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.

 

Sceince cannot explain how Existence "Exists"...or can it?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Who says that the universe can't have existed forever? I'm open to the idea; but I MUST say; our brains are not at all adapted to contemplate the idea of infinity, and we probably will never be able to. We simply don't understand the concept of infinity, existing forever, always being there, and never ending. It's just something our brains can't explain to me, and possibly should not have an explanation at this point in time.




posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Omniscient
Who says that the universe can't have existed forever? I'm open to the idea; but I MUST say; our brains are not at all adapted to contemplate the idea of infinity


I have to disagree, We have and always will contemplate the idea. Its really not that hard to understand, the only trouble is we are ultimately left with a paradox when trying to understand the origins of Existance/The Universe... what came first? God or the Universe/Existance?



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Who says that the universe can't have existed forever?


For you science buffs, the second law of thermodynamics applied to the problem says the universe can't have rationally existed forever.

For you theists out there... well, simple.

Ryan



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   
nothing ever ends there is only change it has been said that this is the key
one need only trace back through the change.

warning: 2 much time spent in this frame of thought can bring insanity
(but that might be a good thing?)

p.s. can anyone think of even one thing that dont change??



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Second law of thermodynamics.
"the entropy of any totally isolated system not at thermal equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value."

Entropy is stated as a measure of the amount of energy in a physical system that cannot be used to do work.

Isolated refers to the concept that it cannot affect outside environments.


The universe in of itself could be referred to as an isolated system. But due to the fact that all matter would have come from the same origin, (and the fact that an equal amount of negative matter and energy exists as there is positive) the system is at thermal equilibrium. Therefore that rule cannot claim that the universe has not existed forever.

Sorry, but none of this states that the universe could not have existed forever. Perhaps you were thinking of another law?

Another key thing to point out is that we are not attempting to claim that matter in the universe existed forever... only that time itself has existed forever. Along that time line many universes could have come and gone (to be accurate one would say that an infinite number of universes could have existed along the timeline).

[edit on 25-4-2006 by johnsky]



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 07:39 AM
link   
no, I wasn't. It's basically a way of science saying that everything happens because something else made it happen, correct? I think we can agree on that general translation into english.


When applied to this problem, you can see that to logically explain every piece of change, you would continue to go back infinately. Well, that leads me to my other part about how transversing time infinately is impossible. I'm not saying it's hard for us to imagine. I'm saying it's impossible to transverse an infinity of time.

Hopefully, you can see what I was chopping away at, even if you don't agree.

Ryan



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   


It's basically a way of science saying that everything happens because something else made it happen, correct?


Problem here is youre generalizing.

Its physics job to study cause and effect. The rest are within full rights to go way beyond.

Im curious though, you seem to imply that science cannot explain the beginning, yet the only answer I've ever heard from a religious person regarding the beginning... or anything for that matter is "god did it".

To me, it sounds like they simply dont want to try to think that deep, and use "god did it" as an excuse.

Luckily though, you are actually thinking into this... though, I think we can agree, both our viewpooints are slightly bias. You being religious, and I being counter-religious.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   
well, I have bias, but I hung that up before I posted. I'm trying hard to avoid bringing religion into it altogether.

I still don't see anything wrong with what I've said to be disagreed with. The truths add together and make a conclusion.

1. Infinities in time cannot be transversed.
2. Therefore, time began somewhere.
3. Something cannot come from absolute nothingness.

Conclusion: A necessary and infinate being has to be present that isn't constrained by our reality and universe.

Here are more notes that are not vital to the argument. The argument stands for itself, these merely support it further.

To aid number one, I showed how infinities can't be used in the physical world, and in addition explained how time cannot be infinate, as we would never have arrived at today.

Number two is virtually a necessary correlary to number one.

Number three is a simple truth. If you try to explain how some 'dark matter' reacted to make the universe, I'll ask, "Where did the dark matter come from?" It may sound childish, but it demonstrates that it is intrinsically impossible to make something from nothing.

I again am not seeing any substance that refutes my arguments. They're solid. No, they don't have 'data' from an experiment backing them up. That's not the nature of my arguments.

Thanks for the good discussion guys.


Ryan



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by FghtinIrshNvrDie
The truths add together and make a conclusion.

1. Infinities in time cannot be transversed.
2. Therefore, time began somewhere.
3. Something cannot come from absolute nothingness.

Conclusion: A necessary and infinate being has to be present that isn't constrained by our reality and universe.

Those aren't "truths," merely assumptions based upon concepts that are poorly defined and limited. However, if you could clarify what you mean by "time," that might help. Also, is your notion of "something" limited only to apparently physical objects, or does it also include thought or intention? That is, if I think of a blue apple, where did that notion trace back to, if not nothingness?



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Exactly



1. Infinities in time cannot be transversed.
2. Therefore, time began somewhere.
3. Something cannot come from absolute nothingness.


This is what we are currently arguing.

If you were to ask me I would have wrote :

1. Infinities in time can be traversed.
2. Time has always existed.
3. Something can come from nothing if the inverse exists to balance it.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
Exactly

This is what we are currently arguing.

