Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 3/18/03 12:00 AM, TheShrike wrote:

At 3/17/03 03:39 PM, Taxman2A wrote: Shrike, I think you make some good points, and I do not entirely disagree with you. However, I have a few objections.

At 3/17/03 02:24 AM, TheShrike wrote:

What if something finite is created, from nothing, with no purpose, by noone. That would also shoot down this theory.

This is true. However, this has never happened. ...[more]...

At the risk of sounding incredibly childish, I ask that you prove that.
Seriously. Construct for me a theory or explanation that completely rules out the possibility that everything may not have been 'made' by 'something'

ah.... the endless debate that is philosophy.

Well the only way to truly "know" whether this has never happened would be to look at a complete history of the universe, obviously this is impossible.

While this question deals more with Physics than Philosophy, it is still part of the debate, and I of course will engage it.

I will refer to a man who knows... lets say... a great deal more about physics than anyone in this forum -Albert Einstein.

Einstein's findings, as well as the empirical findings of others since him have ended up with the same conclusion regarding the physics of our universe:

"Neither matter nor energy can be created nor destroyed, or that there is a constant amount of matter and energy in the universe."

This comes both from the law of conservation of matter, and other various laws of thermodynamics which can be viewed at the below link.

http://euclid.dne.wvnet.edu/~jvg/ENV101/ENV_101_MatEng.html

Because your proposition of someone creating something from nothing defies these laws quite directly, I compared it to someone floating around our planet's atmosphere without anything causing this to happen. Sure, if this were to happen than it would shoot down the laws it defies. However, laws of physics don't get to be laws without significant research first being put into them, and for the sake of argument, I'll bet my left nut that noone has ever made anything from nothing :).

Good stuff as always in this thread. As before I graciously accept any challenges you or anyone else has to what I say. I seem to be doing ok (so far) in this thread, but I spend a good several hours each and every day being dead wrong, and this forum is often no objection.

Here is another useful link for the physical concepts we have been talking about.
http://fox.rollins.edu/~jsiry/WebrelEN.html

---

You've all raised some interesting points. I will try to address some of them as best I can.

Raptorman astutely opined:
You said that no part of infinity could be isolated due to the mathematical impossibility of it. The weakness lies in the mathematics, not in the reality.

This is actually a really good point. In order for the point to hold, it must be allowed that our current understanding of mathematics is adequate to describe the universe. I'll admit the possibility that the mathematical principles involved are in error. I hold that they are accurate in this case, but I admit the chance of error.

Cableshaft astutely opined:
Your argument is circular. You are proving that an objective reality exists by using the definitions and laws and theories that assume that an objective reality exists in order to have any function.

How so? True, you must accept existence itself (among other things) as axiomatic, but where does it require the acceptance of objective reality as axiomatic? You'll have to be more specific for me to give an answer.

Taxman2A astutely opined:
Have you ever read Thomas Aquinas- Summa Theologica?

Yes, in fact, this whole argument is simply an attempt to seal some of the holes in Aquinas' Prime Mover theory (that's why it's more complex, it takes the original argument and assumes certain attacks, and then attempts to counter them.)

Good thread.

Thanks.

theshrike astutely opined:
-=<Schroedinger's Cat theory>=-

My point is precisely that whatever created the universe must transcend the laws of our universe including quantum mechanics and would therefore be immune to the "observation causes change" maxim.

Let us imagine time is infinite. If the above statement is true, then you cannot measure time, let alone experience any part of it separate from the rest.

That makes my point. My observation tells me that time can be measured (relatively speaking) and experienced in parts, separate from the rest, therefore I assume that time is NOT infinite.

I cannot prove I exist.

Taxman2A did a good job putting forward the argument (from Descartes) that I would use here. I have nothing to add except that, you have nothing to lose by accepting your own existence as axiomatic because if you don't exist, it doesn't matter what you think (or think you think.)

Oh, and I'll avoid the overused, "Descaretes goes into a bar," joke. ;)

But, you can also not prove that you are finite until, alas, you are nomore.

If I were infinite, I would have already existed for an infinite time and therefore would have had infinite chances to discover my own (infinite) nature. Therefore, however small the chances of this discovery would be, if they are greater than zero (which logically they would be) then I would already have discovered myself to be infinite and therefore would not erroneously think that I was finite.

And who is to say that the universe is finite? If it is, then it is not neccessarily taken from the whole of infinity, but rather is an inextractable part of infinity.

This would require a fundamental retooling of our concepts of mathematics. As I stated in the above response to Raptorman's post, my argument accepts mathematics as we know them to be axiomatic. If they aren't, then the argument falls apart, as do nearly all known laws of nature. If you accept mathematical laws as we know them to be correct, then my point holds.

