0 x 0 = 0

[Oneofthediaspora]

It

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

Sorry, don't know what happened there.

It would appear then that the original (ammended) proposition still holds; ie. A thing is either infinite/eternal or else its existence is contingent uppon the existence of something else.

So is the universe infinite/eternal? Any takers?
My argument would be that it isn't for the reasons I have stated.
Truthshift reckons it is for the reasons he stated.

Can anyone put us out of our misery?

 

[nesian]

dude, 0 x 0 = math error, nothing more

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

dude, 0 x 0 = math error, nothing more

Yeah, I've been meaning to ask about that.

What's all this "zero multiplied by zero = zero" nonsense about?

 

[nesian]

idk but 0 ÷ 0 (technically) = math error

 

[Andreusz]

Polycarp_fan believes that atheists believe that the universe was created by nothing out of nothing. He expresses this in the formula 0 x 0 = 0. It has been pointed out to him many many times that atheists do not believe this, and that even if they did believe this, the formula in no way represents the belief, but he continues to repeat the formula. Argumentum ad snarkum.

 

[Chesterton]

I only read "Briefer History of Time" and it wasn't in that.

I'm waiting for the "Briefest History of Time". I'm a busy man.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Warning: long post .

It's not disingenuous in the slightest.
Remember how I started with this?

The original proposition was that eith something is infinite or "caused". Caused is such a crap word and you got a bit fixated on it so I tried to be more accurate and ammended the proposition to "A thing is either infinite or else its existence is contingent on the existence of something else."

Are you saying you now agree with the ammended proposition?

I do not: a thing can be both finite and not have its existence contingent on anything else.
I presume by 'infinite' you mean 'exists forever', or 'there is no time when it does not exist'.

What I agreed with was the following:

• X is everything (i.e., it's a set).
• Y is something (i.e., it's an element in X).
• Therefore, for Y to exist, X must also exist.

The problem I had is that X must exist. It cannot possibly not exist. Thus, the argument is disingenuous: it is only true because the premises are defined in such a way as to yield that result. A more general case (X is the universe, Y is some event in the universe) would not necessarily yield the same result.

The existence of an event in the universe is only contingent on the existence of the universe because we have defined the latter to be "an event in the universe". The event itself could just as happily occur elsewhere (perhaps a particle-antiparticle pair create a miniature universe unto themselves, before annihilating each other).

The point is that not everything requires something else to occur. Radioactivity requires a radioactive particle, but the decay itself is not triggered by anything: it is a wholly probabalistic affair.

This has consequeces for the Kalam argument, which Wikipedia summerises thusly:

"Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig has recently revived the argument and formulates it as follows:

• Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
• Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
• Conclusion 1: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

Craig asserts that the first premise is "relatively uncontroversial". He defines "begins to exist" as "comes into being," and argues that we know from metaphysical intuition that things don't just pop into being uncaused. According to Craig, this establishes premise 1."


Emphasis mine. "Metaphysical intuition"? Please.

That it is correct and I would like some empirical evidence to prove it otherwise.

You will be waiting

The universe had an age t=0 according to what I have read, ie. Stephen Hawkings "Briefer History of Time".

Could you cite chapter and verse? I have copies of his Brief History, Briefer History, and Universe in a Nutshell; I'd like to check.

Maybe only time had a beginning, but can the universe, or anything, be said to exist outside of time?

Does it mean anything to say the universe existed at t= -1s?

Do we have any evidence for this?

No. We have no evidence that a "t=0" moment ever existed.

Given the lack of evidence and also the philosophical problem posed, Occam's Razor would suggest that the likeliest answer is that the universe had a beginning.

Your response?

I disagree with your use of Occam's Razor: positing a beginning is less simply that positing nothing at all. Since we have no evidence whatsoever about the first moments of the Big Bang, it is fallacious to deem it t=0.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

I am at work at the minute and so do not have access to the book, however, I do remember reading a lecture by Stephen Hawking, entitled "The Beginning of Time". It's superb and I can understand about 85% of it so I've no doubt you can fill me in on the missing bits.

