Philosophy Discussion Forums

Mechsmith, than you for your response.

First I do not have enough time left in my life to study and weed out all the bad Theory that has taken thousands of years to compile.

I find more Truth, Reality, in Myth that I do in Scientific Speculation, Concepts, Theory; After all In The Beginning there was only Darkness upon the Deep, the Universe being born of NoThing.

I am pleased to hear your thoughts on the fallacies of the Theory of the Big Bang, and Expanding Universe.

I just looked up Obers Paradox and without study know why it is worthless to me.

You will never be able to show that the universe had a beginning by imagining what an infinite universe must look like, and then to reconcile that with observations.

Can you look at a Butterfly and Imagine what the Butterfly looked like before it became a Butterfly; if you will could you please give me an answer to that question?

The word Creation is used to describe how the Universe came to be, the Universe not being born of Ordinary, Natural Means; there being no means, No Mass, No relativity, no process, no event, no continuum, no cause and effect, there being only Nothingness; the Universe not being born of Ordinary, Natural Means, the Universe being Uncaused, had it's beginning as an Affect.

Metamorphosis is the key to the Beginning, the Existence, of the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything; the Universe being born of a System of Chaos that had a Single Direct Material Cause (as in the Butterfly Effect); the Reality of First Cause, the First Singularity to have relative, a numerical value of One-1, En, being the direct material cause of the System of Chaos that has made manifest the Reality of the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything.

Prior to the creation of the Reality of First Cause (the Uncaused Cause being an Affect) there was no possibility of the Existence of the Universe that was soon to be.

After the creation of the First Singularity to have relative, a numerical value of One-1, the number One-1 being indicative of the motion of the First in a series, the beginning of a process such as the Evolutionary Process, the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, not only the Beginning of but also the Existence of the Heavens and Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything became Fact, appeared as if by magic right out nowhere, from somewhere far out in Left Field (something that comes out of left field is usually sudden and strange) the Clear Blue Sky, out of the Darkness of an Infinitely Finite Big Black Whole; “In the Beginning there was only Darkness upon the Deep”.

I am going to step way out on a limb by saying that I Know how the Universe Began because I know what existed prior to the Transfiguration of a Singularity having no relative, numerical value, having a Numerical value of Zero-0 into a Singularity having relative a numerical value of One-1, said metamorphosis resulting in the Beginning and the Existence of the Universe, Space-Time.

The Infinite is both a Microcosm and a Macrocosm, existing as an Individuality, an Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity and also as the Transcendental (Metaphysical) Steadily Random State of Singularity; keeping in Mind that a Singularity has no relative, numerical value, has a Numerical Value of Zero-0.

-- Updated September 14th, 2014, 7:38 pm to add the following --

Hamasen 1 wrote;

"Because of the inherent definition of beginning: "the point in time or space at which something starts." So then extrapolating this to time it would be: The point in time or space at which time began. So then on what timescale is that point located? If you say no timescale then there can't be a point at which it begins as there isn't any scale to frame it on. If you say there was a timescale then it would imply the timescale stretched before the beginning such that the other timescale can begin in it."

Wayne wrote;

The Point in Time and in Space that Differentiated Time began was the moment of the Creation of the Reality of First Cause, the uncaused cause, the First Singularity to have relative, a numerical value of One-1, the number One-1 being indicative of a Singularity that has motion, displacement, angular momentum, velocity of speed and direction, that exists as the first in a series, as the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, as the beginning of a process, such as the Evolutionary Process.

Prior to the creation of the First Singularity to have relative, a numerical value of One-1 Singularity existed as both a Microcosm and a Macrocosm; the Microcosm existing as an Individuality, as Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0, while the Macrocosm existed as the Transcendental (Metaphysical) Steadily Random State of Singularity; a Singularity by definition having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0, Diffferentiated Time beginning at that Event Horizon, at the Zero Hour.

-- Updated September 14th, 2014, 7:41 pm to add the following --

Preview: Re: When did the universe begin? Hamasen 1 wrote;

"Because of the inherent definition of beginning: "the point in time or space at which something starts." So then extrapolating this to time it would be: The point in time or space at which time began. So then on what timescale is that point located? If you say no timescale then there can't be a point at which it begins as there isn't any scale to frame it on. If you say there was a timescale then it would imply the timescale stretched before the beginning such that the other timescale can begin in it."

Wayne wrote;

The Point in Time and in Space that Differentiated Time began was at the moment of the Creation of the Reality of First Cause, the uncaused cause, the First Singularity to have relative, a numerical value of One-1, the number One-1 being indicative of a Singularity that has motion, displacement, angular momentum, velocity of speed and direction, that exists as the first in a series, as the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, as the beginning of a process, such as the Evolutionary Process.

