The physical proves the existence of the immaterial

[warpspeedpetey]

Geometer:

At the serious risk of being chastised for intruding, I’ll take a stab that he means, “metaphysical” being. I think he wants us to surmise what we will, but, all in all, he means God.

If I am wrong, warpspeed with correct me.

jd

pretty much.

 

[Xuan]

sure, the laws of conservation, no physical process can create or destroy matter. ergo, leaving only non-physical events as possibilities.

Hi, warpspeedpetey,

Your assertion that physical things cannot bring physical things into existence is true in the universe, but there’s a whole lot more to it than that.

The Law of Conservation of Energy/Matter states that energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed, but can change form. The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less.

Note that it doesn’t specify that only “physical” things are unable to create more matter/energy. It says categorically that they cannot be created, (by anything). It also specifies that it is a law of the universe. It didn’t exist before the universe did. It doesn’t apply outside the universe or before the universe existed. We have no idea what kind of physical or semi-physical or non-physical things there were before the universe. And we have no idea what the rules of the game were, like what could or could not bring something else into existence.

Any speculation about what could or could not have happened before the existence of the universe is just that… speculation. We have nothing whatsoever to substantiate your assertion about what could or could not bring something into existence before the universe existed.

If your assertion is that physical things could not have created physical things before the existence of the universe, then you’ve got to substantiate it, and not with any of the laws of the universe. They don’t apply

 

[cerad]

sure, the laws of conservation, no physical process can create or destroy matter. ergo, leaving only non-physical events as possibilities.

Xuan covered this quite well. I should point out that supporting one assertion with another assertion usually does not work well. Please show that this law of conservation applies to the moment before the big expansion. A bit of math would be nice or perhaps some links to any papers published on the subject.

I’m glad that scientists don’t share your pessimism:
blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/05/01/launch-dates/

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Hi, warpspeedpetey,

Your assertion that physical things cannot bring physical things into existence is true in the universe, but there’s a whole lot more to it than that.

The Law of Conservation of Energy/Matter states that energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed, but can change form. The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less.

Note that it doesn’t specify that only “physical” things are unable to create more matter/energy. It says categorically that they cannot be created, (by anything).

how can it make such a categorical statement about the non-physical? i think thats a big stretch there. we only know that physical things must abide that law. we have no reason to suspect that the law should also apply to the non-physical.

It also specifies that it is a law of the universe. It didn’t exist before the universe did. It doesn’t apply outside the universe or before the universe existed. We have no idea what kind of physical or semi-physical or non-physical things there were before the universe. And we have no idea what the rules of the game were, like what could or could not bring something else into existence.

Any speculation about what could or could not have happened before the existence of the universe is just that… speculation. We have nothing whatsoever to substantiate your assertion about what could or could not bring something into existence before the universe existed.

If your assertion is that physical things could not have created physical things before the existence of the universe, then you’ve got to substantiate it, and not with any of the laws of the universe. They don’t apply

prior to this universe we have no evidence of time, space, or any environment at all. those things are all required for physical interaction, so im not sure how we can seriously argue that there may have been a physical things capable of self causation in that environment.

the argument is from the observed properties of the universe in which we exist, speculation to anything prior without evidence or logical argument is simply that, speculation.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Xuan covered this quite well. I should point out that supporting one assertion with another assertion usually does not work well.

what assertions are you refering to?

Please show that this law of conservation applies to the moment before the big expansion. A bit of math would be nice or perhaps some links to any papers published on the subject.

 

[Xuan]

how can it make such a categorical statement about the non-physical? i think thats a big stretch there. we only know that physical things must abide that law. we have no reason to suspect that the law should also apply to the non-physical.

prior to this universe we have no evidence of time, space, or any environment at all. those things are all required for physical interaction, so im not sure how we can seriously argue that there may have been a physical things capable of self causation in that environment.

the argument is from the observed properties of the universe in which we exist, speculation to anything prior without evidence or logical argument is simply that, speculation.

From your initial post I didn’t know whether you were referring to “before the universe” or “in the universe.” Now I take it you are referring to “in the universe.”

You cited the Law of Conservation of Energy/Matter, but now you seem to be hedging on it, saying that it can’t speak about things created by a non-physical thing.

