Existence

Hi Bob,Welcome to EvC. Short answer, time.But isn't decay a mistatement as the decay is simply a process of producing a different element. So you are asserting that space-time existed and produced all that exists.You got any evidence? No there is no such thing as the dimension of time.Time is a function that man has developed to measure existence. But if there was no thing in existence to expand there would still no no existence.Why do you think there have been so many different hypothesis presenting a way the universe could begin to exist. I will mention a couple.Hartly Hawking instanton.
String Theory (so called but remains a hypothesis). You have not read enough of my posts to assert what I claim about the existence of the universe.I do claim the universe has always existed.But I do not claim it has always existed in the form we see it today. My statement is that the universe has always existed in some form.The reason for that is that matter and energy can not be created or destroyed.I know that Alan Guth presented the zero energy universe where all matter and energy could be created but that hypothesis did not get very much attention. True but just because relativity breaks down and cannot tell us what is at planck time does not remove what is at planck time.Existence had to be there because if there was not existence there neither the universe or us would exist. But they do claim that existence existed, as there was at least two branes to bang together and start the process.So my point is valid as I have never claimed the universe has always existed in its present form. But if there was ever non-existence there would still be non-existence.Therefore something had to exist that caused the universe and everything in it to begin to exist.This would mean that existence has to exist outside of the universe.Oh, and I do know about the so-called self-contained universe that existed at T=10^-43 which began to expand into the universe as we know it.But notice that smaller than a pea universe had to exist in order to begin to expand.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

quote:

---

What does the conclusion have to do with the first statement?

​

I did and have for a long time thought about it.

---

It's simple.If all that exists was brought into existence by the fact that this something existed then there cannot be anything that was not. It was not. Therefore it cannot exist.

quote:

---

Now if according to your statement above that nothing that exists could be responsible for bringing into existence all that exists, what caused existence to begin to exist.

---

The existence of something - which is what you are talking about according to your definitions in the OP - comes into existence along with the something. Presumably whatever caused the something to exist causes that existence to begin to exist, although I think that talking about existences existing is unnecessarily confusing.

quote:

---

According to that statement the universe and us do not exist.

---

That is completely false. All it says is that it is not possible that the everything that exists was brought into existence by something that currently exists. It does not rule out a large portion of "everything" being brought into existence by something that currently exists nor does it rule out everything that exists being brought into existence by something that did exist but no longer does. Nor does it rule out the universe not having been brought into existence at all, and we being brought into existence by different entities within the universe. There are many possibilities that you have failed to think of.

Hi Theodoric, Are you saying that Hawking did not say, " All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago."?Why doesn't this support my argument that science says the universe has not always existed but had a beginning?That is what the quote was presented to support.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Rahvin, But what you have never explained is how the universe and everything in it could begin to exist out of an absence of anything. (non-existence).Would you like to explain how that could happen?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

How absurd - of course Ive explained it, dozens of times in every thread you bring up cosmology.The Universe did not begin to exist out of an absence of anything. There is absolutely no point in time where there is an absence of anything. None. "Non-existence" was never a state of the Universe.That you're incapable of comprehending that you cannot have a "before" without an earlier point on a timeline, and that such a thing is impossible if the timeline has no earlier point, is irrelevant to the rest of us.

Just because the word exist is in the quote, does not mean it supports you.I asked if you thought universe=existence. You said no. Hawking is talking about the universe not existence. Show me how he is talking about existence.Again, until you can define existence(without using the word exist) nothing you really say is saying anything.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Hi Rahvin, You are the one talking in circles.I did not author the dictionaries.My statement in the OP: Do you have an explanation for how existence began to exist?I presented all the references to existence beginning to exist that I can find.I even googled 'what caused existence to begin to exist' and found no other answer even though I got a lot of hits. Which is the argument I have presented.Existence has to exist because the universe and all in it exists including us.If there was ever non-existence then there would still be non-existence. Causality does not require time as we know it only existence. Time is our way of measuring existence. Why don't you take off your clowns suit and explain how what exists today could begin to exist from an absence of anything.While you are at it please explain how time as we know it could exist until the earth began to exist some 4.5 billion years ago.If there was no earth revolving around with the sun marking time, what marked time as we know it?Are you sure it wasn't just existence?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

If time was the "cause" of decay, then all elements in a given timeframe should experience the same decay. They don't, of course.(I would have said, "Short answer, instability.") All decay is just change from one format to another. When dead organisms decay, it's just a rearrangement of atoms.Edited by ringo, : Spelling: "delay" --> "decay", an uncommon instance in which the error could actually cause confusion.

