Preconditional Worldview

[leroy]

]Literally not true for the reasons I have already explained. If you're going to argue with someone over the matter, your memory of the events will be insufficient to counter any evidence at all against you.

Granted, however it is still a fact that you can know something even if you cant show it to be true. For example It is completely reasonable to grant something as real on the basis on a memory or a personal experience.

Your slogan “If you cant show it, you cant know it” is simply wrong

Aronra
1. Even if the cosmic expansion had a beginning, there is the possibility that it is 4th dimensional substance inflating 3-dimensional space through a rift in the time-space continuum: meaning that the matter/energy already existed. Super-massive gravity can slow down time. So a singularity of all the mass in the universe would slow down time like an asymptote on a Cartesian coordinate system. So that as we track backward in time to the point of the big bang, time would slow down until one second equals infinity when T = zero. Thus the universe would still be eternal even if its inflation had a beginning.

Peer reviewed science has shown that even if you model where true, the universe would still have a beginning,

The third (your model), although it is stable with respect to classical perturbations, can collapse quantum mechanically, and therefore cannot have an eternal past.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658

Nobody is asserting 100% certainty, but all the evidence indicates that the universe had a beginning, all the models that try to avoid an absolute beginning are unsuccessful, and even if true would not truly avoid a an absolute beginning of the universe and time itself.

Any honest person who is familiar with the evidence should grant that probably the universe had a beginning.

aronra
2. The cause of that rift has been suggested as the collision of super-cosmic membranes according to M-theory, though it could be many other things, and cannot be a magic immortal ape-descendant who existed before the evolution of apes

.

Remember my definition of universe…. “All space, time and everything in it” those membranes, if real, would have existed in space and time, meaning that they would be part of the universe. These membranes would explain how our universe evolved from a previous state, but they wouldn’t explain the origin of the universe.

I don’t what to play semantics, if you think I am misusing the word “universe” please let me know what word I should use to describe “All space, time and everything in it”

3. None of this has to be spaceless, timeless or immaterial, and none of it is remotely personal either. So no one would even call it an entity, much less a god.

Yes, any cause of the universe (as I defined the term) by necessity has to have all those attributes. For example necessarily the cause of time has to be timeless, the cause of time necessarily has to be something that exists independently of time.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Requesting a split because LEROY is doing his usual of trying to drag conversations over to topics he wants to discuss, and those topics being ones he's already 'discussed' ad nauseum before.

 

[leroy]

Requesting a split because LEROY is doing his usual of trying to drag conversations over to topics he wants to discuss, and those topics being ones he's already 'discussed' ad nauseum before.

I am responding to ARONRA, he claims that one cant show empirically nor logically that God exists, I am simply responding to that thread.

But I would not mind if moderators decide to split

 

[AronRa]

]Literally not true for the reasons I have already explained. If you're going to argue with someone over the matter, your memory of the events will be insufficient to counter any evidence at all against you.

Granted, however it is still a fact that you can know something even if you cant show it to be true. For example It is completely reasonable to grant something as real on the basis on a memory or a personal experience.

Your slogan “If you cant show it, you cant know it” is simply wrong

Once again, I repeat, knowledge differs from mere belief in that knowledge is demonstrable with verifiable accuracy. If you can't verify your claim to any degree at all by any means whatsoever then you can't even know IF you know something. As I said before, if you make a knowledge claim, you have to back it up and prove that you actually know it. To do that it has to be possible to know something before you've verified it, but the point was that you can't honestly or ethically claim to know something if you can't show that you do. If there is no way to back it up, then not you even really know whether you're remembering anything correctly.

1. Even if the cosmic expansion had a beginning, there is the possibility that it is 4th dimensional substance inflating 3-dimensional space through a rift in the time-space continuum: meaning that the matter/energy already existed. Super-massive gravity can slow down time. So a singularity of all the mass in the universe would slow down time like an asymptote on a Cartesian coordinate system. So that as we track backward in time to the point of the big bang, time would slow down until one second equals infinity when T = zero. Thus the universe would still be eternal even if its inflation had a beginning.

Peer reviewed science has shown that even if you model where true, the universe would still have a beginning,

Only the inflation part, as I just said, but the matter and energy would be eternal. Hence no creation.

The third (your model), although it is stable with respect to classical perturbations, can collapse quantum mechanically, and therefore cannot have an eternal past.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658

Not if you slow down time--as super-massive gravity does. I just explained this.

