I am interested in the community's thoughts on a particular hypothetical proposition. And for the sake of this discussion nothing means nonexistent, zero potentiality, or a state of affairs where not one thing exists (regardless of what the things are made of). The natural world would mean all matter and energy, including the behavior the matter and energy exhibits.
The hypothetical proposition is the natural world did not always exist. In other words, there was state of affairs where there was no natural world. Now there is a state of affairs where there is a natural world (planets, gravity, stars, etc.) and we're living in it.
And my question is what, if anything, can be inferred from this hypothetical proposition?
Thank you.
QuoteThe hypothetical proposition is the natural world did not always exist. In other words, there was state of affairs where there was no natural world. Now there is a state of affairs where there is a natural world (planets, gravity, stars, etc.) and we're living in it.
That's basically the backstory of the Elder Scrolls games.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 28, 2017, 06:37:08 PM
That's basically the backstory of the Elder Scrolls games.
Cool.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3e/a2/9d/3ea29df420e41f35ddfdbacdf8873ac7.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/f0/e4/ee/f0e4ee665b34152b1093fc42d29faf26.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/68/12/f2/6812f28000322893080e2076292fdb32.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/b5/60/2a/b5602a8a189fbca042daeb2de4c62081.jpg)
(https://pics.onsizzle.com/Facebook-What-if-Credit-Sarah-Mulcahy-http-whatdoumeme-com-meme-3hnued-0a14a6.png)
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 28, 2017, 06:50:58 PM
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3e/a2/9d/3ea29df420e41f35ddfdbacdf8873ac7.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/f0/e4/ee/f0e4ee665b34152b1093fc42d29faf26.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/68/12/f2/6812f28000322893080e2076292fdb32.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/b5/60/2a/b5602a8a189fbca042daeb2de4c62081.jpg)
(https://pics.onsizzle.com/Facebook-What-if-Credit-Sarah-Mulcahy-http-whatdoumeme-com-meme-3hnued-0a14a6.png)
Very good.
If this is a gamer question, it goes in that section.
If this is a philosophy question, it goes in that section.
If this is a physics question, it goes in that section.
Have you bothered to introduce yourself yet, in the Intro section?
Quote from: Baruch on January 28, 2017, 07:07:43 PM
If this is a gamer question, it goes in that section.
If this is a philosophy question, it goes in that section.
If this is a physics question, it goes in that section.
Have you bothered to introduce yourself yet, in the Intro section?
if you want to see another user's posts, click their handle and then click show posts.I don't think this is a gamer question, but it could be a scientific question or a philosophical question. If a mod thinks this thread should be in a different section then I concur and would like for them to move it there. Thank you. Perhaps the responses will improve if a move is made.
Quote from: Gestas on January 28, 2017, 06:35:15 PM
I am interested in the community's thoughts on a particular hypothetical proposition. And for the sake of this discussion nothing means nonexistent, zero potentiality, or a state of affairs where not one thing exists (regardless of what the things are made of). The natural world would mean all matter and energy, including the behavior the matter and energy exhibits.
The hypothetical proposition is the natural world did not always exist. In other words, there was state of affairs where there was no natural world. Now there is a state of affairs where there is a natural world (planets, gravity, stars, etc.) and we're living in it.
And my question is what, if anything, can be inferred from this hypothetical proposition?
Thank you.
You have left time out of your invented bubble, or you have made unspoken temporal assumptions.
Please try again making sure to place time conspicuously into your thought experiment.
A brief jaunt into current physics then ... as opposed to philosophy of physics ...
Back in the day, even in ancient Greece, it was understood, with space and time being separate to their understanding, that if one found a boundary to a cosmos, then one could extend it by simply stretching your hand out.
In time, people have usually had linear or circular ideas. With circular time, there is no beginning or end, so no edge. With linear time, before the 1960s, it was usually believe that time (however entangled with space in Relativity theory) was like the real number line, without a terminus at either end. After the Big Bang first became plausible in the 1960s, and then got further evidential support ... it was accepted that time could be like a ray, which is to say the number line that begins with zero and extends to positive infinity. And while alternative versions of the Big Bang have come and gone, the current evidence still supports no future end, except in practical terms things will be so cold and empty and mostly neutrinos ... life would be impossible as we know it.
If you want to discuss more Big Bang theory, continue in the Physics section ... if you want to discuss Sheldon Cooper and the Gang ... then in the Entertainment section ;-)
well..it appears that at one time, nothing existed and then at a "later" time, they existed. Kinda like you said... you know..cause it's a tough one there....exist..not exist..thingy.
the natural world has always been on earth and every damn planet
Quote from: aitm on January 28, 2017, 08:48:10 PM
well..it appears that at one time, nothing existed and then at a "later" time, they existed. Kinda like you said... you know..cause it's a tough one there....exist..not exist..thingy.
