What existed before the big bang? Something must have!

[onewheeldave]

;6571670']But if it is true would that mean that it would be possible for our universe to be a construct within a multiverse that has always existed?

 

 

It would be possible. However, it doesn't solve the original question - if something has always existed, infinitely and forever, then what caused it to have existed forever?

 

 

This is why the original question becomes meaningless. The assumption that everything must have a cause leads only to the conclusion that things have existed forever, without having a cause - which contradicts the original assumption. The assumption is therefore false - not everything has a cause.

 

One problem with the view of the Universe as an uncaused entity that has always existed, is that observation shows that the 'Big Bang' occured, which is taken to be a creation event and clearly is incompatible with with an 'uncaused/always existing' view.

 

However, taking the view that Matt suggests above, does sidestep that particular objection, because, though 'our' Universe clearly came into being at the Big Bang, the underlying multiverse, has not been observed to have originated in a Big Bang (indeed, the underlying multiverse obviously has not been observed in any way whatsoever).

 

So, in that sense, the hypothesis of the underlying 'multiverse' is not subject to the accusation of 'moving the problem one step back' on that particular issue.

 

As to whether there are other, logic-based, problems with the notion of something existing uncreated, the causal chain simply stretching back infinitly forever- that's a different issue and one which, I don't think, has received much attention in this thread?

 

However, if it is an uncaused, always existing, entity, then the question of 'what caused it to exist forever' is simply not applicable- if it's defining characteristic is that it is 'uncaused' then, to ask what caused it, is somewhat missing the point.

 

The question remains, of course, of whether an uncaused, always existing, entity is possible, but, other than the general feeling (prejudice?) that everything must have a cause, i'm not sure there's any real argument against such an entity.

[Lockjaw]

Ok, we'll call it pure logic then, 'logic', which in our case, only applies to the collective scientific knowledge of humans

 

Which would mean, any scientific findings that are tested and proved to be theoretically sound, based wholly on the application of "human" pure logic, when determining whether space is or isn't contained, would have to be inconclusive, because the answer to that question is beyond human knowledge. So how can either be proved true or false in the true sense of the word..?

 

The pure logical answer is - they can't!... even though the theoretical scientific finding has been proved to be true.

 

Listen, Danot.

 

I know we've sniped at each other earlier on this thread but I'm putting that aside for the moment. This is a genuine bit of advice:

 

You really need to go away and get yourself straight on the meaning of "logic" and "science" or, perhaps; "scientific method".

 

You continue to confuse the two. They are not the same.

 

The statement:

 

'logic', which in our case, only applies to the collective scientific knowledge of humans

 

is incorrect. Logic and scientific knowledge are not the same.

 

Once you've got that sorted you'll be able to understand most of the arguments put to you on here and, if you really are seeking further understanding and not just on a (not very effective) vendetta against scientists, maybe you'll achieve your aim.

 

In closing I say again: this is not a dig at you, Danot; it's genuine advice.

[Alcoblog]

Ok, we'll call it pure logic then, 'logic', which in our case, only applies to the collective scientific knowledge of humans

 

Which would mean, any scientific findings that are tested and proved to be theoretically sound, based wholly on the application of "human" pure logic, when determining whether space is or isn't contained, would have to be inconclusive, because the answer to that question is beyond human knowledge. So how can either be proved true or false in the true sense of the word..?

 

The pure logical answer is - they can't!... even though the theoretical scientific finding has been proved to be true.

 

You just said that you don't read other peoples work as it could put other peoples ideas in your head. Now you're saying that logic is the collective knowledge of humans!

( think you should work out what logic is!)

Surely, using your logic you're admitting that you know very little!

When YOU say.. 'The pure logical answer is -they can't' .. is shooting yourself in the foot a bit too, as in the previous sentence you say pure logic is beyond human knowledge. Maybe you're an alien?

[Lockjaw]

Actually, I did look up docile in my illustrated dictionary. Are they paying you for use of that photo?

 

Touché, sir! No, really ... It made me smile.

 

Sadly, though, I have to add that you didn't look it up, did you? You appear to be still under the same misconception of its meaning.

[Lockjaw]

That's true, to an extent.

 

The fact remains though, that, due to Danot's 'contributions', the thread is probably 4 times as long as what it needs to be and, the majority of that is sheer the 'bloat' of Danot's off-topic ramblings.

 

As several have now pointed out, he/she simply cannot follow a logical argument and, as a result, is unable to engage with any of the points meaningfully.

 

The bizarreness and lack of connection between his/her replies and the points they're supposed to be replying to, combined with the relentless/'refusal to give up' nature of them, has lead me to question whether Danot is actually real or, instead, is some radical new kind of web-crawling 'troll-bot' program

 

e.g.

 

Fair points. Having contributed to most pages of the thread I'd neglected to take into account that the average passer by wouldn't bother reading it all.

 

I've been wondering how old he is ... Some of the "arguments" and responses to other posters have suggested a fairly intelligent yet unwise and inexperienced 14 year old .... That or a creationist.

[Cyclone]

Sorry lad it is a Law of Gravity.

It is one of the fundemental Laws of the Universe.

Anyone who disputes it is a fool,and has no knowledge whatsoever of the rules of Nature.

 

There's no doubt that some force holds us down on this planet and causes the planets to spin around the sun.

The Theory Gravity is our attempt to explain that force, to set out some equations that allow us to predict how it behaves.

We think we're pretty close with them, they certainly work for all human sized stuff, but we do see some anomalous behaviour at very large macro scales, and at quantum scales it just doesn't work at all. So we're quite aware that we haven't grasped the whole picture yet.

[onewheeldave]

Fair points. Having contributed to most pages of the thread I'd neglected to take into account that the average passer by wouldn't bother reading it all.

 

I've been wondering how old he is ... Some of the "arguments" and responses to other posters have suggested a fairly intelligent yet unwise and inexperienced 14 year old .... That or a creationist.

 

I wouldn't like to guess the age, but I suspect, from the nature of the posts, that he's coming from the 'conspiracy/David Ickey' end of things- there's a ever-increasing contingent who get the majority of their 'scientific' knowledge from dodgy youTube vids whose main focus is on how modern science has got it all wrong.

[Lockjaw]

That's true, to an extent.

 

The fact remains though, that, due to Danot's 'contributions', the thread is probably 4 times as long as what it needs to be and, the majority of that is sheer the 'bloat' of Danot's off-topic ramblings.

 

 

I have to say, though, in the interest of fairness, that I do, to a small extent, sympathise with Dano over this one little bit (in amongst the multitude of bizarre posts):

 

 

Danot:-

So what did you find?

 

Obelix

Something beyond your comprehension.

 

Danot

That would be "nothing" then.

 

 

In this case, I genuinely believe that his "nothing" was akin to the oft used "that'll be a no, then" response rather than a claim that there is nothing beyond his comprehension.

 

A poor, and ambigious, choice of words but I really don't think he was arrogantly stating he knows everything at that point though, for balance, I think he's insinuated that enough in his other posts to make that one irrelevant.

[Karis]

Until we discover graviton particles.

 

Hey, they've got them in Star Trek, so it's only a matter of time (which are also called chronotons).

 

They've got particles for every occasion.

[Lockjaw]

 

So, in that sense, the hypothesis of the underlying 'multiverse' is not subject to the accusation of 'moving the problem one step back' on that particular issue.

 

Strictly speaking, no, but since the inevitable next question (assuming the universe is shown to be simply part of the multiverse) would be regarding the origin of said multiverse so, in effect, it does, still, move the problem backwards.