Tyler Durden

Xian's questions are similar to the Great Infidel, the classical empiricist David Hume's criticism of the rationalistic principle of causality, demonstrating how it was actually a circular argument in disguise. The answer would be from the history of philosophy: Kant answered Xian's covert Humean skepticism in the landmark of the Enlightenment philosophy, Critique of Pure Reason.

A quick summary:

Man brings presuppositions to the collection of experience, and one of those presuppositions is the assumption that every sensory data (sight, sound, taste, smell, touch) contains a temporal property. Always.

Well, the solution is that our minds, unlike what Hume and Descartes assumed, are actually active, and brings conditions to the table of experience in order to render the bundle of sensations intelligible. We assume time/causality in order to even conceive anything intelligible. Then the question we should pose to Xian is to present a possible experience without temporality. A counter-example to prove his exhuming of old skepticism has any merit, even if they are over 200 years old and late.

Next.

Nowhere357

Hi Jamie.

Because we can reach conclusions rationally or intuitively.

Here is a short article on the subject.

I have heard of and met folks who believe the bible is truth, yet agree it's logically flawed. They simply will not or can not unseat their faith, merely because of logic.

Another example: I am pessimistic about the future of our world for rational reasons, yet nevertheless am intuitively optimistic that things will work out just fine. Also, I know my kids are more or less average, yet am convinced they are special.

I know these examples are weak, but that's all I have. I found no links to support the idea that we can hold both a rational belief and a contradictory intuitive belief at the same time.

Maybe I should include the keyword "insanity"?

Asha'man

I'm using the term informally, and you got it right.

Amaranth

It took nearly an hour and a half to read through that mess, and all I'm left with are a couple questions:

I'm awfully suprised no one jumped on this. Athiesm is without belief in gods. It's not a world view, moral code, set of physical laws, or anything else save to define belief or non-belief in gods.

Anyways, I was hoping that the physicists could debunk my own "creation story" while they're at it, all the while proving that an athiest can believe in effect without cause (without necessitating diety).

*ahem*

My concept on the creation of the universe says that before the big bang there was absolutely nothing. Without anything, including a set of physical laws, everything seems as likely as anything else. So, the universe just kind of popped its way into existance after an infinity of absolutely no time (please see the humor...please). "Things" necessitate rules and definitions, meaning that physical laws are dependent on existance of "things", thus creating the physical laws as we observe them.

Anyone care to tear that apart? Or is it pretty much immune due to any method of observation prior creation?

Lastly - Any sources on physics books for those of us who have forgotten HS science? I can follow most of this, but some of it is really giving me a real headache.

Amaranth

Hawkingfan

Hi Amaranth,

From what I gather, prior to the big bang, all of the mass and energy of the universe was compressed into a singularity that was infintismally small and infintismally hot (???). A singularity is something where current laws of science and math "break down" (meaning they cannot be used to explain it). This is because math, even Calculus, has difficulty dealing exclusively with infinite numbers (even though it can deal with them using limits). An example of a singularity besides the early universe would be a black hole. Right now, I think it is said that the universe began at the big bang. It is currently pointless to postulate what the universe was like prior to the BB since our universe would suffer none of its consequences (meaning our current science and math would not and could not apply--they only apply to the universe after the BB). But new observations and a new form of mathematics will probably solve the problem as well as changes in current relativity and quantum theories. New observations and math (for example, using imaginary numbers in algebra in a new way) helped solve some problems with singularities before with understanding black holes.

Nowhere357

Hi Amaranth. Two questions come to my mind: apparently 'absolute nothing' had the ability or quality to contain the universe (once it appeared). So even 'nothing' is something?

Then when the universe pops in, I think: where was it? How did this thing just appear? Well, the only thing that existed prior to the universe was 'nothing', so that 'nothing' must have included whatever was necessary for the universe to come into existence. Again, 'nothing' must be something.

Anyway, IMO no conception of 'before time began' has real meaning. Looking back in time, as we approach the singularity, the physical laws themselves seem to change. All I can say with certainty is that the universe seems to exist and that I seem to be aware of it.

Amaranth

A quantum singularity, if I recall correctly. Perhaps one of my favorite HS insults was to call others "denser than a quantum singularity" - I wonder if that really would have any meaning if I actually knew exactly what it meant, though. Heh...this is what I get for playing around with words much too big for my tiny, tiny brain.

Regardless - I actively toyed around with the concept of nothing begetting something, and it seems impossible to attack other than on the basis of it being without any proof what-so-ever (at least it holds up to Occams Razor when compared with diety). So, sadly, you are correct - Relatively pointless to even discuss, aside from perhaps friendly conversation.

Amaranth

Amaranth

Heya Nowhere,

A friend of mine and I went over the problem with the bounds of space-time in relation to the concept once, over lots of coffee and far too many cigarettes. I'm certain most everyone here can relate to the 1AM Saturday night conversation at IHOP, yes? Feel that wash of nostalgia?

Anyways - Nothing is nothing, at least in relation to the concept. Nothing includes lack of space-time, matter, energy, and by extension the laws that apply to them all. Without rules, classical causauly obviously does not apply, making (theoretically) anything as inprobable as anything else. I asserted (and continue to do so) that the everything that is popped into existance, all of it within the shiny new model of space-time, which had the wonderous advantage of starting out infinite. My friend, Jim, contested that space-time is an extension of physical law, only existing between all points in which something exists; Basically, his model started out as a quantum singularity as everything, and as the matter/forces expand, so does space-time. I tend to think space-time just is.

Anyways, completely unsubstantiated concepts aside, it would be interesting to read something on concepts about physical laws shifting as we go back in the timeline. It raises the question of whether the laws changed, or if it was just a set of circumstances. Basically, are physical laws dependent upon what exists, or is it the other way around. Or does that make any sense?


Oh, and no; there was not a Douglas Adams book present at this conversation, although there probably should have been.

Amaranth

Nowhere357

'Nothing is nothing' has at least two meanings to me! But I know what you mean.

Our physical 'laws' are based on observation, and so they depend on what exists. IOW, things don't fall because of the law of gravity; we have a law of gravity because things fall.

Here is a site that will show what I mean when I say: logic is a very tricky tool!