Well, if nothing existed "at one time" then time existed while there was allegedly nothing existing. Time is a something. Thus, there is no time during which nothing can exist.
In the beginning time was circular. It had no beginning, it just was. Then along came some smart guy like Tesla that cut the time line so that now it appears to have a beginning. and here we are...
Quote from: sdelsolray on January 28, 2017, 09:24:51 PM
Well, if nothing existed "at one time" then time existed while there was allegedly nothing existing. Time is a something. Thus, there is no time during which nothing can exist.
Correct, with the Big Bang, both space and time start.
Quote from: sdelsolray on January 28, 2017, 09:24:51 PM
Well, if nothing existed "at one time" then time existed while there was allegedly nothing existing. Time is a something. Thus, there is no time during which nothing can exist.
Hey, I am just playing his hypo....at a time there was nothing and then there was something......so...we know what comes next...but maybe he has a new angle......HA....like thats possible.
QuoteWell, if nothing existed "at one time" then time existed while there was allegedly nothing existing. Time is a something. Thus, there is no time during which nothing can exist.
Quote from: Baruch on January 28, 2017, 09:45:19 PM
Correct, with the Big Bang, both space and time start.
Not following this. Isn't he saying time existed before the Big Bang, while you are agreeing that it did not, or did I fall into the rabbit hole?
Let us assume that time is interwoven in the natural world (i.e. space-time). So if there's no natural world then there is no time.
If my original hypothetical is supplemented by the above, then would this mean the natural world was produced by a timeless state of affairs that held no potentiality? So that logically prior to the natural world there existed a timeless state of affairs with zero potentiality which transformed (what would transform?) into or produced (what could produce?) a temporal natural world. But how does zero potentiality produce anything, especially in a timeless state? Even if zero potentiality were given an infinite amount of time it would be unable to transform into or produce anything. So how does zero potentiality, in a timeless state, produce time, matter, and energy?
This does sound like something from The Elder Scrolls.
I'm guessing you guys don't believe in magic, and so you must believe that the natural world is past-eternal in order to avoid the logical inconsistencies up above.
Quote from: Gestas on January 29, 2017, 12:50:34 AMI'm guessing you guys don't believe in magic, and so you must believe that the natural world is past-eternal in order to avoid the logical inconsistencies up above.
Since time is a property of the natural world (aka the universe) and the natural world is all anyone really has experience with, believing that the natural world exists from the present time to the earliest point in time seems like a pretty safe assumption.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 29, 2017, 01:20:51 AM
Since time is a property of the natural world (aka the universe) and the natural world is all anyone really has experience with, believing that the natural world exists from the present time to the earliest point in time seems like a pretty safe assumption.
I know you think you're making a point.
But the hypothetical asks what if the natural world didn't always exist. Meaning, the natural world, including time, didn't always exist. And if the natural world didn't always exist, then that means there was at least two states of affairs. One state of affairs where the natural world and time exists. And another where the natural world and time doesn't exist. It's safe to assume we're living in the former state.
Now, if you want to say that there was never a state of affairs where there was no natural world (and no time), then fine. Go for it. All you're doing is stating what I said you should believe, which is that the natural world is past-eternal.
But if you don't think the natural world is past-eternal, then you must believe in magic.
Is the OP simply describing the situation pre-big bang?
It doesn't have to be past eternal. You have asked a common question, but you are already answering it, with your assumptions. "Zero potential," is the point you are trying to trap us with. But I see no need for such a concept. There was never nothing, because time requires "something." So there is no "before" time. Potential is proven by existence.
Quote from: Gestas on January 29, 2017, 12:50:34 AM
Even if zero potentiality were given an infinite amount of time it would be unable to transform into or produce anything.
So how does zero potentiality, in a timeless state, produce time, matter, and energy?
Two parts here, crafted to create an unfathomable situation.
First, you hypothetically conjecture an absence of time and world (more correctly, time and universe) create zero potentiality.
Second, you ponder why it would have potential, when you've already specified that it cannot.
You have made up the rules of your own game in such a way that it is unplayable, always ending in a stalemate. But discovery doesn't work that way. Neither you nor Einstein can create the laws for matter and existence (you don't get to make up the rules of the game). The goal of physicists is to observe and understand the laws, not create them. This is called science.
