It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Proof that there was a beginning!

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2016 @ 03:06 AM
link   
I'm going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the physical universe has NOT always existed and that there WAS a beginning to it. Follow me closely.

Quiescent-"in a state or period of inactivity or dormancy."

Premise 1: If the physical universe has always existed, then an actual infinite amount of events have taken place because energy is never quiescent.
Premise 2: Actual infinities are impossible.
Conclusion: Therefore, the physical universe has not always existed.

Now, to support my premises. Let's start with Premise 1. Energy(and condensed energy which is matter) is always moving, ALWAYS. The fact of the matter(no pun intended) is modern science has never empirically determined a time when it hasn't been; if you contend that there was a point in time when the physical universe was totally still, you certainly are not basing your conclusion on sound reason and evidence. There is simply no reason to believe that the physical universe has ever been quiescent! www.marxists.org...
washington.osd.wednet.edu...

Now for premise 2: If the physical universe has always existed and has never been quiescent,( see above) then that means that right now the energetic particles in this physical universe have moved, literally, an infinite amount of times. But that is physically impossible! It's impossible because actual infinities are impossible. What do I mean by "actual infinities? I mean this. sites.middlebury.edu...
m.youtube.com...

Thus, with premise 1 and 2 established as sound, we come to the conclusion; a conclusion that follows necessarily from the premises. Now if the physical universe hasn't always existed, then it must have began.

edit on 9-5-2016 by Thetan because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-5-2016 by Thetan because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-5-2016 by Thetan because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-5-2016 by Thetan because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 9 2016 @ 03:26 AM
link   
if I've been drinking, can you say it in a way I'd understand?

Like "This, therefore that"

It'd.. Oh hell I'll just wait 12 hours and read it again...

Oo

arrrgghh you got my head all discombobulated .



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 03:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Thetan

If reality has always existed as finite, then we cannot change anything. if it is finite in this way, then we cant change reality. it means that the painting is final, and we are but strokes of the brush being painted, then we are merely part of the entire composition.

and what if we are. I dont think we are.

I say that because the variables strike us. we dream.

we paint our own reality.

edit on 9-5-2016 by Parafitt because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 05:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Thetan

I agree with premise 1, but premise 2 makes no sense to me. This is mostly because I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to get across with an "Actual Infinity." The link about Aristotle's study states that it is a paradox, but that seems to be because it tries to contain "never-ending sets or “things” within a space that has a beginning and end." That is in fact a paradox, but it does not relate to the other premise. Why is our physical universe or existence a space that has a beginning or end? Can you point to the end of existence for me? And if you could, can you tell me what is beyond that wall of inexistence? Probably not because infinity is infinite in all directions.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 06:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Thetan
I'm going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the physical universe has NOT always existed and that there WAS a beginning to it. Follow me closely.

Quiescent-"in a state or period of inactivity or dormancy."

Premise 1: If the physical universe has always existed, then an actual infinite amount of events have taken place because energy is never quiescent.
Premise 2: Actual infinities are impossible.
Conclusion: Therefore, the physical universe has not always existed.

Now, to support my premises. Let's start with Premise 1. Energy(and condensed energy which is matter) is always moving, ALWAYS. The fact of the matter(no pun intended) is modern science has never empirically determined a time when it hasn't been; if you contend that there was a point in time when the physical universe was totally still, you certainly are not basing your conclusion on sound reason and evidence. There is simply no reason to believe that the physical universe has ever been quiescent! www.marxists.org...
washington.osd.wednet.edu...

Now for premise 2: If the physical universe has always existed and has never been quiescent,( see above) then that means that right now the energetic particles in this physical universe have moved, literally, an infinite amount of times. But that is physically impossible! It's impossible because actual infinities are impossible. What do I mean by "actual infinities? I mean this. sites.middlebury.edu...
m.youtube.com...

Thus, with premise 1 and 2 established as sound, we come to the conclusion; a conclusion that follows necessarily from the premises. Now if the physical universe hasn't always existed, then it must have began.


OK, your reasoning argues for the 'shape' of the universe having a beginning but makes the assumption that the energy (and therefore the matter) of the universe preexisted its current form (i.e: it was not quiescent, suggesting that there was something there to be moving).

