Infinity Lover

it all HAD to begin at some point...

May I please think so free, to call that a complete and utter load of nothingness?

There is NO such nessecity, on the contrary; it's a blatant breach of basic logic.

A beginning of existence (=all that exists; a term I prefer in favour of the more scientic, but ultimately hypothetical "universe")would have to be preceided by nonexistence, which (believe it or not) has this peculiar habit of NOT existing.

It's equally odd, how religious people have no problem whatsoever with fascilitating the notion of an eternal deity, while at the same time being incapable of accepting an absolutely infinite existence.

There seems to be no comprehendable reason for shunting absolute infinity, but the irrational attachment to beginning. We (in general) just don't like letting go of that idea. Perhaps we find it somewhat unnerving?
Hense the title...


[ August 25, 2002: Message edited by: Infinity Lover ]</p>

tronvillain

Well, I am not completely committed to the statement, but it is not clear that it is totally unreasonable. Saying that the beginning was preceded by nothingness is to say that there is nothing before the beginning of the universe - in other words, there is no "before the universe."

Infinity Lover

Well, there is the assumption, that there's no 'before the Big Bang', because time didn't exist yet (at least not in the way we're used to preceive time )

science in general has this vague notion of dimensions being maniputable realms to dwell in. Some scientist even try to come up with additional ones (or at least a fifth one )

As far as I know, a timeunit is a piece of movement we use to compare all other movement with. The second is to movement, what a centimeter is to size.

Try to temporarily abandon the notion of time, and see the whole of existence as a singular 'moment', there's no past or future, it's there, now, period, because it couldn't possibly NOT be there, and in constant motion, constantly changing... it's not untill you start comparing the movement with a clock that you get that frame of reference you'd call time.
It's not so much a matter of before or after, but rather the whole (every)thing blinking on/off... it's not possible.

Life's about choices, existence doesn't have a choice but to exist.

The Big Bang theory is the result of hypotheticly reversing an expansion that could just as well be everpresent. We know now, there are such things as starnurceries, so why do we still need a primal bang as the source of celestial bodies?

[ August 25, 2002: Message edited by: Infinity Lover ]</p>

sweep

precisely tron- before is contingent upon existence-

it is a bit like saying they are dead or life after death

the cessation of consciousness is perceived by the living. when all conduction has been lost across this brain the body continues to transform- *I* stays exactly where it is: in the environment.

If an observer witnesses the passage of time each year we see the flowers live, transform, and die. Not sensible to label them as dead as we are perceiving absence, that is all. new flowers grow, but what is it about those new flowers that is any different from the old?

Different cells? different genes? how so?

The fact is, that billions of bodies are 'popping up' all the time. Fifty babies have no personality, no self- they have only a point of reference- the absence of that point is perceptible only by another point. In its absence, we say something has gone- where to?

If *I* am a product of that enviroment then what is *I* born 300 years ago? Is it feasible that this body could have been born at any point&gt; but how?

what am *I* in ancient greece, for example. The enviroment is master of *I*. No part of this brain that conscious design allows me to perceive, was fixed. *I* am water in a cup, and when the cup is spilled the contents dissipate-

[ August 25, 2002: Message edited by: sweep ]</p>

dostf

Infinity lover:

The idea of a "beginning and an "ending", are of course reliant on the "time" perception issue.
We mark the apparent linear progress of time through perceived change.
The "passing" of time stands in direct relation to our perception of it.
More correctly, the passage of time is directly related to our "self" and how it has been constucted through education, upbringing, experience etc.
Certainly "time" may pass more quickly or slowly (compared to our sense of the normal passing of time) depending on our relatioship to any particular "event".
The "past" does not exist- it is never as one remembers it in stored memory
The "future" does not exist- events are not "pre set" according to "fate"
Even the "moment" is simply a term for our perception of "now"

Our reasonable logical mind cannot comprehend "no time or space" hence it always strives to define the beginning or end of any process. This is not "bad" as it allows us to function in society, analyse, categorize, and describe ourselves and our world. However it is limited as it can only assess by that which it already "knows"

Be seeing you...

sweep

right, now we need to incorporate particle acceleration and vacuums into the discussion-

*all scientists come here, will you*

Infinity Lover

You're sick, I hope you realize that.