Nobody is asserting 100% certainty, but all the evidence indicates that the universe had a beginning, all the models that try to avoid an absolute beginning are unsuccessful, and even if true would not truly avoid a an absolute beginning of the universe and time itself.

Anything that pre-dates the origin of the universe, as the model I described does, becomes unintelligible speculation beyond that, thus clearly and easily avoiding your "absolute beginning".

Any honest person who is familiar with the evidence should grant that probably the universe had a beginning.

And someone who also possesses reading comprehension would know that I already did that, and I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself in every post to you either.

2. The cause of that rift has been suggested as the collision of super-cosmic membranes according to M-theory, though it could be many other things, and cannot be a magic immortal ape-descendant who existed before the evolution of apes

Remember my definition of universe…. “All space, time and everything in it” those membranes, if real, would have existed in space and time, meaning that they would be part of the universe. These membranes would explain how our universe evolved from a previous state, but they wouldn’t explain the origin of the universe.

I don’t what to play semantics, if you think I am misusing the word “universe” please let me know what word I should use to describe “All space, time and everything in it”

Then the problem is that you're using the wrong definition of universe, and you're misunderstanding these branes as well. Now I don't subscribe to string at all, but the argument is that these abbreviated "branes" exist outside this universe, and that our universe is but one of many. I do accept the multiverse as being vastly more probable than there being only one such inflation. The boundaries of this universe appear to be 78 billion light-years across and projected to dissipate into heat death eventually. However other universes could be appearing with the relative frequency of bubbles appearing in the bottom of a sauce pan coming to boil.

3. None of this has to be spaceless, timeless or immaterial, and none of it is remotely personal either. So no one would even call it an entity, much less a god.

Yes, any cause of the universe (as I defined the term) by necessity has to have all those attributes. For example necessarily the cause of time has to be timeless, the cause of time necessarily has to be something that exists independently of time.

Once again, as I explained, if we're talking about 4th dimensional substance inflating a 3-dimensional universe, where a concentration of super-massive gravity slows down time, then the expansion of that matter will allow it to speed up normally. The 4th spacial dimension has different variants of space and time applicable to it. So nothing you've said here is correct. All this can happen without any intent and cannot happen WITH intent. So you still can't prove your magic imaginary immortal no matter you rephrase your god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Requesting a split because LEROY is doing his usual of trying to drag conversations over to topics he wants to discuss, and those topics being ones he's already 'discussed' ad nauseum before.

I am responding to ARONRA,...

Who was responding to your diversion.

 

[Collecemall]

Well, I had hopes Joshua would last longer than he did. While his posts weren't ground breaking it was at least a new voice. I'm not sure I can stomach another spin on the Leroy-go-round.

 

[Deleted member 619]

It's worth noting that the branes in brane-worlds aren't separate from the observable universe, they're what the observable universe resides on. There is nothing in the model that suggests that branes themselves had any sort of beginning.

I covered all this in some detail here:

You Must Be Off Your Brane

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Well, I had hopes Joshua would last longer than he did. While his posts weren't ground breaking it was at least a new voice. I'm not sure I can stomach another spin on the Leroy-go-round.

It has been three days since his last post, plus joshua040103 threatened to leave twice and came back both times to post again, plus it is Thanksgiving week here in the US. I think it is a bit premature to count out joshua040103.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Well, I had hopes Joshua would last longer than he did. While his posts weren't ground breaking it was at least a new voice. I'm not sure I can stomach another spin on the Leroy-go-round.

It has been three days since his last post, plus joshua040103 threatened to leave twice and came back both times to post again, plus it is Thanksgiving week here in the US. I think it is a bit premature to count out joshua040103.

Are you calling Shaker's Law?

 

[leroy]

, but the point was that you can't honestly or ethically claim to know something if you can't show that you do.

Again that is wrong for the reasons explained in the source that I provided, I already provided a source for my claim and you haven’t provided anything.
Show that your statement is true.

Aronra
Anything that pre-dates the origin of the universe, as the model I described does, becomes unintelligible speculation beyond that, thus clearly and easily avoiding your "absolute beginning".

Again the paper that I quoted shows that even if your model where true, it would not be past eternal. Once again, I am backing my claims with peer reviewed material, while you are simply asserting that you are correct.


Again the paper that I quoted shows that even if your model where true, it would not be past eternal. Once again, I am backing my claims with peer reviewed material, while you are simply asserting that you are correct.

