How did everything really begin?

[PeterJ]

Of course, if we say that metaphysics is a science, as I would, then there is a scientific answer to the question. But most physicists seem to think that metaphysics has nothing to do with science, so my remark was correct in its context.

[born]

Of course, if we say that metaphysics is a science, as I would, then there is a scientific answer to the question. But most physicists seem to think that metaphysics has nothing to do with science, so my remark was correct in its context.

the smileys weere also directed tof what was written after them but just not quoted according to my choice. The objective reader knows that (or not?). No things have to be moved in order to change or get changed. Philo is good so keep it there (even if you thing it makes personal sense to you to have more of a say which is again no more than speculation anyway) because it is not aggressive and non violent.

[Alan McDougall]

Of course, if we say that metaphysics is a science, as I would, then there is a scientific answer to the question. But most physicists seem to think that metaphysics has nothing to do with science, so my remark was correct in its context.

 

I admit I was a bit fickle and "just wanted to have some fun" but

some people got all serious and hot under the collar, so I will try to keep it

more serious as follows:

 

What has always bothered me, in the supposed infinite mass and

gravity of the singularity from which the universe emerged (Exploded if you

like) according to known physics, it was impossible for the universe to emerge

and form, because time, did/could not exist and should have been static (Forever an oxymoron

I admit)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Popcorn Sutton]

My current prediction would be this. Two singularities collide producing one observable unit. Every collision of the singularities should produce 1. My current opinion is that time is produced at a location in space (probably a black hole), which would explain why all things with observable mass gravitate near a singularity. It's either time given a unit, or a unit given time. But there could be an equilibrium between the two.

[pwagen]

What has always bothered me, in the supposed infinite mass and

gravity of the singularity from which the universe emerged (Exploded if you

like)

You're not there yet. Can you explain how there can have been either mass or gravity if neither the strong or weak interaction nor gravity was separated from the electromagnetism?

according to known physics, it was impossible for the universe to emerge

and form, because time, did/could not exist and should have been static

Citation, please. Edited May 27, 2013 by pwagen

[SamBridge]

First, this is not programming

So? No one but you ever suggested it was.

 

 

so the language used (mathematically perverted highschool English?) is not appropriate. Not for this discussion.

Mathematics and logic isn't appropriate language? I must be in the wrong website, I thought this was a science forum.

 

 

There is no constant rate of anything

I drive a car at 35 miles per hour for 3 minutes. Constant rate. Definition of constant rate is that the velocity or change in the dependent variable divided by the change in the independent variable is the same number, which there are plenty of examples of for more than just speed.

 

 

Apply just this claim as an experiment and you will finally find your limits (personally first and universally later - there is no difference).

I estimate that if I walk 5 miles per hour for one hour that I will walk 5 miles in one hour................looks like it checks out.

 

 

But then you cannot really experiment because you don't know both - where you came from and where you are going to.

You can use an experiment on any physical thing you observe using any of your 5 senses, even more with specialized instruments.

[PeterJ]

the smileys weere also directed tof what was written after them but just not quoted according to my choice. The objective reader knows that (or not?). No things have to be moved in order to change or get changed. Philo is good so keep it there (even if you thing it makes personal sense to you to have more of a say which is again no more than speculation anyway) because it is not aggressive and non violent.

I'm sorry, born, but I can't make head or tail of this.

 

I admit I was a bit fickle and "just wanted to have some fun" but

some people got all serious and hot under the collar, so I will try to keep it

more serious as follows:

 

What has always bothered me, in the supposed infinite mass and

gravity of the singularity from which the universe emerged (Exploded if you

like) according to known physics, it was impossible for the universe to emerge

and form, because time, did/could not exist and should have been static (Forever an oxymoron

I admit)

 

Hi Alan. I should hope it does bother you. It is a view that makes no sense at all. If it didn't bother you then you would not be thinking rationally.

 

I can only continue to inists that it would be a mistake to think that physics is ever going to have anything sensible to say about this. It is beyond the remit of physics. This has been the case since the day we decided to draw a distinction between physics and metaphysics. We do not have to make this distinction but we do. This is why this disussion is filed under 'philosophy'.

 

The problem can be solved. All metaphysical problems can be solved. But not in physics. Physics deals with the contingent world, not with absolutes, fundamentals, ultimates, beginnings or endings.