Quote from: Gestas on January 29, 2017, 12:50:34 AM
I'm guessing you guys don't believe in magic, and so you must believe that the natural world is past-eternal in order to avoid the logical inconsistencies up above.
I don't know what others believe, but speaking for myself, I'm curious about where matter and time comes from. I try to comprehend the absence of time, but it's difficult because I've never experienced any other state. Humans have an ability to acquire knowledge, but it is never handed to us on a platter. And some knowledge may be unobtainable because human intelligence is not infinite.
I think you are making a mistake in your hypothetical when you set limits on possibilities. That something cannot come from nothing is the only possibility you can imagine, but there are infinite possibilities of how this might happen, and you haven't seriously considered any one of them, and most of them haven't even entered your consciousness. It's also quite possible that something came from nothing in spite of your inability to imagine how it happened. It's also possible that there are other explanations altogether, the likes of which have never crossed your mind.
Not knowing everything is universal and unavoidable. We turn to science as a tool to explain that which we don't yet know. But it's time consuming, and sometimes difficult.
Quote from: Gestas on January 29, 2017, 12:50:34 AM
Let us assume that time is interwoven in the natural world (i.e. space-time). So if there's no natural world then there is no time.
If my original hypothetical is supplemented by the above, then would this mean the natural world was produced by a timeless state of affairs that held no potentiality? So that logically prior to the natural world there existed a timeless state of affairs with zero potentiality which transformed (what would transform?) into or produced (what could produce?) a temporal natural world. But how does zero potentiality produce anything, especially in a timeless state? Even if zero potentiality were given an infinite amount of time it would be unable to transform into or produce anything. So how does zero potentiality, in a timeless state, produce time, matter, and energy?
This does sound like something from The Elder Scrolls.
I'm guessing you guys don't believe in magic, and so you must believe that the natural world is past-eternal in order to avoid the logical inconsistencies up above.
I happen to believe in magic, only that most people misunderstand it, and use it as a red herring. Cosmologists use multiple-universe theory and trans-dimensional theory (11 dimensions instead of 4 for example) to get around the "cause/effect" problem. Convention simply states that the initial singularity of the Big Bang is an edge to the universe, and that black hole event horizons are corresponding edges (at least empirically) and that black hole singularities are corresponding edges (absolutely). But this is all speculation not backed by experiment ... experimental universe building is sadly under-developed. Perhaps more grant money will help?
In my metaphysics, certainly actuality comes out of potentiality. And potentiality doesn't require space, time, matter or energy. Potentiality is a place holder that we can't imagine or experience, in the same way that the fully unconscious state isn't accessible to the conscious mind. But for me, everything is psychological, not physical. Potentiality for me is boundless, not zero ... it makes no rhetorical sense (as your post illustrates). Potentiality is the inverse of actuality, like dividing by zero ... which is like infinity, but not, because it isn't a number at all.
BTW .. eternity isn't endless boring time .. it is something outside of time ... temporality is "in time". And being timeless isn't being in stasis (freeze frame) ... those are categorical mistakes (fallacies). In human language, we like to equate things that aren't equitable ... it is how metaphors work. Timeless is a synonym for eternity .. and it means literally .. without time, not without change or without beginning or end.
The way time is normally defined as doesn't exist. There is no "passage of time", because only the present moment exists; relativity, for example, is a good indication that there is no real time in the classical sense of the definition.
We experience an illusion of time, mainly because of how our brains are structured and how memories are formed of past events. The more you delve deeper into physics, the less and less using time as an indicator other than differences between present states it becomes.
Quote from: Sal1981 on January 29, 2017, 09:03:26 AM
The way time is normally defined as doesn't exist. There is no "passage of time", because only the present moment exists; relativity, for example, is a good indication that there is no real time in the classical sense of the definition.
Ha! I've actually considered this on my own, although I never thought about it in terms of relativity. Well, I did, but I didn't say the word "relativity" in my thought process. Nor did I think about Einstein. But the theory of relativity, does help to reinforce the non existence of time as a unit that is relatively worthless in the bigger picture.
Time is more like a concept, and concepts don't need to exist. They are more like thoughts. Time as a concept helps us organized events in a way that appears to us as helpful. But it's easy to see that time as a concept, doesn't exist outside of the concept. It's like we just intuitively invent a way to organize events, and we call it time.
I'm getting off on thinking about this right now.
Quote from: SGOS on January 29, 2017, 10:14:57 AM
I'm getting off on thinking about this right now.
and me still looking at old pictures of Barbi Benton....
Our minds create an illusion of the passage of time. If humans could not form memories, not even memories of what happened a fraction of a second earlier, we would lose the ability to conceptualize time in our minds, and we would never intuitively invent the concept as an organizational tool, because there would be nothing to organize. Unfortunately, it would probably limit much of our actions and abilities to adapt.
