Intelligent first cause: WHY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE

page: 11
21
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarryTZ

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by honested3
If there was nothing, but something 'popped' into that nothing, then that nothing has become that something.

Good thread, it shows it is more plausible to believe in something that 'popped' into nothing, than it being nothing all along. It shows greater proof for intelligent design than anything else. Look Jiggerj, we sort of agree on something! ; )


LOL I'm claiming there is no such thing as nothing. The somethingness wasn't created. It was always here.


www.newscientist.com...

'Vacuum fluctuations' is just another word for nothingness, wouldn't you agree? So now, even 'somethingsness' is nothingness!


No "Vaumm Fluctuations" is not synonymous with "nothingness". How did you get that idea???

Vacumm fluctuations describes a base state where 'energy/particles' are popping into and out of observable space - it's a mathematical formulation or observation not an emphirical one. This is my simplicist understanding of a complex idea.

In fact here is what the article you referenced actually said:




Matter is built on flaky foundations. Physicists have now confirmed that the apparently substantial stuff is actually no more than fluctuations in the quantum vacuum.



and then goes on to say:




The researchers simulated the frantic activity that goes on inside protons and neutrons. These particles provide almost all the mass of ordinary matter.


Talking matter here - photons & neutrons stuff of the nucleus - not nothingness.

The 'model' is not the 'thing'.

edit on 6-6-2013 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by spy66

I am trying to describe what the infinite space must have been before particles and matter appeared. All you guyes are talking about is a space filled with particles and matter and getting nowhere.

You gyes are talking about a space filled with matter and particles. But dont care much for the space.


It seems the confusion (as I see it) comes about as you seem to be implying that space was originally an absolute vacuum? Yet everything that exists, also came into existence with space itself (though not in the form we see now).

Or are you proposing a completely hypothetical vacuum that exists outside of existence (that we know of)? This is where god usually falls down in these type of debates IMO. He can never be observed inside of existence, was there and continues to dwell in "non existence". In other words, he seems to be a hypothetical construct that is completely consistent with something that doesn't exist and never has. If that's god, I can agree.





Sir Isaac Newton had my line of though when he was alive. This is how he explains it:


“Absolute space, in its own nature, without regard to anything external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses determine by its position to bodies: and which is vulgarly taken for immovable space … Absolute motion is the translation of a body from one absolute place into another: and relative motion, the translation from one relative place into another.”

In other words, Absolute Space is the study of space as an absolute, unmoving reference point for what inertial systems (i.e. planets and other objects) exist within it. Thus, every object has an absolute state of motion relative to absolute space, so that an object must be either in a state of absolute rest, or moving at some absolute speed.





Now take this into consideration:

In the time before the first 10-44 seconds of the Universe, or the Planck Epoch, the laws of physics as we know them break down; the predictions of General Relativity become meaningless as distance scales approach the Planck length at which random quantum mechanical fluctuations dominate.

What this means is that; what ever science you read to day, is from observing from within the time frame of 10-44 seconds after the Big Bang and to present time.

Our existing universe is measured from 10-44 Seconds after The Big Bang and until present expansion.




we have a viable theory of the universe back to about 10-30 seconds. At that time, the currently observable universe was smaller than the smallest dot on your TV screen, and less time had passed than it takes for light to cross that dot."
-George F. Smoot, Winner of the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics



Now........ read what Sir Isaac Newton said again about absolute Space and absolute time.









edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


How is really accepted that all the energy of the universe was in the tiniest possible dot. How does that make any sense? That sounds completely meaningless. Unless the energy of the universe is non physical and non material, and the big bang was the turning on of a program, and the shortest time period after the big bang was the beginning of an algorithm, then that would make at least a little sense.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by KBadger
 


Computer programs are, in themselves, ideas. They have simply been given a medium by which to express themselves to our senses, so that we may be able to efficiently manipulate them in a manner that is communicable to the rest of the world. in that way, we interact with each other through the manipulation of ideas.

But I agree. Just because there is nothing, doesn't mean there can't be something. And really, when we say "nothing", all we're really saying is that we are unable to discern a break in the pattern of nonexistence. That's not saying much, considering our senses are privy to about 2% of the 0.000000000001% of the universe we are familiar with. Not only are we terribly estranged, we're also terribly blind.

We really shouldn't even have an opinion on where the universe comes from. That's like a 2nd grader having an opinion about the economy. It might be interesting, but there's no reason to take it seriously.
edit on 29-5-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


With the way the last few days have been going, I'm starting to second guess myself about when it's appropriate for me to chime in. I think this is germane (Hope So, Anyway).

Your point addresses a conversation I tried to have last year. I got dismissed as too "uneducated" to understand why my premise was too vacuous to merit a true reply, and maybe I am because I still don't understand the other guy's attitude. (granted, he IS a physicist...)

Over the years he has reminded me on a regular basis that my "awe factor" is pathetically low compared to his and that he considers himself to be a skeptic in the classic sense.

His statement that I had a problem with was:
"It is reassuring to know now that the laws of physics hold true throughout the universe."