 

You assume that the problem here is that a substantial world comes into existence from nothing. This is the 'Something-Nothing' problem. Given your assumption, the problem is clearly intractable. Nobody has ever solved it. Physicist Paul Davies does not solve it in his book all about it, in which he argues that physics will never solve it. Clearly, for a solution you would have to drop your assumption.

 

What do you mean by ';substantial'? Or by 'existence'?. What is the difference between 'Something' and 'Nothing'? What is mass? What could 'infinte mass' mean?

 

These are the kinds of questions you would have to ask if you want to find a solution. To refuse to ask these questions because thay are beyond physics is a good strategy for not having to think about them, but irrational if we want to know the answers. The problem is very simple and so is the solution. The solution is given in a thousand books, and even in an essay by me. It astonishes me that scientists have not yet cottoned on to it, now that it's also all over the internet. Davies very nearly does in his book, but not quite. I think it's because of the sort of attitude seen so often here, whereby metaphysics is dismissed as nonsense. So all sorts of logically absurd theories are allowed to survive, and there's no way to sort the wheat from the chaff. Not what I'd call a scientific or even a rational approach. .

.

[born]

So? No one but you ever suggested it was.

 

 

Mathematics and logic isn't appropriate language? I must be in the wrong website, I thought this was a science forum.

 

 

I drive a car at 35 miles per hour for 3 minutes. Constant rate. Definition of constant rate is that the velocity or change in the dependent variable divided by the change in the independent variable is the same number, which there are plenty of examples of for more than just speed.

 

 

I estimate that if I walk 5 miles per hour for one hour that I will walk 5 miles in one hour................looks like it checks out.

 

 

You can use an experiment on any physical thing you observe using any of your 5 senses, even more with specialized instruments.

lol - you shoot yourself in the knee with every reply. Wonder how you gonna walk 5 miles at all. Well could be done as all you are doing is not leaving the room you are trapped in, still moving around though(in circles and not constantly).

No need to continue discussing this with you. Again I don't provoke and if you feel I do then I am apologize for miscommunication.

[Moontanman]

I'm sorry, born, but I can't make head or tail of this.

 

 

Hi Alan. I should hope it does bother you. It is a view that makes no sense at all. If it didn't bother you then you would not be thinking rationally.

 

I can only continue to inists that it would be a mistake to think that physics is ever going to have anything sensible to say about this. It is beyond the remit of physics. This has been the case since the day we decided to draw a distinction between physics and metaphysics. We do not have to make this distinction but we do. This is why this disussion is filed under 'philosophy'.

 

The problem can be solved. All metaphysical problems can be solved. But not in physics. Physics deals with the contingent world, not with absolutes, fundamentals, ultimates, beginnings or endings.

 

You assume that the problem here is that a substantial world comes into existence from nothing. This is the 'Something-Nothing' problem. Given your assumption, the problem is clearly intractable. Nobody has ever solved it. Physicist Paul Davies does not solve it in his book all about it, in which he argues that physics will never solve it. Clearly, for a solution you would have to drop your assumption.

 

What do you mean by ';substantial'? Or by 'existence'?. What is the difference between 'Something' and 'Nothing'? What is mass? What could 'infinte mass' mean?

 

These are the kinds of questions you would have to ask if you want to find a solution. To refuse to ask these questions because thay are beyond physics is a good strategy for not having to think about them, but irrational if we want to know the answers. The problem is very simple and so is the solution. The solution is given in a thousand books, and even in an essay by me. It astonishes me that scientists have not yet cottoned on to it, now that it's also all over the internet. Davies very nearly does in his book, but not quite. I think it's because of the sort of attitude seen so often here, whereby metaphysics is dismissed as nonsense. So all sorts of logically absurd theories are allowed to survive, and there's no way to sort the wheat from the chaff. Not what I'd call a scientific or even a rational approach. .

.

 

 

Horsefeathers, what has metaphysics done for anyone? At one time lightning was considered metaphysical, now we know what it is and what causes it. God's wrath has turned out to be static electricity. Metaphysics is nothing but blind speculation about things unknown and attributing them to supernatural causes, that didn't work with disease or lightning nor will it work with the beginning of the universe, you can't fill the gaps of human knowledge with just whatever nonsense you want...

