Big Bang: Is Determinism Possible Beyond It?

[out of whack]

things are always created

You keep asserting without anything to back it up. Without that, it's just an unfounded opinion, nothing more than an intuition. You put all your faith in a hunch that you refuse to justify.

'physical things' must be made/formed ... in my opinion, this is a FACT.

An opinion does not make fact. Try to back it up with something. Shouting it does not make it true.

The other thing is, some people believe that the universe was always here, but neglecting the FACT that physical things MUST be formed in one way or another.

In other words they neglect your opinion, which you state without proof. If you at least presented something, anything at all for consideration. Nothing so far, just repetition.

I don't believe that the universe (it's resource components) was always 'around'.

Then, at long last, you are starting to be coherent. If you believe that the universe was created and that it was not always around then you no longer have a paradox. Congratulations. Do you see the difference compared to what you were saying only yesterday? I think you have indeed made some progress. Not that we are out of the woods just yet... you still didn't prove that your most recent position is the correct one.

I'm talking in the area of a paradoxical situation.

Remember that a paradox is not a good thing. Giving logical contradictions a pretty name like this does not automatically validate it, it remains nonsense. Take Zero's paradox as an example. You know and I know and everybody knows that a claim that you can never touch an object is pure crap. Anyone who has ever hit his shin on the coffee table knows this. But Zeno formulated it in a way that made you think it made sense. Some people could somehow be mystified and believe this nonsense. They knew it was wrong but it sounded so good that you couldn't help thinking it could also be true at some level. Well, it isn't. It remains nonsense, but well disguised nonsense. You need to apply rigorous logic to all elements of the claim to reveal the sham. So when you see a paradox, don't think it's a cool thing or a great truth. Recognize it for what it is, an error, and work to resolve it.

 

[robertm]

Emphasis added.

things are always created...but yet, some people assume that the 'universe' is 'infinite'.

No one is assuming anything. I have said several times that any respectable scientist does not claim absolutes about reality, that is what you have done.

'physical things' must be made/formed ... in my opinion, this is a FACT. The other thing is, some people believe that the universe was always here, but neglecting the FACT that physical things MUST be formed in one way or another. I don't believe even for 1/googolplex of a second that the universe was NOT formed or created. In other words, I don't believe that the universe (it's resource components) was always 'around'.

Like I said, the disagreement is about the logic of your question, not an argument about what the facts of the universe may be. If you want to have an opinion on the universe about conditions that the smartest people in the world have not yet been able to figure out, be my guest. But how can you make absolute statements? I never contested your opinion (yet) just your logic pertaining to the question you keep asking. You need to rethink your questions.

Nevertheless, the universe IS here, and hanging around, which makes things very interesting indeed.

Agreed! That's why I'm here!

Talking about 'infinity' is meaningless, although infinity is very interesting. Talking about how a universe (resources) IS/BECAME abundant is the most interesting though. And nobody knows how (as already mentioned - it is a great puzzle, probably the greatest).

How is talking about the possibility of infinities existing in reality meaningless!? And your right nobody does know exactly how the universe came about. That is why we are talking about it here, but one cannot make absolute assumptions when we really do not know.

The other thing is...I recall that you mentioned something about 'energy being infinite in time'...or you were quoting this from somewhere. Now, that statement there is quite meaningless...otherwise ambiguous. Do you mean to say from this statement that there is infinite amount of energy in the whole 'universe'? When I mean universe, I mean the whole package...including what happened before/after the 'big bang' thing, and whatever extra dimensions are out there. Or do you mean to say that energy has always existed?

My statement was a reply to your question before you had switched from saying from where did 'energy' originate to saying 'resources'. And the statement is meant to say that if energy really is conserved, then it's world line may be infinite along the time axis. Obviously I was merely speculating on a possibility based on an assumption.

 

[Kenny_L]

Then, at long last, you are starting to be coherent. If you believe that the universe was created and that it was not always around then you no longer have a paradox.

No ...OOW... you're wrong. This just goes to show that you don't understand the situation. If I believe that the universe was created/formed and that it was not always around, then there lies a great question... how did it become abundant - given that the 'universe' the I'm talking about includes all resources. In layman's terms so that you might understand, if there are no resources to 'start' off with, then you would have nothing to make anything with. And also, if there is no motion or transitions of resources (or anything else) to start with, then you would have no 'trigger' to do anything.

