What is Real?

[durangodawood]

You need to depart from reality into speculation for that, so it isn't really useful and the question remains.

You are right that such a constraint makes it b impossible for us to know, but to suggest an otherwise universal principle might be capable of failing in a different world, is, well... not a thing I am comfortable with, to say the least.

I think we have to get comfortable with a possible realm in which universes 'come and go' IF we we want to test absolute statements properly.

What makes me un-comfortable is the sheer assumption that this universe is it, everything, the only thing.

 

[Serving Zion]

I think we have to get comfortable with a possible realm in which universes 'come and go' IF we we want to test absolute statements properly.

What makes me un-comfortable is the sheer assumption that this universe is it, everything, the only thing.

If you are serious, you need to provide evidence of a universe that I do not know. Keep in mind the limitations of language while you are attempting to introduce me to a concept that is well developed within you.

What I know is all I know, but I didn't get to know it without first having come to know it.

I do not yet see evidence of a universe beyond this one, nor do I understand how a mind could have come to expect such a thing.

Over to you!

 

[durangodawood]

If you are serious, you need to provide evidence of a universe that I do not know. Keep in mind the limitations of language while you are attempting to introduce me to a concept that is well developed within you.

What I know is all I know, but I didn't get to know it without first having come to know it.

I do not yet see evidence of a universe beyond this one, nor do I understand how a mind could have come to expect such a thing.

Over to you!

I dont need to provide evidence. The burden is the one making the claim: 'this universe is all there is'.

I'm simply saying that proposition falls into the category of unknowables. I am NOT saying there definitely is a greater realm (nor even another similar universe). If I was, the burden of proof would fall right on me.

And so, statements that depend upon certainty of the uniqueness of the universe are necessarily speculative.

 

[Serving Zion]

I dont need to provide evidence. The burden is the one making the claim: 'this universe is all there is'.

I'm simply saying that proposition falls into the category of unknowables. I am NOT saying there definitely is a greater realm (nor even another similar universe). If I was, the burden of proof would fall right on me.

And so, statements that depend upon certainty of the uniqueness of the universe are necessarily speculative.

You seem to have lost track of what our conversation is meaning to achieve.

It is you who claims the existence of a non-observable universe (a pure speculation), only for the purpose of believing that a different kind of reality might exist : one in which things happen without cause.

So in this case, it is you who speculates, that has the burden of proof.

 

[durangodawood]

You seem to have lost track of what our conversation is meaning to achieve.

It is you who claims the existence of a non-observable universe (a pure speculation), only for the purpose of believing that a different kind of reality might exist : one in which things happen without cause.

So in this case, it is you who speculates, that has the burden of proof.

I claim that we dont know if a 'greater' realm beyond our universe exists or not. (If I made it sound like I was making a positive existence-claim, which I dont think I did, thats my error. I'd be interested in seeing exactly where I made such a positive claim. Anyway, I'm telling you now that I make no such claim)

This proposition (existence of a 'greater' realm into which our universe is subsumed) is currently unresolvable, therefore we cannot make absolute statements that depend on the certainty of its non-existence, nor on how things can or cannot behave in such a realm.

 

[akaDaScribe]

Like this...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

This article does not support your argument.

"Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there."

That a particle can manifest itself in different ways, does not mean that something came from nothing.

Even if you were to argue that particles could disappear, or reproduce, there would still have to have been at least 1 particle that had no beginning, if one were to believe that the particle is the only thing that always existed.

Furthermore, if there was nothing that existed, and something came from nothing, it would make "nothing" the something that always existed, at which point it is not really "nothing."

 

[Serving Zion]

I claim that we dont know if a 'greater' realm beyond our universe exists or not. (If I made it sound like I was making a positive existence-claim, which I dont think I did, thats my error. I'd be interested in seeing exactly where I made such a positive claim. Anyway, I'm telling you now that I make no such claim)

This proposition (existence of a 'greater' realm into which our universe is subsumed) is currently unresolvable, therefore we cannot make absolute statements that depend on the certainty of its non-existence, nor on how things can or cannot behave in such a realm.

