Broken Circle

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Where did the "things" come from, what was there cause? They came from "energy", the energy is eternal.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I think Patrick and TVF are basically saying the same thing but argue over the semantics and use of words. Both make the, otherwise occult, hyposthesis, that the universe is eternal. This is what Patrick's statement implies, irrespectively of what this "pure" energy means.

Whatever is not deduced from the phenomena has no place in physics or anywhere else, especially in the minds of mortal beings.

Nevertheless, even the hypothesis of a world started by a Big Bing is as occult. The difference here is that some poeple claim this hypotheis is deduced from the phenomena (red shift, etc.)

Tennis match call: Big Bang advantage

The only problem is that the "eternals" cannot get to service an advantage. This cosmology thing is a match with one player and no winners: Paradox.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Posted - 06 Apr 2003 : 17:36:47

---

quote:

---

If existence is eternal, i.e. "things" can't come into existence[/u[, then how can "things" exist in the first place?

---

Can you show me one "Thing" which has COME INTO existence? Things do not come into existence, they simply exists. "Things" come from other "things" which are made from "stuff". I think everyone here agrees that the "stuff" which makes up all the "things" is "energy". The "Energy"(stuff) is eternal, not the "things".


quote:

---

OTOh, the fact that "things" exist can be used simply as proof that they came into existence. And to avoid an infinite regression of cause and effect, we merely place our starting point to when there was absolutely nothing in the universe.

---

Where did the "things" come from, what was there cause? They came from "energy", the energy is eternal.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>



And where did the "energy" come from, ad infinintum? You have to postulate that energy is "eternal" for your idea to work. Now, can you ever go back to eternity? Can you count to infinity? If not, how can you know that things didn't come from absolutely nothing? You can't. So, the only way to prove this line of argument is with a contradictory act: assuming infinity can be counted. This is one of the infamous oxymorons of Cantor, that mentally unstable mathematician : "countably infinite".

But even if one were to accept the axiom that energy is eternal, this means it was uncaused. Uncaused also carries the connotation of without design or purpose. How is this position any different than something from nothing? There is no difference since they both produce the same universe: one that had no inherent design or purpose. Philosophically, there's no difference. It's only a matter of preference. I prefer "something from nothing" because you don't have to work with the self-contradictory infinity math.

Another benefit is that an eternal model such as TVF's MM, and Patrick's derivative concept, "Eternal Energy", leads to confusion and apparent contradictions (Russell's paradox) when, in addition to postulating that existence is eternal and uncaused, every form in existence is presumed to be finite in duration and had an antecedent cause; existence ex-nihilo produces no such contradictions since "nothing" is an outside cause and does't have the same properties as "something".

Intrinsically, neither model assumes purpose or design for existence. I think the point where we may actually diverge philosophically is when we start considering the nature of existence and whether it is changing or not, to paraphrase Dr. Flandern. I believe existence is always evolving, that forms in existence are always changing. But since I've read from all parties some agreement on this point, I don't think our views are very different at all.

To be fair, we haven't really dug into the details of the nature of existence in our discussions so I can't really say how much these differ. I think it's likely that forms are evolving towards a goal, whether one that is determined by preexisting conditions or preset, is hard to tell. What do you guys think?

In any case, the how and to what purpose of form changes are of much more practical value than the question of the "origin" (if any) of existence itself.

JoeW & 123...,

I have to basically agree with you both. Acouple of minor differences but they as you say are mere preferences.

Yes Mac, but it seems TVF does not understand that by challenging the redshift supporting the Big Bang hypothesis does nothing to support the MM. Actually, ho hypothesis can be made in the context of experimental phylosophy to support the MM. This is where the "meat" is. Big Bangers will always be able to make a hypothesis based on observation to keep them legitimate in this context. In this respect, the MM will always be looked upon as metaphysics. NASA is going Big Bang and everyone now is getting in that bandwagon. Is there anything we can do to help TVF? If we could prove something is 100 billion years old, or better 1 trillion years old, that could help. But his idea of a limit on form durations prohibits us from doing so.

I God comes down and says, "Hey people, I'm google years old", that might save the MM. It's the only hope, another coming of Jesus. Now we know to ask the right questions. I'm serious, don't laugh Mac. It's called expert testimony. God is expert in universe stuff.

I hope God is reading these threads. We need answers.

Patrick, It would be interesting to me to know why you feel the question you ask has an important answer? It seems to me this still is basically a question that has been kicked around since the dawn of human history and never resolved. But, does that mean the answer is of any value? What am I not getting that you know?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

[Patrick]Wrong! I make the hypothesis that the "Energy"(substance) which makes up the universe(physical universe...forms...mass) is eternal. The universe(physical universe) itself is finite.

Furthermore, my hypothesis does not incorporate infinity and is capable of being suported by physical observation as well as mathematics.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Eternal is a specific semantic expression for infinity applied to time. So yes, your hypothesis involves infinity in the time dimension. "Eternality" cannot be the subject of any kinds of observations. It's a metaphysical concept. Furthermore, it's only description we know of in math is oo.

Patrick, thermodynamic and gravitational considerations prevent a finite universe from eternal existence. You're trying to cut in between the MM and Big Bang by inventing this "pure eternal energy" concept. The problem is that you are falling victim of Russell's paradox. If everything is made of pure and eternal energy then is that pure and eternal energy a part of a finite universe or not?

It is, if it is not

It isn't, if it is

Try to understand the above contradiction to see where th problem is.

That's why, to avoid contradictions we must state axiomatically that everything came from nothing and forget the rest until God shows up and provides us with the details.