Prior to the creation of the First Singularity to have relative, a numerical value of One-1 Singularity existed as both a Microcosm and a Macrocosm; the Microcosm existing as an Individuality, as Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0, while the Macrocosm existed as the Transcendental (Metaphysical) Steadily Random State of Singularity; a Singularity by definition having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0, Differentiated Time beginning at that Event Horizon, at the Zero Hour.

When did the present moment begin? Since it is already here, how could it be said that it has a beginning? And the present moment does not depart either, because it is always now. With no beginning and no ending, it is infinite.

Everything that has happened and everything that "will" happen, may only happen when it is the present moment. Everything you have ever done in your life, took place when it was the present moment. And it is still the present moment.

It is the present moment everywhere in the universe at the same time. Everything moves and changes within the present moment but the present moment itself remains unchanged.

If you are walking down a city street and it will take you two minutes to reach the end of the block, are you looking into the future when you look at your destination? If you stop and look back at the sidewalk that you have already walked on, are you looking into the past?

Where you were, where you are, and where you are goIng are all contained in the present moment. Although everything is moving and constantly changing, nothing ever leaves the present moment.

PA said:

"...it is always now...." Not exactly true because different "nows" are distinct. A now in the future, in the past and at the present moment are different from one another. The now in the past is distinct from the now in the present. Past nows are in memory and are recorded. It is always now doesn't take into account that past nows and future nows that may come about are all distinct from one another. So it isn't always now except at the present moment.

To say a little more, the now from the past is no longer a now. Why?, because it became part of the past through some recording (including memories). So the "now" has changed into some type of record. Similar comments apply to the future.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:PA said:

"...it is always now...." Not exactly true because different "nows" are distinct. A now in the future, in the past and at the present moment are different from one another. The now in the past is distinct from the now in the present. Past nows are in memory and are recorded. It is always now doesn't take into account that past nows and future nows that may come about are all distinct from one another. So it isn't always now except at the present moment.

To say a little more, the now from the past is no longer a now. Why?, because it became part of the past through some recording (including memories). So the "now" has changed into some type of record. Similar comments apply to the future.

PhilX

Everything you are saying here Philx, makes perfect sense and fits in well with the concept of time.

However, the illusion of time is created precisely because forms are constantly changing "within" the now and so are considered to be past forms. The dinosaurs that walked the Earth millions of years ago are still here in the form of fossils. All of your ancestors are still here on earth, in the form of bone or ash, the water that flowed thru their bodies was retuned to the atmosphere, and their minerals returned to the soil. Different forms, yes, but still here in the present moment.

A memory is a chemical impression in the brain, that may be triggered thru electrical stimulation, to recall a stored image. A person may recall an image over and over again, by stimulating that same area, but at no time during memory recall, does anyone actually go back in time.

PA,

It's interesting you brought up about the illusion of time because I have a thread running on whether (abstract) time exists. It would be a worthwhile discussion for that thread if you haven't brought it up there yet.

PhilX

The certainty of any Reality is determined by whether or not it is Measurable as location and momentum in Space-Time; if the subject is immeasurable as to location and momentum in Space-Time then the Reality of said subject is more likely than not to be an Illusion, Differentiated Time, the Reality of the Moment, the Here and Now, is measurable as to location and momentum everywhere in Space-Time at the same Time, Time and Space being relative; a past or future moment in time, not being the Reality of the moment, the Here and Now, not being measurable as to location and momentum in Space-Time, being either a mere refection or an Illusion of Time.

There are 2 competing concepts of time:

1. The "block universe” interpretation (see Figure 1):

The moments of time in this block are supposed to be no less actual than the locations in space are. Just as London and New York are supposed to be there even if you may not be at either of these locations, the moments of your birth and death are “there” on your time-line, even if you are presently far from being “at” either of these two moments of your life...Informally, such a fiber is a track in spacetime of an observer moving subluminally for all eternity. In particular, for a given moment, all the future instants of time along this track—in exactly the same sense as all the past instants—are supposed to be fixed, once and for all, till eternity....Within the Minkowski universe, as Einstein himself has been quoted as saying, “the becoming in three-dimensional space is transformed into a being in the world of four dimensions”. More famously, Weyl has gone one step further in endorsing such a static view of the world: “The objective world simply is, it does not happen” . Accordingly, the appearances of change and becoming are construed to be mere figments of our conscious experience, as Weyl goes on to explain: “Only to the gaze of my consciousness, crawling upward along the life line of my body, does a section of this world come to life as a fleeting image in space which continuously changes in time.”