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

Hi Paul, I really don't think there are any possibilities that I have not thought about.Even the one that If there was an existence that caused everything we see today to begin to exist, that existence could not be a part of the universe as we know it. That existence would have to be outside of the universe we reside in.It would make no difference if that existence was God as I believe it is or whether it is Hawking's instanton, the God particle, or string theory so called that caused everything to begin to exist.They all would have to exist outside of the universe.ORWe would have a self contained self creating universe as some assert we do. I think you even assert the universe is a self contained entity that expanded into what we see today.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Rahvin, The only reason I am incapable of comprehending that you cannot have a "before" without an earlier point on a timeline", is there is no such a thing as a timeline even though you have drawn one many times.The problem is that line you draw has no beginning or end therefore it is not a timeline at all it is only existence.You then mark of the beginning of time on that timeline commencing with the beginning of the expansion of the universe that existed at T=10^-43, that no one knows if it existed at T=0 or not.Because the only answer I get to what existed at T=0 is "We don't know".The problem is you can not understand the difference in existence and non-existence.Existence = reality a state of being.Non-Existence = an absence of anything. No time, no space, no gravity, no energy, no matter, no mass, no atoms, no quarks only an absence of anything.Now if you can ever get your head around 'an absence of anything' you might begin to understand what I am talking about.Do you understand what an absence of anything is?Either the universe began to exist out of an absence of anything or there was existence in which the universe began to exist.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Theodoric, I can make the quote no simpler than Hawking says the universe has not always existed which has nothing to do with existence.I had made the statement science said the universe had not always existed.I presented the quote from Hawking in support that science says the universe has not always existed.I at no point put forth that Hawking was equating the two nor that he was talking about existence.So quit trying to state my arguments for me. You don't like the dictionary definition of 'a state of being'?Do you exist or do you not exist?If you exist that is a state of being which equals reality.So if I got to give my definition to satisfy your not understanding existence I will offer the following.Existence = a state of being which is reality.If you got a different definition please present it.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I think you are the one mistaken, your inability to comprehend a concept doesn't mean this concept is impossible. For example, your inability to understand how electricity is produced in this thread doesn't mean we can't produce electricity. Likewise, your inability to aknowledge that you are wrong even when it's obvious (in this same thread) doesn't mean that you are always right. Of course, as you don't even have the understanding of physics expected of an high schooler, you shouldn't expect to understand things even the greatest physicians have a hard time understanding (like the beginning of the universe). That you dress up your ignorance with word salads doesn't change the fact that you are ignorant either. Luckily, there's a way to remedy ignorance, you must be willing to learn and admit when you are wrong.Edited by Son, : No reason given.

You;'re making up your own definitions for virtually every term in this discussion, as per usual with you. You use concepts of time and the Universe and existence that no physicist would agree with.You speak in circles, claiming that existence must have caused existence to exist but existence existed before existence because existence had to have a cause to come from nonexistence and that cause had to exist before existence so that existence could make things exist...Time is a dimensional component of the Universe where events occur sequentially in the direction of increasing entropy. Time can be represented by a set of numbers that includes only positive values and zero. This can easily be represented by a ray - a line segment where there is a definite beginning, an absolute minimum value, that then stretches off into infinitely larger values. As the distance one travels on that ray increases, from say T=23 to T=57, entropy increases.Causality is the term used to refer to the fact that each event that occurs in time is preceded by an immediately earlier event. I throw the ball, and afterwards the ball flies through the air. After the ball leaves my hand, it gradually loses upward momentum as gravity acts against it, and eventually the ball falls back to the ground, where it bounces along and comes to a stop. There is a clear progressive chain of events, one after the others, in time, in the direction of increasing entropy.Causality requires time. Causality makes no sense with only the spacial dimensions - entropy only changes over time, not distance. The spacial location of causes and effects is limited only by the speed of light, in that no event can have an effect that breaks c. The total entropy of the Universe is identical at all spacial locations for a given value of time. Causality has no meaning without an increase in entropy. An increase in entropy requires movement in time. Therefore, causality has no meaning without time.We keep telling you that time is a subset that includes only positive numbers, and you keep on demanding that we explain what came before zero. You've wrapped this same idiotic notion behind a variety of Biblical hoobyjoo and bullshit, you've repeated yourself often enough and stupidly enough that no cosmology thread you initiate can ever wind up in the science forums any more, and you refuse to acknowledge anything that anyone else says because it would require you acknowledging that you have no fucking idea what the hell you're talking about. You've been told the same things from laypersons like myself as well as actual physicists like cavediver and son goku, and you still arrogantly proclaim that you somehow know the truth of things rather than accepting the word of an actual expert in the field.

Hi Son, In the thread you referenced in Message 26 I asked lyx2no to explain how the lightning was formed which he did a very good job of doing. Much better than anything I could find on the internet.But what does how lightning is created have to do with how we generate electricity?Whether I can grasp there not being a before or not does not have anything to do with whether I can grasp what non-existence is.Non-existence literally means there is absolutuly no thing existing of any kind or sort. No space, no time, no gravity, no universe, no matter, no energy and not even a place for that non-existence to exist in.Now if you believe that all that exists today could be produced from such non-existence please explain how that is possible.Or continue your personal attack.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

No - even after all this time, you still don't understand. The Universe has always existed, irrespective of whether the Universe extends infinitely or finitely into the past. Quoting Hawking is useless if you don't understand what he was saying.