To take your Pi example, if you take 3 from Pi, you have .1415926535...etc. Both are still finite numbers. My point is that if you took 3 from infinity, there would still be just as much left in infinity as before. This would be mathematically impossible. That is, provided you accept our current understanding of mathematics, which, I admit, could be flawed.

Also, Taxman2A made another good point about the law of entropy. It also makes a very strong case for the universe as being finite.

Oh, and as for the spontaneous creation of subatomic particles in quantum physics: that isn't truly from nothing, there is a corresponding loss of mass and/or energy from somewhere else in the universe in accordance with the law of conservation of mass/energy. But, that's a different thread. ;)

I'm thinking of a number between 41 & 43...

Is it an integer?

Taxman2A astutely opined:
-=<lots of stuff>=-

All excellent points, man. I can't find anything you said that I disagree with, and that's unusual for me. ;)

Great points all around. Good food for thought is hard to come by. Thanks.

---

At 3/19/03 02:34 AM, OlenWhitaker wrote:

theshrike astutely opined:
-=<Schroedinger's Cat theory>=-

My point is precisely that whatever created the universe must transcend the laws of our universe including quantum mechanics and would therefore be immune to the "observation causes change" maxim.

I understand what you mean when you say that. But the fact is that by having knowledge of the universe, it affects you.
Think about that for a moment. You say this 'god' would be outside the universe, and could not be affected by it. But knowing that he can change the universe would affect him. Without knowing it was there, then it could be argued that he wouldn't change any part of it, because he did not have knowledge of it. Let's say he can still affect us. Any change he might make to our universe would be random. I think that would make for an interesting universe. Stuff happening for no reason, people floating spontaeneously, walking on water, resurections, etc. And if he had no knowledge of this universe, yet still affected it, that kind of scraps the usefulness of the theory.

But, you can also not prove that you are finite until, alas, you are nomore.

If I were infinite, I would have already existed for an infinite time and therefore would have had infinite chances to discover my own (infinite) nature. Therefore, however small the chances of this discovery would be, if they are greater than zero (which logically they would be) then I would already have discovered myself to be infinite and therefore would not erroneously think that I was finite.

Yes, and Taxman had a nice responce to my argument, too.
But you simply cannot prove you are finite because.. Well let me ask you... Do you remember the day you were born? If you can't then you rely upon the observations of others to let you know when you began. Can you prove they aren't lying? That you simply just have a bad case of amnesia?

---

I have something to say that you guys may not have thought of. you seem to be using the argument that you can't get somthing for nothing.

I would point out that that argument only works in a closed system like the universe. and that it breaks down into paradoxes when you try to use it to explain things outside the universe like the universe itself or god.

I mean, if you can't get somthing for nothing, then why should anything exist at all. shouldn't it be imposible for anything to exist if that were true?

---

At 8/16/04 03:57 PM, MRJT wrote: I mean, if you can't get somthing for nothing, then why should anything exist at all. shouldn't it be imposible for anything to exist if that were true?

Not if everything that is here now was here in "the beginning", or so to say, has always been here. (matter cannot be created or destroyed)

Here's somthing to ponder: Are we immortal?

First, assume time is continous. Moreover, assume it is infinate, without beginning or end. Next, regardless of creationism or evolution, we exist through some means at this current point in time. Also, assume there was something before our exsistance, and there will be something after our existance.

This leaves us with at least two plausible paths: we were created, we will die, and never be created again, or we are part of any infinite cycle (random or not) and will be reborn.

Senario 1 (Big bang / Creation / Linear Theory) : The Earth is created through some means, and through fate or random events, we come into existence. We die when our bodies degrade. Because the universe is expanding OR we have an immortal soul, the following occurs: a) every molecule becomes so far apart that the entire universe reaches abosolute 0 (no movement) or b) we reside in heaven/hell forever while life goes on.

Senario 2 (MultipleBang/ seed theory) : The universe IS existence, and thus the movement of molicules, causing energy, causing fusion, causing higher molicules ... up to life forms is what defines life and reality. Therfore, living is an illusion or interpretaion of our world via our brain. The theory assumes that after a "big bang", the molecules reach out so far, that they beging to collapse down towards the center again, causing another "big bang".

Given that time is infinite, and that the matter in our universe is finite, eventually, the two same molecules will colide again, and eventually, the same fusion, higher molicules, lifeforms. Thus we are reborn. However, we are reset from our memories of any previous life, because in this new body, it has never happened. Assuming in this case that our "soul" is a combination of our experiences in life, and our natural devellopement of body and mind, our "soul" would gorw differently each time we lived, and this become somethin different.

This also poses another interesting Moral issue: do computers have "souls", and what point, if ever, would they be considered a life form?

---

I realize that nothing has been said in this thread for quite some time, but I wanted to put a couple ideas (that I'm pretty sure no one else has posted) out there regardless:

At 3/13/03 05:59 PM, OlenWhitaker wrote: VIII. All finite things must be caused (set into motion)
This comes from the definition of being finite.