And again, no one is claiming to be 100% sure, but all the evidence that we have indicates that the universe (including time) had a beginning. If you what to assert the opposite you have to show that the opposite is true.

Leroy
Any honest person who is familiar with the evidence should grant that probably the universe had a beginning.

Aronra
And someone who also possesses reading comprehension would know that I already did that, and I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself in every post to you either.

Did what? do you grant that the universe (including time) probably had a begining ?

Aronra
Then the problem is that you're using the wrong definition of universe, and you're misunderstanding these branes as well. Now I don't subscribe to string at all, but the argument is that these abbreviated "branes" exist outside this universe, and that our universe is but one of many. I do accept the multiverse as being vastly more probable than there being only one such inflation. The boundaries of this universe appear to be 78 billion light-years across and projected to dissipate into heat death eventually. However other universes could be appearing with the relative frequency of bubbles appearing in the bottom of a sauce pan coming to boil.

Ok, if I am misusing the term “universe”, then what term should I use when referring to all space, time and everything in it?”

If the multiverse theory where true, these bubbles would exists in space and time, they would be part of what I am calling “the universe” you are still not explaining the origin of “all space, time and everything in it”

Besides, the paper that I quoted also explains why a multiverse would also be past finite

All this can happen without any intent and cannot happen WITH intent. So you still can't prove your magic imaginary immortal no matter you rephrase your god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

Are you willing to grant that if time had a cause, this cause necessarily would have to be timeless?, ie that exists independently of time?

Any “timeless” deterministic or random cause would have produced the effect (the universe) an infinite amount of time ago. Since the universe is presumable not past eternal, its cause could have not been deterministic nor random. The only option that we have left is agent causation.

Or to put it this way, if the cause is deterministic and eternal, the effect most also be eternal. Which follows that ether the universe is eternal or that it´s cause was not deterministic, nor random.
With eternal I mean “it has always been there”

 

[MarsCydonia]

Well, I had hopes Joshua would last longer than he did. While his posts weren't ground breaking it was at least a new voice. I'm not sure I can stomach another spin on the Leroy-go-round.

Don't you find Leroy constantly being wrong about pretty much everything to be somewhat entertaining?

 

[leroy]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Well I challenge you to explain the differences between what I call verificationism, actual verificationism and the view that Aronra promotes.

I already have you lying clown, plus both your source and every source cited shows the difference.

So are you saying you're too thick to understand the words?

.

So lets see

this is Aronras view (what he calls rationalism)

A secular perspective that belief should be restricted only to that which is directly- supportable by logic or evidence, that while many things may be considered possible, nothing should be believed to be true unless positively and empirically indicated.

this is actual verificationism according to aronras source

Verificationism (also known as the Verifiability Criterion of Meaning or the Verification Principle) is the doctrine that a proposition is only cognitively meaningful if it can be definitively and conclusively determined to be either true or false (i.e. verifiable or falsifiable). It has been hotly disputed amongst Verificationists whether this must be possible in practice or merely in principle.
-The Basics of Philosophy

and this is verificationism according to me
leroy wrote:

The view that states that you can only know something if you can prove it empirically (or logically) is called verificationism

.


anyone can note that they are all basically the same,

But you can always answer to my challenge (instead of pretending that you did) and spot relevant differences between them

 

[Sparhafoc]

Liar or stupid.

I've explained all this a dozen times, LEROY - but do pretend I haven't - it just shows how terminally dishonest you are.

 

[AronRa]

Any honest person who is familiar with the evidence should grant that probably the universe had a beginning.

And someone who also possesses reading comprehension would know that I already did that, and I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself in every post to you either.

Did what? do you grant that the universe (including time) probably had a begining ?

Once again, I repeat: I time can be slowed to a stop by the super-massive gravity of the singularity, then it's dispersal throughout the cosmos could effectively release it, and the catalyst for that doesn't necessarily have to be timeless itself.

Ok, if I am misusing the term “universe”, then what term should I use when referring to all space, time and everything in it?”

That would still be universe, because it's space and time and "everything in it". The multiverse concept would include things beyond space and time and there wouldn't be anything "in it". By definition, the word you're looking for looking for could be "cosmos", being "everything that is, was, or ever will be", but even that is typically restrained only to what can be observed or extrapolated within this one universe.