The universe is a mighty big place. Wouldn't a true skeptic phrase it:
"It is reassuring that the laws of physics apparently hold true throughout the universe."


After all, we can only make observations/measurements/assumptions about a universe perceived through the lens of our local laws of physics. A super-oversimplified version of what I mean would be an ant on a greenhouse floor. How could he be expected to know the sky above the greenhouse was vastly different from what he was able to observe when looking up...

Might be a dumb question, just wonderin'...



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


It is not a paradox. Everything is nothing.


Explain please how it isn't... (seriously)
How can you have one without the other?

What is heat other than the absence of cold?
What is cold other than the absence of heat?

Doesn't it come down to you either have Both to some degree or you have Neither?



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by spy66
 


How is really accepted that all the energy of the universe was in the tiniest possible dot. How does that make any sense? That sounds completely meaningless. Unless the energy of the universe is non physical and non material, and the big bang was the turning on of a program, and the shortest time period after the big bang was the beginning of an algorithm, then that would make at least a little sense.


The energy within Our universe is physical. It is also expanding out wards from a single point. But it is expanding by inflation. That means equally in all directions at the same time. That also makes it impossible to determin where the singularity was formed.
Equal inflation in all directions at the same time and at same speed is only possible if the Space surrounding the singularity is absolute neutral "absolute empty".
If the Space surrounding the singularity was unequal divided With particles and matter "energy". Our universe would not expand equally in all directions at the same time. Like the inflations proves.

Before the big bang, The matter and particles we observe and build our theories on today, were not in existence. What we observe today were formed by the inflation "expansion" through a absolute empty Space.

Before the big bang the matter vi observe to day did not exist, they were formed under the process of inflation "expansion".





edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


So you are saying; There was nothing, then out of nowhere, just for fun, everything appeared, starting expanding after originating and being contained in the tiniest imaginable space (for some illogical reason)?

There is no way that can be explained logically. If you compressed all the matter of earth into its theoretically most compact, dense state, you are saying it would be dimensionless and sizeless. And then you can place 99999999999% more matter into that same (now non existent) dense volume of nothing matter non space, without increasing the 'size/area/energy density" of that dimensionless non existent volume that you put everything?

This theory is illogical.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 



after originating and being contained in the tiniest imaginable space
Actually it wasn't contained in anything.


If you compressed all the matter of earth into its theoretically most compact, dense state, you are saying it would be dimensionless and sizeless.
There was no matter until a while after the inflation began. Nor was there dimension. No time either for that matter.



This theory is illogical.
Somewhat, because early on there really wasn't anything to be logical or not. But mostly it seems that you don't really understand the theory. But that's not unusual. To get a handle on it you need to let go of some ideas about what time and space and matter and energy and the primary forces are. Because they weren't they same then (at the very, very, beginning) as they are now.
edit on 6/7/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Originally posted by Phage



Actually it wasn't contained in anything.


There was the same amount of energy at that point as there is right now, isnt that right? Isnt there a lot of energy right now? How can such a large quantity of something be size less,dimensionless,"uncontained by anything?"

Ok "it" wasnt contained in anything. What was 'it' and where was it? what was it made of, what is it thought its quality to be like?


There was no matter until a while after the inflation began. Nor was there dimension. No time either for that matter.


Matter is energy, all the matter that exists right now must have been equaled/accounted for in energy. Energy is something, never nothing. So all this matter was caused to exist, and its potential to be something and form, came from somewhere and something.

Back to my example though. You are saying all the matter of the universe, was not matter but energy. And this energy takes up no space/volume? Can you hypothetically think of a way to turn all the matter of the earth back into its prior state of non material energy, and how would you get energy that existed in 3-d and was more then one plancks length in area (how much area do you think earths energy could be compressed into an area of space; infinite times less then planck length scale right...because we still have to fit the rest of the universes energy in that volume) to take up 0 dimensions of space. Please describe what that means energy is fundamentally, what it means space is fundamentally, what it means reality is fundamentally?



Somewhat, because early on there really wasn't anything to be logical or not. But mostly it seems that you don't really understand the theory. But that's not unusual. To get a handle on it you need to let go of some ideas about what time and space and matter and energy and the primary forces are. Because they weren't they same then (at the very, very, beginning) as they are now.


Lol, logic is eternal. I mean and use the term in the most basic form, of cause and effect. Things have to occur because things cause those things to occur, this cant not be the case. Even if the universe is a magic illusion computer program essence mystical blah blah, there will always be exact quantities and qualities that 'exist' and play a part of the cause and effects of all other things that exist.
edit on 7-6-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-6-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Lol, logic is eternal. I mean and use the term in the most basic form, of cause and effect. Things have to occur because things cause those things to occur, this cant not be the case.
In the Universe, as it is now, that's true.
At the very beginning of the Universe, not so much. At the very beginning there was no time so there was no causality. That changed pretty quickly once things, including time, started.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
In the Universe, as it is now, that's true.
At the very beginning of the Universe, not so much. At the very beginning there was no time so there was no causality. That changed pretty quickly once things, including time, started.