As someone else has already stated (I think...), this is based solely on observation. It is an inductive argument, in the same sort of sense that "The sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning" is an inductive argument. There is nothing that makes that conclusion absolutely true, but we accept it as true because it is the only thing we've observed. Likewise, we've never observed some finite thing that was not caused, but that definitely does not rule out the legitimate possibility that some finite thing may not be caused.

A similar conclusion deals with Maxwell's equations: We, as a species, have essentially concluded that magnetic monopoles do not exist. There are still physicists looking for magnetic monopoles because they would reestablish symmetry with Maxwell's equations*, but until we see one, we can (quite reasonably) conclude that they do not exist and ignore their impact on the world as we know it. This does not, however, mean that they absolutely do not exist, we just haven't seen them yet. Now that I've completely confused everything...

At 3/13/03 05:59 PM, OlenWhitaker wrote: IX. A thing cannot cause itself.
This comes from the nature of cause and effect.

This itself is not necessarily true. There are possibilities with quantum mechanics that could, in theory, create circular causations (A --> B --> C --> D --> A). I don't know all the theory on this (it's extremely heavy math), but I know that there are physicists that subscribe to this sort of idea (although, when you're dealing with quantum anything, physicists rarely agree on any interpretation of what's going on).

X. Something which is greater thant the universe, existing outside the universe, with the power to effect the universe without being effected by the universe must have set the universe in motion.
This is the summation of the argument. If the universe had a beginning, and it could not begin itself, something started it in motion.

You seem to have an unstated premise in this argument as well: Something's cause must itself "exist." I can't quite agree with that idea. There are instances in which (dealing with quantum mechanics again) the quantum fluctuations can create some interesting, altogether random possibilities (the basis of Schroedinger's cat, the decay of a nuclear isotope, for instance). Yes, it is possible that there will be a theory at some point in the future which completely explains away all uncertainty associated with the quantum world, but at least at this point random, random stuff happens. There is no reason to believe, necessarily, that (when looking at Big Bang theory), the universe in that singularity** would not have experienced one of those quantum fluctuations.

I think your argument is valid, but I think that these premises are faulty and thus prevent the supposition of your conclusion. However, I must admit, it is still possible that your conclusion holds; unfortunately, though, we'll have to wait until physics has some more experiences under its belt to be able to determine with more certainty...

*In case you were wondering how magnetic monopoles would establish symmetry in Maxwell's equations: Gauss's Law for Magnetism would no longer have a big, fat 0 on one side of it, making it very different from Gauss's Law for Electricity; Faraday's Law would include a magnetic current, the flow of magnetic monopoles, making it more similar to Ampere's Law.

**To clarify some things about singularity (some people don't seem to understand what they actually are, and are convinced that there is literally nothing in a singularity, and this misinterpretation has been used as an (flawed) argument against Big Bang theory, so forgive me if I am explaining something that is well understood by this forum's readers, but I want to make absolutely certain we're clear on this), a singularity is an point with infinite density, and is commonly accepted in Big Bang theory as what the universe was prior to the Bang. Some people have interpreted this as indicating that there was nothing at that singularity, but that doesn't make any sense. We know that a singularity (a theoretical object, don't get me wrong) has zero volume, so when evaluating the density function at that point specifically, we get infinity (hence the infinite density). How we get there, though, is how we determine whether there is actually "stuff" in a singularity.

Fairly simple limit analysis tells us that there has to be some mass in that singularity in order to yield an infinite density. Here's how: Since density is defined as mass/volume, and negative mass or volume makes no logical sense, we can only deal with positive numbers (or zero) for both mass and volume. If we take a density function with zero mass (indicating no stuff) and take the limit (from the positive side) as volume approaches zero, we can do one of two things: If we substitue a zero for mass prior to taking the limit, we get the limit of a constant, which is the constant (0), implying a density of zero. Or, we could pretend that the mass itself is a variable and take the limit (from the positive side) as volume and mass approach zero, which gives us an indeterminate that cannot (as far as I can tell) be resolved, indicating an indeterminate density.

If, however, we assume a constant mass (as the Law of Conservation of Energy requires), and take the limit of density as volume approaches zero, we'll get divergence to infinity, implying an infinite density. Since the bigwig theoretical physicists refer to singularities as having infinite density, this seems like the only logical interpretation of whether or not "stuff" exists is in a singularity. Sorry for that tangent but I wanted to try to fend off possible criticisms (which I have seen a couple times before) of my reference to the singularity prior to the Big Bang.

---

ah, philosophy...

i used to read alot of it. it was my goal to go through the works of all the major Western thinkers.

not so much anymore.

but i do enjoy reading Viktor Frankl and various Eastern schools of thought.

interesting, interesting stuff, that.