It's odd that psychologists and Buddhist gurus advocate living in the moment. It may not be the same thing physicists talk about, but it almost suggests that as humans have a vague grasp of the fact that the moment is all that exists.
Quote from: aitm on January 29, 2017, 10:23:17 AM
and me still looking at old pictures of Barbi Benton....
And the concept of time even allows you to do this without the photographs in front of you. You can just remember looking at them. But every once in a while, it helps to have a little refresher and experience Barbi in the flesh, because memories get old and tend to fade.
Quote from: Gestas on January 29, 2017, 12:50:34 AM
...
So that logically prior to the natural world there existed a timeless state of affairs with zero potentiality which transformed (what would transform?) into or produced (what could produce?) a temporal natural world.
...
Under your set of conditions, there is no "prior to the natural world". Use of the word "prior" necessitates the existence of time. You contradict the conditions from your own thought experiment. Put another way, your conditions require a conclusion that the natural world (as you define it) has always existed.
Quote from: Gestas on January 29, 2017, 12:50:34 AM
...
I'm guessing you guys don't believe in magic, and so you must believe that the natural world is past-eternal in order to avoid the logical inconsistencies up above.
Yes, you are guessing.
For the sake of discussion, lets assume that we live for eternity. For some odd reason, we only view our own eternity as going forward into the future, but why shouldn't our little vision of eternity extend backwards to the beginning of time? If that's the case, I have existed for more than 13 billion years. As long as that is, I have no recollection of the billions of years of my existence I should have experienced before I was born. Good Grief! Think how boring that would be, just sitting there waiting around for my turn to experience existence.
From my perspective, time did not exist at all until I became conscious. Those billions of years never existed. It's like they passed in an instant, until <poof> here I am. And coming back to reality, when I die, anything that happens afterwards, even if it goes on forever, will be an undetectable flash, just like the billions of years that came before.
Quote from: sdelsolray on January 29, 2017, 11:10:27 AM
Under your set of conditions, there is no "prior to the natural world". Use of the word "prior" necessitates the existence of time. You contradict the conditions from your own thought experiment. Put another way, your conditions require a conclusion that the natural world (as you define it) has always existed.
You may want to look up "logically prior" because it doesn't necessitate time.
Quote from: sdelsolray on January 29, 2017, 11:14:23 AM
Yes, you are guessing.
Oh, so you do believe in magic?
I think the most logical conclusion for an atheist is that the natural world is past-eternal.
Quote from: Gestas on January 29, 2017, 12:50:34 AM
Let us assume that time is interwoven in the natural world (i.e. space-time). So if there's no natural world then there is no time.
If my original hypothetical is supplemented by the above, then would this mean the natural world was produced by a timeless state of affairs that held no potentiality? So that logically prior to the natural world there existed a timeless state of affairs with zero potentiality which transformed (what would transform?) into or produced (what could produce?) a temporal natural world. But how does zero potentiality produce anything, especially in a timeless state? Even if zero potentiality were given an infinite amount of time it would be unable to transform into or produce anything. So how does zero potentiality, in a timeless state, produce time, matter, and energy?
This does sound like something from The Elder Scrolls.
I'm guessing you guys don't believe in magic, and so you must believe that the natural world is past-eternal in order to avoid the logical inconsistencies up above.
It would be nice if you'd intro yourself.
As I see it, black holes gather energy from a universe. At a critical point, the energy becomes such that it forms a bubble of sorts, explodes and detaches itself from the mother universe and creates a new one at the same time. From that moment, the new universe is natural.
Quote from: SGOS on January 29, 2017, 10:14:57 AM
Ha! I've actually considered this on my own, although I never thought about it in terms of relativity. Well, I did, but I didn't say the word "relativity" in my thought process. Nor did I think about Einstein. But the theory of relativity, does help to reinforce the non existence of time as a unit that is relatively worthless in the bigger picture.
Time is more like a concept, and concepts don't need to exist. They are more like thoughts. Time as a concept helps us organized events in a way that appears to us as helpful. But it's easy to see that time as a concept, doesn't exist outside of the concept. It's like we just intuitively invent a way to organize events, and we call it time.
I'm getting off on thinking about this right now.
Yes, and since time and distance are connected, this means the question of distance is also fuzzy. How far is something from me? It depends. Not nearly as objective as Newton thought about it, or about time.
Quote from: Gestas on January 29, 2017, 12:38:39 PM
You may want to look up "logically prior" because it doesn't necessitate time.