So there is a paradoxical situation...because if you choose to start with 'nothing' to begin with...and in this case, nothing means the cancellation of whatever things you can think of (and even whatever you haven't been able to think of yet...including your definition of something...and even your definition of nothing...etc)...then you begin with a 'nothing' slate. And from this 'nothing' slate, you would naturally believe that nothing could come from it...no resources, no movements, no transitions ...etc...in other words 'nothing'.

However, because the universe is abundant, then it is very interesting how resources/material/energy could be available...basically, you get resources (ie something) from 'nothing'. This is what I mean by 'popped out', or just 'plonked' there...like, just formed and also 'triggered' to form from absolutely nothing...even from a state where a 'trigger' doesn't even exist. But, nevertheless, there was a trigger...somehow...which leads to a paradox.

Anyway, if you still can't understand what I'm saying, then maybe you can understand in some years to come.

 

[out of whack]

It is becoming apparent that you don't even know what your position is. You had said: "I don't believe even for 1/googolplex of a second that the universe was NOT formed or created. In other words, I don't believe that the universe (it's resource components) was always 'around'." Today, you describe how this is impossible. Basically, you are talking like a fool.

 

[Kenny_L]

It is becoming apparent that you don't even know what your position is. You had said: "I don't believe even for 1/googolplex of a second that the universe was NOT formed or created. In other words, I don't believe that the universe (it's resource components) was always 'around'." Today, you describe how this is impossible. Basically, you are talking like a fool.

Actually, you are thinking like a fool. I mentioned on many occasions that we all don't know what the deal is with the universe. I don't believe that the universe was NOT created, and at the same time, it appears that the universe 'popped out' from 'nothing'. Now, how that happened...is beyond me.

Just because I'm approaching things from different viewpoints at the same time, it doesn't mean that I don't know my position at all. I know my position...you just don't understand the paradoxical situation. The deal is that, whichever stance you take on this matter, it leads to inconsistencies in our human logic. It even applies to you...but the only thing is that you fail to see all sides of the situation.

 

[out of whack]

The deal is that, whichever stance you take on this matter, it leads to inconsistencies in our human logic.

You have taken various stances that are indeed, as you say, inconsistent. You may prefer the word 'paradoxical'. (I say garbage, you say trash...) But one consistent stance without a paradox is the one you reject. You sure enjoy contradictions. Have fun with that.

 

[robertm]

Just because I'm approaching things from different viewpoints at the same time, it doesn't mean that I don't know my position at all.

Kenny, you are blatantly doing the opposite. I made bold the many parts of your reasoning in which you invoke absolutes in your opinions. I did not imagine that more emphasis would be needed.

The deal is that, whichever stance you take on this matter, it leads to inconsistencies in our human logic.

No it does not. If you take the stance of reality being in an eternal state, the paradox disappears. Your human logic has not been able to grasp that yet. I am not saying that it is the case, just that if you were to assume, then indeed the contradictions fall apart. Maybe you should seriously consider your mode of reasoning. Write down the steps in sequential order that you take to come to your conclusions and see if you can spot any flaws.

Obviously you are not going to take it from anyone else, so figure it out yourself.

It even applies to you...but the only thing is that you fail to see all sides of the situation.

It is as if you are looking in a mirror. You can see the blemish on the face, yet you insist that the reflection is not your own.




I really am seeing very little progress in this discussion. Though I am thoroughly enjoying it, I believe we may be risking the locking of this thread.

 

[out of whack]

I really am seeing very little progress in this discussion. Though I am thoroughly enjoying it, I believe we may be risking the locking of this thread.

Uh-hu. I too found it an interesting exercise for a while. But since paradox boy has started to take logical contradictions as a virtue, it has turned from intellectually challenging to plain stupid.

 

[Kenny_L]

Uh-hu. I too found it an interesting exercise for a while. But since paradox boy has started to take logical contradictions as a virtue, it has turned from intellectually challenging to plain stupid.

The only problem, OOW, is that you don't understand the paradoxical situations. I have no problem with the paradox. I only find it interesting. And I also find it interesting how you brand things that are too intellectually challenging for you as 'meaningless'.

 

[out of whack]

The only problem, OOW, is that you don't understand the paradoxical situations.

I actually explained them to you. Read back, you apparently have a short memory as well.

I have no problem with the paradox.

That's the problem.

I only find it interesting.

I believe you. Rational people find contradictions irrational but dreamers are fascinated by them.

And I also find it interesting how you brand things that are too intellectually challenging for you as 'meaningless'.

See, nonsense is meaningless. It's cool if you find the epithet interesting. But no intellectual challenge remains in your posts now that you've started to absolve nonsense by calling it a paradox.