Both premise 1 and 2 are similar? Perhaps there are more possibilities than those two?



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 07:15 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Thetan

I disagree with Premise 2: Actual infinities are impossible.

They may be impossible to prove. The geometric context might not
apply here.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Thetan
I'm going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the physical universe has NOT always existed and that there WAS a beginning to it. Follow me closely.


Sure let's do it. I'm hoping this won't be the same presumptive nonsense and illogicality that the majority of these types of threads follow with numerous assumptions, but I'm not getting my hopes up.


Premise 1: If the physical universe has always existed, then an actual infinite amount of events have taken place because energy is never quiescent.


Never? How do you know this?


Premise 2: Actual infinities are impossible.


Another thing that can't be proven.


Conclusion: Therefore, the physical universe has not always existed.


Since both premises are not proven, your conclusion is also not proven.


Now, to support my premises. Let's start with Premise 1. Energy(and condensed energy which is matter) is always moving, ALWAYS.


How do you know this? You would need complete knowledge of the universe to know that energy is ALWAYS moving. You do realize the universe is expanding as we speak. That is why it is moving. How do you know that the singularity wasn't stationary?


The fact of the matter(no pun intended) is modern science has never empirically determined a time when it hasn't been;

That is a silly argument. Modern science has also never empirically determined that the universe had a beginning, so I guess we need to dismiss that claim as well. Appealing to what science hasn't yet discovered is an appeal to ignorance.


if you contend that there was a point in time when the physical universe was totally still, you certainly are not basing your conclusion on sound reason and evidence.


Which also means you are not basing your "energy ALWAYS moves" argument based on sound reason and evidence because we cannot measure ALWAYS.


There is simply no reason to believe that the physical universe has ever been quiescent! www.marxists.org...
washington.osd.wednet.edu...


Who cares? There is no reason NOT to believe either. So what if the singularity was moving. That doesn't mean anything about having a beginning or cause.


Now for premise 2: If the physical universe has always existed and has never been quiescent,( see above) then that means that right now the energetic particles in this physical universe have moved, literally, an infinite amount of times.


Negative. Eternal is not the same concept as infinite. For all we know the singularity was sitting there forever doing nothing until something caused the big bang. There is too much we do not know about the singularity to determine whether it was moving or not or how long it existed.



But that is physically impossible! It's impossible because actual infinities are impossible.


I don't believe the universe is infinite either. I wouldn't say it's completely impossible, because again, there is much we do not know to make assertions about it.


Thus, with premise 1 and 2 established as sound, we come to the conclusion; a conclusion that follows necessarily from the premises. Now if the physical universe hasn't always existed, then it must have began.


Premise 1 is a complete guess. You put the word "always" in the justification, not knowing in the slightest what has ALWAYS happened or not happened. You need to be careful with terms like "always" and "never". Just because science hasn't determined one way or the other yet, doesn't make whatever we observe currently ALWAYS true.

Premise 2 is also a complete guess. We don't know that the universe is infinite or finite or that energy is eternal or not eternal.

Since #1 and 2 are guesses, your conclusion is a complete guess. We do not know that the singularity was the beginning. There very well could have been numerous steps and stages behind it, but according to the physicists all space AND time was created during the expansion. If time didn't exist prior to the expansion, and the energy in the singularity did, then by definition, the energy has to be eternal. More evidence of this is based on the laws of energy conservation. Energy can not be created or destroy, it can only change forms. The reason energy is moving is because of the big bang, so to assume it was moving prior has no basis in reality. There is no property of energy that requires motion.

You have not proven anything, I'm sorry.


edit on 5 9 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   
There wasn't (or isn't) any real "beginning." There is just a point at which everything circles back around. And it's not a universal thing that happens all at the same time, it happens constantly in multiple dimensions. That's what makes the math so hard. Math isn't good at point of view.

See that little point in the center? That's the beginning, and it's happening right now.
edit on 9-5-2016 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Thetan
I'm going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the physical universe has NOT always existed and that there WAS a beginning to it. Follow me closely.