The Law of Conservation of Energy/Matter doesn’t address what kinds of things, whether a physical thing or a semi-physical thing or a non-physical thing, have the ability to create. It simply states that in the universe it doesn’t happen. It cannot happen.

The Law of Conservation of Energy/Matter is a statement about the closed system of the universe. It states that within this closed system the total amount of energy/matter can neither increase nor decrease. It can only change form. Creating (from nothing) something new in the universe would be adding to it. That can’t happen, and doesn’t happen, regardless of what type entity is attempting the creation. If you know of something new that has been created within the universe, adding to it, perhaps you would share it with us.

Now, knowing that nothing can be added to the universe through an act of creation, you’ve still got to prove that there are such things as non-physical things and that they can create.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

From your initial post I didn’t know whether you were referring to “before the universe” or “in the universe.” Now I take it you are referring to “in the universe.”

You cited the Law of Conservation of Energy/Matter, but now you seem to be hedging on it, saying that it can’t speak about things created by a non-physical thing.

no, not things created by a non-physical event, rather that the non-physical can do so without violating any laws as they only apply to the physical as far as we know.

The Law of Conservation of Energy/Matter doesn’t address what kinds of things, whether a physical thing or a semi-physical thing or a non-physical thing, have the ability to create. It simply states that in the universe it doesn’t happen. It cannot happen.

it cannot refer to a subject, the non-physical, which has no physical qualities. the law of conservation deals only with the physical, not with non-physical interactions.

The Law of Conservation of Energy/Matter is a statement about the closed system of the universe. It states that within this closed system the total amount of energy/matter can neither increase nor decrease. It can only change form. Creating (from nothing) something new in the universe would be adding to it. That can’t happen, and doesn’t happen, regardless of what type entity is attempting the creation. If you know of something new that has been created within the universe, adding to it, perhaps you would share it with us.

i dont see any reason why universal physical laws should apply to the non-physical. they lack concurrent qualities. nor have i claimed that something new is created within this universe

Now, knowing that nothing can be added to the universe through an act of creation, you’ve still got to prove that there are such things as non-physical things and that they can create.

no one is claiming any additions to the current universe.

as to proof of the non -physical, its logically necessary as physical things cannot create themselves.

by process of elimination, only the non-physical can account for physical reality.

 

[Xuan]

You keep saying that I’m trying to apply the Law of Conservation of Energy/Matter to non-physical things. I’m not. I’m applying it to the PHYSICAL products of creation. It says that no new physical products of creation can be introduced into the universe. And you’ve acknowledged that there haven’t been.

So what have the non-physical things created? What have they done to manifest their existence?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You keep saying that I’m trying to apply the Law of Conservation of Energy/Matter to non-physical things. I’m not. I’m applying it to the PHYSICAL products of creation. It says that no new physical products of creation can be introduced into the universe. And you’ve acknowledged that there haven’t been.

ok, what are you getting at here? no one is suggesting any new physical products.

So what have the non-physical things created?

the physical universe. thats answered in the OP argument.

What have they done to manifest their existence?

what does that have to do with the OP?

physical things cant cause themselves, necessitating the non-physical. do you have evidence or argumentation disproving this?

 

[Xuan]

As I understand it, you’re taking a law, the Law of Conservation of Energy/Matter, which exists only in the already-formed universe, and applying it to the formation itself of the universe. The law didn’t exist then. It didn’t exist until the universe was already formed. As you acknowledged earlier, speculating about anything prior to the actual existence of the universe is worthless. We have no way of knowing what was causing what during the formation process.

 

[Xuan]

Let me put it this way. How do you know physical things couldn’t cause other physical things to come into existence during the formation process of the universe? The Law of Conservation of Energy/Matter didn’t exist yet.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

As I understand it, you’re taking a law, the Law of Conservation of Energy/Matter, which exists only in the already-formed universe, and applying it to the formation itself of the universe. The law didn’t exist then. It didn’t exist until the universe was already formed. As you acknowledged earlier, speculating about anything prior to the actual existence of the universe is worthless. We have no way of knowing what was causing what during the formation process.

the OP doesnt talk about the laws of conservation at all.

to qoute myself, here is the argument i am making again verbatim

There is nothing physical that can account for our existence. therefore physical reality can only be the result of non-physical events.

my premise, if true, means my conclusion is also true.

do you know of something physical that can cause itself? can you disprove the premise here?

