutes ago, DannyTR said: Well I'm thinking about the universe in the 4D space time way. You have to imagine a static brick, spacial dimensions along the short edge, time dimension along the long edge. There is no reason that some or all of those edges could be unbounded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 17 minutes ago, DannyTR said: When discussing 'cant get something from nothing' I have a specific definition of nothing: no energy/matter and no dimensions. So it really is nothing; not even quantum foam and truly nothing can come from it... Perhaps it is your definition of nothing that needs redetermining. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EilZ4VY5Vs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistermack Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 So when you get rid of the flim flam of the first premise, you end up with the ludicrous argument that "nothing can come from nothing" but GOD can make that same thing happen because he's wonderful. Just say the magic word "GOD" and it can happen. But without the magic word, it can not. No mention of HOW god conjures something from nothing. And no reasons's given why if he can do it, why can't it just happen? If it's possible, it's possible. If it's not possible, it's not. What this argument boils down to, is "it's impossible, but god can do it, and that proves that god did it." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 27 minutes ago, DannyTR said: If base reality is permanent it must be timeless (to avoid an actual infinity of time ! Moderator Note Yeah, that's more hand-wavy, not less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts