|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
 Posted - 03/09/2006 : 15:12:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
This universe certainly had a beginning, and what may or may not have existed "before" this universe is anyone's guess. So I'll ask again: why is it that something must be "eternal?"
Ahhhh. Semantics seems to be the problem. The Universe is all which exists. Unless a qualifier is added like 'known' universe there is only one.
It is necessary for something to exist in order for it to act or react - change or be changed. That which does not exist does not exist - it is not the empty set, it is not a set at all it is a fiction with no physical manifestation in the cosmos. To change nothing is NOT to change. Something cannot change from a state of non existence to a state of existence. If it does not exist, it has no state.
quote:
quote:
Infinite redundancy is a logical ERROR CONDITION.
Since when? Dealing with the infinite is something which is routinely done in both math and logic (math being an extension of pure logic).quote:
If the premises of an argument are inconsistent then the truth-table for that argument will have no line on which all of the premises are true.
Yeah, and? What premises have I stated which are inconsistent?quote:
"Being" is CERTAINLY not the same as "state of being". State of being can be multivarious - even infinite in its variety. Being is an on/off or yes/no proposition. It is; however, not uncommon for folks not to discern the difference.
Yes, yes. Being is a subset of all possible states of being. The two are not identical, but how does it apply to the discussion we're having here?quote:
If part of a subject experiences a alteration in condition which produces a defined change in its appearance, the 'changed' portion does not become a separate existence - this is the difference between a condition and an 'existence'.
And that has what to do with the origin of the universe?
To assert that "that which does not exist can be changed" is logically indefensible. That which does not exist has no condition. That which does not exist doesn't exist - or do you have some esoteric definition of the term 'exist' which allows this anomaly? |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
| Edited by - THoR on 03/09/2006 15:38:09 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 17:40:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
Ahhhh. Semantics seems to be the problem. The Universe is all which exists. Unless a qualifier is added like 'known' universe there is only one.
I believe I've been quite clear that I've been speaking of only the "known" universe, as I've repeatedly made clear that we cannot know what may or may not have been "before" the Big Bang.quote:
It is necessary for something to exist in order for it to act or react - change or be changed. That which does not exist does not exist - it is not the empty set, it is not a set at all it is a fiction with no physical manifestation in the cosmos. To change nothing is NOT to change. Something cannot change from a state of non existence to a state of existence. If it does not exist, it has no state.
Oh, forcryingoutloud. Fine: if I build a chair, I didn't bring the chair (or its parts) "into existence." Instead, the condition of "chairness" has always existed (even when there were no chairs), and I simply re-assembled bits of matter so that they met such a condition.
In other words, all possible conditions have always existed, even when the set of beings capable of understanding philosophy was empty. "Change" is simply the transformation of matter, energy or ideas from one condition to another. "Chairness" is simply a state of being of some portions of matter, and not the bringing into existence of any matter.
Thus, the very word "existence" becomes meaning-free in this universe, as - since the Big Bang - matter has always existed and so have all possible conditions. In other words, "in the known universe," there is nothing which can possibly cease to exist, since my chair, were it to rot, would simply transform into one or more other "conditions" instead of ceasing to exist. Given these definitions, everything is eternal. It is now obvious why the Spanish would have a second word for such an idea, since confusion between the two meanings obviously clogs bandwidth with semantic nonsense.quote:
To assert that "that which does not exist can be changed" is logically indefensible.
Which is why I never asserted that.quote:
That which does not exist has no condition. That which does not exist doesn't exist - or do you have some esoteric definition of the term 'exist' which allows this anomaly?
No, just the regular definition which you seem to be disputing.
Nice to see you ignore my other questions to you, by the way. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 06:27:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
Ahhhh. Semantics seems to be the problem. The Universe is all which exists. Unless a qualifier is added like 'known' universe there is only one.
I believe I've been quite clear that I've been speaking of only the "known" universe, as I've repeatedly made clear that we cannot know what may or may not have been "before" the Big Bang.
No, I wasn't aware you were referring to the 'known' universe, so I perceived you saying "the world is flat" instead of "the world within my view is flat".
quote:
quote:
It is necessary for something to exist in order for it to act or react - change or be changed. That which does not exist does not exist - it is not the empty set, it is not a set at all it is a fiction with no physical manifestation in the cosmos. To change nothing is NOT to change. Something cannot change from a state of non existence to a state of existence. If it does not exist, it has no state.
Oh, forcryingoutloud. Fine: if I build a chair, I didn't bring the chair (or its parts) "into existence." Instead, the condition of "chairness" has always existed (even when there were no chairs), and I simply re-assembled bits of matter so that they met such a condition.
In other words, all possible conditions have always existed, even when the set of beings capable of understanding philosophy was empty. "Change" is simply the transformation of matter, energy or ideas from one condition to another. "Chairness" is simply a state of being of some portions of matter, and not the bringing into existence of any matter.
Thus, the very word "existence" becomes meaning-free in this universe, as - since the Big Bang - matter has always existed and so have all possible conditions. In other words, "in the known universe," there is nothing which can possibly cease to exist, since my chair, were it to rot, would simply transform into one or more other "conditions" instead of ceasing to exist. Given these definitions, everything is eternal.
APPLAUSE ! ! !
quote:
It is now obvious why the Spanish would have a second word for such an idea, since confusion between the two meanings obviously clogs bandwidth with semantic nonsense.
Words mean things. When properly encoded the result is understanding (not necessarily agreement). Otherwise, yes, it is a needless waste of effort in a discussion.
quote:
quote:
To assert that "that which does not exist can be changed" is logically indefensible.
Which is why I never asserted that.quote:
That which does not exist has no condition. That which does not exist doesn't exist - or do you have some esoteric definition of the term 'exist' which allows this anomaly?
No, just the regular definition which you seem to be disputing.
Nice to see you ignore my other questions to you, by the way.
Sorry - skipped this one:
quote:
This universe certainly had a beginning, and what may or may not have existed "before" this universe is anyone's guess. So I'll ask again: why is it that something must be "eternal?"
If I understand correctly, what you mean to say is "The condition of this universe certainly had a beginning and what may or may not have existed "before" the Big Bang is anyone's guess."
I can buy that...but I can't buy "The existence of the universe was precipitated by an event called the Big Bang." That is tantamount to conjuring...poor skepticism. Certainly no 'condition' would be eternal - and just as certainly no 'existence' would be temporary. That is why there are those two Spanish verbs. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 07:08:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I can buy that...but I can't buy "The existence of the universe was precipitated by an event called the Big Bang." That is tantamount to conjuring...poor skepticism. Certainly no 'condition' would be eternal - and just as certainly no 'existence' would be temporary. That is why there are those two Spanish verbs.
Once again, for the third time in this wretched thread, Big Bang Theory has nothing to say about the genesis of the universe, only what happened immediately afterward.
quote:
0) Introduction
a) Purpose of this FAQ
According to the welcome page of this archive, the talk.origins newsgroup is intended for debate about "biological and physical origins", and the archive exists to provide "mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup". Many current FAQs deal with questions about biological and geological origins here on Earth. This page will take a broader view, focusing on the the universe itself.
Before beginning the examination of the evidence surrounding current cosmology, it is important to understand what Big Bang Theory (BBT) is and is not. Contrary to the common perception, BBT is not a theory about the origin of the universe. Rather, it describes the development of the universe over time. This process is often called "cosmic evolution" or "cosmological evolution"; while the terms are used by those both inside and outside the astronomical community, it is important to bear in mind that BBT is completely independent of biological evolution. Over the last several decades the basic picture of cosmology given by BBT has been generally accepted by astronomers, physicists and the wider scientific community. However, no similar consensus has been reached on ideas about the ultimate origin of the universe. This remains an area of active research and some of idea current ideas are discussed below. That said, BBT is nevertheless about origins -- the origin of matter, the origin of the elements, the origin of large scale structure, the origin of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, etc. All of this will be discussed in detail below.
Bolding mine.
Now, everybody bookmark that link and then you'll have it when confusion arises the next time. That is important 'cause I ain't puttin' it up again. 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 08:09:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
According to the welcome page of this archive, the talk.origins newsgroup is intended for debate about "biological and physical origins", and the archive exists to provide "mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) ...
Free for All: Talk about anything! It doesn't have to be skeptic related. If something doesn't seem to go in another forum, try it here. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 08:11:05 [Permalink]
|
Given a finite number of moving particles randomly vectored at random velocities within a finite volume, eventually all collisions which could occur WILL occur - within a finite period of time. Many of those collisions may occur outside of the original volume, but they will still take place within a finite period and within a finite distance. Once all collisions have occurred, all particles will eventually reach the boundary of the initial volume and be moving away from each other.
It is small wonder the bodies within the infinitesimal portion of the Universe we can detect with our technology seem to be moving away from each other. The default assumption seems to be this is due to a 'ballooning' of the Universe from a point of singularity, but the above scenario explains the phenomenon equally as well.
|
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 10:37:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
No, I wasn't aware you were referring to the 'known' universe, so I perceived you saying "the world is flat" instead of "the world within my view is flat".
Well, I've been repeating the fact that we cannot know what happened "before" the Big Bang, so I don't know how you missed it.quote:
APPLAUSE ! ! !
I'll be here all week, ladies and germs.quote:
Words mean things. When properly encoded the result is understanding (not necessarily agreement). Otherwise, yes, it is a needless waste of effort in a discussion.
