The physical proves the existence of the immaterial

[warpspeedpetey]

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.

not me, the standard model of the big bang theory does, prior to 1x10(-34) seconds after the BB, we dont know anything from observation, its all speculation.

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?

matter, space, time, etc. all came into existence at the BB. prior, for lack of a better word in a timeless environment, is all speculation.

do you have any evidence that there was something physical prior to the BB? normally we construct arguments based on what we observe, in that light, unless you have something that is self causing, the premise would seem to be true.

anything else would seem to be little more than science fiction i can make up any story based on specualtion, but it wont jibe.

my premise, like all good logic, is based on what we observe. not on speculation.

Scientists are simply not satisfied with the goddidit theory of everything.

ok, whats that have to do with my premise? i haven’t brought G-d into the conversation. that said, scientists only work on the empirically observed universe, G-d doesnt fit into that worldview, specifically because of that empiricism. my argument does however, show that empiricism has its limits.

in other words, from a scientists perspective, you cant get there from here.

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.

i didn’t dismiss it, maybe they will find something self causing, but its the latest in a long string of inquiry, that as of yet has failed to reveal anything. the hunt goes on. what more can i say? if you have a specific theory to discuss, then let me know

Now it could happen that in a few thousand years or so scientists might throw up their hands and say warpspeedpetey was right.

it wont take that long, its already beginning, the search for a GUT is slowly losing steam as they run into one wall after another, think about string theory and its various premutations over the last 20 years. i doubt it will take a thousand years, give it another 20.

We can’t ever know anything the pre-expansion universe.

thats the conclusion of the standard BB theory. its indeed a physical impossibility

But I’ll wait for that to happen before drawing any conclusions on the subject.

so until a ‘scientist’ tells you there is no physical thing capable of causing itself, you wont believe it?

since you brought up G-d let me point out that, if that is your position, then you are taking something unobserved, and claiming its possible or likely existence. seems a lot like theism to me.

 

[cerad]

not me, the standard model of the big bang theory does, prior to 1x10(-34) seconds after the BB, we dont know anything from observation, its all speculation.

Ah. One of your misunderstandings is now becoming more clear to me. The BB explains the expansion of the universe. It does not particularly concerned with what came before. Sort of like evolution explaining the origin of species without worrying about how life got started in the first place.

matter, space, time, etc. all came into existence at the BB. prior, for lack of a better word in a timeless environment, is all speculation.

And you know this how? Remember your working premise is that we can’t know anything before the BB.

do you have any evidence that there was something physical prior to the BB? normally we construct arguments based on what we observe, in that light, unless you have something that is self causing, the premise would seem to be true.

anything else would seem to be little more than science fiction i can make up any story based on specualtion, but it wont jibe.

my premise, like all good logic, is based on what we observe. not on speculation.

Nope. I’m content with saying I don’t know at this point. I’m also glad that lots of smart people are working on the issue. I can point out that science is the most reliable tool we have for advancing our knowledge so I don’t think we should rule it out yet.

What we can do is speculate on various ways on how the universe got started, make predictions on what to expect and then try to make observations to either confirm or invalidate the predictions. Which, oddly enough, is what the scientists are trying to do.

ok, whats that have to do with my premise? i haven’t brought G-d into the conversation. that said, scientists only work on the empirically observed universe, G-d doesnt fit into that worldview, specifically because of that empiricism. my argument does however, show that empiricism has its limits.

Nope. It’s your understanding of science that is limited.

i didn’t dismiss it, maybe they will find something self causing, but its the latest in a long string of inquiry, that as of yet has failed to reveal anything. the hunt goes on. what more can i say? if you have a specific theory to discuss, then let me know

The notion of self causing seems to be your idea. If it’s been written up in any scientific journals then please provide a reference.

it wont take that long, its already beginning, the search for a GUT is slowly losing steam as they run into one wall after another, think about string theory and its various premutations over the last 20 years. i doubt it will take a thousand years, give it another 20.

I’ll set myself a remainder to check back in 20. By the way, string theory has been around for almost 40 years. But we should never let facts interfere in a discussion on science.

thats the conclusion of the standard BB theory. its indeed a physical impossibility

Nope that is your conclusion based on your misunderstanding. Can you provide any references that indicate that the BB says it’s impossible?

so until a ‘scientist’ tells you there is no physical thing capable of causing itself, you wont believe it?

Pretty much since you seem to be the only one with this self-causing notion.

since you brought up G-d let me point out that, if that is your position, then you are taking something unobserved, and claiming its possible or likely existence. seems a lot like theism to me.