[ August 25, 2002: Message edited by: Infinity Lover ]</p>

eh

The big bang theory is not just what you get from moving the clock back on the expanding cosmos. There also happens to be other bodies of evidence, and is certainly not going to be easily replaced. The theory does imply a beginning to our visible universe, but does not show that our visible universe is all there is.

But anyway, onto the concept of infinity. We have no problem imagining the universe existed forever into the future, but the idea of an infinite regress gives a lot of folks trouble. Why? Well because by defintion, infinity is everything, and nothing can be added to it. No matter how far you go, or how much time passes, you can never reach a point of infinity.

With an infinite regress, we are saying we have in fact, reached a point where the universe is infinite. Does this not seem like a problem?

Infinity Lover

Perhaps it's about time I explained about...
(here it comes)

THE PRINCIPLE OF ABSOLUTE INFINITY (p.a.i.)

The absolutes of infinity
Absolutes are norms that always apply to a subject, regardless of which other subject you'd compare it with. Some absolutes actually apply to reality, others are purely contemplative. According to p.a.i. nothing and perfection are contemplative absolutes, limitation and uniqueness real absolutes, with infinity itself as the absolute norm that (only) applies to the whole of existence, and existence being the nature of infinity. Infinity exists, thus existence is infinite.

Nothing's perfect! not even infinity?
One subject out of many couldn't possibly be perfect, because it needs to be limited to offer room to other subjects. Lacking everything it doesn't contain, makes it 'imperfect'. The only thing that could be perfect, would be an infinite singularity, that doesn't offer room to anything besides itself. When they say nothing's perfect, they're right on the money. Nothing and perfection are one and the same. Nothing is the perfect lack of everything, and perfection the lack of nothing. Infinity also lacks nothing. Does that mean infinity is perfect? I'd beg to differ. Infinity doesn't offer room to perfection, and in that respect it has it's 'imperfections'; an infinite amount of them to be precise. The real absolute uniqueness, is another 'lack of perfection'; no two subjects can be perfectly similar, though an infinitely small difference is possible. Uniqueness being a real absolute, also means that (besides limitation and infinity) every other norm you could possibly come up with, is purely contemplative and theoretical. We can decide such a criterium certainly (!) does or doesn't apply, but we can also be in doubt (?) about that.
The certainties and possibilities of existence.
You can certainly look at existence as a boundless question, consisting of an infinite amount of limited answers. Existence, every single thing in it (including our very brainactivity, as I'll explain further on), as well as the nature of infinity can be translated into questionmarks and exclamationpoints.
Inward and outward infinity.
Try to picture a computeranimation of space, where you can infinitely scroll in every direction, but also infinitely zoom out and in... endlessly encountering smaller and smaller particles... that should give an idea of what our absolutely infinite existence looks like.
The zooming in, is what I call 'inward infinity', or towards certainty (!). In this case there is a contemplative limit you're headed towards; a mathmatical point. You know for certain the limit's there, but also that you'll never actually reach it; you'll just be getting infinitely closer and closer. A known example in physics is zero Kelvin. Again the lack of perfection plays a part. Particles can't stand perfectly still, so there will always be some kinetic energy, thus heat. The Greek philosopher Zeno's paradox, of being unable to reach a destination, because you'd first have to reach a point halfway, but first a point halfway halfway, etc. can easely be solved. Just let go of the foolish notion, that mathmatical perfection applies to reality. You simply pass the 'points' en-route by, to approximate your destination. That riddle pretty much brings out the perfectionist in you, and makes you regret it.
Outwards infinity would be the scrolling and zooming out. Towards possibility (?); infinitely into the uncertain, with no theoretical destination whatsoever. A mathmetical line infinitely going on in both directions, is outward infinity, and a piece of a line containing an infinite amount of points is a matter of inward infinity. Whatever scientist call a multiverse... considering those to be neigboring infinites, would be giving two finites the wrong damn name...
Everything answering to one fundamental bit of logic, makes it understandable why so many believe there's a 'greater scheme of things', a 'grand masterplan', and a 'higer power' involved.

Hope you enjoyed that

doubtingt

I certainly agree that there is no such neccessity. I fail to see how any "beginning" theory does not require the belief that
something came from absolute nothing.

I doubt there is an assumption that is less justified either via logic or empirical data.
Certainly the overwhelming burden of proof lies with those who make this claim, and they are not
even light years close to meeting that burden.

I suspect that our affinity for the finite stems partly from our everyday experiences with objects and events that from a crude psychological standpoint appear to have a beginning and an end.