 

[cerad]

the OP doesnt talk about the laws of conservation at all.

to qoute myself, here is the argument i am making again verbatim

There is nothing physical that can account for our existence. therefore physical reality can only be the result of non-physical events.

my premise, if true, means my conclusion is also true.

do you know of something physical that can cause itself? can you disprove the premise here?

When asked to support your assertion that:

There is nothing physical that can account for our existence

you replied with:

sure, the laws of conservation, no physical process can create or destroy matter. ergo, leaving only non-physical events as possibilities.

So it would seem like you were the one to bring up the conservation of matter. And of course when asked to show that the conservation of matter applied to the pre-universe you became strangely silent.

If conservation is irrelevant then please provide some support for your original assertion. And again a bit of math would be nice.

 

[JDaniel]

Hello, Xuan:

Your assertion that physical things cannot bring physical things into existence is true in the universe, but there’s a whole lot more to it than that.

Could you expand on this a bit?

The Law of Conservation of Energy/Matter states that energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed, but can change form. The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less.

OK. But, this assumes that everyone is OK with ours being a “closed” universe. There are numerous hypotheses, out there, that want to say that this might not be a closed system. It also assumes that there is/was no friction. If there are 10^500 universes out there, there may be the possibility of a collision, and, friction, if they are in motion like the stuff in our universe.

Note that it doesn’t specify that only “physical” things are unable to create more matter/energy. It says categorically that they cannot be created, (by anything).

(See above.) If there is a supraphysical, or non-physical, cause of our universe, one would have to presume that said cause would be capable of anything, right?

It also specifies that it is a law of the universe. It didn’t exist before the universe did. It doesn’t apply outside the universe or before the universe existed. We have no idea what kind of physical or semi-physical or non-physical things there were before the universe. And we have no idea what the rules of the game were, like what could or could not bring something else into existence.

Actually, there are more and more hypotheses, and, theories, around that it’s hard to know anything for certain about this stuff. For example, the major theory (almost a Law!) is that the singularity consisted of hyper-compressed energy that exhibited, within it, quantum fluctuations. I contend that quantum fluctuations might involve time.

Another theory is that our universe exists in a system of multiverses and that there may be some universe-creative exigency, in that system.

Any speculation about what could or could not have happened before the existence of the universe is just that… speculation. We have nothing whatsoever to substantiate your assertion about what could or could not bring something into existence before the universe existed.

True. Except for 4,500 years of 500 - 700 separate, prophetic events - all of which point to Jesus Christ, his life events, death, resurrection and an ensuing Church, etc., etc.

If your assertion is that physical things could not have created physical things before the existence of the universe, then you’ve got to substantiate it, and not with any of the laws of the universe. They don’t apply

It’s amazing to me that we would accept the postulations of multiple and diverse non-scientific postulates so that we can be sure not to let even the slightest god in the door.

jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

When asked to support your assertion that:

you replied with:

So it would seem like you were the one to bring up the conservation of matter.

ill be darned, i did. didnt i also point out that there was no matter, space, or time prior to the BB in our knowledge? sometimes i make a mistake.

And of course when asked to show that the conservation of matter applied to the pre-universe you became strangely silent.

no matter, no space, no time, no conservation, there is nothing to conserve.

If conservation is irrelevant then please provide some support for your original assertion. And again a bit of math would be nice.

what math would you suggest? how would one demonstrate mathematically that no physical thing can cause itself?

nothing physical can cause itself, its an axiom, i assume everyone knows, if you have some evidence of something time traveling backwards to cause itself then let me know.

are you simply saying that i dont know that, that somewhere they may be some physical thing that can cause itself? and i just dont know it? if so i have a perpetual motion machine for sale… maybe no one has invented it yet

im poking a little fun here, but it does seem like you are implying that.