Yes, in logic, it determines the relationship between statements ... are two statements mutually dependent or independent? One statement might follow logically from another, and that is a cause/effect ... but cause/effect doesn't necessarily involve physical reality. Even in physical reality, some events are necessarily coincident ... this is how quantum entanglement works. Meaning that whatever happens, it doesn't involve time at all, it is outside of time. Of course then someone might hypothesize a wave going from point A to point B thru a separate dimension ... but there is no evidence for extra dimensions.
In a manner of speaking, if you have a tautology made up of multiple parts ... it ceases to be a tautology, once you remove one of the premises, it becomes contingent. And if you add an additional premise to a tautology, and that addition can't be deduced from the existing premises ... it is either an independent axiom (parallels for example) or it will create a contradiction.
Natural is all there is. God is natural.
Quote from: OldFaithful on January 29, 2017, 05:21:19 PM
Natural is all there is. God is natural.
If God is natural, and everything is natural, does that mean that God is burning himself in Hell?
Quote from: Baruch on January 29, 2017, 03:21:38 PM
Yes, and since time and distance are connected, this means the question of distance is also fuzzy. How far is something from me? It depends. Not nearly as objective as Newton thought about it, or about time.
Time and distance are related? Time and velocity are related. Time and mass are related. But time and distance?
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 29, 2017, 05:35:52 PM
If God is natural, and everything is natural, does that mean that God is burning himself in Hell?
If he so chooses in his will.
Quote from: OldFaithful on January 29, 2017, 05:39:19 PM
If he so chooses in his will.
Does he choose, really? Is he not omniscient? Does he not know what he is going to do before he does it? Are his actions not set in stone then, if he must act as he has foreseen himself to do? Free will makes no sense for humans, and it makes just as little sense when applied to God.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 29, 2017, 05:45:34 PM
Does he choose, really? Is he not omniscient? Does he not know what he is going to do before he does it? Are his actions not set in stone then, if he must act as he has foreseen himself to do? Free will makes no sense for humans, and it makes just as little sense when applied to God.
What point to good God would there be if all is prescribed for everything?
He knows not all what comes.. Otherwise no need for a God to be.
Quote from: OldFaithful on January 29, 2017, 05:47:27 PM
What point to good God would there be if all is prescribed for everything?
Reality does not give a damn about convenience. It will not adjust itself to fit the mold of what is the ideal situation in your mind.
Quote from: OldFaithful on January 29, 2017, 05:47:27 PMHe knows not all what comes.. Otherwise no need for a God to be.
So you're saying that your God is not omniscient? You sure about that? Taking away God's omniscience may fix this one contradiction, but it also leads to a number of other problems. Prophecy is impossible in a world of millions of humans if he cannot predict what they are going to do. And you can throw God's plans out the window too, because they are worthless without omniscience.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 29, 2017, 05:54:51 PM
Reality does not give a damn about convenience. It will not adjust itself to fit the mold of what is the ideal situation in your mind.
So you're saying that your God is not omniscient? You sure about that? Taking away God's omniscience may fix this one contradiction, but it also leads to a number of other problems. Prophecy is impossible in a world of millions of humans if he cannot predict what they are going to do. And you can throw God's plans out the window too, because they are worthless without omniscience.
God knows all in present. Not future. Future is word for something not real.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 29, 2017, 05:35:52 PM
If God is natural, and everything is natural, does that mean that God is burning himself in Hell?
If there is a Hell, then yes, G-d does burn. Sad, isn't it?
just to play antagonist
blackleaf's discussion about omniscience almost sounds like a description of god as an AI program with the ability to overwrite itself.
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 29, 2017, 05:54:51 PM
Prophecy is impossible in a world of millions of humans if he cannot predict what they are going to do. And you can throw God's plans out the window too, because they are worthless without omniscience.
For a god that is not omniscient, a plan might work for humans as long as he knows everything about humans and his lack of knowledge is about a part of the universe far from earth.
Quote from: fencerider on January 30, 2017, 10:25:19 PM
just to play antagonist
blackleaf's discussion about omniscience almost sounds like a description of god as an AI program with the ability to overwrite itself.
For a god that is not omniscient, a plan might work for humans as long as he knows everything about humans and his lack of knowledge is about a part of the universe far from earth.
I'm curious about a God that is not omniscient. Isn't that part of the definition?
I think that only actually pertains to what's called a theistic God (capital G). Other gods (lower case g)can have limitations, but a theistic type of God must be perfect in every way.
Greek philosophers tried to make sense of Jewish religion, and made an un-kosher pork hash of things ;-(