What evidence do we have that suggests they've changed?
A2D



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 

We know the Universe is expanding.
We know (pretty well) the rate of expansion.
Since it is expanding that means it was smaller than it is now, before now.
Extend that back in time and you end up with a singularity.
Einstein demonstrated that space and time are two properties of the same thing. In that singularity there was no space, therefore there was no time. Without space and time there really are no other physics going on.
There is now space, time, and physics. It's changed.

That is, of course, a gross oversimplification. But it is, in a nutshell, what science says about the beginnings of the Universe.
edit on 6/7/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

Since it is expanding that means it was smaller than it is now, before now.
Extend that back in time and you end up with a singularity.


From our position in the universe it looks like all the galaxies are expanding away from us, giving rise to the idea of reversing them into a singularity. But, if intelligent life exists in a galaxy far far away from us, they would look up into the night sky and see all things moving away from THEM, and they would come to the same conclusion. Only, from their perspective, reversing the expansion would bring these galaxies to a singularity in THAT direction. Right?



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Phage

Since it is expanding that means it was smaller than it is now, before now.
Extend that back in time and you end up with a singularity.


From our position in the universe it looks like all the galaxies are expanding away from us, giving rise to the idea of reversing them into a singularity. But, if intelligent life exists in a galaxy far far away from us, they would look up into the night sky and see all things moving away from THEM, and they would come to the same conclusion. Only, from their perspective, reversing the expansion would bring these galaxies to a singularity in THAT direction. Right?



No.That is the problem With inflation . You wont know where the center of first cause took Place. The reason for that is Our observation point. Our observation point is always from the inside of this inflation. If everything outwards from Our observation point looks Equal in all directions, it wont matter if you are located in a different Galaxy. The Space you see above you would be inflating exactly the same from that postition.

Locating the exact position of first cause is not really that important if you know how Our universe is expanding.

Because the expansion will tell you what the past universe looked like. That is very importand information.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by spy66
 


So you are saying; There was nothing, then out of nowhere, just for fun, everything appeared, starting expanding after originating and being contained in the tiniest imaginable space (for some illogical reason)?

There is no way that can be explained logically. If you compressed all the matter of earth into its theoretically most compact, dense state, you are saying it would be dimensionless and sizeless. And then you can place 99999999999% more matter into that same (now non existent) dense volume of nothing matter non space, without increasing the 'size/area/energy density" of that dimensionless non existent volume that you put everything?

This theory is illogical.
there was nothing,then 2 particles colide creating our universe,logical?obviously nothing can not exist reason being that theres something. If nothing existed then there wouldn't be anything would there? Nothing is impossible because there is something here. Implications for life after death as nothing is impossible so where do we go? Theres no such thing as "nothing"



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





In that singularity there was no space, therefore there was no time. Without space and time there really are no other physics going on.


There must have been time. Because the sigularity musthave been surrounded by a void/Space different than it self "Planck time proves that" and the inflation proves that.

The singularity must have been formed by some form of time/force. A compression time or something like that. Because something formed the singularity. And it must have taken som form of time.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by symptomoftheuniverse

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by spy66
 


So you are saying; There was nothing, then out of nowhere, just for fun, everything appeared, starting expanding after originating and being contained in the tiniest imaginable space (for some illogical reason)?

There is no way that can be explained logically. If you compressed all the matter of earth into its theoretically most compact, dense state, you are saying it would be dimensionless and sizeless. And then you can place 99999999999% more matter into that same (now non existent) dense volume of nothing matter non space, without increasing the 'size/area/energy density" of that dimensionless non existent volume that you put everything?

This theory is illogical.
there was nothing,then 2 particles colide creating our universe,logical?obviously nothing can not exist reason being that theres something. If nothing existed then there wouldn't be anything would there? Nothing is impossible because there is something here. Implications for life after death as nothing is impossible so where do we go? Theres no such thing as "nothing"


It all Depends on how you understand what nothing really is. Nothing can be a Space of just one single void. That means there is nothing else in that Space, but the void of that Space.

Howe such a Space would be able to form the Properties that formed Our universe is hard to tell With Our known physical laws. Because according to Our physical laws this Space would be a absolute constant.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Nothing is impossible. If nothing existed there would not be anything. Are you saying there are different types of nothing?



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 06:03 AM
link   
You must eventually realise that nothing is impossible,that you are a part of everything. Its impossible to be appart from everthing.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by symptomoftheuniverse
reply to post by spy66
 


Nothing is impossible. If nothing existed there would not be anything. Are you saying there are different types of nothing?


Yes.

The matter and particles we observe to day didnt exist before the big bang. Our universe was non existant before the sigularity was formed.

But still there must have been a void of some sort present to form the Properties of Our universe. To us that void would be like nothingness. Because that void, that Space is not made up of the same matter and particles we see in Our universe today. Our universe is a Product of what took Place in the time frame set in motion by a different void of Space.




You must eventually realise that nothing is impossible,that you are a part of everything. Its impossible to be appart from everthing.


I do realise very much that nothing is impossible


Our universe is a Product of something different and something much bigger than what we can study.
If Our universe is a Product of some cause. Than we must be linked physically to that which cased Our existence.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
21
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join