 

Instead of making claims about theories that are absurd how about naming a few so we can debate them, simply claiming they exist has no more weight that claiming leprechauns exist...

[SamBridge]

lol - you shoot yourself in the knee with every reply. Wonder how you gonna walk 5 miles at all. Well could be done as all you are doing is not leaving the room you are trapped in, still moving around though(in circles and not constantly).

No need to continue discussing this with you. Again I don't provoke and if you feel I do then I am apologize for miscommunication.

Those bullets were not misfired, as you have not been able to provide any evidence for even one of your arguments. All you have done is gone on ranting about some mystical interconnected-ness without any physical evidence and state mathematics is wrong.

Edited May 28, 2013 by SamBridge

[born]

Those bullets were not misfired, as you have not been able to provide any evidence for even one of your arguments. All you have done is gone on ranting about some mystical interconnected-ness without any physical evidence and state mathematics is wrong.

just read again and again and then again and again or not. I have scratched other fields that's true but still playing philosophical rules. Hug the next mirror you can see and measure how long and high your nose points.

[pwagen]

 

just read again and again and then again and again or not. I have scratched other fields that's true but still playing philosophical rules. Hug the next mirror you can see and measure how long and high your nose points.

You stopped making sense a long time ago. If we could make this back into an at least semi-scientific discussion instead of an exercise in linguistic twisting, that would be super.

[born]

You stopped making sense a long time ago. If we could make this back into an at least semi-scientific discussion instead of an exercise in linguistic twisting, that would be super.

language is a bridge and you don't know about sense and time. Semi-scientific hmmm, ok. What's your most important question?

[SamBridge]

What's your most important question?

Do you have any evidence to support your claims are not random incoherent rantings?

[PeterJ]

Horsefeathers, what has metaphysics done for anyone? At one time lightning was considered metaphysical, now we know what it is and what causes it. God's wrath has turned out to be static electricity. Metaphysics is nothing but blind speculation about things unknown and attributing them to supernatural causes, that didn't work with disease or lightning nor will it work with the beginning of the universe, you can't fill the gaps of human knowledge with just whatever nonsense you want...

 

Instead of making claims about theories that are absurd how about naming a few so we can debate them, simply claiming they exist has no more weight that claiming leprechauns exist...

 

Well, metaphysics has shown that all positive metaphysical positions are logically absurd. Physicists are very like metaphysicians in that they usually consider it sensible to reject ideas that are logically absurd. But of course you are free not to do so, and can just ignore the results of reason.

 

Name a few theories that are absurd? Okay. All positive metaphysical positions. Or, in the terminology of Kant, all selective theories about the universe as a whole. They are all known to be absurd. Well, they are if we study metaphysics. Russell, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Bradley, Nagarjuna, Schopenhauer, Heidegger and a thousand other philosophers, they all reach the same inevitable conclusion. I'll debate any of these theories as you wish, but it's easier just to dismiss them all at once. Theism, materialism, idealism, solipsism, substantialism, externalism, eternalism, dualism, monism, take your pick. Or we could select the theory that time or the universe had a beginning. .

Edited May 28, 2013 by PeterJ

[born]

Do you have any evidence to support your claims are not random incoherent rantings?

I have 2:

1 for you: The ultimate key to everything = Reflection. You can nag on this while still treating it as a rant or you can take the effort and translate it's meaning into your most favorite language (might be maths but probably not)

 

Disclaimer:

everything=everything-1

 

Now this is getting boring to me causing a similar feeling than I had before bumping into this website.

Are there some psychologists that are willed to serve breakfast?

[pwagen]

 

 

Do you have any evidence to support your claims are not random incoherent rantings?

I have 2:

1 for you: The ultimate key to everything = Reflection. You can nag on this while still treating it as a rant or you can take the effort and translate it's meaning into your most favorite language (might be maths but probably not)

 

Disclaimer:

everything=everything-1

 

Now this is getting boring to me causing a similar feeling than I had before bumping into this website.

Are there some psychologists that are willed to serve breakfast?

 

 

So the answer is 'no'? At least it would have been faster to type down, as well as provided a lot more. Edited May 28, 2013 by pwagen

[born]

So the answer is 'no'? At least it would have been faster to type down, as well as provided a lot more.

the faster it gets the slower you think. Didn't even ask a question by yourself, did you? And then the answer is no (your word)

 

I actually also have a question:

Why am I Quark now?