It is implied by your defacto position to assume other universes are possible.

Instead of evidence to prove the idea, it will suffice for me to know how you have conceded to believe that it might be possible at all (ie: how have you arrived to conceive of a reality in which multiple universes can exist - or "come and go" as you have said it. Is there more to it than your creative imagination?

 

[Loren T.]

I wanted to put this under philosophy, but it no longer exists and I’m not sure where else to put it that would allow everyone to express their views.

I don’t want to limit the responses to just my initial question but, rather to understand different perspectives of reality, what is real, how it works, what it means, etc.

First questions:

What is real?
Does something have to be tangible to be real?

Of course not. If so, most of the thing we value most, love, friendship, music and beauty would be less then real because we can't physically touch them. We can't see God. Yes, he is tangible, but not in our realm. Doesn't make him less real.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This article does not support your argument.

"Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there."

That a particle can manifest itself in different ways, does not mean that something came from nothing.

Actually that's exactly what it's claiming. Particles popping in and out of existence.

Even if you were to argue that particles could disappear, or reproduce, there would still have to have been at least 1 particle that had no beginning, if one were to believe that the particle is the only thing that always existed.

Furthermore, if there was nothing that existed, and something came from nothing, it would make "nothing" the something that always existed, at which point it is not really "nothing."

I've got no idea what you're calling "nothing" here.

 

[durangodawood]

It is implied by your defacto position to assume other universes are possible.

Instead of evidence to prove the idea, it will suffice for me to know how you have conceded to believe that it might be possible at all (ie: how have you arrived to conceive of a reality in which multiple universes can exist - or "come and go" as you have said it. Is there more to it than your creative imagination?

Maybe they are possible. Maybe they arent.

Youre just backing up the unknowable proposition one step. This new proposition (it is 'possible') is unknowable too. So we havent resolved anything.

As for my own sense of it, I'm intuitively inclined to suspect there's typically more than one instance of any category of object you may encounter. For instance, if you saw one alien spacecraft tomorrow, would suspect its the only one anywhere ever? Of course not. Same with universes, for me. Even moreso given that 'the multiverse' is a reasonably respected scientific conjecture.

 

[akaDaScribe]

Actually that's exactly what it's claiming. Particles popping in and out of existence.

The article did not say that the particle came from nothing, but rather that 1 became 2 temporarily and merged back into one. There would still have to be at least one particle to produce the affect.

Furthermore, for something to just pop into existence, the existence has to be there to pop in to and would have to have attributes that make it capable of being popped into.

So basically, here is a more basic fundamental statement.

At least one thing and nothing always existed
or
Only something always existed

 

[Ana the Ist]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/...foam-virtual-particles-and-other-curiosities/

Maybe that will explain it better.

 

[akaDaScribe]

Maybe they are possible. Maybe they arent.

Youre just backing up the unknowable proposition one step. This new proposition (it is 'possible') is unknowable too. So we havent resolved anything.

As for my own sense of it, I'm intuitively inclined to suspect there's typically more than one instance of any category of object you may encounter. For instance, if you saw one alien spacecraft tomorrow, would suspect its the only one anywhere ever? Of course not. Same with universes, for me. Even moreso given that 'the multiverse' is a reasonably respected scientific conjecture.

The scope of my statements does not discard the possibility of there being more than our universe. The thing is, you are trying to bind time to my argument because I used the word "always." Perhaps the word beginningless?

 

[akaDaScribe]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/...foam-virtual-particles-and-other-curiosities/

Maybe that will explain it better.

"If your mind isn’t blown, wait…it gets crazier still. Empty space—that is, space that contains nothing—no energy, no charge, no matter, nothing—is filled with a writhing, active population of virtual particles that physicists call “the quantum foam,” with bubbles appearing and popping in wild abandon. At the subatomic level, space is never truly empty." -from the article


"At least one thing and nothing always existed
or
Only something always existed" -from my other post

 

[Ana the Ist]

"If your mind isn’t blown, wait…it gets crazier still. Empty space—that is, space that contains nothing—no energy, no charge, no matter, nothing—is filled with a writhing, active population of virtual particles that physicists call “the quantum foam,” with bubbles appearing and popping in wild abandon. At the subatomic level, space is never truly empty." -from the article


"At least one thing and nothing always existed
or
Only something always existed" -from my other post

Yeah...but they're talking about space. Space, to our knowledge, which didn't exist prior to the universe existing (if one can make sense of the idea "prior to the universe existing" in the first place).