 

[reggieM]

Well. The only thing that can exist by its nature of being, is Existence. Which means that physical reality cannot have Existence as a property, or be Existence if it began to exist. Neither can it be Existence if every part of it has a beginning, since Existence does not begin or pass away; otherwise it would not be trully Existence by nature. Existence cannot have causally related parts, for existence does not exist in relation to prior events, for it is existence by its nature of being; thus it does not have the potential to exist. There can be no pontentail in any part of its being since existence is pure actuality by nature of its being; therefore the Universe cannot be Existence since Existence is timeless, devoid of potential change. Potentiality and posibility cannot infinetly regress because then there would be no explanation for why there is any such thing as posibility or pontentiality for the existence of anything. This would also create an impossible paradox, because this would mean that posibility and potentiality infinitely transcends and transverses being and thus Existence, which would render both concepts as meaningless; since they only have meaning in respect of being, and thus being at some point must precede potential. If Existence, as a nature of being, does not pre-exist physical beings, then there can be no such things as “beginnings” as a potential; for physical things exist because they have the potentail and the posibility to exist in so far as they relate to being, and you can only speak meaningfully of potentail and posibility in so far as the relate strictly to being.

That was excellent, thanks. I think the only way to argue against it is to deny that the property of existence exists. Or to use the normal argument about physical nature/material being infinite (having no beginning). Have you ever encountered any arguments against this idea.

You also address infinite regress here:

Potentiality and posibility cannot infinetly regress because then there would be no explanation for why there is any such thing as posibility or potentiality for the existence of anything. This would also create an impossible paradox, because this would mean that posibility and potentiality infinitely transcends and transverses being and thus Existence, which would render both concepts as meaningless; since they only have meaning in respect of being, and thus being at some point must precede potential. If Existence, as a nature of being, does not pre-exist physical beings, then there can be no such things as “beginnings” as a potential; for physical things exist because they have the potentail and the posibility to exist in so far as they relate to being, and you can only speak meaningfully of potentail and posibility in so far as the relate strictly to being.

Could you explain that more?

I would think that potentiality and possiblity cannot infinitely regress because there cannot be any unfulfilled potential or uncompleted possibilities in an infinite string. It’s like probability – even if it’s one out of a trillion chances, in an infinite string, that one has already arrived. So there can be no potential, since that is something that we’d be “waiting” for in the future. Some possibility to fulfill. But an infinite amount of time has already passed, thus all possibilities are fulfilled already.

But I don’t understand the argument on potential not being infinite. Yes, it cannot infinitely regress because it needs Being first. But Being/Existence is timeless. Therefore potentiality must “begin” after Being and so as long as there are physical things, that have potentiality, we know they cannot be infinite. Is that correct??

 

[Xuan]

Hello, Xuan:

Could you expand on this a bit?

OK. But, this assumes that everyone is OK with ours being a “closed” universe. There are numerous hypotheses, out there, that want to say that this might not be a closed system. It also assumes that there is/was no friction. If there are 10^500 universes out there, there may be the possibility of a collision, and, friction, if they are in motion like the stuff in our universe.

(See above.) If there is a supraphysical, or non-physical, cause of our universe, one would have to presume that said cause would be capable of anything, right?

Actually, there are more and more hypotheses, and, theories, around that it’s hard to know anything for certain about this stuff. For example, the major theory (almost a Law!) is that the singularity consisted of hyper-compressed energy that exhibited, within it, quantum fluctuations. I contend that quantum fluctuations might involve time.

Another theory is that our universe exists in a system of multiverses and that there may be some universe-creative exigency, in that system.

True. Except for 4,500 years of 500 - 700 separate, prophetic events - all of which point to Jesus Christ, his life events, death, resurrection and an ensuing Church, etc., etc.

It’s amazing to me that we would accept the postulations of multiple and diverse non-scientific postulates so that we can be sure not to let even the slightest god in the door.

jd

Hi J Daniel,

Sorry it took so long to get back. I’m somewhat familiar with the fact that there are theories out there about the universe not being a closed system. My knowledge about such things is next to nil. The only reason I addressed the Law of Conservation of Energy/Matter was because warpspeedpetey used it to substantiate the idea that physical things can’t bring physical things into existence. And I pointed out that the law didn’t exist before the universe was formed.

I personally don’t know whether the law is accurate or not. I’ll leave that to better minds to decide. And I don’t know whether or not physical things could ever have brought physical things into existence. I think there may well be more kinds of things than what we think of as physical and non-physical. Please don’t ask me to describe them because I have no idea what they might be. It’s pure speculation.

