I am gravely disappointed that nobody has offered an ample mathematical solution to Achilles vs. the Tortoise. Noble effort though, my friends. Onward and upward.
I was recently watching a Discovery special on the Big Bang theory, and after a couple of drinks and a few detailed discussions with others, I have found that I do not believe the Big Bang ever happened. My reasoning is thus: no matter the precision in digressing the causation of material currently in our universe, a point arrives where the scientists give up (as far as I'm concerned) and say that the Big Bang happened out of nothing.
So . . . these scientists say that there was nothing, then the Big Bang happened, and then the scientists go on to explain the glories of the universe in detail without discussing how something came from nothing!
Here's my critique: if nothing is nothing, then there is no possibility of something coming from it, because there is nothing. I don't know how we came into existence, other than the possibility that the universe never had a beginning and has always been and is infinite, but that's why I'm asking the Mises community.
Any ideas?
Caley McKibbin: There are so many ways to look at it. The Big Bang could look like "something from nothing to us" because of our own size or our matter polarity.
There are so many ways to look at it. The Big Bang could look like "something from nothing to us" because of our own size or our matter polarity.
triknighted:The concept of something from nothing is not dependent on perspective
triknighted:I think I'm scratching the edge of the maze and realizing I'm really just a rat with a blindfold on. . . .
And you backtrack. Can you really not see that "perspective" (what Caley said) is exactly what you just typed.
I'm starting to think you have a Napoleon complex...
I can't speak for all atheists, but for myself and some other atheists. We don't believe in god not because we don't want to believe, we simply do not have good reason to do so. If I told you "I keep a hobbit locked in my wardrobe", what's the default position, you believe me or you don't? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the burden of proof lies on who makes the claim. I can't and don't claim categoricaly "god doesn't exist", I simply don't have a good reson to believe in it. Theists believe in god, agnostics think that god may exist, atheists don't believe that that is a god. No one can actually prove, yet.
That said, I don't understand the reason for the double standard. Why god can be the beginning, and not something else? I mean, why can he have ever existed, and not something else? That's not much logical to me.
edit: better stated: Why can't something come from nothing, but god can come from nothing?
The concept of something from nothing is not dependent on perspective
Haha. Look at a sphere. Rotate it 90 degrees. What happened to the texture? Where did the new texture come from? Put a grain of sand on a fence and walk 100m away. Where did it go? Walk toward it. Where did that come from? Everything is dependent on perspective.
the paradox continues because there must always be a first cause, but there is no such thing as an uncaused cause.
"First" is just a time relation, which is dependent on perspective. Not a paradox to me.
I'll try my best to answer your last question, Michel:
If God is an uncaused cause, then there is no beginning for Him; this is definitional. God did not come from nothing or anything, He was; He exists from infinity. The Bible testifies to this. Faith in what the Bible has to say is the simple rock upon which Christians and other religions based on the Bible rest. Faith in what scientists have to say about the universe is what atheists will claim they believe because it excludes God as an explanation. This is not to say that Christians and theists are "anti-science", because they're not. Isaac Newton was a devout Christian, and believed that science brought him closer to God.
The universe is a completely different animal, though. We can observe the universe in a way that we cannot observe God. For whatever reason, He has decided not to be visible to us in the way that the universe is. Apologists will argue empirically that it is impossible for the universe to be an uncaused cause, because if that were the case, the universe would have disintegrated already (I think it's the 2nd law of thermonuclear dynamics, but I could be wrong). I'm referring to entropy - if the universe is infinite in age, then why are we still here? If the universe is infinite in age, every particle should be evenly distributed throughout the volume of the universe.
I believe the reasoning for the "ultimate cause" for everything will be self-referential. If the ultimate cause refers to another thing as it's cause, it is NOT the ultimate cause!
Caley McKibbin: The concept of something from nothing is not dependent on perspective Haha. Look at a sphere. Rotate it 90 degrees. What happened to the texture? Where did the new texture come from? Put a grain of sand on a fence and walk 100m away. Where did it go? Walk toward it. Where did that come from? Everything is dependent on perspective.
I understand what you're saying, Caley, but what I meant was that things either happen or do not happen, and this is always the case outside of perspective.
In response to your sphere example, there is no "new texture." The grain of sand on the fence didn't go anywhere. Perspective does not determine new textures or the presence of grains of sand. My point is that things either exist or they do not.
Relevant to my hypothesis, something coming from nothing is impossible. If there was somehow originally nothing, which I doubt, then there cannot have been something that came from it. It is impossible.
I fear we may get into another Achilles vs. the Tortoise dilemma by my saying this, but it's a good example in a way we can understanding: using mathematics.
Saying that the universe started with the Big Bang implies that there was nothing before the Big Bang. The Big Bang created the universe, which is everything. It's exactly the same as saying this: 0 = 1. I must ask, is 0 = 1 possible? Hell no it isn't possible! It doesn't matter how I try to skew it, how far back I step, how I flip the equation around in my head or how many brilliant scientists claim that 0 = 1, 0 never equals 1. Never.
