Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 07-26-2002, 05:06 PM

So are you saying the universe had a beginning or not?

One way to look at it, perhaps, is time doesn't go that far back; "beginning" requires time. One more time, quantum fluctuations are not causal events that occur in time. So "cause" and "beginning", both of which have temporal components, are not applicable.

Smitty13 · 07-26-2002, 05:30 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Devilnaut:
[QB]Smitty, the fact that something is infinitely dense says nothing of its mass. It can have a mass of 1kg, or that of ten million suns. The only information that you get from 'infinitely dense' is that the object is infinitesimally small.

If something has 1kg of mass it is by definition "something" because it has a designated mass. There cannot be an actual something of infinite density. For example, imagine a library with an infinite number of books. Could you add a book to that library? The answer is "no" because what is one more than infinity? (Infinity plus one is in the realm of the logical absurd). So this singularity of infinite density is nothing. I have said nothing about God/first cause or any other idea. I'm simply looking to see if we can agree that the universe came into being at a specific point in time i.e. at the Big Bang.

Devilnaut · 07-26-2002, 05:34 PM

Smitty,

No, a singularity is not nothing, it is an object of infinite density and infinitesimal size. It would have a "designated mass". It's mass would be equal to the mass of all the matter in the universe.

"There cannot be an actual something of infinite density."

You're a physicist?

Smitty13 · 07-26-2002, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Devilnaut:
Smitty,

No, a singularity is not nothing, it is an object of infinite density and infinitesimal size. It would have a "designated mass". It's mass would be equal to the mass of all the matter in the universe.

"There cannot be an actual something of infinite density."

You're a physicist?

LOL! I am not a physicist, but an actual object of infinite density and infinitesimal size is not possible, only potential. That is why I said the singularity is nothing. So can we agree that the universe began from singularity/nothing?

Smitty13 · 07-26-2002, 06:22 PM

One way to look at it, perhaps, is time doesn't go that far back; "beginning" requires time. One more time, quantum fluctuations are not causal events that occur in time. So "cause" and "beginning", both of which have temporal components, are not applicable.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Please give me a quick explanation of quantum fluctuations. Thanks

Devilnaut · 07-26-2002, 06:22 PM

Err.. I still don't see why you consider a singularity to be 'nothing'. I am content to say that it looks like our current incarnation of our universe began in a singularity, but that's about as far as we'll agree

Smitty13 · 07-26-2002, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Devilnaut:
Err.. I still don't see why you consider a singularity to be 'nothing'. I am content to say that it looks like our current incarnation of our universe began in a singularity, but that's about as far as we'll agree

Let me try again. Is singularity on object of infinite density?

99Percent · 07-26-2002, 06:31 PM

Smitty13, lets go back one step. Is first cause even a premise? Why can't everything be causing everything simultaneously?

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: 99Percent ]

Smitty13 · 07-26-2002, 06:45 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 99Percent:
[QB]Smitty13, lets go back one step. Is first cause even a premise? Why can't everything be causing everything simultaneously?

Yes, I believe the formula:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

You ask a good question but doesn't "everything causing everything simultaneously" avoids answering the question "did the universe begin to exist?"

99Percent · 07-26-2002, 06:47 PM

No, because existence just is. Think about it.

07-26-2002, 06:31 PM	#58
99Percent Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: my mind Posts: 5,996	Smitty13, lets go back one step. Is first cause even a premise? Why can't everything be causing everything simultaneously? [ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: 99Percent ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-26-2002, 05:06 PM	#51
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	So are you saying the universe had a beginning or not? One way to look at it, perhaps, is time doesn't go that far back; "beginning" requires time. One more time, quantum fluctuations are not causal events that occur in time. So "cause" and "beginning", both of which have temporal components, are not applicable.

07-26-2002, 05:30 PM	#52
Smitty13 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: California Posts: 22	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Devilnaut: [QB]Smitty, the fact that something is infinitely dense says nothing of its mass. It can have a mass of 1kg, or that of ten million suns. The only information that you get from 'infinitely dense' is that the object is infinitesimally small. If something has 1kg of mass it is by definition "something" because it has a designated mass. There cannot be an actual something of infinite density. For example, imagine a library with an infinite number of books. Could you add a book to that library? The answer is "no" because what is one more than infinity? (Infinity plus one is in the realm of the logical absurd). So this singularity of infinite density is nothing. I have said nothing about God/first cause or any other idea. I'm simply looking to see if we can agree that the universe came into being at a specific point in time i.e. at the Big Bang.

07-26-2002, 05:34 PM	#53
Devilnaut Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Posts: 374	Smitty, No, a singularity is not nothing, it is an object of infinite density and infinitesimal size. It would have a "designated mass". It's mass would be equal to the mass of all the matter in the universe. "There cannot be an actual something of infinite density." You're a physicist?

07-26-2002, 06:22 PM	#55
Smitty13 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: California Posts: 22	One way to look at it, perhaps, is time doesn't go that far back; "beginning" requires time. One more time, quantum fluctuations are not causal events that occur in time. So "cause" and "beginning", both of which have temporal components, are not applicable.[/QB][/QUOTE] Please give me a quick explanation of quantum fluctuations. Thanks

07-26-2002, 06:45 PM	#59
Smitty13 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: California Posts: 22	[QUOTE]Originally posted by 99Percent: [QB]Smitty13, lets go back one step. Is first cause even a premise? Why can't everything be causing everything simultaneously? Yes, I believe the formula: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. You ask a good question but doesn't "everything causing everything simultaneously" avoids answering the question "did the universe begin to exist?"

07-26-2002, 06:47 PM	#60
99Percent Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: my mind Posts: 5,996	No, because existence just is. Think about it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.