Now I'm going to try to post a link (which I'm not so good at).
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

Obviously for the purposes of this little discussion; my favourite part of the lecture is the following:

"All the evidence seems to indicate that the universe has not existed forever, but had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology."

YNWA
Mike.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I am at work at the minute and so do not have access to the book, however, I do remember reading a lecture by Stephen Hawking, entitled "The Beginning of Time". It's superb and I can understand about 85% of it so I've no doubt you can fill me in on the missing bits.

Now I'm going to try to post a link (which I'm not so good at).
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html

A fascinating lecture. Not too far in, he states:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial]"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them."[/FONT]

Hawking defines t=0 as the beginning of the Big Bang. His justification for doing so is that everything before t=0 is of no consequence to us: they may as well be ignored.

Note that this does not mean he believes that time actually began with the Big Bang, but rather that it only makes sense to talk as if it did. That's why we say the universe is ~13.5 billion years old: 13.5 billion years have passed since t=0.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

It's not that everything before t=o is of no consequence but that it is completely unknowable. Which is basically re-iterating what I said about such a time as t= -1s.
It's just nonsense.

Would you agree with Stephen Hawking then in his argument from the only evidence available that the universe had a beginning?

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

I've read it all.

I think Hawkings' main argument can be summed up as follows 0 multiplied by 0 = 0.
He's such a clever chap and good at sums and that.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It's not that everything before t=o is of no consequence but that it is completely unknowable.

He explicitly stated, "[FONT=Verdana, Arial]Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences...". But yes, they are also unknowable.

[/FONT]

Which is basically re-iterating what I said about such a time as t= -1s.
It's just nonsense.

It's not nonsense: t=-1 is the time one unit before t=0. What we call 't=0' is arbitrary.

Would you agree with Stephen Hawking then in his argument from the only evidence available that the universe had a beginning?

No, because that is not what Hawking is saying. At least, not in the sense that you are using the word 'beginning'.

I've read it all.

I think Hawkings' main argument can be summed up as follows 0 multiplied by 0 = 0.
He's such a clever chap and good at sums and that.

I see what you did there .

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

It's not nonsense: t=-1 is the time one unit before t=0. What we call 't=0' is arbitrary.

It is complete nonsense because "before" t=0 there is no such thing as "t". You can't talk about a time unit before t=0 because time does not exist.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

No, because that is not what Hawking is saying. At least, not in the sense that you are using the word 'beginning'.

"All the evidence seems to indicate that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago." - Prof Stephen Hawkings.

OK then, if he's not saying the universe had a beginning there what exactly is he saying?? Is there some secret code that he uis using that I don't know about and that you do?

In what way does his use of the word "beginning" differ from my use of the same word?

Please : if there is anyone else still sad enough to be reading this thread please tell me what you think Hawkings is saying here.

 

[Chesterton]

"All the evidence seems to indicate that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago." - Prof Stephen Hawkings.

OK then, if he's not saying the universe had a beginning there what exactly is he saying?? Is there some secret code that he uis using that I don't know about and that you do?

In what way does his use of the word "beginning" differ from my use of the same word?

Please : if there is anyone else still sad enough to be reading this thread please tell me what you think Hawkings is saying here.

Of course you're right that Hawkings is saying that. Like I said a couple of pages ago, Wiccan is tenacious.

I’m sure he still won’t admit that:

The word “beginning” means “beginning”;

science tries to do useful things; and

that atheistic evolution necessarily implies pantheism.

 

[cantata]

His name is Hawking, not Hawkings.

 

[Belk]

Of course you're right that Hawkings is saying that. Like I said a couple of pages ago, Wiccan is tenacious.

I’m sure he still won’t admit that:

The word “beginning” means “beginning”;

science tries to do useful things; and

that atheistic evolution necessarily implies pantheism.

I think I missed something. How does evolution imply pantheism?

 

[Chesterton]

I think I missed something. How does evolution imply pantheism?

Yes you did miss something; I apologize. The latter two things I mentioned were inside comments to Wiccan (friendly jabs), based on discussions we've had in previous threads.