I'm not sure you can tell the difference. Think about it for a moment.
Again, think about it for a moment.
Someone composes a song. They do so with their brain/body. Their brain needs glucose/body needs to food to metabolize. So on and so forth. The song is composed of notes. Notes arranged in an order. The notes are conceptualized as a result of sound and considering sound. Sound is the result of audible vibrations through a medium. So on and so forth. It's not that Beethoven's 5th existed in that form ... the components it took to create it already existed in some form. It's an expression of things which are arguably already in existence. Same with the fire, the book, Huck Finn, etc. This is why moving the book from one shelf to another isn't that much different. All you've done is rearrange things and combine them differently to produce a "thing" which we recognize as Beethoven's 5th.
If you are saying that it's completely brand new, ex nihilo for instance ... then you may be talking about a violation in causality. Which would then further defeat the first premise of the KCA yet again. Because what you would have is something never before seen, out of "nothing". We couldn't trace the origin.
Look ... here I'll create something "new". Figgledoobs. Figgledoobs are little yellow, bug eyed reindeer like creatures that are shifty and seek Faygo to drink.
Did I just demonstrate something new that began to exist ? Not really. All I did was put together nonsense words in a pattern, assign meaning using concepts already in existence which I rearranged. I didn't just demonstrate something beginning to exist for the first time, with no known point of origin. All those things already existed, I just made a concept out of them.
I never said it wasn't.
Um, yes it does. Premise 3 says "Therefore the universe had a cause for it's existence."
Don't put words in my mouth. Bad form, shows weakness in your argument.
I would not say the KCA is acceptable because it's not ... the KCA doesn't say, "The universe COULD have had a cause." It says it does. I don't believe that we can say that is a true premise, or conclusion to draw based on the other premises. If you want to say the KCA says something that it doesn't, you are no longer talking about the KCA.
Is it possible the universe had something we would refer to as a "cause" ? Sure. MAYBE. We don't know, is my stance. Does the KCA say it's possible or that it could have ? No. The KCA concludes definitively that it does. I don't agree with that, for all the reasons I've stated along with everyone else.
Stop using the word "attack" also. I didn't attack anything. This is a discussion. Trying to dramatize something isn't necessary either. And if you're going to try and point out part by part of what you think I've done or not ... I'm just not interested in going back through all our discussion to see what you're talking about. Sorry. It's time to wrap it up, I jump out of a convo when it gets circular like this.
I do remember you quoting Hawking out of context and cherry picking his statements, to which I tried to provide the fuller context of what he said, because it's not what you claimed he said. I don't know about all your philosophical arguments and scientific evidence you're alluding to ... I'm sorry but I honestly don't care at this point to even ask you to show what you're talking about. No offense, I'm trying to be polite in how I'm saying, "I'm not interested in watching a dog chase it's tail" lol. Again, no offense ... but I basically see that's what you're doing now. Chasing your tail. I get bored with that, no matter what you say concerning your tail.
Yes I tried to show the fuller context ... beginning of time and space as we currently know it is one thing, origin of the universe is another. Hawking addresses both. You either deliberately are being obtuse on this point to try and bolster your own perspective (which is intellectually dishonest), or you're missing it completely. Either way ... again, the circle dude.
No no no. Appeal to authority, misrepresenting that authority, hasty generalization fallacy, strawmen ... you're just piling them up at this point. Twisting what Hawking may or may not think, may or may not have meant, what he "agrees" with ... come on dude. Bad form all the way around.
I'll say this one more time ... I'm taking the time to respond because I don't want to be a prick (by the way, before when I said, "Without being a prick" .. I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about myself, in that I didn't want to come off being a prick in what I was saying in that sentence lol). ----
What I believe Hawking is saying, is that he acknowledges the universe as we know it (i.e. the known universe, the one we can observe) had a beginning. The Big Bang essentially. It's hard to tell what he thinks specifically about a singularity, because I think if you compare and contrast some of his speeches with the Hartle-Hawking state in and of itself, at some points he seems to indicate the singularity is there but it's just a normal point in time along imaginary time, at other points he seems to suggest the singularity isn't there at all, rather the universe expanded smoothly and was entirely dictated by already known physics in the quantum vacuum. Either way, he acknowledges the 14 billion years ago model, and I THINK he acknowledges that nothing has violated causality since then (although he is also a proponent of the black hole information paradox I believe, and some solutions to that paradox involve causality being violated, so idk and I'm not going to speak for him obviously). From what I gather, if he says time began ... he's talking about time as we currently measure it, going back to the Big Bang event. But I also believe he agrees that both during and before the Planck era ... we don't know exactly what happened, whether or not physics breaks down, causality ceases, etc. Thus, why he has a hypothesis and proposal ... like many others. None of them can conclusively prove them yet. But he's not saying that t=0 is all there is. t=0 to 10−43 sec is a span of TIME that we cannot account for. It is during that time, that for all we know physics as we recognize them do not apply, and causality may not be what we think it is. It's not just at t=0 ... it's also shortly after it. So one need not go back all the way to t=0 to say, "We don't know". We don't even know if causality holds up shortly after. So to say, "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" isn't necessarily true, even after it already was in existence and we acknowledge it existed lol. Get it ? You keep going back to t=0, when it's not even necessary to go back that far. Go back just slightly less, and we still don't know for sure how things started during all that. What Hawking and others do, is look to find an explanation, obviously. Variations in the CBR are just the types of evidence they are looking for, that give rise to the idea of what may have happened at t=0, during the Planck epoch, and BEFORE. It's not just wild hypothesizing, although I don't understand the math of imaginary time. I bring up Hawking, when in reality Hawking's no boundaries is just one proposal of many. I'm not saying he's got the answer, I'm throwing it out there to show yet another possibility, and some of these possibilities have evidence and math to support them and give them more credence.
So Hawking recognizes there is a beginning to the causality we recognize ... but he also recognizes there is a period of the universe, and before, where we can't account for the mechanisms that formed it. Thus, you are misrepresenting him continually when you appeal to him. Part of your misrepresenting and assumptions is because you don't understand the manner in which he uses words you are taking for granted (time/universe/etc). I'm not claiming to know definitively, but I think I can put a reasonable picture together based on the entire context of some of his hypothesis. I think you are grossly misrepresenting him and I'm tired of trying to show this at this point, it seems pointless to do so.
My main objection to the KCA, is again ... I find it's first premise to be faulty. It's stating something definitively that we don't know definitively, and furthermore it's language is vague. It needs to be more specific. P2 is also vague semantically, and may only apply to a certain portion of the universe's history. So to build off P1 and P2 is building off a premise that can't be proven yet. Therefore, to further build off the KCA to extrapolate further ideas is to continue to build on air. It seems you keep trying to pin people into some corner to reveal a bias you are projecting that you're hoping to find ... some people have that bias, some don't. The strength of the KCA rests upon it's premises. There is not agreement that it's premises are correct. I mean, you can easily Google refutations of it even, along with all the comments in this thread.
Okay I tried to take the time and respond, once again, with my stance on this issue ... hopefully you won't be offended if I bug out for the time being
Upvote
0