If you were to ask me I would have wrote :

1. Infinities in time can be traversed.
2. Time has always existed.
3. Something can come from nothing if the inverse exists to balance it.


1. Infinities in SPACE can be traversed.
2. Time has always existed space hasnt.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   
I'd be willing to consider that as well.

The one thing I will stand firm on is that you CAN get something from nothing... so long as you also draw from nothing the exact inverse of the matter extracted.

[edit on 26-4-2006 by johnsky]



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   

so long as you also draw from nothing the exact inverse of the matter extracted.


It doesn't work. The inverse is something, thereby not making it 'nothing'. I'd have to ask you where that very inverse came from.

Ryan



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Those aren't "truths," merely assumptions based upon concepts that are poorly defined and limited. Also, is your notion of "something" limited only to apparently physical objects, or does it also include thought or intention?


How are they poorly defined and limited..? I'm using the most basic and clear of language I can put together. I don't agree at all that they are not truths. They simply are...

It is limited to that which is tangible. I was trying to avoid the mind/body problem and things similar to it, because it distracts at this point.

In addition, I also have the opinion that if you believe thoughts to be intangible things, you're leaning towards theism, or at least agnosticism.

Ryan


[edit on 4/26/2006 by FghtinIrshNvrDie]



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   

2. Time has always existed space hasnt.


There's nothing rational that would lead me to agree with you on any level. No offence, please, I'm just saying that it's not a given fact to be accepted in discussion.

Ryan

sorry for all of the posts everyone... I had a lot to respond to.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FghtinIrshNvrDie

2. Time has always existed space hasnt.


There's nothing rational that would lead me to agree with you on any level. No offence, please, I'm just saying that it's not a given fact to be accepted in discussion.


My apologies, i should have put more thought into that before posting it.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by FghtinIrshNvrDie

so long as you also draw from nothing the exact inverse of the matter extracted.


It doesn't work. The inverse is something, thereby not making it 'nothing'. I'd have to ask you where that very inverse came from.

Ryan


Of course it works. Inverse may have been the wrong choice of words... I should have said negative value.

Okay, I'll explain this again. You start with nothing, and draw say, 25 tonnes of matter from it... at the same time, drawing 25 tonnes of negative matter.

-25 + 25 = 0

0 = -x + x

Where is the confusion?



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FghtinIrshNvrDie

Those aren't "truths," merely assumptions based upon concepts that are poorly defined and limited. Also, is your notion of "something" limited only to apparently physical objects, or does it also include thought or intention?


How are they poorly defined and limited..? I'm using the most basic and clear of language I can put together. I don't agree at all that they are not truths. They simply are...

It is limited to that which is tangible. I was trying to avoid the mind/body problem and things similar to it, because it distracts at this point.

In addition, I also have the opinion that if you believe thoughts to be intangible things, you're leaning towards theism, or at least agnosticism.

[edit on 4/26/2006 by FghtinIrshNvrDie]


Okay. All youve done so far is restate the opposite of what any atheist or agnostic says (possibly because your prejudice against them, I dont know), and you have yet to provide one single shred of evidence to back your claims up.

All youve done is repeat what you think, without evidence, and then state that what you think is a fact... again without evidence.

Repeating your claims is not evidence.

Claiming your claims are facts, is not evidence.

We will have to hear evidence from your side of the argument, before we can take you seriously.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Okay, I'll explain this again. You start with nothing, and draw say, 25 tonnes of matter from it... at the same time, drawing 25 tonnes of negative matter.

-25 + 25 = 0

0 = -x + x

Where is the confusion?


Other than the purely theoretical, what is this negative matter? In practice I mean, not in generic handwaving arguments and mathematic postulates (as one can construct as many models as one likes, without any having to actually be the one we live in), but in the real observable and verifiable universe.

Aside from that question. Who starts with nothing, and what draws 25 tonnes of matter and 25 tonnes of negative matter? I don't want to anthropomorphise the "who" and the "what", so let me ask.... given your initial state of affairs of "you start with nothing", how can a mechanism arise to allow for the creation of these two sorts of borrowing of mass/energy from the zero state? If there is a mechanism for the spontaneous generation of these balancing events, then the presence of that mechanism means that we do not in fact "start with nothing".

I do hope that I have been clear in what I am asking there....

Cheers.

Rob.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by d60944
Aside from that question. Who starts with nothing, and what draws 25 tonnes of matter and 25 tonnes of negative matter? I don't want to anthropomorphise the "who" and the "what", so let me ask.... given your initial state of affairs of "you start with nothing", how can a mechanism arise to allow for the creation of these two sorts of borrowing of mass/energy from the zero state? If there is a mechanism for the spontaneous generation of these balancing events, then the presence of that mechanism means that we do not in fact "start with nothing".

Rob.


Exactly, thats the paradox that we are left with in the end. Within our 'field of view' we see what we call a sceintific or phylosophical (or whatever you want to call it) explanation, Take the laws of thermodynamics, or mathematics for example- besides who discovered them, who or what created them? and what created it and so on...I agree with everything that you have stated here d60944, because ultimately like i said in my first post nothing on this planet we know of can solve this which would mean that we cannot answear it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join