The notion of an eternal uncaused intelligence that just happens to exist is far more improbable then even the most far fetched science fiction story ever written.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Ah. One of your misunderstandings is now becoming more clear to me. The BB explains the expansion of the universe. It does not particularly concerned with what came before. Sort of like evolution explaining the origin of species without worrying about how life got started in the first place.

pretty much

And you know this how? Remember your working premise is that we can’t know anything before the BB.

thats not my working premise, its that we cant observe it, outside the scope of this conversation we can logic out certain things concerning the nature of the creative event but thats way outside of this arena

Nope. I’m content with saying I don’t know at this point. I’m also glad that lots of smart people are working on the issue. I can point out that science is the most reliable tool we have for advancing our knowledge so I don’t think we should rule it out yet.

ok, im not ruling the possiblity science may someday observe something physical that is self causing, as paradoxical as that may be from a temporal standpoint, i do think its impossible but ive been proven wrong before.

but the evidence after thousands of years of existence in this universe is on my side, empirically, we have never observed physical self causation.

What we can do is speculate on various ways on how the universe got started, make predictions on what to expect and then try to make observations to either confirm or invalidate the predictions. Which, oddly enough, is what the scientists are trying to do.

and good luck to them, but overcoming the paradox of self causation is quite a hurdle

Nope. It’s your understanding of science that is limited.

why would you say something like that? what specifically makes you think i dont understand the science?

i would suggest that over the last few decades, i might have picked alittle bit up, surely you dont think i just started spouting some nonsense i couldnt defend for the fun of it do you?

The notion of self causing seems to be your idea. If it’s been written up in any scientific journals then please provide a reference.

i would be shocked if you found metaphysical philosophy in a scientific journal, the editor should be fired!

if you are interested in the roots of causal argumentation, i would first direct you to Aquinas.

assuming that no new lethal refutation is raised, i hope to publish the argument at some point as a modern causal proof. maybe i can get it published.

I’ll set myself a remainder to check back in 20. By the way, string theory has been around for almost 40 years. But we should never let facts interfere in a discussion on science.

if you will note, i sad the last 20 years, thats the part that interests me, but its seems that instead of disproving my premise, your making personal slights. bad form

Nope that is your conclusion based on your misunderstanding. Can you provide any references that indicate that the BB says it’s impossible?

what specifically do i misunderstand? its seems very simple in construction, process of elimination, leaves only the non-physical as the possible causitive agent, if you have evidence the premise is incorrect let me know. until then, the process of elimination leaves only one answer, the non-physical.

as to observing any pre-BB environment through the 1x10(-34) threshold, you can simply google it.

Pretty much since you seem to be the only one with this self-causing notion.

ok, call your local universities physics department and ask if they know of anything self causing. you will recieve a stunned silence, ‘cause’ isnt empirical, its therefore not on their radar.

The notion of an eternal uncaused intelligence that just happens to exist is far more improbable then even the most far fetched science fiction story ever written.

The notion of something **self causitive **that just happens to exist is far more improbable then even the most far fetched science fiction story ever written.

see how similar your position is to theism? you believe more strongly in something being self causitive, though never observed, more than you believe in G-d, who, at least many have claimed to observe, has never been scientificaly observed.

in effect its the exact same thing as faith in G-d, you just place your faith in something not yet observed, and paradoxical at that.

so i believe in something unobserved, and you believe in something unobserved, whats then the difference? at least billions agree with me, doesnt make them right, but its something.

all that aside i never mentioned G-d in the argument, indeed, He need not be mentioned at all, but you keep bringing Him up.

why is that?

(no need to check in 20, i play warcraft and only check my email occasionally, usually when i die lol!)

 

[severntofall]

I took the time to correct your argument:

To my knowledge, there is nothing physical that can account for our existence. therefore I suspect that physical reality can only be the result of non-physical events.

An older version of this same argument was:

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

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I took the time to correct your argument:

An older version of this same argument was:

do you know of a physical process capable of causing itself? does anyone know of a physical process capable of self causation? no.

how does something that does not exist, come into existence by its own actions? it cant, if it doesn’t exist, then it cant predate itself in order to cause its own existence.

therefore, something physical being self causitive is impossible, not just unlikely, but not possible.

so its not a matter of “to my knowledge” its a paradox excluding its possibility.

as to lightning, there is a physical cause. straw man.

 

[MindOverMatter]

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??

I’m not sure, but i think you got it right there.