Quiescent-"in a state or period of inactivity or dormancy."

Premise 1: If the physical universe has always existed, then an actual infinite amount of events have taken place because energy is never quiescent.
Premise 2: Actual infinities are impossible.
Conclusion: Therefore, the physical universe has not always existed.

Now, to support my premises. Let's start with Premise 1. Energy(and condensed energy which is matter) is always moving, ALWAYS. The fact of the matter(no pun intended) is modern science has never empirically determined a time when it hasn't been; if you contend that there was a point in time when the physical universe was totally still, you certainly are not basing your conclusion on sound reason and evidence. There is simply no reason to believe that the physical universe has ever been quiescent! www.marxists.org...
washington.osd.wednet.edu...

Now for premise 2: If the physical universe has always existed and has never been quiescent,( see above) then that means that right now the energetic particles in this physical universe have moved, literally, an infinite amount of times. But that is physically impossible! It's impossible because actual infinities are impossible. What do I mean by "actual infinities? I mean this. sites.middlebury.edu...
m.youtube.com...

Thus, with premise 1 and 2 established as sound, we come to the conclusion; a conclusion that follows necessarily from the premises. Now if the physical universe hasn't always existed, then it must have began.


Could you please cite the physics journal that supports your position? Thank you.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Energy doesn't have a beginning and the universe is pure energy on a fundamental level. All mass arises from energy meaning the universe did not have a beginning, it has only changed forms. The universe we see now is only its current form but not the first.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states plainly that there is no such thing as a beginning because everything in the universe is composed of energy.
edit on 5/9/2016 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Climb a pyramid and change your scale proportionately as you reach for the top (representing the start of time). You will never get there.
Infinity.



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 03:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Thetan
Proof that there was a beginning!

I offer the same eye rolling yawn as when some wag comes ranting about 'proving' there's a God!
I already know that it's not possible.


Thus, with premise 1 and 2 established as sound, we come to the conclusion; a conclusion that follows necessarily from the premises. Now if the physical universe hasn't always existed, then it must have began.

Skipping all the internal errors, the most damning error is in your assumption of either 'A' or 'B' when there is an entire spectrum.
That was Aristotle's error, also, among others.
It is an error to assume that "if the physical universe hasn't always existed, then it must have began".
An option to the Universe not having always existed (and I will not specify 'physical' because that is an 'illusion born of Perspective, an error of your argument), and yet not having a 'beginning' ('creation' is not possible'!), of which the vast majority are ignorant (the 'either/ors'), is the following, the ONLY logically and scientifically supportable theory that I know;

Every moment of existence exists Now!

"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once... " - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman
All 'eternity' at once; Here! Now!!

There is only one moment (Planck moment; 10^-43/sec; "almost" one billion trillion trillion trillionths of a second!!!) of the entirety of existence/Reality/the Universe!
All existence, ever, is one, literally, 'timeless' moment!
Now!

A 'moment' is NOT a unit of 'time' but a unit of perception, a 'percept'!
Here! Now!

"Reality is a synchrony of moments!"

A synchrony of unique moments of Self Knowledge, all Here! Now!
All Universal moments already a done deal!
So no 'beginning' not an 'end' for that which does not exist temporarily!
Like looking at a pole from the end and seeing it all as a dot, a 'singularity', rather than some looooong pole.
All the Universe/existence = The One Singularity!

Without 'time' "... a persistent illusion!" - Einstein, there is no 'duration' for the unconditional, non-dual Now!

So your 'proof' fails, on many levels.

Just like all the 'God proofs!'!





edit on 10-5-2016 by namelesss because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 04:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
Could you please cite the physics journal that supports your position? Thank you.

Is it that you do not believe/think that original thought is possible, or that you are incapable and think that we are all so challenged.
Can you not evaluate his logic on it's own merits?
Will you accept it all simply because some magazine/consensus daisy-chain tells you to?
And if something has not been thunk already, it is unworthy of exposure?
I think that your mindless attempt to dismiss based on such flimsy excuse is far from the 'denial of ignorance' that this site promotes.
Did you have a specific question for the OP, or just 'don't like it'?



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join