If the multiverse theory where true, these bubbles would exists in space and time,

No they wouldn't. They would be in their own space and time, not ours. There wouldn't even be an "everything in it”.

Besides, the paper that I quoted also explains why a multiverse would also be past finite.

No it didn't. Nor do I think there even is a concept of "past finite". What does that even mean?

All this can happen without any intent and cannot happen WITH intent. So you still can't prove your magic imaginary immortal no matter you rephrase your god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

Are you willing to grant that if time had a cause, this cause necessarily would have to be timeless?, ie that exists independently of time?

As I already said, it could be independent of our time, but not necessary all applications of time itself. Once again, I repeat, If it is the substance of a 4th spacial dimension inflating a 3-dimensional universe, then it should be subject to different applications of its own time irrelevant to ours.

Any “timeless” deterministic or random cause would have produced the effect (the universe) an infinite amount of time ago.

Wrong. The inflation of "a" universe could have happened an infinite amount of time ago, or it could have happened last Thursday, but the inflation of THIS universe evidently occurred roughly 14 billion years ago.

Since the universe is presumable not past eternal, its cause could have not been deterministic nor random.

There's no such thing as "past eternal" just like there is no "past infinite". But once again, I repeat, if the super-massive gravity of the initial singularity slows time to a stop as I previously explained, the matter and energy of this universe would be eternal even if the inflation of space had a beginning.

The only option that we have left is agent causation.

Even if I were to grant all of your failed assertions, an "agent" would still not be an option. There is no case where that is even possible.

Or to put it this way, if the cause is deterministic and eternal, the effect most also be eternal. Which follows that ether the universe is eternal or that it´s cause was not deterministic, nor random.

Wrong again. Evolution for example, is both deterministic and random. Emergent complexity results in any universe where there is constant replication according to a few simple rules. The result is both deterministic and random and not remotely like an agent of any kind.

With eternal I mean “it has always been there”

I see what others mean about the Leroy-go-round. You ignore all the reasons I just explained to say that I provided no reasons at all. Then you repeat errors already corrected, forcing me to repeat those corrections. As I am tired of repeating myself to someone who only restates his original errors uncorrected, then I think it's time to get off this carousel.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I see what others mean about the Leroy-go-round. You ignore all the reasons I just explained to say that I provided no reasons at all. Then you repeat errors already corrected, forcing me to repeat those corrections. As I am tired of repeating myself to someone who only restates his original errors uncorrected, then I think it's time to get off this carousel.

Sorry, once you've stepped on, there's no getting off!

This section of LEROY's merry-go-round usually lasts approximately 21 pages, then he will declare that an earlier thing he said was accepted by everyone, and make a similarly specious argument repeating that which will then ensue for approximately another 6 pages, whereupon he'll get shirty for a few posts, then quit the thread never to be seen there again, but will simply repeat the topic (as he's done here) in an unrelated thread as if it wasn't successfully contested before.

 

[Akamia]

Madness is doing the same thing repeatedly, expecting different results.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Deleted member 619]

Let me add something about the 'singularity' and 'timelessness' that Aron touched on but didn't make explicit.

First, it's worth noting that nobody in mainstream cosmology takes the notion of a spacetime singularity seriously any more. The spacetime singularity is the product of a theorem proposed by Hawking and Penrose in 1971 that was predicated on General Relativity being the entire picture. We already know that it isn't the entire picture, because it can't account for observed phenomena that are relevant to the notion of a spacetime singularity. Quantum Mechanics, which does account for those phenomena, tells us that the spacetime singularity is impossible (more accurately, it tells us that it's an asymptotic value). Both Hawking and Penrose are on record as saying that the singularity theorem doesn't describe the universe we inhabit.

That aside, the notion that time began at the big bang has its only robust support in that self-same theorem because, as Aron said, time stops as the density increases (it has, in fact, stopped long before we get anywhere near singular density). However, what that tells us is only that the singularity doesn't experience the passage of time. This tells us nothing whatsoever about whether time actually exists. There are many, many things inside the universe that don't experience time. Any entity that travels at the speed of light moves only in space, not in time, yet time still exists.

The notion that time began at the big bang is entirely unfounded.

It's also important to note that, if M-Theory turns out to be an accurate description of the universe, then it's also the case that space didn't begin at the big bang either, it was merely compactified to the Planck scale.

 

[leroy]

Wrong. The inflation of "a" universe could have happened an infinite amount of time ago, or it could have happened last Thursday, but the inflation of THIS universe evidently occurred roughly 14 billion years ago.