Well, color me confused. I just got finished demonstrating that the word "exist" has no meaning whatsoever under the constraints you appeared to be applying, and in response to that demonstration you applauded. Now you appear to be claiming that "exist" does have some meaning, "when properly encoded."
I happen to prefer a definition of "exist" which, using your terminology, means that some chunk of matter and/or energy has taken on certain conditions. So, before I build it, my chair doesn't exist. And after my chair accidentally falls into an incinerator, it no longer exists. This definition, much less strict than yours (apparently) allows me to say such things as "bigfoot doesn't exist" and actually have the word mean something.
And it means precisely the same thing as before all this semantic crappola: the observable universe exists now, but it did not exist "before" the Big Bang.
quote:
I can buy that...but I can't buy "The existence of the universe was precipitated by an event called the Big Bang." That is tantamount to conjuring...poor skepticism.
Not at all. You can't buy "The existence of the universe was precipitated by an event called the Big Bang" because the word "existence" has no meaning for you whatsoever. Someone may as well have said "The floobygizmologut of the universe was precipitated by an event called the Big Bang." It's simply nonsense to you.
By my definition of "existence," on the other hand (the one most people use, as far as I can tell), the sentence makes perfect sense.quote:
Certainly no 'condition' would be eternal...
What? Conditions are eternal, as I said (and you applauded). What's not eternal is a lump of matter meeting particular conditions.quote:
...and just as certainly no 'existence' would be temporary. That is why there are those two Spanish verbs.
No, what you applauded was that "existence" has no meaning, and thus it's impossible to say whether any "existence" is temporary or not, just like it's impossible to say whether any "jumfragizz" is temporary or not. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 10:41:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
It is small wonder the bodies within the infinitesimal portion of the Universe we can detect with our technology seem to be moving away from each other. The default assumption seems to be this is due to a 'ballooning' of the Universe from a point of singularity, but the above scenario explains the phenomenon equally as well.
Since the Big Bang doesn't posit "a finite number of moving particles randomly vectored at random velocities within a finite volume," your argument appears to be a strawman. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 13:00:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, what you applauded was that "existence" has no meaning, and thus it's impossible to say whether any "existence" is temporary or not, just like it's impossible to say whether any "jumfragizz" is temporary or not.
Exist = to be. To have presence within the Universe |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 13:37:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
Exist = to be. To have presence within the Universe
Then why did you applaud my demonstration that "exist" is meaningless? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 01:46:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
According to the welcome page of this archive, the talk.origins newsgroup is intended for debate about "biological and physical origins", and the archive exists to provide "mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) ...
Free for All: Talk about anything! It doesn't have to be skeptic related. If something doesn't seem to go in another forum, try it here.
I am not sure what you mean by this, in context.... Please elaborate.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 03:53:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
It is small wonder the bodies within the infinitesimal portion of the Universe we can detect with our technology seem to be moving away from each other. The default assumption seems to be this is due to a 'ballooning' of the Universe from a point of singularity, but the above scenario explains the phenomenon equally as well.
Since the Big Bang doesn't posit "a finite number of moving particles randomly vectored at random velocities within a finite volume," your argument appears to be a strawman.
Fascinating. It posits a finite amount of mass (made of fundamental particles); hence a finite volume...so who determined the trajectories of the galaxies?
Is the gist of the illustration REALLY over your head or are you just playing dumb? |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
| Edited by - THoR on 03/11/2006 06:36:32 |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 06:39:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
Exist = to be. To have presence within the Universe
Then why did you applaud my demonstration that "exist" is meaningless?
Why would you presume THAT was the paragraph which elicited the applause? I will endeavor to clip your quotes more closely. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 06:59:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
According to the welcome page of this archive, the talk.origins newsgroup is intended for debate about "biological and physical origins", and the archive exists to provide "mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) ...
Free for All: Talk about anything! It doesn't have to be skeptic related. If something doesn't seem to go in another forum, try it here.
I am not sure what you mean by this, in context.... Please elaborate.
" over time. This process is often called "cosmic evolution" or "cosmological evolution"; while the terms are used by those both inside and outside the astronomical community, it is important to bear"
quote:
and the fact that Spanish has two (which I'll grant as fact for the moment) doesn't support the contention that the states of existence are necessarily different.
I CERTAINLY hope that clarifies my intent |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
| Edited by - THoR on 03/11/2006 07:09:25 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2006 : 09:16:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
Fascinating. It posits a finite amount of mass (made of fundamental particles)...
No, the Big Bang posits no particles at all (to beging with).quote:
...hence a finite volume...
The "finite" part is not the issue.quote:
...so who determined the trajectories of the galaxies?
The laws of physics.quote:
Is the gist of the illustration REALLY over your head or are you just playing dumb?
I'm arguing against poor definitions and playing fast-and-loose with established scientific theories. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
