Absolutely Nothing: Atheists on What They Know About What They Pretend to Discuss

Thank you for taking the time out, to give me this information.
But isn’t that what I said, in my ordinary bloke way?

The best explanation is that the universe started at the beginning. The beginning of time.

Before that, there was no time or space.
But, as Write4U keeps banging on about, there was potential.
That fluctuation isn’t something we would identify as a “thing”, otherwise that would be a part of the universe.
Nothing we experience in this world, can bring itself into being.
Plus we know that matter and energy are never created, or destroyed.
So matter and energy must have been the material that was used to create the universe, time, and space.
Sounds contradictory.

Matter is the substance of which all material is made. That means objects which have mass. Energy is used in science to describe how much potential a physical system has to change. In physics, energy is a property of matter. It can be transferred between objects, and converted in form.

What is the relationship between matter and energy?

Energy is a property that matter has.
The same amount matter can have different amounts of energy and so represent different states of matter. For example, if you add energy to an ice cube made of water, it becomes liquid water, and if you add even more energy, it becomes steam.

So energy and matter are really the same thing. Completely interchangeable. And finally, Although energy and mass are related through special relativity, mass and space are related through general relativity. ... So in a way, energy, matter, space and time are all aspects of the same thing.

If the energy from the BB can neither be created or destroyed, then it stands to reason that it was never created. It always is.
But in a state that is unrecognisable (no thing from our perspective)

“Real” is the stuff of “reality”.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It is “reality” if we can’t sense it. From there we can infer, and make predictions.
But that is not the same as knowing it via our senses, and understanding it through science, and philosophy.

I agree.

We can’t imagine nothing, because there is no such thing as nothing.
While we cannot see time, space, energy in its pre, in the beginning phase.
But there is a state of no thing which we can observe, as far as our understanding will take us. This is outside the realm of science, and into the realm of metaphysics, and philosophy.

Fluctuations in time, kind of suggests time was first guest at the party. Doesn’t the BBT state that everything came into being simultaneously?

“Deity” sounds religious.
If I we’re to speculate, it would be on an agent with an intelligent mind, that could transform the random fluctuations, into a manifestation.
Coding into it, laws, to govern and maintain it.
Look up “prakriti”. It’s quite interesting.

Science should be striving for that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Or manifested from no thing we can readily identify.
I suppose we could call quantum foam,

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Firstly..I liked your post as I recorded because it was so unlike your general style that you honestly engaged way past you usual casual approach and although I could comment I will not do so. I prefer to watch the discussion between you and Paddo continue politely.

If we can call "it" a quantum foam "it" enjoys a qualification.

We mark the big bang as the start of time because that is what the model says yet it seems that may be only a limit set by the model.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As I did say, I havn't been following this thread, other then a comment to Tiassa at the beginning. Glad you agree.

The beginning of space and time, as we know them, I generally say: We know nothing of any before, if in fact there was a before. The beginning of time tells us logically there was no before anyway. Why I like saying space and time as we know them. I may have heard that or read it somewhere...forget, but it seemed rather reasonable to me.

Not as we know them anyway.

It wasn't part of the universe as defined by the BB. It was that speculative issue where we hypothesise where and how the BB manifested itself...ie a fluctuation in the quantum foam.

There was only energy actually in that first BB instant...It took the form of matter [protons, neutrons] later at about 3 minutes.

Simply put energy and matter energy are interchangeable . Matter can be Converted to energy.

The energy that can be extracted from matter does work such as getting matter to move.
So far we are on the same page.

OK, but lets call it spacetime.
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html
"Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around?
"No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation".
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
That of course does not detract from the fact that the BB in the first instant was the evolution of space and time, and the four forces we know of were united as one superforce.

If space and time [as we know them] evolved from the BB at t+10-43 seconds, then it also follows that energy and matter did.

It was speculatively speaking, a fluctuation in the quantum foam, which is hypothesised to have existed before the BB.
The BB describes the evolution of space and time from a hot dense state, and the energy associated with it.

Substitute whatever word you like...ID? It's all speculative at this time.
In summing I agree with much of what you have said, and why I did not comment on much of it. I'm also not that philosophically oriented and [like Krauss]have got the occasional philosopher offside with quotes like, "Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know."

 

Other than a arbitrary measurement - NO

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I will take that as a YES.

What ever it is I don't have much of it.

Alex

 

Takeing it as a YES indicates you accept it as a measurement with a low content measurement within yourself

Fair enough

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

First we must define 'yes"

Alex

 

I know I said I would not comment but this statement obviously supports my proposition.
If energy can not be created or destroyed does that not give a firm indication that the universe must be eternal.
Alex

 

Dynamical Potential ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy

 

That is so profound.
Although I do like the philosophy of science as presented by, his name escapes me....but the setting out of in effect the scientific method.
The speculation of science results in a tested model subject to peer review whereas philosophy seems like someone presenting opinion.
Alex

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You brought YES into thread

Go for the definition

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I have noticed over time you favour the concept of potential. Fair enough but for potential to exist one could think there are factors available that can be looked at from a distance that suggests something can come of what is on the playing field...we deal with something ..your notion is valid in my view but although maths rules the result the maths is only the rules that dictate the game. So I suggest potential recognises something.. it deals with various things which finally must be described as something. I feel we are in agreement...at least as far as your proposition supports my view.

It is an honour to review your input. Your overall knowledge overwhelms me. To me you are inspirational. I learn so much reading your posts and although that may sound mushy it is the truth and I have no difficulty is stating the truth..

Alex

 

Let's not be too hasty...I think we first need time to consider what we mean by definition...will we select a dictionary for its meaning? If so which one? Or do we need to agree upon a definition for the matter we discuss.. do we accept a meaning and agree to it between ourselves...
We need to start at the beginning..if we can work out a point that we chose as such.
Alex

 

The universe is to matter and energy, what a clay pot is, to the earth (if the earth were eternal).

 

Science is only a part, of the whole of knowledge.
I don’t agree with Krause.
Without philosophy, science is lame, and without science, philosophy is simply speculation. Like everything else, a balance is required, for growth. Which is, in and of itself, philosophical.

 

This has stumped me. I have thought about it since I read it.
I now understand it can only mean the universe is eternal.

What are the other parts?

Neither do I...he needs attention to sell books, no different to Ray, throws out the prisp ct of nothing...for attention, and with the crowd now all ears shows how nothing is something.
He provides an answer for the less bright of the big bang crew to answer one line..quantum foam...to a criticism that you can't get a universe from nothing...when all these big bang folk need do is to point out of that the big bang does not talk of nothing..never did...
But like Ray he sells books and depends on being out there..talks etc. That what you have to do.
The universe is eternal how you fit a creator into that picture I don't know
But humans can not accept something with no beginning...all to think about such a prospect is beyond them..both religion and science offer seemingly plausible answers which both sides grasp rather than for one moment entertain a reality beyond their comprehension...me..no problem..always been here ok ..isn't that neat..pass the tomato sauce.

Balance is key.
Alex

 

How do?

 

Philosophy, art, and religion.

 

How so? I expect.
It all adds up.
Alex