What about the possibility that energy/matter has always existed? Why does there always have to be a start to everything except for your explanation?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What about the possibility that energy/matter has always existed? Why does there always have to be a start to everything except for your explanation?The alternative is to believe in spontaneous generation and perpetual motion machines.
Here is a model of the universeWhat about the possibility that energy/matter has always existed? Why does there always have to be a start to everything except for your explanation?
Here is a model of the universe
On the Face of the Deep: Eternal Infinite
1) All matter and energy was compressed into a very tiny ball ball of matter and energy (singularity)
2) The singularity "exploded" into the universe" It is still a "singularity, just bigger.
3) For a time, after that "big bang" it is chaos, no mathematical or physical law.
4) Coherent patterns emerge, mathematical and physical laws can be derived within chaos.
5) The patterns existing within chaos are used to predict past
6) The patterns existing within chaos cannot be used to predict future
Therefore
The universe is finite in mass/energy
The universe is finite in space and time
The universe is a non-linear system
We exist within in the present form of the singularity.
The universe had a beginning. I know this because everyone from Genesis through Einstein to Hawking told me so. Finite systems are known to have a beginning and end. Suns burn out.
Are you proposing a ball of mass/energy that is infinite eternal which has no beginning no end, just changing form according to fixed laws?
The term "singularity" comes from math. It doesn't describe a ball of matter/energy. It describes a situation where the math physicists do breaks down and starts looking like nonsense. It's a clue that we don't know everything. Now, in the present day, the math works out on the macroscopic scale, so it is not a singularity.1) All matter and energy was compressed into a very tiny ball ball of matter and energy (singularity)
2) The singularity "exploded" within the universe" It is still a "singularity," albeit an expanded singularity.
If there are patterns and we can write laws to describe the way stuff acts, then it isn't chaos.3) For a time, after that "big bang," there is chaos
4) Coherent patterns emerge, mathematical and physical laws can be derived within chaos.
We can and do predict the future using physics. Not everything about the future, no. But I'm pretty sure LaPlace's Demon can.5) The patterns existing within chaos are used to predict past
6) The patterns existing within chaos cannot be used to predict future
These conclusions do not follow from your premises.Therefore
The universe is finite in mass/energy
The universe is finite in space and time
The universe is a non-linear system
a space-like singularity can occur when matter is forcibly compressed to a point, causing the rules that govern matter to break down. Hawking traced this back in time to the Big Bang, which he claimed was a point of infinite density.It doesn't describe a ball of matter/energy. It describes a situation
Lorenz System Chaos TheoryIf there are patterns and we can write laws to describe the way stuff acts, then it isn't chaos.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (HUP) In fact, HUP imposes a much stronger limitation on Laplace's demon than Einstein's Special Relativity Theory as the demon is confronted with indeterminate data.We can and do predict the future using physics. Not everything about the future, no. But I'm pretty sure LaPlace's Demon can.
Thou SayestThese conclusions do not follow from your premises.
Lorenz System Chaos Theory
What does Chaos Theory have to do with cosmology?And what does that have to do with cosmology?
What does Chaos Theory have to do with cosmology?
The solar cycles are chaotic.
Chaotic dynamics are pervasive in the solar system. "Orbits of small members of solar system, asteroids, comets, interplanetary dust are chaotic and undergo large changes on geological time scales."
"Are the major planets' orbits also chaotic?" The three body problem?
I changed what you bolded to the thing that actually defines a singularity. Compressing objects to a literal point is a mathematical conundrum, and so are other things. The "rules that govern matter" ain't broken down anymore, so we are not in an "expanded singularity" as you said.a space-like singularity can occur when matter is forcibly compressed to a point, causing the rules that govern matter to break down. Hawking traced this back in time to the Big Bang, which he claimed was a point of infinite density.