That's part of what makes it so hard to discuss what can or cannot "be" apart from the universe.

 

[akaDaScribe]

Yeah...but they're talking about space. Space, to our knowledge, which didn't exist prior to the universe existing (if one can make sense of the idea "prior to the universe existing" in the first place).

That's part of what makes it so hard to discuss what can or cannot "be" apart from the universe.

I guess my point is that no matter what the source of the universe was and whether or not the source of the universe had a source as well and no matter what exists and how many things exist and what the nature of that thing or those things is/are, there has to be at least one thing that had no beginning; that simply existed/or exists without a cause.

As science progresses, it seems that the closer it gets to the root of existence, the more it seems to point to substantiating what philosophers and religions have been saying for a long time: the material comes from the immaterial.

I'm just saying that regardless of what the nature of it is, there had to be at least one thing that had no beginning. Establishing whether or not that thing or those things are eternal is where I expected it to get tricky. lol

Given what science qualifies as facts, I think what I'm saying goes well beyond its requirements.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Kalam cosmological arguments are usually shrugged off by atheists as word games. I suppose its like maths, you can do useful things with numbers, and you can do useful things with uncaused entities too. Like, get people into church. I heard some philosopher argue that because math is indispensable for science, he takes a realist position regarding abstract math objects. Similarly, you have the likes of W. L. Craig, for whom it seems philosophy of religion is essential to his faith. For others, it might be preaching skills for example J Osteen. Atheists would probably shrug that off as word games too....

 

[akaDaScribe]

Kalam cosmological arguments are usually shrugged off by atheists as word games. I suppose its like maths, you can do useful things with numbers, and you can do useful things with uncaused entities too. Like, get people into church. I heard some philosopher argue that because math is indispensable for science, he takes a realist position regarding abstract math objects. Similarly, you have the likes of W. L. Craig, for whom it seems philosophy of religion is essential to his faith. For others, it might be preaching skills for example J Osteen. Atheists would probably shrug that off as word games too....

Actually, I wasn't really approaching this discussion from a religious perspective, though obviously I have my beliefs. But if people automatically reject what I am saying as a resistance to the possibility that it could logically prove there is a God, that is unfortunate. It would be like me rejecting the "survival of the fittest" concept, because it could lead to evolution.

Really all I'm saying is whether you believe in God or not and whether or not there is a God, we can all agree that there had to be something or somethings that always existed, or there would be nothing. There has to be something that was not caused.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I guess my point is that no matter what the source of the universe was and whether or not the source of the universe had a source as well and no matter what exists and how many things exist and what the nature of that thing or those things is/are, there has to be at least one thing that had no beginning; that simply existed/or exists without a cause.

Or began without a cause.

As science progresses, it seems that the closer it gets to the root of existence, the more it seems to point to substantiating what philosophers and religions have been saying for a long time: the material comes from the immaterial.

What is "the immaterial"?

I'm just saying that regardless of what the nature of it is, there had to be at least one thing that had no beginning. Establishing whether or not that thing or those things are eternal is where I expected it to get tricky. lol

Given what science qualifies as facts, I think what I'm saying goes well beyond its requirements.

What do you think those "requirements" are?

 

[akaDaScribe]

Or began without a cause.



What is "the immaterial"?



What do you think those "requirements" are?

"Or began without a cause."

From galaxies to atoms everything is action and reaction, cause and effect. Given that, what is the probability that something simply appeared, created space in which to appear, and had properties to multiply into the entire universe that functions on the level that our universe functions
vs
What appears and disappears on the sub-atomic level is coming from somewhere else or it has states that are not detectable?

immaterial = what does not of itself exhibit physically measurable properties on any level.