2. Tensed ("common-sense") view of time (see Figure 2):

The other tensed philosophy of time holds, on the other hand, that there is more to time than mere relational ordering of moments. It maintains that time is rather a dynamic or evolving entity unlike space, and does indeed “flow”—like a refreshing river—much in line with our immediate experience of it. That is to say, far from being an illusion, our sensation of that sumptuous moment now, ceaselessly streaming-in from nowhere and slipping away into the unchanging past, happens to reflect a truly objective feature of the world.In other words, in our everyday life we normally do not think of the future segment of our worldline to be preexisting for all eternity; instead, we perceive the events in our lives to be occurring non-fatalistically, one after another, rendering our worldline to “grow”, like a tendril on a wall. But such a “dynamic” conception of time appears to be completely alien to the universe purported by special relativity.

Absolute Being vs Relative Becoming
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0610049.pdf

Bohm2 thank you for you response, working on a reply.

Asking when the universe began is a spurious question, in that the universe cannot possibly have ever begun. (This is tantamount to denying the universe exists). Now, by "universe", I refer to the totality of everything which is, was or ever will be possible. Now in order for something "to exist", there must be that from which it can be distinguished. Nothing however can exist, apart from the universe, in that every possible thing is contained, therein. Therefore the universe doesn't (and indeed cannot) exist. (Note: the claim is that the universe doesn't exist in it's totality. It's various constituents, however can and do). So, inasmuch as that which doesn't exist can't have a beginning, the answer to the titular question is "Never".

Platos stepchild wrote:Asking when the universe began is a spurious question, in that the universe cannot possibly have ever begun. (This is tantamount to denying the universe exists). Now, by "universe", I refer to the totality of everything which is, was or ever will be possible. Now in order for something "to exist", there must be that from which it can be distinguished. Nothing however can exist, apart from the universe, in that every possible thing is contained, therein. Therefore the universe doesn't (and indeed cannot) exist. (Note: the claim is that the universe doesn't exist in it's totality. It's various constituents, however can and do). So, inasmuch as that which doesn't exist can't have a beginning, the answer to the titular question is "Never".

Your reasoning here is poor. The Universe exists in all its totality by definition. It also exists, period, by definition. Saying that "the Universe doesn't exist but its constituent parts do" is like saying "the All does not exist but its parts do", or, to put it in mathematical terms, it's like saying "this set of numbers (5, 2, 6, 53, 78) does not exist, but each member of the set is a real quantity". "The Universe" is a conception, an idea --- therefore, the "All" is assumed to exist because something, anything, does. If anything exists, then the term everything ("Universe") must have some kind of real meaning.

However, I do agree with your premise that the Universe could not have begun. But I base this on the fact that our cognition of time is an entirely subjective and artificial construct, thus the very idea of a "beginning" is also subjective and artificial. If the very idea of a "before, now, and after" is subjective, then so is the idea of any "beginning" or "ending"....

There's no reason why a given set of objects must have the same attributes as do the objects. For example: consider the Barber of Seville; who shaves him? There's nothing poor about my reasoning.

Platos stepchild wrote:There's no reason why a given set of objects must have the same attributes as do the objects. For example: consider the Barber of Seville; who shaves him? There's nothing poor about my reasoning.

Just because we cannot perceive the "Whole" or the "All" does not mean that the cognition of it is false. It's not reasonable to assert that "Everything" (the Universe) does not exist, even though we might not ever be able to know it in all its entirety. Just as it's not reasonable to assume that nobody shaves the Barber of Seville just because we don't know who it is...

My claim that the universe doesn't exist isn't predicated upon our inability to perceive the whole. What I'm saying is that the universe, as the totality of all possibilities precludes the possibility of there being that from which the universe might then be distinguished. In order for something to exist, there must be that which isn't the thing. However, by definition there can never be that from which the universe might then be distinguished. Ergo, the universe (as opposed to it's various constituents) cannot exist.

Platos stepchild wrote: However, by definition there can never be that from which the universe might then be distinguished. Ergo, the universe (as opposed to it's various constituents) cannot exist.

Are you saying that the word 'existence' or even the concept behind that word does not apply to The Universe? So then to talk about the universe in terms of it's existence is a meaningless activity. Is this any different from those like Roger Penrose who consider the universe to be infinite in reference to its existence?

The universe needn't be infinite in order to not exist. We must be precise as to what "existence" means. If X exists, it's only because there is not-X, from which it can be distinguished. If everything was X, then it couldn't properly exist. (Although paradoxically, we could still refer to X). Regardless of whether the universe is or isn't infinite, it couldn't exist if there wasn't something other than the universe. (Note: suppose it turns out that instead of the universe being the totality of all possibilities, the multi-verse is. In that case, just read multi-verse for universe The argument still holds).