That's why I don't believe in the Big Bang. It is an attempt to explain an impossible origin of the cosmos by defending the concept of 0 = 1. It is a ridiculous claim.
I'm 28. 8 years ago I was 20. 20 =/= 28. The only thing that disproves is that I'm 28 and 20 at the same time.
I do not understand why you choose to post this question here and not on the physics forum. Is it because your amateur, pseodo-scientific reasoning has a chance of surviving scrutiny here, and not be shot down by people who actually know the subject?
Friedmanite, triknighted is trying to understand the logical argument for the big bang theory - not the empirical evidence that suggests it happened.
0 = 1 is not a correct starting point. Zero is not a number. This is correct, however; 0+1=1. 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21...
1+1/1+1/1+1/1+1 and so on.... This gives dimension in geometry; "extreme and mean ratio"
Existence itself may be beyond our (human) comprehension and that is why perspective matters. The big bang is not disproved by "0 = 1 is not true" example. You are correct, but as my formula above shows, perspective, both micro and macro, extends ad infinitum. For all we know the "Big bang" is just the other side of a super massive black hole. Also, in denying the big bang, we are left in the same spot; either existence has always been (which explains nothing) or... (I won't even mention it.) It is my opinion that the Universe, like everything else, is a cycle. The 'big bang' is not a start to anything.
http://www.toequest.com/forum/toe-theories/788-phi-universe.html
The Universe is shaped like a dodecahedron?
You can see in this picture, and on this site, "where" the "big bang" would be from our infinitesimally small "perspective."
Sound, or more specifically (quantum) harmony, are the keys to understanding matter and the formation of virtually everything...
And the best for last:
All in all, the big bang is a theory that is grasping at straws to avoid the conclusion that something created the universe through a universal mathematical principle and/or that the Universe has no definable start or end.
So leave the experimental physics to the physicists and the theoretical physics to the Austrian economists? Okay.
triknighted:As for String Theory, I watched the video but I don't understand how they came up with it. That's where I believe science meets its limit: when the scientists cannot experience what they are working with, there is no empiricism, and thus no science.
I don't know enough to elaborate on String Theory- I just think it's an interesting thing to think about. There have been critiques of modern physics on this forum here and probably elsewhere on the forums if you search for them (if interested). I wouldn't say that it follows that because something cannot be observed that that thing isn't scientific (space and time are assumed to exist for every object one even sees--yet they play critical roles in scientific analysis, especially physics and chemistry).
triknighted:yet these same intelligent minds often quickly give up the search for what happened before their illustrious Big Bang supposedly happened
Are there physicists who deny that something preceded the Big Bang? Perhaps you could cite some?
I haven't read the Objectivist links, so I'll have to respond later.
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
Friedmanite: I do not understand why you choose to post this question here and not on the physics forum. Is it because your amateur, pseodo-scientific reasoning has a chance of surviving scrutiny here, and not be shot down by people who actually know the subject?
Well, I didn't know there was a physics forum as I'm relatively new here. As for your comment, I think you meant to write pseudoscientific, dickhead.
Friedmanite, I must ask: what is your specialty? What is your Ph.D. in? And if not in physics, why are you even commenting on this "worthless" thread? Regardless of what your specialty might be, if you even have one, I'd love for you to explain to me either how the universe originated or prove that it did not have an origin; that's sort of the entire point, so I'd love a sound proof. I am merely pondering the question as are others; I didn't know that was "amateurish." Please enlighten us with your "superior" intellect if you can. . . .
Also, I see that some on here have this bias against a lack of ethos, as though you need an advanced degree in mathematics to list simple math equations. I don't need Einstein to come back from the dead to tell me that 0 cannot equal 1. Sorry that "pseudoscientific" reasoning is too amateurish to please you, I'm sure the rest of the members on this thread are as worried about it as I am.
jdkdsgn: Friedmanite, triknighted is trying to understand the logical argument for the big bang theory - not the empirical evidence that suggests it happened.
Exactly, you clarified it perfectly.
That's fine, but I doubt any of us are either of those two categories. Come to think of it I doubt you have any type of authority to tell people on a social forum what ought and ought not be discussed. If people wanted a more professional method of seeking out an answer they would take it. But by you entering this conversation and giving your two bits you are no better off than whomever you are trying to moralize on.
Right or wrong, your thoughts on the matter are just as amaturish as thedude who brought up the topic - and no matter what your position is your authority on the matter is the exact same as the person you criticize by the very nature of the forum. Your appeals to authority have no validity.
If you have something to say you are goind to have to condescend to the people you are trying to communicate with.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
I'm really done commenting on these threads. I never claimed be an expert on physics, (although I am math major/physics minor), but it's really quite astounding that of all internet forums, you chose this one to ask about the Big-fucking-bang. I know the type of posters here; they're masters at giving the most muddled to the most straightforward questions imaginable (seriously, I could probably start a thread about does 1+1 = 2, and it would probably become just as long and useless as Achilles vs T).
The thing is you know you can have all your questions about the big bang answered through other means. To me, this suggests that you don't even care about your question. You just want to have a pseudo-intellectual discussion with other posters equally ignorant as you about science. Whatever.