As for prophesies, and for postulations that don’t even let the slightest god in the door. Sure, I agree that there are discussions there. But this thread is about a specific line of reasoning, and the only reason I jumped in was to protest using a law of the universe to say what could or couldn’t happen before the universe was formed.

When it comes to profound questions, I have many of my own that are still unanswered. I just jumped in here to keep the line of reasoning straight.

 

[Xuan]

ill be darned, i did. didnt i also point out that there was no matter, space, or time prior to the BB in our knowledge? sometimes i make a mistake.

no matter, no space, no time, no conservation, there is nothing to conserve.

what math would you suggest? how would one demonstrate mathematically that no physical thing can cause itself?

nothing physical can cause itself, its an axiom, i assume everyone knows, if you have some evidence of something time traveling backwards to cause itself then let me know.

are you simply saying that i dont know that, that somewhere they may be some physical thing that can cause itself? and i just dont know it? if so i have a perpetual motion machine for sale… maybe no one has invented it yet

im poking a little fun here, but it does seem like you are implying that.

Hi warpspeedpetey,

Sorry if I irritated you. It was the only way I could think of to get you to see what I was seeing about that line of reasoning.

As for non-physical things existing, I have my own thoughts on the matter. But I can’t say I can prove them one way or the other. I’ve gone through the thought processes that you’re going through now. And guess what? I still don’t have the answers. Well, maybe some of them, but not most of them.

So much of it is speculation that it’s very seldom we can be absolutely sure we have the right answer. Generally I find myself leaning one way or another, but unable to say that I’m absolutely certain.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Hi warpspeedpetey,

Sorry if I irritated you. It was the only way I could think of to get you to see what I was seeing about that line of reasoning.

i didnt know you were trying to annoy me…

As for non-physical things existing, I have my own thoughts on the matter. But I can’t say I can prove them one way or the other. I’ve gone through the thought processes that you’re going through now. And guess what? I still don’t have the answers. Well, maybe some of them, but not most of them.

ive spent a lot of time on metaphysics, you can review most of my arguments on this forum.

in light of that, the OP is the answer that i have arrived at. so far its seems pretty impenetrable. premise true, conclusion true

the only way i see a successful refutation is the discovery of something that is self causing.

the non-physical is logically necessary based on that argument. there doesnt seem to be a way around it, though im more than open too any possible refutations.

So much of it is speculation that it’s very seldom we can be absolutely sure we have the right answer. Generally I find myself leaning one way or another, but unable to say that I’m absolutely certain.

in this case it seems certain, undeniable. in fact i have yet to see a refutation that strictly attacks the argument.

do you have any evidence that my premise is false? if not then the conclusion is unavoidable. choosing to disbelieve without evidence, or logical argumentation is disbelieving in the nature of logic.

ultimately it is either true or not, some factions, atheists in particular, seem upset by the idea. that doesnt change the veracity of the of the premise.

ultimately the argument stands or falls on the merits of its premise.

 

[cerad]

ill be darned, i did. didnt i also point out that there was no matter, space, or time prior to the BB in our knowledge? sometimes i make a mistake.

no matter, no space, no time, no conservation, there is nothing to conserve.

what math would you suggest? how would one demonstrate mathematically that no physical thing can cause itself?

nothing physical can cause itself, its an axiom, i assume everyone knows, if you have some evidence of something time traveling backwards to cause itself then let me know.

are you simply saying that i dont know that, that somewhere they may be some physical thing that can cause itself? and i just dont know it? if so i have a perpetual motion machine for sale… maybe no one has invented it yet

im poking a little fun here, but it does seem like you are implying that.

It seems to me that you are postulating the existence of some sort of mystical veil that completely hides from us any information concerning the pre-expansion universe. So on the one hand we can never know what came before the expansion but on the other hand you can state conclusively that there was nothing? That seems a bit contradictory to me. Apologies in advance if this is not your position. I do try to avoid the creation of strawmen.

Scientists are simply not satisfied with the goddidit theory of everything. There are plenty of smart people out there who are trying to figure out what came before. I sent you a link one one project which you dismissed out of hand. Now it could happen that in a few thousand years or so scientists might throw up their hands and say warpspeedpetey was right. We can’t ever know anything the pre-expansion universe. But I’ll wait for that to happen before drawing any conclusions on the subject.