[Ophiolite]

Here is a friendly heads up for you born. I have reported your posts in this thread for failure to properly answer questions or address requests. The persistent passive-aggressive character of your replies marks you as a a troll or someone with serious challenges in their life. I recommend you undergo a transformation in posting style. If you are as smart as you pretend to be it should not be too difficult.

 

I just noted that you are new to the forum - a newborn, in fact. Perhaps you are new to forums generally. If so, I repeat, the style you are using here will not cut it.

 

The fascinating thing about advice is that you can ignore it, or accept it. Freedom is a remarkable thing.

[born]

Here is a friendly heads up for you born. I have reported your posts in this thread for failure to properly answer questions or address requests. The persistent passive-aggressive character of your replies marks you as a a troll or someone with serious challenges in their life. I recommend you undergo a transformation in posting style. If you are as smart as you pretend to be it should not be too difficult.

 

I just noted that you are new to the forum - a newborn, in fact. Perhaps you are new to forums generally. If so, I repeat, the style you are using here will not cut it.

 

The fascinating thing about advice is that you can ignore it, or accept it. Freedom is a remarkable thing.

Noted what you said. Whatever your motivation for this post was I will change it to as well passive-aggressive because that is what it is now. Your are not both - judge and entitled to interfere in what I speak.

Now you might be equipped with tools to kick me out of here by reporting and warning and whatever else you have in mind to do if you are incapable to accept the principle of free mind and free speech.

I will continue speaking, acting and living - here or not makes no difference.

[SamBridge]

You can nag on this while still treating it as a rant

That's what I'll do.

[born]

That's what I'll do.

I don't think so

[swansont]

the faster it gets the slower you think. Didn't even ask a question by yourself, did you? And then the answer is no (your word)

!

Moderator Note

OK, let's knock off the personal slights and get back to discussing the subject at hand.

 

That applies to EVERYONE.

 

No more remarks like "you clearly don't know what you are talking about" or "You clearly did not pass high-school English."

 

Make your point, back it up with something. If you disagree, state your case and back it up with something. If someone asks a legitimate question of you, make a sincere attempt to respond.

 

 

I actually also have a question:

Why am I Quark now?

 

User titles depend on how many posts you have.

[born]

!

Moderator Note

OK, let's knock off the personal slights and get back to discussing the subject at hand.

 

That applies to EVERYONE.

 

No more remarks like "you clearly don't know what you are talking about" or "You clearly did not pass high-school English."

 

Make your point, back it up with something. If you disagree, state your case and back it up with something. If someone asks a legitimate question of you, make a sincere attempt to respond.

 

 

 

User titles depend on how many posts you have.

Alright I respect your reminder in order to remain here for a while. If I lose respect I will rebalance that outside of this forum and it's community. A compromise that I am willed committing to. Sir

[Alan McDougall]

My current prediction would be this. Two singularities collide producing one observable unit. Every collision of the singularities should produce 1. My current opinion is that time is produced at a location in space (probably a black hole), which would explain why all things with observable mass gravitate near a singularity. It's either time given a unit, or a unit given time. But there could be an equilibrium between the two.

 

Really!

 

In my very limited understanding, the great answer of why there is something(existence) and not a total absence of everything (Nothingness,no vacuum viod,no space,no time,no forces, no matter, no energy, absolute nothing) will NEVER be answered by the scientific community. I thus,agree that this debate belongs in the philosophical forum, where it is.

 

A more precise definition of nothing. Nothing is a state that is the simplest of all conceivable states. It has no mass, no energy, no space, no time, no spin, no bosons, no quarks, no superstrings, no zero point energy and no fermions-nothing.

 

I believe any attempt to scientfically answer how exactly everything began is absurd, and

irrational. In short, the only logical explanation for existence is that a being ( God?) created all existence or is existence itself

 

I think we might be nothing more than a just tiny thought in the mind of this infinite, all powerful, eternal,

omnicient entity.

 

 

Alright I respect your reminder in order to remain here for a while. If I lose respect I will rebalance that outside of this forum and it's community. A compromise that I am willed committing to. Sir

 

Try not to be so touchy, we can all benefit from a little correction at times

Edited May 29, 2013 by Alan McDougall