.

Again, the paper that I quoted explains why that can’t be true, inflation could have not happen an infinite amount of time ago.

I am not implying g that you have to accept something, just because a paper says so, but if you are going to affirm that someone like Alexander Vilenkin is wrong, you better have some justification.

So are you ever going to show that your affirmations are true? Are you going to show that inflation could have occurred an infinite amount of time ago? You constantly accuse creationists for not supporting their assertions, so here you made an assertion and you have the opportunity to show that your assertion is true, and prove that you are better than those creationists.

then I think it's time to get off this carousel.

.

Why? Even if I were too stupid and not worthy of your time, I am sure that your atheists audience would like to see how do you justify your beginigless view of the universe. Particularly they would like to know how do you justify an inflationary model with inflations occurring an infinite amount of time ago.

There's no such thing as "past eternal" just like there is no "past infinite". But once again, I repeat, if the super-massive gravity of the initial singularity slows time to a stop as I previously explained, the matter and energy of this universe would be eternal even if the inflation of space had a beginning.

.

Ok, so energy and matter are eternal, but space (and time I suppose) had a beginning, is that your view?

As I already said, it could be independent of our time, but not necessary all applications of time itself. Once again, I repeat, If it is the substance of a 4th spacial dimension inflating a 3-dimensional universe, then it should be subject to different applications of its own time irrelevant to ours

.

Again I am defining universe as all space, time and everything in it, this includes all space-time that might exist in other “bubbles” or even before the big bang.
The point that I am making is that if time for example had a cause, the cause necessarily had to be something that exists independently of time.

so again, what term should I use instead of universe?

Even if I were to grant all of your failed assertions, an "agent" would still not be an option. There is no case where that is even possible.

.

well you have an other oportunity to show that your asertions are true

Wrong again. Evolution for example, is both deterministic and random. Emergent complexity results in any universe where there is constant replication according to a few simple rules. The result is both deterministic and random and not remotely like an agent of any kind
.

What are you talking about? All I am saying that if the cause of the universe (or time) is eternal and deterministic, the effect would also be eternal, the effect would have occurred and infinite amount of time ago.
If the cause took place an infinite amount of time ago, then the effect most have also take place an infinite amount of time ago. So ether the universe is causeless, or it had a non deterministic (nor random) cause.
This has nothing to do with complexity or any of the stuff that you mentioned.

 

[leroy]

The notion that time began at the big bang is entirely unfounded.
.

Interesting, but irrelevant, for the sake of this discussion we are assuming that Aronras favorite model of “many inflations” is true.


Even if that model is true, the universe/multiverse would still have a beginning at some point in the past, or at least this is what peer reviewed science suggests.


Sure if the model where true the universe/multiverse could have had a begging trillions of years before our big bang, but it would have an absolute beginning.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Complete bullshit. There is precisely zero empirical support for the notion that the universe - as YOU define it - had an absolute beginning. The paper you cite doesn't say what you insist it says, and I've explained why.

You're such a liar. Honestly, every single thing that's wrong with the human race is manifest in your tawdry presence on this forum.

Back to ignoring you completely.

Edited to add, for those who missed earlier discussions, what BGV theorem actually says is that, if eternal inflation is a correct model, that new physics is required to circumvent a beginning, because that new physics would be required to explain the low entropy state of the early universe. It doesn't say that there was a beginning, or even probably. We already know that new physics is required, because we don't have a quantum theory of gravity. This is especially relevant because gravity is an ordering force that increases entropy, and until we know its role in the early universe, we can say precisely fuck all with rigour about whether or not the universe had an absolute beginning.

Moreover, BGV theorem is rooted in treating the instantiation of the cosmos in terms of thermodynamics, and this is hugely problematic, because we can't even say with any confidence what type of thermodynamic system the universe is. Since the evolution of any thermodynamic system depends on the type of system, we can say nothing with confidence. It's an open question.

Finally, because the one thing that defines a thermodynamic system is its boundary, and since we have at least one model on the table in which the boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary, that means that the universe is an
open system. Lowering entropy locally in an open system is trivial, and we all do it every day.

Seriously, Leroy. You haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about, and it would take 20 years of education to get you anywhere near the understanding you'd require to make any sort of interesting or useful contribution to this discussion. Kindly shut the fuck up and let the adults talk.