That's actually a fair point. We can only make accurate predictions at the macroscopic scale. We aren't sure if the quantum level is really random or if we just don't know enough about it yet.Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (HUP) In fact, HUP imposes a much stronger limitation on Laplace's demon than Einstein's Special Relativity Theory as the demon is confronted with indeterminate data.
That's exactly what I thought about your "therefore..."Thou Sayest
Definition of Cosmology:None of that is cosmology. Try again
Definition of Cosmology:
the science of the origin and development of the universe. Modern astronomy is dominated by the Big Bang theory, which brings together observational astronomy and particle physics.
Chaos Astronomy: It is precisely the study of motion of three bodies in gravitational interaction, like that of the Sun, Earth and Moon, which is the origin of chaos theory.
Chaos Theory Particle Physics: "The relationship between chaos theory and particle physics.. It is demonstrated that the mathematical apparatus used in gauge field theories of particle physics can be successfully applied to solve some problems connected with the stability and chaoticity of quantum mechanical systems and vice versa."
As it is below, so is it above...
Where is any proof that we can make accurate predictions on the macro level? Past or future?That's actually a fair point. We can only make accurate predictions at the macroscopic scale. We aren't sure if the quantum level is really random or if we just don't know enough about it yet.
Where is any proof that we can make accurate predictions on the macro level? Past or future?
The individual existences. Time wouldn't exist.And so, all the way down.
It's not trouble to me, except to find a way to show you why "eternally existing stuff" cannot be interacting to be self-existent. To me, it is intuitive, but I know there is a rational way to say what I want to, but right now it escapes me. I am sure not only that (easily enough shown) first cause must be self-existing, but the notion that there might be many self-existing, inanimate things, to me, while it is repugnant to reason, I think there is an obvious defeat for that notion.
Your challenge is simpler, suggesting that such things are interacting, which is (at least for first cause) self-contradictory. I have only to show it is also self-contradictory for self-existent things, whether mere "mechanical fact" or "with intent", but @Ken-1122 has suggested the possibility of multiple self-existents with no causes and no effects: alone. To me, that, while easy enough to dismiss for useless and undetectable, will be a little harder to prove wrong. But I am enjoying that challenge too.
Are you serious? What do you think physics does?Where is any proof that we can make accurate predictions on the macro level? Past or future?
The question was concerning the possibility that energy and matter always existing. Nothing you've said addressed that question.Here is a model of the universe
On the Face of the Deep: Eternal Infinite
1) All matter and energy was compressed into a very tiny ball ball of matter and energy (singularity)
2) The singularity "exploded" within the universe" It is still a "singularity," albeit an expanded singularity.
3) For a time, after that "big bang," there is chaos
4) Coherent patterns emerge, mathematical and physical laws can be derived within chaos.
5) The patterns existing within chaos are used to predict past
6) The patterns existing within chaos cannot be used to predict future
Therefore
The universe is finite in mass/energy
The universe is finite in space and time
The universe is a non-linear system
We exist within the present form of the singularity.
What could all of existence have to be a derivative of? Existence exists and only existence exists. There is nothing for it to be derived from, therefore it is a self-existent, eternal, unchanging fact.
Existent is a noun, so is existence. The concept existence subsumes all existents. I am one existent out of many that make up existence.
You're looking to words when you should be looking at reality.
The problem is you don't understand how concepts work in the hierarchy of knowledge. This is easy to fix. I recommend you read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. It's a great achievement and it will make all this clear though it may take several readings and much thinking.
We probably both agree that not just anything can exist without a cause. That fact to me seems a pretty good indication that "uncaused" necessarily includes other properties.Again, you have your own special definitions for "first-cause" and "self-existent". I am only talking about "uncaused". It didn't begin to exist because of something else. That's it.
If it is your contention that for something to be uncaused, then it must also have other properties, then the burden is on you to show that these other properties are a logical necessity. We both agree that something can exist without a cause. That's our starting point, and you need to build from there.
Can you say that in another way, so I won't have to guess what you mean?The individual existences. Time wouldn't exist.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?